James Windell
After considerable debate and some acrimony, the South Haven City Council approved an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that pertains to signs in the yards of residences.
Community residents frequently over the past few months expressed concern about the number and the types of temporary, non-permanent sign regulations.
Lisa Krupiarz, who lives in South Haven and has been an unofficial spokesperson for those who are opposed to these temporary signs, spoke before the City Council during the regular City Council meeting on Monday, June 2, 2025.
“This is such a disappointing outcome for residents after so much time has been dedicated to this topic,” Krupiarz said about the amended ordinance the City Council would be addressing. “Residents have repeatedly asked for clunky wood signs advertising short term rentals to be removed.”
Krupiarz went on to say that the current version of the non-permanent sign ordinance uses a definition of non-permanent signs that has been rewritten to specifically include these types of signs she and others dislike. “I am literally stunned by this and many of us are terribly disappointed,” she said. “Some short-term-rental companies put up their signs year around disrespecting residents and the character of our neighborhoods.” She asked the City Council reject the amended ordinance.
In January, 2025 the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review temporary sign regulations, to distinguish between permanent and temporary signs, and to review commercial sign use in residential districts. In the months that followed, Planning Commissioners discussed potential modifications to the non-permanent sign regulations including non-permanent and permanent sign definitions and various ways to regulate non-permanent signs while balancing competing community interests.
The proposed text amendments recommended by the Planning Commission sought to create parity between residential and non-residential districts in their treatment of non-permanent signs, protect rights to free speech, preserve neighborhood character and traffic safety, and ensure compliance with court decisions.
The proposed text amendments which came before the City Council on June 2 added a definition for “permanent sign” and revised the definition of “non-permanent sign” to provide clarity on the difference between permanent and non-permanent signs. The amendments also attempted to regulate non-permanent signs by district, rather than by use on a lot to create more uniform districts and allow for more consistent code enforcement. Additionally, it removed time limits for placement of non-permanent signs in business districts, and it placed a cap on total square footage per lot (with a size limit on individual signs) rather than the hard cap on the number of non-permanent signs that can be placed. Finally, it attempted to correct minor errors in the definitions of “feather signs” and “on-premises commercial signs.”
The task for the City Council was to consider these proposed amendments recommended by the Planning Commission.
In the discussion and debate that followed the introduction of the topic by City Manager Kate Hosier, it was pointed out by the City Attorney that while the city has a right to regulate signs property owners also have a right to free speech.
Councilwoman Mary Hosley, who is the City Council representative on the Planning Commission, said there was a lack of clarity in the amendments recommended by the Planning Commission. Therefore, she wanted to “bring forward an alternative for discussion.” She said that her definition of a temporary, non-permanent sign was “clearer and less open to interpretation.”
This drew criticism from some council members who opined that this was her way of introducing alternative definitions after she was not able to convince the Planning Commission of her definitions.
Councilman Joe Reeser thought that the ordinance could have more bite to it. The City Attorney responded by saying, “You can restrict the content of signs, but you cannot discriminate between signs.” But he added that the issue is “complicated and convoluted.”
Council member George Sleeper said that the Planning Commission were the experts and if after considerable discussion they provided recommended amendments, then the City Council should approve those amendments. Although not all council members quite agreed with his characterization of the Planning Commission as the experts, when a vote was taken the amendments from the Planning Commission were approved.
