Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees debate updated sign ordinance: pole signs as special use, limits for panel signs, and temporary-sign windows
Summary
Staff presented a proposed rewrite of Roselle’s sign code moving standards into the zoning ordinance to meet Reed v. Gilbert content-neutral requirements. Trustees debated making pole/pylon signs a special use, prohibiting box/panel signs in new development, and extending temporary wall banners to 60 days in some cases.
Community Development Manager Karen Brick presented a draft rewrite of Roselle’s sign ordinance, moving sign standards into the zoning ordinance, updating definitions, and adding contemporary provisions for drive-thru and on-site directional signage.
Brick explained the rewrite responds to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Reed v. Town of Gilbert decision and required content-neutral sign regulation. She said staff reorganized the rules into temporary signs, permanent signs, permitted and unpermitted categories, and prohibited sign types (billboards, roof signs, certain animated lighting). She noted staff and Planning & Zoning reviewed local precedents and graphics and that the goal is clearer, less technical language.
Three policy questions drew extended discussion:
- Ground signs: Planning & Zoning recommended pole/pylon signs be allowed only by special use to encourage monument signs where physically feasible and limit tall narrow pole signs along Irving Park Road; trustees split on the approach but the board gave staff direction to prepare the special-use pathway.
- Wall signs: P&Z recommended allowing existing box/panel wall signs to remain but prohibiting them in new commercial developments (to encourage channel-letter signs for new construction); several trustees supported prohibiting them for new construction while preserving grandfathering for existing tenants.
- Temporary signs: Staff recommended standardizing temporary signage to 30 days per business per year for one sign (32 sq ft limit), with the board discussing exceptions. Trustees generally favored a clearer 30-day standard, and several asked staff to consider extending a temporary wall-banner allowance to 60 days in transition cases (e.g., when a tenant is awaiting permanent signage). Enforcement challenges — many temporary signs are placed without permits — were discussed; staff offered to send comparative research and a compliance chart to trustees.
Karen Brick asked trustees for further direction and offered to return with finalized draft language and a summary matrix of peer-community standards.
Notably, trustees emphasized consistency and enforceability. Several trustees said they prefer the special-use requirement for pole signs to push better-looking monument signs where feasible; others favored permitting to avoid extra process for single-business sites. The board did not vote to adopt the ordinance that night and asked staff to refine several items.
