Hi, friends, I had an interesting argument with my project architect this afternoon about the interpretation of one requirement in the local zoning code.
The code says: “Sign size shall either not exceed eight square feet in area or not exceed two feet in height and four feet in width, or both.”
According to my understanding, a signage which is 2’-4” x 3’-4” is totally fine, because the area is less than 8 sf. However the architect thinks the sign should be 2 feet max in height and 4 feet max in width. We did call the local code official and the architect’s idea is confirmed.
I would not argue with either the office or my boss. But I’d like to see how professionals here interpret the code above.
Thanks in advance for any comments.

i think the key word there is the "OR"

if it was "AND" then you definitely cannot exceed 2 feet in height and 4 feet in width.

in this case, i am not very sure.

Wow what a poorly written clause!

I would think the last "or both" leaves it ambiguous!

Could be read to mean it can't exceed both or where less than 8 sq.ft can exceed 2 x 4.

The legals could have a field day in court with this one!

keyword = either

Sign size shall either not exceed A(area) or B(dim)

really bad english though

I think it means that the planners decide at the time how they want to apply it. Probably best to call and speak to one of them.

“Sign size shall either A or B or both (A AND B).”

I think "or both" means "it's not just a choice between A or B (that's what [either A or B] usually means though),
but you could fullfill both at the same time (of course, you don't have to)"...
Therefore my reading is, you can have a signage which is 2’-4” x 3’-4”. I think you have a chance to argue.

If both criteria are to be fulfilled simultaneously, then the sentence has to be simply:

“Sign size shall both A and B .”

This is the kind of thing we have to deal with everyday here too...:(

yep, poorly drafted (and of course planners playing with your head). Prescriptive control - very bad as well, but it's there!

ok,
maximum sign area 8sqft
maximum sign dimensions 2ft wide 4ft high

the "trigger" is reference to BOTH parts of the control. Or BOTH means that you need to comply with both component of the "formula"

I think it means that the planners decide at the time how they want to apply it. Probably best to call and speak to one of them.

i think that's the case too, they want to leave it open for them to decide.

Thank you guys very much.
I knew the official would like to hold the power (ha, what else is new?).
What bothers me is that if situation B -2 feet max and 4 feet max- is required all the time, what's the point of even showing situation A (8 sf max.)? no sign will be bigger than 8 sf if both 2 and 4 are the limits.
Now let me be realistic, the last thing i wanna do is to argue with the code official. Nobody would be happy when it turns out he/she is wrong. So the real question in my mind is never about right or wrong, it is about how to avoid any kinda argument with any official, so my client can get all the documents done in the min. amount of time. I sometimes feel a little bit sad but I got to do what I got to do.
Anyway, I have to change the design of the sign, I lost the bet with my boss of a lunch. But I'm happy. I don't care that much about right or wrong, but when I know I'm right, I'm happy.
Thank you guys again.

Your right, giving both is redundant and made it confusing. It always amazes me how poorly the codes are written. I don't think they are intentionally written that way to allow code enforcers to interpret them as they choose. Good technical writing is just difficult and it is often produced by people who are not specifically trained in that skill.

The final clue to the intent is that 2' was given as a max height where if no height restriction was desired 8sq. ft. would have described the size without giving other dimensions.

This is very vaguely written zoning bylaw. Accordingly, there may be some agenda to conform to 2'x4' signage in the community, and if so they should re-write this portion of the zoning bylaw. Otherwise I would agree that any sign can be any shape up to 8 sqft max OR 2'x4'.

Unsurprisingly language like this is common throughout, local, state and federal laws and regulations. This is problematic. On the local level (zoning), a phone call to the local official may result in an opinionated response. And it's usually a neighbor who received a different phone response that will generate an issue and not the zoning board.

And this only gets more intense as you climb up to state level building codes and you contact a building official for a code interpretation. One case is when a building inspector assumes the role of code guru and makes a judgment call on an issue. Primarily, local officials are not authorized to override state level code, their main concern should be public safety and code compliance.

And this never ends... It's time more Architects become involved on the local and state levels regarding the writing of laws!

Probably the official doesn't even really know. It's just his interpretation.

it's a clumsy attempt to achieve "consistency"

and 8sqft sign could be 1 ft by 8ft, so the way to make signs "conform" is to specify both the maximum area and maximum dimensions. The three components work in unison.

Still- it is very poorly drafted.:eek: