Michele Chrisman, a Democratic candidate for supervisor in Limerick, has blown the whistle on a lawn sign her opponents erected at Ridge Pike and Lewis Road.
The reason?
This photo, submitted to What's the 422? by Limerick Township Supervisor candidate Michele Chrisman, shows a campaign sign belonging to her opponents. Chrisman says the sign's size violates local ordinances.
Chrisman says the yellow “Neafcy, Shuler, St. Pedro” sign violates the township’s ordinance. Section 184-92 of the township’s code, under the heading of political signs, states: “Nonilluminated signs not to exceed six square feet in area or four feet in height shall be permitted.”
The placard at Lewis and Ridge appears significantly larger than six square feet in area.
On Sunday, Chrisman said Paul Chestnut, the spouse of Chrisman’s running mate, Annamarie Chestnut, would be filing a formal complaint with the township. Chrisman said she believed that enforcement could be delayed because of the township’s decision to outsource its codes department in March, a move that resulted in the elimination of Paul Chestnut’s position.
Kara Shuler and Joe St. Pedro, Republican incumbents, are running against Thomas Roache and Annamarie Chestnut. The third Democrat is Chrisman, who is up against former supervisor and Republican Tom Neafcy.
The three Republican candidates did not immediately return a request for comment about their sign.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
“She appears to be correct, as political signs in Limerick may not be larger than six square feet.”
Michael, did you take a tape measure out to verify this?
I’m somewhat joking but would love to see an actual measurement of that sign instead of anecdotal evidence of it being over the regulations…it shouldn’t be that hard for anyone to drive up and get a quick measurement…including the opposition. If they know it’s over the limit (I’m not doubting it is), let’s hear just how big it is and not ‘appears to be.’
October 19th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
NCP: You’re right. Ideally, we should measure the sign. Were it a matter of inches, I would have suggested to my fellow editors that we pull this story until we could verify the measurements. However, the photo (as well as a casual drive by) makes it obvious that the sign is larger than six square feet.
The key question, as I see it, is whether the sign is legal. Is a sign of this type governed by the ordinance Chrisman cites? If not, why not?
If the sign is governed by that ordinance, the questions would then turn to who erected it and whether that person/entity knew it violated the township’s code.
What do you all think?
October 19th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I’d be shocked that the sign is not bigger than six square feet but facts are stubborn things. If it is your intent to report on a sign violation, wouldn’t the Limerick Dems or Michael have gone out and stated that the sign is X feet by Y feet and that exceeds the ordinance. It’s merely playing off of anecdotal evidence and heresay.
I guess it’s not asking much to have the loose ends tied up, merely for the sake of accurate reporting.
It’s clear that if the township ordinance states X and the sign is greater than X it’s a no-no. It’s not the most heinous of crimes (god knows all political yard signs are an eyesore to begin with) but it’s something the Limerick GOP (and/or its supporters) should have a firm grasp of the rules/regs.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Okay, the banners… for the record the Neafcy banners are 4 foot by 5 foot. Which makes them 20 square feet. That is 14 square feet larger than the ordinance allows.
There are far worse crimes in life than 3 goofs who either don’t know what their own sign ordinance is, or even worse feeling they are above following it. I personally don’t care that they chose to put up their illegal banners. I am not even suprised. That is what Limerick is known for. What does bother me is the hard earned money that our contributers donated to us. We used that money and followed the regulations. If I had known it was a free for all, and we could just plaster up banners on anything that stands still, we wouldn’t have spent our resident’s donations to follow the rules. Illegal would have been cheaper : )
Annamarie Chestnut ( Candidate for Limerick Supervisor )
October 19th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Today I did file a citizen’s complaint with the Township. Mrs. Washington (the Zoning Officer) called me back by 12:00 and was very professional. We both agreed that the sign was in violiation of the ordinance. She did say that the owner of the sign had already been contacted and asked to remove it.
I have spent the past ten years enforcing the sign ordinance in Limerick Township and I believe there are many very good reasons the ordinance limits these type of sign to six square feet. One obvious reason is that signs of 20 square feet and similar are not easy to affix. If you look closely at the photo,the sign in question has the right side mounted to a steel fence post that “someone” drove into the groung right between two traffic light standards, possibly compromising the wires to the lights. The left side is wire tied to a penndot sign and because the sign is located closer to the cartway than the signs width,if and when the wire tie breaks the banner will be flapping into the traffic lane causing a hazzard.
The answers to Mr. Powell’s key question is NO the sign is not legal and YES,the sign is governed by the ordinance. If you read it carefully the general regulations of the ordinance say that ALL signs are to be located outside of the right of way and then the specific part of the ordinance covering campaign signs regulates their size. The Township has historically turned a blind eye to campaign sign locations, but has always regulated their size.If their size is not regulated they will become a hazzard.
Paul Chestnut (Ex sign ordinance enforcer)
October 20th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Who cares about the signs….the dems running for township supervisor should try playing phila politics….thats right, they wouldn’t make it….
October 20th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Whoa folks…. before people start getting nuts about this sign, you need to understand what the US Supreme Court and other courts have ruled in regard to these kinds of signs. The courts have ruled that unless this sign is so large that it causes a hazzard, a city can’t limit the size of the sign. It is a free speech issue that can’t be trumped by zoning.
October 20th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Dear BP– That’s kinda the point. I DON’T live in Philadelphia, I live in a small community, where most of the residents we have spoken to, don’t appreciate the games that our local leaders play. We still live in a small township where if people care we can make a difference.The signs don’t really matter. It is the point that in Limerick the rules don’t apply to EVERYONE. Being new to politics, I am amazed at the behavior, and I am not just referencing the signs. Although campaign signs are a part of the deal for the next 2 weeks, I don’t feel that is excuse to turn our roads into a circus spectacle either.In Philly there are large paychecks going along with the offices, that is certainly not true here. My only goal is to protect my home so it doesn’t turn into a strip mall. I am not really sure what my opponent’s goal is.
Annamarie Chestnut
October 20th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
I know this is completely off-topic, and probably no one is bothered by this but me, but may I just point out that we are really talking about signs that are a “hazard” not “hazzard”? Hazzard with two z’s refers to The Dukes of… Hazard with one z means danger.
Thank you. I feel better. Now I’m off to Giant to complain about the “banana’s” at “.59 cents”.
Talk about a losing cause…
October 20th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Compulsive Linguistic? Or Compulsive Linguist?
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Obviously somebody needs to come out with a utility knife and separate the three names horizontally and hang the signs separately, resulting in three signs of approximately 5.32ft^2 each
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:39 am
“My only goal is to protect my home so it doesn’t turn into a strip mall.”
I think you’re too late. Our area, including Upper Providence, already has.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Hmmm… so your large billboard advertising your campaign just above that sign is okay but the sign below it is illegial?
Interesting. How about you discuss some real issues that affect my life as a resident here and stop complaining about a campaign sign — especially since your sign at that intersection is bigger than the one you are complaining about.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
DPAN,
Just so you know, paying for a billboard is the ONLY legal way of having a sign bigger than 6 sq. feet, per the ordinance. It is really not about signs, it has been a problem in Limerick for years, that the rules only apply to a few. This was just a perfect example. As for talking about issues that effect your life, we have been for 6 months. Feel free to check out our website http://www.takebacklimerick.com. We feel the sewer authority, taxes and traffic congestion do effect the residents. If you have any other issues you would like to bring to our attention, we would love to hear about them.
Thanks for your time–
Annamarie Chestnut