South Union approves sign ordinance
South Union Township amended its zoning ordinance Wednesday to restrict neon flashing signs.
The ordinance restricts illuminated neon signs from businesses that are located within 200 feet of a residence. The ordinance goes into effect immediately.
Supervisor Bob Schiffbauer said businesses that have flashing signs would be “grandfathered” in so as not to penalize those places that currently utilize such signage during normal working hours. However, Schiffbauer said, the proposed ordinance is aimed at restricting flashing signs between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. each evening. He said citations could be issued against those businesses that violate that part of the ordinance.
Schiffbauer said the township is within its powers to adopt such an ordinance. He said the township will defend the measure through the legal system, if necessary.
During the past several months, supervisors have had to deal with a dispute about a sign between Tony Mercadante of 564 E. Main St. and his neighbor, Mark Howard, owner of BB’s Market at 580 E. Main St.
In earlier reports, Howard said that he’s doing nothing illegal by keeping the sign on day and night — much like other businesses along Route 40.
Mercadante wanted the flashing sign shut off when the market closes each night and turned back on when the store reopens at 6 a.m. He said the sign keeps him and his wife awake at night.
Mercadante, who attended the supervisors’ meeting, said he was not happy when he heard that his neighbor may not have to turn down the sign because it is grandfathered into the ordinance.
“I was under the impression that the ordinance as written would have kept the sign from flashing at night, but it doesn’t,” he said. “All I wanted from day one is for the sign not to flash at night — that’s all I wanted. I don’t think it’s fair, or asking too much for the sign not to be flashing at night when that business is closed. That seems only right.”
Township Solicitor Jim Davis said a legislative body can’t pass a law against an entity retroactively — a legal dictum known as ex post facto. Davis said depending on the circumstances, lawmakers cannot pass a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.
“The issue is whether the ordinance as adopted can be enforced against a property owner that already has this — ex post facto — that is the question,” Davis said.
Supervisors asked Davis to study whether anything could be done to enforce the ordinance against existing businesses that may violate the ordinance.
“We have said, most likely, that it can’t be. To answer that question with any certainty though, we will take a closer look at it,” Davis said.
In other business, supervisors:
n Approved rezoning 3.20 acres of light industrial land to business zone to accommodate a potential auto dealership.
n Approved a resolution for a sewage planning module for a Holiday Inn Express on Mary Higginson Lane.
n Rescinded a motion to reappoint Robert Softcheck to the Greater Uniontown Joint Sewage Authority. Softcheck’s five-year term with the authority does not end until December, so it was determined that it would be proper to reappoint him, if he so chooses to serve again, at the township’s reorganization meeting in January.
n Supervisors will pursue state grants intended to help defray costs associated with updating the township’s ordinance book — a tome that has not been consistently updated in many years.
n Rejected a bid from Freedom Fuel Service of Uniontown to provide fuel for the township. The company was the sole bidder for the contract. Supervisors questioned the price of oil and taxes that may have been included as part of the bid price.
n Approved allowing animal grooming in business zoned areas.