WESTFIELD – The Planning Board voted Tuesday night to continue the public hearing on a proposed change to the city’s zoning ordinance controlling temporary signs after new language was submitted by At-large Councilor Dan Allie.
Allie, and Principal Planner Jay Vinskey, amended the original language on July 21 to reflect a US Supreme Court ruling on the case of Clyde Reed, pastor of the Good News Community Church versus the Town of Gilbert, Arizona where the court found that the town treats political campaign” signs less favorably than ideological signs.”
The City Council initiated its own public hearing on the zoning amendment at its July 2, 2015 session based upon the original amendment proposed by Allie, but will now have to consider the new language resulting from the court decision.
Vinskey said the new language is intended to bring the city’s temporary sign ordinance into line with the Supreme Court 35-page decision.
The ordinance cannot contain “content based restrictions” or deprive property owners of their right to post temporary signs, including political campaign signs, Vinskey said.
“The July 21 version is to make the ordinance more constitutional than what is currently on the books,” Vinskey said.
Several board members argued that the amendment is not needed.
“The current ordinance treats all types of (temporary) signs the same, so it’s not in violation of the Supreme Court ruling,” board member Carl Vincent said.
Planning Board member Jane Magarian said the purpose of the amendment should be “to simplify the process so people can understand it.”
Board member Peter Fiordalice made the motion to continue the public hearing to allow the board to review the new language. Fiordalice said “would it be easier if we specifically state political signs triggered by one event, an election.”
William Carellas, who seconded Fiordalice’s motion, also requested the board to request the Law Department to issue an opinion.
“I’d like to see the court ruling to see if we can’t separate campaign signs and request an opinion from the Law Department on the legality of the proposed language,” Carellas said.
