August 22, 2012 THE VILLADOM TIMES IV • Page 9 Mahwah Council sends sign ordinance to attorney for review by Frank J. McMahon The Mahwah Township Council has delayed action on the adoption of a new sign ordinance and asked its attorney to research current case law to see if there is a legal way to limit political signs in public rights of way without limiting other types of signs. This action was taken Aug. 9 after a public discussion of the new sign ordinance that was scheduled for adoption that night. The council voted 4-3 to table the ordinance until the Aug. 23 meeting of the governing body. Council Members Lisa DiGiulio, Roy Larson, and John Roth, and Council President John Spiech voted to table the ordinance. Councilmen Samuel Alderisio, Charles “Chuck” Jandris, and Harry Williams voted not to table it. Several township residents, including Bergen County Freeholder Robert Hermansen, who said he was speaking as a resident, spoke out against the new ordinance. The measure which would remove the council’s ability to grant permission to place signs on public property and/or in the township’s rights of way, which is generally measured as the first 10 feet from the curb, or the edge of the pavement, toward the owner’s property. The residents pointed out that the ordinance would prohibit everyone, including charitable organizations and legitimate businesses such as real estate firms, from using the rights of way for signs. Hermansen said it is important to permit political signs to motivate people to vote. He claimed that limits could be placed on the signs so the time they are posted is controlled. Hermansen said he felt the ordinance was infringing on free speech and suggested that the council allow people to put signs in the public domain. “There is a better way to do it so that people who have something to stand for should be able to put up signs,” he said. “You are affecting everyone (with this ordinance),” Hermansen continued, “and you’re hurting everyone in town. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.” The ordinance would also prohibit garage sale signs in the public right of way. Resident Martha Steinbach told the council that garage sales are an American tradition. “Don’t you think you’ve gone a little overboard?” she asked. “Vote it down.” Another resident, Robert Lockwood, questioned how the township would enforce the ordinance. He voiced the concern that the ordinance might make other people think they have the license to self-enforce it and to remove the signs in the public rights of way themselves. Edward Sinclair, a candidate in this year’s mayoral election, pointed out to the council the ordinance makes it difficult for first time candidates to get name recognition. He voiced the concern that, under this ordinance, the volunteer services in town would not be able to place signs on their properties because they are publicly owned. Township Attorney Andrew Fede pointed out that, under the existing sign ordinance, signs are not allowed on private property without first obtaining permission from the council. The new ordinance would remove the council’s ability to grant that permission. When Sinclair confirmed that he said, “For that reason alone it’s (the new ordinance) a bad idea.” In the past, the township has not enforced the prohibition of political signs in rights of way during election periods. The mayor and some council members have become concerned that during the presidential, local, county, state, and board of education elections to be held this November, the number of election signs that will be placed on the township’s rights of way, especially along Macarthur Boulevard, will make the township’s roads unsightly. The ordinance to prohibit all signs in the public rights of way was first recommended by Mayor William Laforet in May. Following lengthy discussions at two public meetings, the ordinance was introduced in June by a 4-2 vote, with one council member absent. DiGiulio and Roth voted against the introduction of the ordinance, while Williams, Alderisio, Larson, and Spiech voted for its introduction. Jandris was not present at that meeting. When voting against the introduction, Roth said he was in favor of the intent of the ordinance, but was voting against its introduction because he felt the ordinance contained too many ambiguities and was not clear as to how it would be enforced. DiGiulio voted against the introduction, voicing (continued on page 10)