Gilford's new sign ordinance

fatlazyless · 11-19-2009, 08:49 AM

Today's www.citizen.com has an article about Gilford's new proposed sign ordinance. It's an effort to improve the appearance of the town by regulating the placement of commercial signs, including real estate for sales, along the roads of Gilford.

One argument says the increased use of the internet to research homes for sale has made the signs not very necessary plus all the signs make Gilford look just plain ugly! This new Gilford ordinance intends to create an orderly and more attractive use of commerial signs without totally eliminating them.

If you want to see a text book case for bad commecial sign regulation, then go take a drive around and down through Laconia.

The Town of Waterville Valley has had a no real estate, commerial sign town ordinance for over thirty years and it works just fine. No big deal. It eliminates all those ugly roadside signs, and people can still find the homes for sale. Temporary home made signs for yard sales etcetera are allowed.

Hey, a designated sign policy works just beautifull for the State of Vermont!

Sign. signs, everywhere a sign; every one of them trying to sell you something! Someday, someone will pass a law that goes and outlaws all those ugly signsss........oh yeah!

What do you think?

Seaplane Pilot · 11-19-2009, 09:02 AM

I think that the Town Administration in Gilford thinks that they are Royalty and they forget who they work for.

Just Sold · 11-19-2009, 09:24 AM

Plaistow NH requires that all homeowners that want real estate "For Sale" yard signs, obtain a permit at a cost of $50 or $60. There is no time restriction on the real estate "For Sale" sign. Real estate companies cannot obtain the permit for the homeowner and as far as I know they will not pay for them.

Both Plaistow & Hampstead have ordinances against signs like the arrow RE signs on street corners or other locations other than on the property of the home that is for sale. Both towns have a steep fines for violations. It got a lot of RE signs that had not been picked up from corners (after a property sold or the listing expired) removed real quick when the ordinace first came in to effect in Hampstead.

GTO · 11-19-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Today's www.citizen.com has an article about Gilford's new proposed sign ordinance. It's an effort to improve the appearance of the town by regulating the placement of commercial signs, including real estate for sales, along the roads of Gilford.

One argument says the increased use of the internet to research homes for sale has made the signs not very necessary plus all the signs make Gilford look just plain ugly! This new Gilford ordinance intends to create an orderly and more attractive use of commerial signs without totally eliminating them.

If you want to see a text book case for bad commecial sign regulation, then go take a drive around and down through Laconia.

The Town of Waterville Valley has had a no real estate, commerial sign town ordinance for over thirty years and it works just fine. No big deal. It eliminates all those ugly roadside signs, and people can still find the homes for sale. Temporary home made signs for yard sales etcetera are allowed.

Hey, a designated sign policy works just beautifull for the State of Vermont!

Sign. signs, everywhere a sign; every one of them trying to sell you something! Someday, someone will pass a law that goes and outlaws all those ugly signsss........oh yeah!

What do you think?

Are these the same Gilford Board of Selectmen that put up political signs around town and leave them there until weather destroys them or they are vandalized?

BroadHopper · 11-19-2009, 01:56 PM

Take a look at the huge sign at the Glendale Docks. Isn't that a violation of the new ordinance? Selectmen don't practice what they preach........

sky_nh · 11-19-2009, 02:13 PM

1. First, regarding the proposed NEW ordinance, the 14-day rule is absurd. I think a real compromise on this in in order with a 90-day starting period that can be renewed for additional 90-day periods until the house is sold. We need to be realistic about this -- just read the real estate data about average days on the market.

2. Brokers should face a substantial fine ($200+) for every sign they do not remove within 14 days after selling the property.

3. Brokers should be fined $200+ per sign for each 14-day period that they violate the current sign regulations for real estate signs. (See ordinance below.)

4. The town should enforce the current ordinances that allow real estate signs without requiring a permit.

My problem with this controversy is twofold. The town does not enforce the regulations on the books, and brokers do not abide by the current regulations. Some of these signs look like totem poles -- first there's the sign with the broker's logo/phone number, then the agent's name and phone number, then an arrow pointing somewhere, then a "for sale" sign (as if we didn't think it was a house for sale) and all this is piled on top of each other. Then brokers plant them on all four corners of a four-way intersection and the town looks like one big tag sale! (I am not exaggerating! I have seen this and called brokers to complain and they couldn't care less.)

My other issue is with the town itself. The idea is to keep the town nice enough that people want to live here, and then give agents enough REASONABLE regulations so that they can do their jobs. If they had their way they would put up neon signs at every corner. I think a reasonable compromise can be made here.

By the way, here is the current ordinance for real estate signs. It seems reasonable enough to me.

8.8.4 Real Estate Signs – Not more than two (2) temporary, non illuminated signs advertising the sale or lease of the premises thereon. Real Estate advertising signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet in the NRR, SFR, LR and IR zoning districts and shall not be more than thirty-two (32) square feet in all other districts. In addition, not more than one (1) offsite directional sign, containing no commercial message, limited to an indication of property for sale and direction by arrow, may be displayed at each intersection in the Town right-of-way, subject to approval by the Board of Selectmen.

-- Sky

11-19-2009, 08:49 AM	#1
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,529 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 296 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	Gilford's new sign ordinance Today's www.citizen.com has an article about Gilford's new proposed sign ordinance. It's an effort to improve the appearance of the town by regulating the placement of commercial signs, including real estate for sales, along the roads of Gilford. One argument says the increased use of the internet to research homes for sale has made the signs not very necessary plus all the signs make Gilford look just plain ugly! This new Gilford ordinance intends to create an orderly and more attractive use of commerial signs without totally eliminating them. If you want to see a text book case for bad commecial sign regulation, then go take a drive around and down through Laconia. The Town of Waterville Valley has had a no real estate, commerial sign town ordinance for over thirty years and it works just fine. No big deal. It eliminates all those ugly roadside signs, and people can still find the homes for sale. Temporary home made signs for yard sales etcetera are allowed. Hey, a designated sign policy works just beautifull for the State of Vermont! Sign. signs, everywhere a sign; every one of them trying to sell you something! Someday, someone will pass a law that goes and outlaws all those ugly signsss........oh yeah! What do you think? __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

11-19-2009, 09:02 AM	#2
Seaplane Pilot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,177 Thanks: 662 Thanked 943 Times in 368 Posts	What do I think? I think that the Town Administration in Gilford thinks that they are Royalty and they forget who they work for.

11-19-2009, 09:24 AM	#3
Just Sold Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart Posts: 2,612 Thanks: 1,082 Thanked 433 Times in 209 Posts	Plaistow NH requires that all homeowners that want real estate "For Sale" yard signs, obtain a permit at a cost of $50 or $60. There is no time restriction on the real estate "For Sale" sign. Real estate companies cannot obtain the permit for the homeowner and as far as I know they will not pay for them. Both Plaistow & Hampstead have ordinances against signs like the arrow RE signs on street corners or other locations other than on the property of the home that is for sale. Both towns have a steep fines for violations. It got a lot of RE signs that had not been picked up from corners (after a property sold or the listing expired) removed real quick when the ordinace first came in to effect in Hampstead. __________________ Just Sold At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata

11-19-2009, 01:56 PM	#5
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,512 Thanks: 3,118 Thanked 1,090 Times in 784 Posts	Glendale Dock Take a look at the huge sign at the Glendale Docks. Isn't that a violation of the new ordinance? Selectmen don't practice what they preach........ __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.

11-19-2009, 02:13 PM	#6
sky_nh Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Gilford Posts: 76 Thanks: 4 Thanked 15 Times in 5 Posts	Let's try enforcing the current ordinance. 1. First, regarding the proposed NEW ordinance, the 14-day rule is absurd. I think a real compromise on this in in order with a 90-day starting period that can be renewed for additional 90-day periods until the house is sold. We need to be realistic about this -- just read the real estate data about average days on the market. 2. Brokers should face a substantial fine ($200+) for every sign they do not remove within 14 days after selling the property. 3. Brokers should be fined $200+ per sign for each 14-day period that they violate the current sign regulations for real estate signs. (See ordinance below.) 4. The town should enforce the current ordinances that allow real estate signs without requiring a permit. My problem with this controversy is twofold. The town does not enforce the regulations on the books, and brokers do not abide by the current regulations. Some of these signs look like totem poles -- first there's the sign with the broker's logo/phone number, then the agent's name and phone number, then an arrow pointing somewhere, then a "for sale" sign (as if we didn't think it was a house for sale) and all this is piled on top of each other. Then brokers plant them on all four corners of a four-way intersection and the town looks like one big tag sale! (I am not exaggerating! I have seen this and called brokers to complain and they couldn't care less.) My other issue is with the town itself. The idea is to keep the town nice enough that people want to live here, and then give agents enough REASONABLE regulations so that they can do their jobs. If they had their way they would put up neon signs at every corner. I think a reasonable compromise can be made here. By the way, here is the current ordinance for real estate signs. It seems reasonable enough to me. 8.8.4 Real Estate Signs – Not more than two (2) temporary, non illuminated signs advertising the sale or lease of the premises thereon. Real Estate advertising signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet in the NRR, SFR, LR and IR zoning districts and shall not be more than thirty-two (32) square feet in all other districts. In addition, not more than one (1) offsite directional sign, containing no commercial message, limited to an indication of property for sale and direction by arrow, may be displayed at each intersection in the Town right-of-way, subject to approval by the Board of Selectmen. -- Sky