Planning Committee debates electronic signage

MERCER - Although no formal action was taken during the meeting, the Iron County Comprehensive Planning, Land and Zoning Committee discussed what types of electronic signs are allowed under the county's ordinances.

The discussion stemmed from a request from Zoning Administrator Thomas Bergman for clarification on what the committee considered to be a blinking sign.

"So there have been a lot of sign requests in the town of Mercer lately," said Bergman, at the beginning of the discussion. "I just want some clarification on the ordinance.

"The ordinance basically states ... no sign shall contain any rotating or moving parts or be illuminated by flashing light. I'm looking for from you guys, what is flashing light?"

Specifically, he told the committee he was seeking clarification on whether a digital scrolling sign would be considered flashing or if that was allowed and only animated displays were prohibited.

"There are signs that are reader board signs where there is like a banner, it's a digital sign with a banner and letters that come across it," said Bergman. "And then there are animated signs where things pop up on the screen and flash."

Supervisor Vic Ouimette brought up the possibility the county could turn to the state regulations for guidance as he believed the Department of Transportation required electric signs along state roads maintain the same images for a certain period before changing to avoid too many distractions.

"I know that when I drive when it's kind of dark and (the signs) are really bright with orange and red, to me ... it's hard on your eyes," said committee Chairman James Kichak, supporting Ouimette's idea of requiring a time frame for each image. "To me, it's hard on my eyes. I don't know how it is to other people, but that's how I look at it."

In particular, Bergman said he was concerned about the proposed sign at the Mercer School and whether he was allowed to approve the design.

While there seemed to be a general consensus that as long as the display didn't change too frequently, signs should be acceptable, the committee agreed they needed more information before they could make any final decisions.

Bergman agreed to bring more information, including the state regulations, to the next meeting.

In other action:

-The committee approved a resolution seeking reimbursement from the state mining impact board for costs the county incurred related to the development of the county's mining ordinance.

-After it was brought up during the public portion part of the meeting, the committee agreed to examine its ordinances regarding old and faulty septic systems and the means of enforcing the ordinances. The committee agreed to begin the process in November with the goal of having the review complete by the end of the year.

-Bergman updated the board on changes to shoreline zoning regulations as the result of the recently passed state budget. According to Bergman, while the county still needs to go through a revision of it's ordinance, the changes at the state level were drastic enough that really no action should be taken without guidance from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.