'For Rent' signs-Moultonborough

[fatlazyless]

"...the owners of the largest rental broker are, not coincidentally, none other than the Moultonborough Town Moderator and chairman of the Board of Education." is probably considered the 'meat & potatoes' sentence from a letter to the editor in today's January 7 Laconia Daily Sun.

Apparently the letter writer is none too pleased with an upcoming proposal to rescind the Moultonborough rule against posting 'For Rent' signs out front of residential properties for a few different reasons listed in the letter. He estimates that rescinding the rule to allow signs could make for approximately 300 different signs showing up all around Moultonborough.

Is there some type of a balance out there that would work between getting a property rented and what makes the town not look too "signy," or something like that?

Local sign ordinances are just that, a local issue which gets decided on a town by town basis. Some towns have ordinances that prohibit or restrict 'For Sale' and 'For Rent' signs and some towns do not. Unlike political signs which are guaranteed to expire on election day, the 'For Rent' signs can stay out there for weeks and sometimes even months. So, what's the Town of Moultonborough going to do on this 'For Rent' sign issue?

When I get some time later on today I'll post the whole letter here, as opposed to just a snipet, and it's a real well written letter.

I don't know how I feel about this issue of 'For Rent' signs. It's pretty obvious that in Meredith posting 'For Sale' signs has been happening for many many years but do not know about 'For Rents.'

Here's a few fast questions that come to mind on this.

- Would it make a neighborhood or a street look unattractive?

- Is it helpful for finding a renter for the property?

- Would it have the unintended consequence of driving property values down if there were a lot of 'For Rent' signs posted around town?

- The letter writer strongly suggested that posting a "For Rent' sign makes the property an invitation to vandalism or to a break-in because the sign announces that the property is unoccupied, which may not be even be the case.

- How about 'For Rent By Owner' as opposed to just 'For Rent'; should an owner have the privilege of posting a sign on their own property while a real estate agent does not?

- Preferred Rentals and Caldwell Banker are two businesses, side by side, separated within the same building by a common wall between the two. One has to wonder if Caldwell Banker-Moultonborough which has the ability to post 'For Sale' signs would be in favor of passing a law to allow 'For Rent' signs considering that it might be perceived to make the town look tacky. Would the suggested number of 300 'For Rent' signs, all around the town, be a positive or a negative for Moultonborough?

This issue has a number of different things to consider and hopefully some people who live in Moultonborough will come forward with their opinions.

[wifi]

I hear the NRA is planning on renting all of Mel's places in Moultonboro

[SAMIAM]

The writer of that letter was a former planning board member who was decisively voted out of office last year because of his extreme anti business views. If he had his way there would not be a sign left anywhere in town.
Mel Borrin has been a respected business and community leader in this town for over 40 years. He has given unselfishly of his time and money to more organizations, offices and charities than I can list and to attack him for trying to merely market his properties is pretty low.
We are in the worst economic downturn that most of us have ever seen and small business' are struggling to survive. As you can see from his website, Mr Toussig has no need of a sign. I wonder if he would feel differently if he had to make a living here in town.

http://erictaussig.com/

[tummyman]

If they plant one of those silly "For Rent" signs in the right of way of my private road, I'll remove every single one of them. They better get a surveyor out to determine where they can place them. Another shameful example of Moultonborough politics....after the Blink Bonnie, anti SB2 letters sent incorrectly, etc. etc. Enuf is enuf. Town Meeting MUST vote this own...

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

The writer of that letter was a former planning board member who was decisively voted out of office last year because of his extreme anti business views. If he had his way there would not be a sign left anywhere in town.
Mel Borrin has been a respected business and community leader in this town for over 40 years. He has given unselfishly of his time and money to more organizations, offices and charities than I can list and to attack him for trying to merely market his properties is pretty low.
We are in the worst economic downturn that most of us have ever seen and small business' are struggling to survive. As you can see from his website, Mr Toussig has no need of a sign. I wonder if he would feel differently if he had to make a living here in town.

http://erictaussig.com/

Sam, look at the sign ordinance in Cary, NC. Cary is one of the nicest places to live in the US with a highly educated demographic. Business BOOMS in Cary and they also have one of the strictest sign ordinances in the country. They don't eliminate the signs but restrict how they are displayed and you don't have sign blight. It's refreshing actually and people still seem to find all the Lowe's, HD, and fast food restaurants.

Take a McDonalds for instance. They have lighted roofs with a sign, signs on the side of the building, a large sign next to the entrance but entrance and exit signs. It's ugly and unecessary. Now go to Freeport at the McD's near LL Bean. The business has tons of business but they don't have a sign on every sqaure foot to their lot.

Signs can get out of control and destroy aesthetics. And for the record I come from a long line of business owners.

[SAMIAM]

Lawn, I appreciate your thoughts and you make many good points. There is plenty of room to reason on both sides. My gripe with the planning board has always been that they have tried to go to extremes to mold the town into a fantasy village .....farms, churches and cottages. A wonderful picture but unrealistic for those of us who are struggling to make a living in these tough times. Two years ago they tried to rezone most of rt 25 to residential....a move that would have destroyed business and jobs in our town.
Sure, there is room for compromise and we have no objection to reasonable restrictions but we can't sell our products and services without signs.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

My gripe with the planning board has always been that they have tried to go to extremes to mold the town into a fantasy village .....farms, churches and cottages.

My siblings and I grew up vacationing in Gilford. As adults, we've discovered Moultonboro and all three of us agree that if we were to buy in a town which is on the lake, it would be Moultonboro. Something small like rental signs would not change our view. Maintaining a friendly atmosphere for small businesses should be a prime objective, for it's the lack of huge retail endeavors that makes Moultonboro great.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Lawn, I appreciate your thoughts and you make many good points. There is plenty of room to reason on both sides. My gripe with the planning board has always been that they have tried to go to extremes to mold the town into a fantasy village .....farms, churches and cottages. A wonderful picture but unrealistic for those of us who are struggling to make a living in these tough times. Two years ago they tried to rezone most of rt 25 to residential....a move that would have destroyed business and jobs in our town.
Sure, there is room for compromise and we have no objection to reasonable restrictions but we can't sell our products and services without signs.

I found your place without ever seeing a sign. Something to think about.

If I were a business in the lakes region, I would pay the internet fee so that when someone searches for "breakfast place lake winnipesaukee" my place would be the first one on the list. Same for hotels. Many people stop looking after the first page of search results.

Signs are strange. Some towns and their businesses tend to naturally put in aesthetic signs so they blend in a way not to be eye sores. Other places (think Rt 1 Saugus, MA) have a pretty much free for all. So many bright signs that they become blight and practically all blend in.

Businesses needs signs for sure. But then you get the business that has a sign, scrolling marquee, billboard, and it does become an eyesore. A single well placed aesthetic sign is all it takes to get the message out.

[Sal]

FLL's implication seems to be that the person/people who allow rental signage would profit from it.
Isn't just the opposite true? ... Without signage, if an owner wanted to rent, he/she would more likely use a broker.

[Lucky1]

The signage is so regulated that even though I live in Moultonborough and go to the post office often, I NEVER KNEW THERE WAS A BEAD SHOP AND AN ICE CREAM LUNCH SHOP LOCATED ON THE DRIVE TO THE POST OFFICE!!! It is ridiculous for areas of travel and tourists not to be allowed to post signs to show the public who and what they are!!! If you want a nice quiet area then don't buy a home on a major road that is traveled all year round by tourists! Tourists come and spend money that provide jobs and monies for our schools etc. It is nonsense to be so restrictive that people drive by and do not know what is there to look for things etc. Lavender Blue seems to be able to do some signage. Many years ago there was a log cabin restaurant that had good Chinese food near Rte 109 and no one ever knew what it was. I told the owner to get some signs out there and was told they could not do so. Town government exhists to help residents and businesses not to keep them from getting business. I pay high enough tax bills and want income from business as well as jobs for local people!

Also occasional "For Rent" signs do little harm that I can see. Where is that "Live Free or Die" spirit that was a cornerstone of these wonderful towns???? I have seen some for rent signs and told friends where to stay. I rented for years. It is not a doll house..............IT IS A TOWN AND A TOURIST TOWN AT THAT!

[Rusty]

This is the article that was written in the LDS:

To the editor,
Happy New Year Moultonborough residents, the Town’s Planning Board has a wonderful surprise in store for you — a likely increase of 300-plus offsite advertising signs for rental real estate, courtesy of the largest rental broker in town, who has one of the loudest, flashiest electronic signs welcoming
residents and visitors as they enter town by the Center Harbor line. For at least 17 years, the Town of Moultonborough’s Zoning Ordinance has not permitted “for rent” signs that advertise off-site real estate rental brokers, as such signs are a red flag that houses are vacant that leads to vandalism, and break ins. Recently the town’s largest rental broker posted such signs in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, all over town. When the Planning Board was told of this, instead of taking action to back the Code Enforcement Officer, the board proposed an amendment to legitimatize the illegal signs. Despite significant public opposition to this proposed amendment, the board is nevertheless submitting this ill-advised proposal for public hearings on January 12 and 26. Heretofore, rental agents, through the Internet and advertising, have had no trouble renting listed properties and communicating with potential tenants. To now have a proliferation of what will be hundreds of signs on properties will only litter the town with unattractive off-site broker advertising and encourage vandalism and break ins of vacant seasonal homes. There are at least a half dozen plus rental brokers in Moultonborough and adjacent towns, that advertise that they represent hundreds of rental properties, meaning that a change in the sign ordinance would allow multitudes of new signs in town, almost all of which would be in residential areas near the waterfront, that will be permanent eyesores as most of these properties are rented by the week. The vast majority of rental customers
live out of state and are not driving hundreds of miles to reconnoiter the private lakefront roads looking for weekly rentals. They are perusing listings on the Internet. It is a sad commentary that the Planning Board considers commercial advertising and visual pollution to be more important than the safety of residents as expressed by those who vociferously objected to this ill considered amendment. It is noteworthy that not all rental brokers favor this change, but the initiator for this revision of the town’s Zoning Ordinance, the owners of the largest rental broker are, not coincidentally, none other than the Moultonborough Town Moderator and chairman of the Board
of Education. Perhaps if approved after a public hearing, the town should now adopt an official Town Poem. If it does, I suggest the Ogden Nash aphorism:
“I think that I shall never see a billboard
lovely as a tree. Perhaps, unless the
billboards fall, I’ll never see a tree at all.”
Eric Taussig
Moultonborough

[Heaven]

They are talking about a very specific type of sign here, and rentals have worked fine in the past without these signs. This isn't even talking about owners renting their own property, but about real estate companies posting signs wherever they have a rental. Scary. Business signs need to be addressed separably than this proposed ordinance, which I hope fails.

[Rusty]

If you are from Moultonborough and don't want the Sign Ordinance to change which would allow rental signs, then you might want to attend the Public Hearing on January 12, 2010 at the Town Hall.

Below is the notice for the public hearing:

Moultonborough Planning Board
P.O. Box 139
Moultonborough, NH 03254
(603) 476-2347

Agenda/Public Notice – Public Hearings for 2011 Town Meeting
January 12, 2011
7:00 P.M.
Moultonborough Town Office

V. Hearings – Zoning Amendments for Town Meeting

1. Inclusion of New Table of Permitted Uses - This article will create a new Table of Permitted Uses in Article VI “Commercial Uses”, which reflects the currently accepted uses and those that require Special Exception or are Not Permitted in all zoning districts, and replaces the wording in each zone currently in the ordinance. This should allow residents to more easily determine what uses are permitted, not permitted, or require Special Exception, in their zoning district. No changes to any uses are proposed.
2. Lot Coverage Correction – This proposal amends the lot coverage wording in Article VI (F)(3) to reflect changes approved at Town Meeting in 2010 to remove the words “50 percent” from the following sentence: “Any easement for public use, such as a pathway or walkway through the lot shall not be counted in the 50 percent lot coverage calculation.” This is to incorporate the 65 percent lot coverage allowance in the Commercial C Zone, approved at last year’s Town Meeting.
3. Site Plan Review Thresholds –The requirements for Site Plan Review in Article VI (A)(5) will be amended to exclude all commercial uses on lots under 1 acre that develop under 200 sq.ft. of area, or for lots over 1 acre, development under 500 sq.ft. All commercial development over these thresholds will continue to require Site Plan Review.
4. Revocation of Expansions into Setbacks - This article shall revoke the existing Article VII (B)(3) of the zoning ordinance allowing for expansions of primary dwelling units into the setbacks by up to 100% of the current expansion. If approved, all such expansions shall be permitted only by Variance, rather than Special Exception.
5. Steep Slopes Protection Ordinance - This new Article shall apply to all development requiring a Building Permit, Subdivision Approval and/or a Site Plan Review Permit, with a slope of 15 percent or greater, and where the proposed site disturbance is greater than 20,000 square feet in the aggregate.
6. Revision of Special Exceptions for Commercial Uses in Residential Agricultural (RA) Zoning District – This proposal will revise the criteria for granting Special Exceptions for Commercial Uses outside of the three (3) Commercial Zoning Districts. Commercial Uses wishing to be located outside of these districts will be required to meet these new standards.
7. Signs Ordinance – This proposal amends the current Sign Ordinance (Article V (A)(4)) allowing temporary real estate signs. Changes include the expanding the types of signs permitted from the current for sale only signs, and defining the sizes permitted in specific zoning districts.

Complete copies of these Draft Ordinances are available for the public to inspect in the Development Services Department at Moultonborough Town Hall on 6 Holland Street.
Joanne Coppinger
Chairperson

[robmac]

I think that there shpuld be rules defining where and what type of signage should be allowed,however a residential FOR RENT or FOR SALE is very different from signage showing a business location. Anyone that is keeping their head above water during these very difficult financial times should and needs to have signage. To say that you can find a location without a sign can be true however for turists and folks simply lassing through the area it most certainly helps. I am not saying that you should turn it into a neon jungle but be resonable and sound in the judgement of the rules.Allowing a small for rent or for sale sign in front of a property doesn't IMHO degrade the small town image at all. Wether it be a business or a residential property the town fathers need to look at what's best for all remember if the businesses fail so does the tax base,if the banks foreclose there goes the taxpayer that makes purchases whithin the community and so on. JMHO

[Heaven]

Allow them to be posted in the windows of the rental unit, not out on the road.

[Lucky1]

Originally Posted by Lucky1

The signage is so regulated that even though I live in Moultonborough and go to the post office often, I NEVER KNEW THERE WAS A BEAD SHOP AND AN ICE CREAM LUNCH SHOP LOCATED ON THE DRIVE TO THE POST OFFICE!!! It is ridiculous for areas of travel and tourists not to be allowed to post signs to show the public who and what they are!!! If you want a nice quiet area then don't buy a home on a major road that is traveled all year round by tourists! Tourists come and spend money that provide jobs and monies for our schools etc. It is nonsense to be so restrictive that people drive by and do not know what is there to look for things etc. Lavender Blue seems to be able to do some signage. Many years ago there was a log cabin restaurant that had good Chinese food near Rte 109 and no one ever knew what it was. I told the owner to get some signs out there and was told they could not do so. Town government exhists to help residents and businesses not to keep them from getting business. I pay high enough tax bills and want income from business as well as jobs for local people!

Also occasional "For Rent" signs do little harm that I can see. Where is that "Live Free or Die" spirit that was a cornerstone of these wonderful towns???? I have seen some for rent signs and told friends where to stay. I rented for years. It is not a doll house..............IT IS A TOWN AND A TOURIST TOWN AT THAT!

I know the meeting is to be tonight and did not know it was about only "for rent" signs for homes. I was thinking of our business signage rules what I think hurt our businesses. I sometimes am not a fan of some aspects of local government and how board members sometimes give the appearance of having a conflict of interest since they have business interests in the area of votes they make.

[Rusty]

This article is in this weeks Meredith News:

[songkrai]

Originally Posted by Heaven

Allow them to be posted in the windows of the rental unit, not out on the road.

Brilliant.

And if the house can't be seen from road the landlord is just plain out of luck. Good one. We need this type of thought for those who run for public office.