Sign of the times

Today's Daily News has a story about the A-frame decision by the City Council. In reading the comments, I see that Bil Silliker of Licorice & Sloe (tea shop on a side street) points out the exact wording of the city ordinance that covers movable signs:

a) One (1) movable sign and one (1) display of merchandise are allowed for each public entrance to a building, subject to the standards and criteria herein.

(b) All movable signs shall be placed within one (1) foot of the building and within four (4) feet of the public entrance. No movable sign shall exceed two (2) feet in width or depth or four (4) feet in height. In the event that said sign does not meet that above size and location requirements the applicant may petition the city council for relief.

Note the last sentence - the applicant may petition the city council for relief. Well, it does not say the City Council will grant the relief, but it seems from the report in the DN that the Council merely denied the requests en masse.

Several councilors advocated for granting Silliker a variance, saying he is the exception that the ordinance is meant for.

"If we're going to follow the spirit (of the ordinance), we need to approve it," said Earls, who represents the downtown area. Earls noted the application for the Licorice and Sloe sign states a specific location and a specific size.

Councilors Derrivan, Ives, McCavitt voted to reject the petition and Cameron, Earls, Jones, Holaday, O'Brien voted in favor - or against denial at first, then for approving it second. Steve Hutcheson recused himself from the votes (his wife owns a downtown shop).

They needed a 2/3 majority.

I wonder if the Licorice & Sloe petition will re-surface, once Shanley and Connell are back from wherever they are?

Wouldn't that be opening a can of worms?

Who just cruising Newburyport knows that Jewel in the Crown is back in that courtyard, or that Stella's is even further down Middle St. than L&S?