Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Whitehall commissioners launch months-long review of temporary sign rules after business complaints
Summary
Commissioners agreed to pursue an amendment to the temporary-sign rules after business owners and several commissioners said current permit limits and enforcement are burdensome; solicitor outlined a 90—120-day minimum process with planning‑commission and LVPC referrals.
After extended public testimony and commissioner debate, Whitehall Township commissioners directed staff and counsel to draft an amendment to the zoning code governing temporary signs, aiming to ease burdens on small businesses while keeping objective, enforceable standards.
Commissioner Ken Snyder (Speaker 2) proposed removing the current temporary-sign permit requirement and returning to the board with drafted language that would treat temporary signs as a permitted use with objective limits on size, location and frequency. Under the existing code, a temporary-sign permit lasts 20 consecutive days and may be issued three times per year; size limits cited in the meeting are 32 square feet one-sided and 64 square feet two-sided.
The meeting record shows strong business concerns: small retail owners and local commissioners said the current permit process is onerous, inconsistently enforced and punishes mom-and-pop operations while larger properties or corporate locations appear less affected. Several residents and commissioners described inequitable enforcement and urged the board to consider either rewriting the ordinance or funding more enforcement capacity.
Township solicitor (Speaker 11) advised the board that the change would be an amendment to the zoning ordinance and requires referral to the Whitehall Township Planning Commission and Lehigh Valley Planning Commission for review plus two hearings before adoption. Commissioners discussed a realistic timeline of 90 to 120 days minimum to get an initial ordinance through, with fuller revisions likely to take up to 10 months, and several members volunteered to work with staff and counsel on objective, enforceable language.
No ordinance vote occurred at the meeting. The board directed staff and counsel to draft proposed changes and to return with recommended language for workshop consideration; some commissioners also suggested forming an ad hoc committee to work on specifics with staff.
Next steps: Counselor and staff will draft objective criteria (duration, frequency, size, permitted locations) and present a proposed ordinance for referral and public hearings within the months-long schedule discussed.
