The American Civil Liberties Union wants Shelton residents to be able to post signs at their homes saying “God is Love,” “Abortion is Murder” or “Have A Nice Day.”
But a lawyer from the group’s Fairfield County chapter says proposed sign regulations would limit their right to do so.
Brian Tims, president of the Fairfield County chapter of ACLU, spoke against a Planning and Zoning sign ordinance Wednesday, saying sections of the proposal need to be changed before it is approved.
Specifically, Tims took issue with a portion that highlights which signs are allowed, saying that it would require residents to get approval before posting any other signs.
“You might think it might be a rare case when somebody wants to put up a sign about the war or abortion,” Tims said. “But it happens. And the residents should be able to look to the written law of the city to determine what they can and cannot do.”
Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission shot back at Tims — asking if they’re expected to list every single type of sign that a person could want to post.
“Should we stipulate that? That’s common sense,” Anthony Panico, a consultant for the commission said. “Until we come up and tell someone there’s something they can’t do, is there a problem?”
Background
The zoning commission has been working to expand its sign regulations for the past several years to try to prevent visual clutter in the city.
The changes to the ordinance seek to make sure signs aren’t “overly intrusive, unnecessarily large, overly high or inappropriately located.”
The new ordinance was first drafted in 2008, and the Planning and Zoning Commission completed its latest draft in January.
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal Wednesday. Tims was the only person to speak.
The ACLU, which wrote a letter with its concerns, also took issue with provisions in the proposal that gave a time limit to signs.
No Stranger
It’s the second time Tims came to a public hearing on sign regulations in Shelton. The first was in October, when he opposed a political sign ordinance proposed by Alderman John “Jack” Finn.
Finn, who re-wrote the political sign ordinance with Tims’ help, sent a letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission highlighting constitutional concerns in its proposal.
“This section of your sign regulations is not a matter of good or bad policy, but one which could be of constitutional dimensions,” Finn wrote.
Tims said Finn alerted him to the questionable wording in the Planning and Zoning proposal.
Lay Minds
The exchange between Tims and the zoning commissioners left the board members shaking their heads.
Chairwoman Ruth Parkins said no one on the commission had interpreted the proposals as violating First Amendment rights.
“That’s the difference between legal minds, and lay minds,” she said.
Panico said he was surprised anyone found fault with the proposal, but that he’s happy to accept suggested wording from Tims that would allay Tims’ concerns.
“Until we’ve stepped on somebody’s rights, there’s no issue,” Panico said.
