patching...
Breaking: Super 8 Hotel Patron Burglarized Guest Rooms, Police Allege »
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

"Safety Hazard" Campaign Signs Removed; Council Says It Will Change Sign Laws After Election

Administrative officer says signs he feels could cause an accident will be taken down

 

The town council decided Thursday to stick to the status quo after a couple of removed campaign signs prompted a public discussion on the township’s sign ordinance.

The debate was sparked by the removal of mayoral candidate Bill Laforet’s campaign signs from the median on Macarthur Blvd., and differing interpretations of the ordinance that governs sign placement in the township.

According to the township’s administrative officer, Gary Montroy, Mahwah’s sign ordinance is broken up into three parts – permitted, exempt, and prohibited signs. His interpretation of the ordinance is that a “prohibited” designation overrules the other two classifications.

This means, he said, that certain signs need township permission to be put up, others are "exempt," and can be put up without permission, and certain sign placements are prohibited. Political signs are classified as "exempt," and signs in the public right-of-way are "prohibited."

“So, although political signs are exempt [from certain rules], all signs are prohibited from being in the public right-of-way.”

However, he admits that the law is “vague” and could be re-worked to be more specific.

“For now, this is how our attorney has interpreted it, so he’s the guy I am going to listen to,” Montroy said.

Montroy said he removed mayoral candidate Bill Laforet’s campaign sign from Macarthur Blvd. because it was on public land, and was of a size that he felt might endanger drivers in the area.

He says that although the ordinance has not traditionally been enforced regarding political signs in the area, traffic “hazards” are not allowed, no matter what they are.

Laforet’s sign was 7x10 feet, he said. “A regular sign is 1x2.”

Laforet, who says his signs are about four by six-and-a-half feet, argues that there is no size restriction in the sign ordinance, and that political signs have “never before been taken down from this spot. Why is it happening now?”

At Thursday night’s meeting, Councilwoman Lisa DiGiulio, who is running against Laforet and current Mayor John DaPuzzo for the town’s top job, suggested the council introduce a new ordinance, or amend the current one, to address the issue.

“None of us want to violate an ordinance,” she said.

Council President John Roth said that although he feels the ordinance is “poorly written,” the council should wait to change the rules until after the current election season is over, and the council agreed.

A committee was put in place to address the issue several months ago, however no progress has been made, Councilman John Spiech, who heads the committee, said.

Township Attorney John Conte warned the council against a written ordinance allowing for signs in the right-of-way, calling it a “liability issue,” should an accident occur in the area.

Montroy said the council asked him to allow signs that have “historically been permitted,” which would include smaller signs in the right-of-way. The administrative officer said he appreciates the guidance from the council because sign disputes are “relatively common,” and come up “almost every election season” in Mahwah.

“One year we had a candidate put signs all over Continental Soldiers Park, which is public land. That wasn’t allowed either, and we took those down too.”

According to Mahwah Police Chief James Batelli, the PD has not removed any political signs this campaign season.

"Obviously if the Police Department observed a sign that was, in our opinion, a safety hazard we would remove the sign, contact the owner and return the property. I don’t recall reviewing any reports in recent times indicating our officers acted in such a capacity," he said.

Batelli also said he does not ever remember removing signs from a public right-of-way during any other campaign season.

Montroy says that his goal in the sign ordinance enforcement is “not to hurt anybody, but just to treat everyone the same. If John DaPuzzo or Lisa DiGiulio puts a large sign in a location that would make it a safety hazard, I would take that down too,” he said.

Laforet says he will “not be putting the signs back up until I get some indication from the township that it is OK. I am not going to break the law.”

Related Topics: Campaign Signs, Election 2011, and Mahwah Elections

Carter Morris, Sr.

9:06 am on Thursday, September 29, 2011

Traditional campaign signs of the 1 X 2 ft variety seem to me, quite acceptable, IF they are removed within one week of an election, and NOT plastered on light poles, utility boxes, etc, which has always been a problem. Signs of the 'huge' variety should not be allowed on public ROW or property. Removal of opponents signs during election 'seasons' by other contenders should also NOT be permitted. This has happened far too often in Mahwah.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Andy Schmidt

11:12 am on Thursday, September 29, 2011

Carter, I agree. It's troublesome when two opponents, presently ON the council get to decide (or even instruct department heads) ad hoc, which signs they deem appropriate when that decision is NOT based on written rules that everyone has to follow (and a CHANCE to follow) equally.

Like you, I actually am NOT a friend of large advertising signs along the roadways (of ANY kind - they are just ugly) - but, if the ordinance doesn't state a size limit for political signs then the opponents on the council need to change that ordinance but cannot simply allow personal preferences of township employees guide arbitrary decisions, where signs of SOME content are allowed to stay, but signs of the same size but different content at the SAME location are destroyed.

And, of course, if the police department determines that a sign is an obstruction to traffic, the responsible person should be fined! However, the article sounds as if the traffic division of the police department saw no evidence of obstruction. Besides, it seems to me that the "Welcome to Mahwah" sign on that road is even larger, yet apparently NOT obstructing traffic.

This affair appears to be less a matter of concern for public safety, or size, than a clear case of attempted interference with the election outcome by some overzealous individuals. I still remember equally large, ugly signs a few years back at Pulis when Mayor Martel was running and no township employee dared touching those!

James

10:36 pm on Thursday, September 29, 2011

Those signs upset me. Bill LaForet was a supporter and "friend" of Mayor Martel's but Bill is now Mayor Martel's loudest and harshest critic? ....only after Mayor Martel passed away. What a back-stabber. We don't need a mayor like Billy.

Reply

Gottardo DiGiacopo

9:22 am on Sunday, October 2, 2011

i think a large sign 'welcoming' drivers to a town is a familiar and easy convention to process... or ignore. A monumental campaign add, on the other hand, could be a hazaard on such a busy street. i don't think there is an anti-laforette conspiracy going on at the town council; i think it's Laforette's judgment that is suspect in this case.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Andy Schmidt

10:11 am on Sunday, October 2, 2011

Gottardo - aesthetics aside (I don't like ANY of these signs EITHER, but do understand the necessity for a few weeks before an election for candidates to make their names/agendas known), there is a distinction between a "distraction" and an "obstruction".

Based on the photo show in this article (the HUGE distance to the intersection) - which is even controlled by a traffic light, I really have a hard time seeing how traffic would have been OBSTRUCTED.

Signs with the "tax" content were destroyed by town employees at other locations, such as the old Darlington School House, where it clearly could not possibly "obstruct" traffic. So I am curious to read more about how this story will unfold.

I understand that candidates will compete with intensity (and so they should) - but they cannot use their roles in the township government to squash opposition by using township employees when we supposedly have a hard time paying for DPW hours from limited budgets!

Jack R

9:55 am on Sunday, October 2, 2011

The sign in question is smaller than the 'Welcome to Mahwah" sign. it is more about the sign content than the size, why only this sign, I see others up around town?

Reply

Gottardo DiGiacopo

9:11 pm on Sunday, October 2, 2011

Fair enough Andy. there are always at least two sides to every story; let's see how this one unravels.

Reply

Leave a comment