Signs continue to be a hot topic in West Windsor, with recent discussions addressing the proliferation of bigger, bolder signs on commercial buildings; the township’s own sign at the corner of Clarksville Road and Route 571; and political campaign signs now beginning to dot the township landscape.
Even though the changes proposed for the campaign signs would not take effect in the current campaign season, they may be the most controversial signs of all. Council introduced the new ordinance governing “temporary political signs” at its September 19 meeting, with a public hearing scheduled for Monday, October 24. The revised ordinance would allow campaign signs to be placed on public property, between public roads and sidewalks, and to be installed as early as October 1 before a November election and be allowed to remain until seven days after the election.
But the ordinance received a chorus of negative reviews at the October 5 Planning Board meeting, when the board unanimously voted against the proposed changes, with a recommendation to council that none of the changes be approved at this time.
“We will not accept this, and any future changes or modifications of the signage ordinance will have to be reviewed all together,” Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh said as he moved for a vote against recommending the ordinance.
Council and Planning Board member Linda Geevers, who seconded Hsueh’s motion, said the sign ordinance has been “floating around” since January, 2010, but the recently proposed changes popped up abruptly. “Unless you were sitting in the audience the public did not know that it would be up for discussion that night,” she said
Geevers does not support the amendments because she hasn’t heard any feedback from residents “asking the governing body to have more political signs all over town on public property.” Geevers also brought up the vagueness in stating “political signs” in the proposed changes.
“I assume the idea is for candidates’ signs, but political signs could mean signs regarding issues, referendums, pro or against war, and things like that,” she said.
Municipal Land Use Manager Sam Surtees concurred that the language contained in the proposed amendments “looks like it was written right before the meeting” and was not constructed carefully.
Planning Board Chairman Marvin Gardner agreed. “It would create visual pollution in this township if we permitted every candidate running for public office to put up signs in public right-of-ways or on public property. We have three council seats and at least six candidates; you have a state senate race; you have two races for the state assembly and you have a county executive race; you have three freeholder seats and you have a surrogate. We would literally be inundated with political signs in this election if the township permitted this,” Gardner said.
He reminded planning board members of the sign ordinance revision they worked on from 2007 to 2009 at the behest of the council. He said the cost of consultants’ fees for attorney Gerry Muller and professional planner John A. Madden were “astronomical.”
Gardner also had advice for candidates putting up signs. “A ‘For Sale’ sign on your lawn is not going to sell your house. Any prospective buyer will need to look inside the house and see what it looks like. Political campaign signs do not win elections. Your positions on issues and how you reach the citizens of this township will,” he said.
Board vice chairman Michael Karp looked ahead to additional costs. “The candidates who lose and put up all those signs would not take them down, and it’s up to the township to take them down. That’s what happened in the last election when signs were scattered all along the island on Hightstown Road,” he said.
Added Hsueh: “Once you start opening this up it’s not just sign pollution, it will make candidates spend more money to put up signs. It’s psychological. Once you see people putting up signs you will want to put up the same amount or even more,” Hsueh said.
Commercial signs. A Planning Board hearing on September 7 for a sign waiver uncovered a critical issue regarding the current ordinance regulating signs for commercial buildings. At the hearing Wells Fargo Home Mortgage at 600 Alexander Road applied to install a 19.2 square foot Wells Fargo sign.
As the application was being discussed, planning and zoning consultant John A. Madden arrived and informed the board that Wells Fargo did not technically need to request a waiver because under the language in West Windsor’s current ordinance one sign per business is permitted.
“The language should read one sign per building and not one sign per business,” said Planning Board Chairman Marvin Gardner. Gardner told Wells Fargo officials that their hearing could proceed. But he also asked land use manager Sam Surtees to revise the ordinance.
“The language that must be amended would have unintended consequences, specifically signage that would permit, within this zone, multiple signs depending upon the number of tenants within the building. The board will recommend that township officials immediately provide revisions relevant to the changes necessary and submit the revisions to the planning board for its consideration,” Gardner said.
A literal interpretation would have stifled Wells Fargo’s attempt to be the sole sign on the side of the building.
The hearing was routine until Madden’s comments, as Wells Fargo argued that customers had trouble finding their location off Canal Pointe Boulevard. As the largest tenant, occupying 11 percent of the building since 1996, Wells Fargo claimed it needed to enhance its physical visibility as potential customers often get confused with the Wells Fargo branch location on the eastern side of Route 1. Wells Fargo also argued that a competitor, Sovereign Bank, located at 619 Alexander Road, had a clearly visible sign.
The board voted unanimously to grant the waiver.
The township’s sign — a sign of trouble? While the debate over signage may continue at future planning board sessions, the township has faced criticism for the new community bulletin-board style electronic sign at the corner of Clarksville Road and Route 571. Constructed earlier this year, its red letters can blink and flash messages about local events such as the farmers’ market and school meetings.
Some have complained that the sign is distracting, and that it does not display information well enough. The administration sees it as a key point of information for residents, many of whom pass by that location each day.
“For anything that they need to be aware of, this gives us another vehicle, along with the Internet, our web page, and press releases. We can also give people information they may not get from those sources and it’s one of the most heavily traveled intersections in the township,” said Business Administrator Robert Hary.
According to Hary the process of putting up an official sign at that corner goes back 10 years. He said in 2009 the council allocated $50,000 to construct the sign, but he doesn’t believe it cost the full amount.
Hary stated that its purpose was to have an instant method of notifying residents of goings on in the township. He said it worked very well during Hurricane Irene as notices about shelters at the high schools were posted along with updates on the lack of power at certain schools. Hary also said letting the public know about important council meetings or discussions was another use.
Hary acknowledges the negative reactions but said he’s heard support for it too. “A few people have questioned it and its safety or the way it looks. For the most part we’ve been getting positive feedback,” he said.
Resident Larry McGill posted comments online in support of the sign. “This feels more professional to me and smartly takes advantage of available information technologies, which could come in very useful during emergencies. I learned about the 9/11 commemoration via this sign and, among other things, it reminded me of the farmer’s market hours. To some, this may seem trivial, but I am not in the habit of actively seeking out this kind of information and it’s good to be reminded,” McGill wrote in a West Windsor Google discussion group.
Several online forum comments were more negative. Susan Conlon said the sign causes a real distraction. “Considering the heavy traffic on Route 571 and need to pay careful attention to crossing or turning, whether in a car and as a pedestrian (including the students at WW-P High School South) I find it hard to understand why a sign like this that can cause a distraction to motorists would be installed at this location,” she wrote.
