Mahwah September 5, 2012 THE VILLADOM TIMES IV • Page 7 Sign ordinance decision expected this month by Frank J. McMahon The Mahwah Township Council has once again decided not to act on the adoption of a new sign ordinance. Citing the importance of having a full council present to vote on the ordinance, the five members of the council present at the last public meeting voted to delay a vote on the proposal until all seven members are present. Councilwoman Lisa DiGiulio and Councilman Charles “Chuck” Jandris were not present at the meeting. The council’s decision to wait until a full council is present could ultimately carry the matter until the Sept. 20 session, because Councilman Harry Williams advised during the meeting that he would not be present at the council’s Sept. 6 meeting. Williams urged the council to move forward with the vote based on Township Attorney Andrew Fede’s report to the governing body. Williams said that report indicated the council was within its rights to adopt the ordinance as it is written. Fede’s report was confidential and was not released to the public. However, according to the comments at the meeting, the attorney apparently informed the council that it could not single out political signs for prohibition, but it could control the size of the signs as long as the size and distance limit on signs would allow them to be read from a reasonable distance. Fede advised that placing time limits on the posting of signs before and after an election would pose a constitutional problem. He explained that, based on previous case law, the council could limit the time that signs are posted as long as that limitation applies to all signs at all times of the year. But he questioned the practicality of such a limitation, asking who would keep track of when a sign is posted. It was emphasized during the discussion that a sign ordinance cannot discriminate which signs would be allowed and which would not. As a result, the ordinance would have to pertain to all signs or none. Council President John Spiech voiced the opinion that such restrictions would be hard to enforce and might require the issuance of a permit. Councilman John Roth said he could agree to limit the size of the signs as long as all signs are treated in the same way. He acknowledged Fede’s concern about the constitu- tionality of placing time limits on signs before and after an election. Williams argued that if the existing ordinance, which grants the council the ability to give permission to certain applicants to place signs in the rights of way and on public property, were left in place and the new ordinance were not adopted, the council would have to set some standards for deciding which signs would be permitted and which would be denied. He said limitations on the size of the signs and even the time they are posted do not meet the core objective of the new ordinance, which is to maintain the aesthetics (continued on page 14)