Supervisors keep sign‑rights‑of‑way prohibition after solicitor cites Gilbert ruling

Township staff told the board the township solicitor advised against creating an exception for election or campaign signs within street rights‑of‑way because doing so would require the township to evaluate a sign’s message and would likely fail the legal test established by the Gilbert decision. As staff summarized, the solicitor’s view is that the exemption would be "the very basis for the Gilbert Supreme Court decision that triggered mass ordinance changes."

That left two legally defensible options, staff said: allow all signs in rights‑of‑way or prohibit all signs there. The draft sign ordinance sent to the board for discussion remains consistent with the solicitor’s advice to prohibit signs in rights‑of‑way. The board discussed permanent sign‑license term length and compared neighboring municipalities’ approaches (some use a three‑year term; one has a one‑year renewal). Several supervisors said they prefer keeping the three‑year term in line with Center Region municipalities.

After discussion, a supervisor moved and seconded a motion to forward the draft sign ordinance to the Center Region Planning Commission for review and to advertise the amendment for potential adoption at a future meeting; the motion passed by voice vote.

Staff said the draft and the solicitor’s letter were included in the meeting packet. The board directed staff to collect additional information if members want further comparisons for the April meeting.