Policy to be developed for non-standard warning signs

NEW LONDON – The city of New London is in the process of developing a policy that would regulate non-standard warning signs, such as “Deaf Child Area” because the city does not currently have such a policy.
At its March 2 meeting, the New London Board of Public Works & Sewer Utility Commission directed Robert Garske, director of Public Works for the city of New London, to develop a city policy regarding non-standard warning signs and bring it back to the board and commission to review. Garske was told that the policy should be based on what other municipalities have done.
Garske told the committee that a city resident had contacted him about having a “Deaf Child Area” sign on Oshkosh Street. After some research, Garske said he realized the city does not have a specific policy regarding non-standard warning signs. A non-standard warning sign is one that is not recognized by Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) or the Federal Highway Administration.
“It doesn’t mean that these signs don’t exist and it doesn’t mean that some communities still don’t place these up,” Garske said. “All it is, is they have never done enough study into these signs and if they function like they should.”
After communicating with other municipalities regarding non-standard warning signs, Garske said a lot of communities had chosen to not put up non-standard hazard signs because they are not recognized. He added that he was not sure if that was because those municipalities are afraid of assuming liability or because the signs are not recognized as official signs.

Of the communities who allow non-standard warning signs, Garske said most require the resident requesting the sign be put up, to fill out an application. A committee within the municipality then would need to approve the application request.
When non-standard warning signs are put up, they are usually in reference to children from ages 2-12 years old.
“They found that children outside of that age tend to be offended by the sign,” Garske said.
Garske said he did not find any studies that found that non-standard warning signs made people more aware to slow down in the neighborhoods the signs were placed in.
“I think they’re hoping that it does that,” Garske said.
Garske said he was looking for direction from the committee as to how to proceed with the request he received, adding that he’d like the city to adopt a policy regarding such signs.
Ald. David Dorsey said the committee should be responsible for such approvals.
Ald. Tim Roberts asked if the request Garske received was for the city to put up a non-standard warning sign, or if the resident wanted to put it up.
Garske said the request was for the city to put up such a sign.
He added that policing non-standard warning signs would be difficult, as the signs would need to be removed when the situation is no longer applicable.
“I don’t think you could set an ordinance that wasn’t 22 pages long of what you would allow and what you don’t allow,” Dorsey said. “I think that is why it would have to come to the board for each individual case.”
New London City Administrator Chad Hoerth said he believed a city policy that outlined what signs would be allowed would still be needed.
“It could mushroom into a lot of stuff,” Hoerth said.
Roberts said the city shouldn’t be responsible for non-standard warning signs, but residents should be allowed to put them up.
Hoerth said residents could put signs only on their private property.
“They wouldn’t be able to put a privately owned sign in the city right-of-way,” Hoerth said.
Hoerth asked Garske if he found that other municipalities required the sign requester to pay for the sign.
Garske said some municipalities did require the resident to cover the costs associated with putting the sign up.
New London Mayor Mark Herter said he’d like to consult with New London Chief of Police about non-standard warning signs to get his opinion on the matter.