City Council tables proposed sign ordinance
By Brian Cronin Contributing Writer

Marlborough - In a classic example of the power of a public hearing, at its Sept. 10 meeting, the Marlborough City Council tabled the hotly contested proposed sign ordinance. A council gallery was packed with local business owners who came to contest the proposed changes.

The existing ordinance had been taken under review by committee over the summer after some concerns were raised by citizens regarding the number and size of signs along Route 20.

After listening to some concerns, the Urban Aff airs subcommittee recommended the existing sign ordinance be reviewed and a newer, more compact one be drafted limiting the size and number of new freestanding signs. Given the job were Councilor at-Large Patricia Pope and Ward 1 Councilor Robert Katz.

Pope and Katz recognized the problems with the existing document. The language of the ordinance virtually rendered both sides of Route 20 from Sudbury to Northborough - a stretch of seven miles - as possible locations for new signs of varying sizes with no language addressing the possible limitation of exterior lighting, sign height and width.

What started as a simple review and rewrite of existing legislation turned into a debate of form versus function. The concerns of some citizens echoed an e-mail resident Rosamond Geller sent to the City Council.

Geller's concerns were with how the city of Marlborough is perceived as one drives in on Route 20. Coming from Sudbury and enjoying the lush and green views one sees, she wrote, "… my senses are shocked as I enter Marlboro. It is a rude awakening … insulted with a profusion of signs of all shapes, sizes and colors on both sides of the road." She went on to call the majority of these signs "loud" and "ugly."

Pope and Katz hoped to address Geller's issue while also simplifying the existing document into a more manageable and easily interpreted piece of legislation. Their hope was to draft, through an unprecedented volunteer Sign Ordinance Review Committee, something that would satisfy their constituents concerns without bringing any hardship to the local business community.

Over the summer, the committee met and discussed proper limitations on new freestanding signs and off ered what it perceived as an acceptable time frame of six years for existing business to comply with the new frontage, height and width requirements.

As the ordinance reached the public, a small storm erupted in the local business community as members viewed the ordinance as potentially fatal to their businesses. The largest concern came from potential costs of new sign construction and possible business lost if they were forced to remove their existing signs at the end of the proposed six-year grandfather exemption.

Arthur Bergeron, a volunteer on the committee, attended the Sept. 10 meeting and was one of only two present in favor of the proposed ordinance.

He spoke of his concern that the existing 50-foot frontage requirement made it possible for a maximum potential of 1,440 signs to be legally allowed along the seven-mile stretch through Marlborough. And that while there are only 248 freestanding signs now, there was an obvious need to write in language limiting the number of possible new signs to avoid blanketing both sides of Route 20.

"I want to make clear that this is not about restrictions upon existing signs," Bergeron said. "This is not about punishing business; that is a myth and not what this was about."

He said that he and others on the committee understood that Marlborough isn't a town like Wayland or Sudbury, but a city where people live and work. But, as a lifelong resident, he didn't want Marlborough to be a "Worcester or Framingham or Revere," either, with sections of their main business arteries blanketed with commercial signs.

"I want Marlborough to be the greatest Marlborough we can have and maybe we didn't come up with the right solution, but the current one is not the best," he said.

Following Bergeron was a parade of those in opposition. The arguments against centered mainly on the how the new language could harm their current businesses with the cost of new sign construction and how other non-businessrelated signs such as signs at local youth sports fields could become illegal if the new ordinance were to pass.

Neil Licht, of Answers Online, a local employment assessment agency, put it plainly.

"Reality isn't aesthetics as the reason for my sign," he said. "The reality is it's my business, it's how they find me."

William Short, of the William R. Short Funeral Home in Marlborough, said that he took issue with the language contained in the proposal as anti-business.

"The main reason for my sign is not solicitation, but as identification," he said.

He went on to state that if the new proposal passed, the freestanding aluminum signs used as a courtesy reminder for parking at funerals, would be rendered illegal.

A local sign builder, Phil Ferrante, of Marlborough Sign, spoke in opposition. He understood the costs associated with a new sign and stated that he while it may generate business for many sign companies that at the end of the six-year exemption, it could create an environment of too much competition for the new signage and create interest among larger sign companies that could aff ord to off er cheaper signs and possibly force him or other local small sign builders to close.

"It could create a scenario where we in the sign community wouldn't know who would be left standing after the rush," he said.

The ordinance was then attacked from a legal perspective by Doug Rowe, the counsel for the Marlborough Regional Chamber of Commerce. He took issue with the use of the term "grandfather clause," because he said that by definition that means those grandfathered were exempt permanently.

Rowe also pointed to several types of signs, including on at a local Little League field, as being possibly illegal if this were to pass.

After the opposition concluded, a humbled City Council responded to the public's dissatisfaction.

Pope and Katz spoke on behalf of council. Pope spoke of the enormity of the document and reiterated several times that the project was never about punishing existing business but rather about trimming down the existing document and placing limitations on new signs to better protect the visual continuity along Route 20.

Katz echoed her sentiment.

"There was never malice intended, but … the intent was to create a more workable document and that we were and are very willing, through dialogue, to create a better ordinance that works for everyone," he said.

Both Katz and Pope motioned to table the ordinance. The motion to table was unanimously passed.