Are inflatables decorations or advertisements?
Retro Diner’s inflatable Thanksgiving party may have left Morris Street, but the Planning Commission’s dilemma surrounding the definition of a sign has yet to deflate.
On Nov. 18, the commission failed to pass a motion to deny Retro Diner’s request to keep the inflatables on the sidewalk within the business’ property line due to a disagreement on whether the display would or wouldn’t fall under the municipal code’s definition of “sign.”
Owners Kimberly and Levi Howell have since rescinded the application, but that particular situation raised the question of whether existing code language can effectively address similar scenarios in the future.
The code currently defines a sign as “a publicly displayed advertising, directional, or informational notice, or any other device that may be displayed to attract attention to a business or event,” and this chapter explicitly prohibits “inflatable signs.”
To Town Attorney Scott Thomas, the phrase “displayed to attract attention” implies a particular intent. The issue with this wording is that it requires assigning a purpose to the display in order to determine whether it is a sign or not, he wrote in a memo on Nov. 25. If the applicant’s stated intent is to just celebrate a holiday, the inflatables wouldn’t count as a sign.
On Dec. 2, Planner Ajah Eills said she worries that requiring applicants to state the purpose of the display would result in business owners giving whatever answer that will achieve the desired outcome. Based on Thomas’ interpretation, she asked, if the stated intent has nothing to do with attracting attention to the business, does that mean applicants can put up whatever display they please because it wouldn’t be regulated as a sign?
Commissioner Sommer Holt said applications should be evaluated based on objective rather than subjective standards such as intent. The obvious purpose of a display is to draw business, she said, to which Eills agreed.
On Nov. 18, Eills had proposed the addition of separate rules for decorations. Holt believes this might make the town liable for First Amendment violations: once the code defines what constitutes a decoration, it must also determine what qualifies as a holiday or what messages should be allowed and prohibited. On the other hand, regulating inflatables as signs avoids this issue because those rules don’t take into consideration the theme of the display, she wrote in a letter to Eills on Nov. 26.
Eills said the code does not have to be amended, but worries that leaving the definition unchanged would cause the issue to come up again.
If the issue is allowing inflatables in the Historic Preservation or Commercial Zoning districts, Eills said, the Town could add a specification to those zones’ rules that would bar inflatables, superseding the sign code.
Alternatively, as Holt said, the sign code could be amended to allow for inflatable signs, making intent irrelevant. It could also be changed to allow for “certain kinds of inflatables” or to add clarifying language that eliminates any ambiguity, she wrote in her letter.
“My only concern is that we approach this in the right order so we don’t create more confusion while we’re trying to interpret the code we have right now,” she wrote.
Eills agreed to bring different options to amend the meaning of “sign” at the Dec. 16 meeting.
Luisa Loi is a general assignment reporter for La Conner Community News.
