Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sandwich Board Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Long debate over sandwich-board rules highlights enforcement and economic support concerns
Summary
City and planning commission members debated proposed changes to sandwich-board regulations in the Land Development Code, discussing enforcement, business needs, content-neutrality limits, a possible sunset period, and economic-development assistance for affected property owners.
Essex Junction City Council and Planning Commission members spent more than an hour debating proposed changes to sandwich-board signage rules in the Land Development Code, focusing on enforcement, how to define “open” hours, and whether the city should provide financial or programmatic help to businesses that would be affected.
Why it matters: sandwich-board rules affect dozens of small businesses’ visibility and pedestrian space in commercial corridors such as Pearl Street and Five Corners. Members said the rules also touch on free-speech and content-neutrality constraints, enforcement capacity, and downtown aesthetics.
Key points from the discussion:
- Proposed changes: The planning commission had recommended amendments that would keep size limits but clarify spacing (no closer than 12 feet between sandwich boards) and allow sandwich boards up to 15 feet from a business entrance, driveway or walkway. The city council’s version removed the driveway/walkway provision and added an explicit exemption for signs on publicly owned property that are public notices.
- Enforcement and consistency: Multiple members raised concerns about inconsistent enforcement and limited staff capacity. “If we can’t be consistent, then we shouldn’t have it on the books,” one council member said, noting that uneven enforcement has created confusion and perceived unfairness among businesses.
- Hours and definition of “open”: Members asked staff to draft a clearer definition of when a business is “open” for purposes of allowing sandwich-board placement. Several suggested that definition belong in a future tranche of land development code amendments or possibly in a standalone ordinance.
- Equity for businesses: Several members urged transition assistance for businesses and property owners—ideas included a time-limited sunset, microgrants or partial cost-sharing to help landowners adapt signs or consolidate signage. One council member proposed a one- to two-year transition period with assistance from an economic-development fund.
- Nonprofit and content-neutrality limits: Staff reminded members they cannot lawfully exempt particular categories (for example, nonprofits) from sign rules in a way that violates content neutrality. Members also discussed complex cases — such as the VFW sign and off-site advertising — where zoning, property ownership and content neutrality make regulation difficult.
- Next steps: The groups agreed to leave the Land Development Code (LDC) text as previously warned and to direct staff to do further research on definitions (open/closed), enforcement approaches, and potential economic-assistance mechanisms. Several members asked staff to pursue outreach and education prior to enforcement steps.
Ending: The bodies did not adopt immediate changes. Instead, they asked staff to prepare clarifications and options (including possible sunset language and education/outreach plans) for future LDC amendment consideration and public hearings.
