After months of debate, specific changes to Bethlehem’s sign law have been proposed by Councilman Jeffrey Kuhn are moving forward.
Kuhn, a lawyer specializing in environmental, land use, energy and commercial litigation, spent several weeks attempting to rephrase the law so residents could legally place signs of a certain size on their properties and not-for-profit organizations could advertise their events.
A section of the town’s zoning code currently reads, “no sign, other than an official traffic sign shall be erected within the right-of-way of any public street or highway.”
“There are several problems caused by this particular provision,” said Kuhn. “First of all it’s not really enforced. People put up temporary signs in the town’s right-of-ways all the time and as a result of that there’s confusion whether the law applies only to town streets and highways, or if it applies to any public street or highway in the town.”
The proposed change now includes town, county, state or federal streets and highways with some exceptions.
The right-of-ways of several roads were designated as exemption areas. They include a portion of Route 32 from Route 9W to Elm Avenue, a portion of Route 9W from the Delmar Bypass to the City of Albany border, a portion of Route 140 from Kenwood Avenue to Route 85 and a portion of Route 85 from Route 140 to the City of Albany Border. Signs placed there could not exceed 6 square feet in size and could not be placed inside a roundabout. Signs also could not be posted for more than 21 days with 14 days in between, and only two separate occasions would be permitted per person or organization each year.
Additional changes include the allowance of signs on private residences as long as they are not within the right-of-way and do not exceed 6 square feet, but the law excludes signs advertising for-profit businesses. Signs for yard sales, real estate or home repair are already exempt under the existing law. Changes were also made to “prohibit the erection of sidewalk or sandwich boards by a third party” outside of a business.
To combat enforcement issues, the highway superintendent and the commissioner of public works were added to the list of people allowed to remove signs, as was any “duly designated representative.” Under current law, only the building inspector can remove signs deemed to be illegal.
Councilwoman Joann Dawson said there was some confusion over how the town defined “right-of-way” and asked for a clarification of the term. Building Inspector Gil Bouchard said different areas of town have different measurements, but in most places the right-of-way is 25 feet from the center line of the road.
“If it’s by the edge of the road, it’s in the right-of-way whether county right-of-way, state, town or federal road,” said Director of Planning and Development Michael Morelli.
Dawson said she felt the language still needed work and residents and organizations should get more than two signs per year, especially since most politicians campaign more than twice a year and many organizations have more than two fundraising events.
“You might want to consider opening that up,” she said.
Councilman Kyle Kotary said the law was becoming too complicated for people to understand and was placing a constraint on resident’s rights. He wondered why the town couldn’t just keep its current law but add an exemption for not-for-profit signs.
“I understand what you’re saying,” said Supervisor John Clarkson in response to Dawson. “I guess I would say there’s been a lot of work to get this to work legally and legal language isn’t always easiest for everyone to grasp. I think with explanation this would work very well.”
He said the town could potentially create informational guides to help residents better understand the law.
Kuhn told Kotary the proposed law would actually give residents more rights because under the current law, nearly all signs placed on private property are illegal.
The late hour of the discussion meant most resident had left before the public could speak on the matter, but a handful stuck around.
Amanda Fallon, a member of the Hamagrael Elementary School PTA who first brought her concerns of missing fundraiser signs to the board, thanked board members for tackling the issue. Meanwhile, John Behiri, owner of Johnny B’s Glenmont Diner, said he was angered because the town made him remove his new banner.
“What’s the rational?” he asked, explaining that the sign was new, aesthetically pleasing and flush against the side of his building.
Clarkson said he did not know why the town had a rule against permanent banners and he would look into it.
The proposal passed 4-1, with Kotary casting the dissenting vote. The proposal is not yet a law. Both the town and county planning boards will need to review the changes before it is sent back to the Town Board for a final vote. A public hearing will also need to be scheduled.
When asked about enforcement issues, both Clarkson and Kuhn said they knew it has been a problem in the past and that’s why additional town officials were given jurisdiction over the signs. They also said something might be added to the law so illegal signs aren’t given back to their owners, as is the current practice. This could prevent signs that were in violation from being reposted.
“Generally people try to follow the law and not skirt their way around it once they can understand what the law is,” Kuhn said.
Town Building Inspector Gil Bouchard said he agreed with the changes. He also didn’t foresee the law creating a bigger problem by condensing all of the signs into specific areas because most political and event signs are small.
“Most of those signs are low to the ground so drivers can see over them,” he said. “I think for the most part the law was an aesthetics thing.”
Previous stories:
December 16 story by Greg Fry.
February 16 story by Marcy Velte.
