Billboards for North Wayne? WHY?

Neighboring Haverford Township is fighting them tooth and nail. I think Radnor should too.

If you do not want Radnor to settle, please consider attending the meeting Tuesday May 26th at 7 p.m.
and speaking out.

I fear that most in Radnor, and specifically North Wayne do NOT know there is a hearing - and it IS scheduled the day after Memorial Day.
What is worse is that if I understand what was said at a Radnor BOC meeting, they will have the hearing AND enact the same night.

I do not think that an interim solicitor from Bucks County either knows or cares about the issue well enough, or the impact of billboards
in North Wayne near the new train station renovation - as I understand it these could go along Pennsylvania Avenue. Residents would open
their doors on nice days to see BILLBOARDS.

I don't think billboards belong in Historic North Wayne, even if no one has had the sense to make Little Chicago part of the historic district.

I think billboards run contrary to any master planning for Wayne. I do not see the Main Line as billboard suitable. Or as the Radnor Township
interim solicitor would like you to call them: OFF PREMISES SIGNS. (Like it makes a difference, ugly either way)

I do not ascribe to the notion that you have to put them somewhere, nor do I believe that NOT having them is a violation of First Amendment Rights.
I doubt that Thomas Jefferson et al were thinking billboards once upon a nation, do you? Do you think exclusionary zoning which was designed with
things like affordable housing should be used to get billboards into our communities? I don't.

Also, as way of FYI, zoning billboards to a specific area can be challenged just as easily as saying "no" altogether, so why not say no?

North Wayne deserves better. Radnor residents will never profit from billboards, but you will suffer from visual sight hazards potentially,
as well as the potential of decreased property values.

It's your community, this is only my opinion. If you want to learn more about what Haverford Township is doing with regard to this, please
e-mail . Jeff Heilmann is the Haverford Township 5th Ward Commissioner.

Mind you I think Radnor is being stupid. And I don't know if they have it right when they say they can legislate billboard content or avoid
electronic billboards if billboard companies assert that they can put up billboards or their First Amendment Rights are violated, well,
couldn't a saavy lawyer just transfer THAT to this situation?

TOWNSHIP OF RADNOR
Minutes of the Public Meeting of March 23, 2009 - from page 3 of 8

John Rice informed the board and the public that the Townships current zoning ordinance failed to include provisions regarding
the placement of off premises signage in the Township, which could result in an applicant posting undesirable signage on Township grounds.
He then stated that the Township is obligated to permit the posting of off premises signs, but have the authority to regulate the dimension
and location of the signs. Mr. Rice then announced that he and Township staff researched various possible sites and determined that the
Wayne Business District and a portion of the C3 zoning district would be appropriate for placement. President Masterson questioned the size
of the proposed billboards. Mr. Rice replied that the site would determine the size of the billboard; however, 64ft. would be the maximum
size permissible. Commissioner Fisher asked if the signs would be displayed electronically or placed on top of buildings.
Robert Loeper replied that such placement would be prohibited in the ordinance. Mr. Rice noted that he was currently working with staff to
craft a new zoning ordinance to be presented to the Board by June; however, the Delaware County Planning Commission is required to review
the case 30 days before it can be adopted followed by the Zoning Committee, to allow residents an opportunity to voice their concerns.He
further noted that Matthew Baumann proposed amendments to the ordinance prior to the public meeting to include the definition of sign area
and the policy for posting V-shaped signs. Mr. Rice then recommended that the proposed amendments be included in the final ordinance.
Commissioner Spingler motioned to introduce the ordinance with the proposed amendments. Seconded by Commissioner Mahoney, the motion
was unanimously passed. Diane Edbril announced that it was refreshing to know that the new Township Solicitor was well versed in current
case law. Baron Gemmer informed the Board that § 280-121, 122 and 123 displayed conflicting language and the inclusion of the sign definition
could possibly negatively impact civic event postings. President Masterson suggested that Mr. Gemer send him an email detailing his concerns.