The case Vince Renzi brought back to the Board of Appeals centers on a sign that no longer exists.
Last Wednesday, April 17, Donald Spence Jr., of the Board of Appeals, stated the Board would hold future worksessions to decide upon Renzi's case, objecting to advertising information in a sign formerly marking a development on Glen Mill Road.
LAST YEAR, the Department of Permitting Services authorized a sign for the entrance to a new subdivision on Glen Mill Road in Potomac. Although locational signs for neighborhoods are permitted under the county's ordinance, when the developer sold all the homes at the Glen Mill location, he changed the sign to highlight one of their other subdivisions in the county that still had homes for sale.
"In residential zones, the use of signs is permitted on a very limited basis, but signs are allowed at the entrance of a subdivision," said Renzi, an attorney from Potomac. "This particular case is about signs used for advertising. We didn't object to the sign, but that the sign was used for advertising purposes."
Even though the developer took down the sign before the case was heard by the Board of Appeals, West Montgomery County Citizens Association, whom he represents, argued on the issue the case represented.
THE BOARD OF APPEALS, which hears cases regarding special exceptions requested in Montgomery County, dismissed the case but told Renzi that he could retry the case in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County.
Last Wednesday, April 17, the Board granted him the opportunity to try his case before the Board once again.
"We want to thank the Board for rehearing this case. We feel strongly that this is an important issue," said George Barnes, vice president of West Montgomery.
Renzi reminded the Board of the case and the issues the case did, and did not, address, according to his interpretation.
"We are not asking the Board to regulate signs … but to interpret an ordinance already there, tell us what it means, and enforce it," said Renzi. "Does this Board have the authority to regulate content? Yes, to the extent that the Board can interpret and enforce the sign ordinance."
Or use this one.
"We aren't asking the Board to regulate anything, all we are asking is for the Board to interpret the sign ordinance and enforce the sign ordinance," said Renzi.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH is another issue the case raises, according to the interpretation of Malcolm Spicer, who represented the Department of Permitting Services, which issued the original sign on Glen Mill Road.
"I think you are treading on dangerous ground," said Spicer. "You better be prepared to regulate signs to the entrances of schools, museums, churches, libraries, industrial and commercial zones. There is no discernible difference," said Spicer.
The Department of Permitting Services can authorize locational signs to neighborhood subdivisions. But Spicer asked how would it and the Board then regulate the content of such signs.
"Who decides what is approvable content?" said Spicer. "How can a sign say, 'Fine community,'" said Spicer. "We're getting hung up on the idea of advertising. In Section 59.F [of the sign ordinance] you won't find a word on advertising.
"Right now, it's here, and the interpretation of the courts," said Spence.
Spicer reiterated that he believes such restrictions place the Department in a role where it will have to regulate content, including the content of signs in front of churches and all uses.
"That's why we are looking to you to show cases you are basing your arguments on," said Spence.
The Board of Appeals will schedule worksessions sometime in the future.