(2/28) A proposed wholesale replacement of the existing town’s six-page sign ordinance with a 60-page legalistic document is drawing the wrath of members of Emmitsburg’s business community. One member described it as so onerous and cumbersome, that it will drive out what remains of the once thriving local business community.

Unlike past ordinance updates, which start with revising the present ordinance and upgrading them, Emmitsburg’s town staff has instead proposed completely throwing out the current sign ordinance, which has been on the books since the 1990’s, and replacing it with the 60-page ‘Model Sign Ordnance’ developed by the Pennsylvania Montgomery County Planning Commission.

In presenting the proposed replacement during the February 4 town meeting, town staff stated that the current sign ordinance was not in compliance with a ‘recent’ Supreme Court decision. Request to the town staff regarding the specifics behind this non-compliance went unanswered. It was subsequently determined that the Supreme Court decision that supposedly served as the driver for the need to changer the existing town’s sign ordinance was "Reed vs. the Town of Gilbert," which addressed censorship of sign content, not sign size and location. A review of the current town ordinance found no language that censored sign content.

When this fact was brought to the attention of the town staff, the staff instead replied that the current ordinance was not in compliance with state requirements, but when asked to enumerate those non-compliances, they were unable to do so. In addition, the town failed to respond to a request for a copy of the town’s lawyer’s determination that the existing ordinance was not in compliance with any existing requirement.

Thurmont and Taneytown sign ordinances, found all nearly identical to the current town ordinance. None of those municipalities felt their ordinances were out of compliance with any existing requirements.

While town staff claimed in a presentation to the town’s Commissioners that the new 60-page model sign ordinance would be more "business friendly," the local business community disagrees vehemently. Whereas the current six-page sign ordinance is written in plain, easily understandable English, the proposed 60-page replacement ordinance is so legalistically written that business owners are complaining they have no idea if their existing signs will be in compliance, and if not, if they will be forced to take them down and have them replaced at a great cost.

Their concerns are not unwarranted. For example, the proposed sign ordinance will reduce the allowable sizes of banners advertising baseball sponsors in the local ballparks by 25%, and limits where they can be placed on the fence. In addition, the new ordinance places new requirements for a professional engineer’s certification (and an annual 3-year re-certification) for all signs not specially located on the business’s property, such as the sign advertising the mass hours for St. Joseph’s Church on South Seton Ave.

In addition to placing new requirements on businesses, the proposed sign ordinance also imposes requirements on the allowable size of signs in residential areas, like those used to advertise yard sales, block parties, &c., with fines for violating ordinance requirements.

Concerns of the business community were succinctly summed up by one business owner who said, "I have no idea what’s in the new ordinance. I can’t understand it, which puts me at the mercy of the whim of unelected town bureaucrats. I can’t do business under conditions like that. No one can. They’ve already marched in and shut one new startup down. Emmitsburg might as well hang up a sign saying: ‘Closed for Business.’"

Business owners plan to attend the March 4 town meeting to voice their concerns and present questions to Town Commissioners.