For the better part of two years now, members of our Zoning Board of Appeals have been attempting to craft new language for our Sign Ordinance. While appearing easy on the surface, the more daunting it became as ZBA members discussed nearly every purpose, size, height, setback, etc. that people might employ to gain the attention of a passersby.
Last month, the Board of Trustees had an opportunity to review the ZBA’s latest Sign Ordinance draft, and as readers of the Daily Herald now know, some former village trustees chose to use the public comment portion of the meeting to voice their (non)issues. (As it turns out later, they only used this time to grandstand and proved to most why they are “former’ trustees)
In his article, “In Barrington Hills, properties have names, and residents want to keep them,” Daily Herald writer Bob Susnjara wrote the following highlights in his article on the October 28th BoT meeting:
“To lose a sense of history would be tragic for our village,” (45-year resident Patty Meroni, a former village trustee) said. “We have signs all around our village that develop our history. It’s part of what our village is all about, part of our uniqueness.”
“Former Village President Robert Abboud, whose property is High Wire Farm, shared his concern about the proposed sign ordinance changes with Barrington Hills officials.
‘I’ve had a sign marking my property for the last 32 years, my parents’ property 52 years,’ Abboud said.”
Perhaps if these two former trustees and former trustee and current Barrington Township Trustee Fritz Gohl had bothered to read the current Sign Ordinance (seen below and linked here) in place before, during and after their time in office, maybe they would recognize how moronic most of their comments were:
5-5-11 Signs
In residence districts signs shall be classified and permitted in accordance with the regulations set forth hereinafter.
(A) R1 District:
1. In an R1 district, the following nonflashing, nonilluminated signs are permitted under the conditions specified: (Ord. 09-05, 5-18-2009)
a. Nameplates and identification signs, subject to the following:
(1) Area and Content, Residential: There shall be not more than one nameplate, not exceeding one square foot in area, for each dwelling unit or driveway entrance, indicating the name or address of the occupant or a permitted occupation.
Clearly, based on his lengthy diatribe made during public comments, the 4.6 square foot vanity sign the one former trustee has displayed on his property, “… for the last 32 years,” has been illegal under current codes.
In fact, Susnjara’s article goes on to read:
“Trustee Colleen Konicek Hannigan said the village is trying to achieve a finely crafted sign ordinance that updates one that dates to 1963 and was last revised in 1977.
‘For those who apparently are not aware, our current ordinance means that probably 90-some-odd percent of the signs that are currently existing are out of compliance,’ Hannigan said.”
When we reviewed the audio recordings from the October 28th meeting (the link can be accessed here and written comments can be viewed here), there were clearly criticism of the ZBA draft, yet for all their hot air and rants on Facebook, was there any constructive ideas shared that would benefit the efforts of those volunteering their time on boards?
As you might imagine, not a one, and that by one definition is whining!
-The Observer
