ROCKWOOD – Some say the law governing the placement of advertising signs, designed to rid roadsides of billboards, is too restrictive and is killing small businesses, while others claim its enforcement is inconsistent.

No one disputes that the law passed in 1975 has its problems. Take, for instance, Michael Mazur, who operates The Shop on Route 15 in Rockwood.

Mazur was told recently that he must remove a sign he installed on his property last month because it is within the state’s right of way. He figures he was targeted specifically, pointing out that nearly every other sign in Rockwood, and in other Maine communities, is no different from his, in terms of location. In fact, in his community alone, there are business signs tacked to trees and telephone poles and others posted closer to the highway than his, all of which appear to be in violation of Maine’s so-called billboard law.

“I don’t want to take it down, but I’ll move it if everybody else conforms to the rules because I don’t want to be considered special,” Mazur said recently.

Still others, whose businesses are located in communities on the outskirts of major highways, such as Harmony and Shirley, are upset that they are unable to advertise their businesses from main thoroughfares.

“It’s very restrictive, and it’s killing a lot of small businesses,” Sen. Paul Davis, R-Sangerville, said recently of the laws governing signage. “You can go all over the state and find these examples.”

Davis, who five years ago attempted to introduce in the House a bill to allow off-site placement of signs, has submitted a similar bill that may be carried over into the next legislative session.

“No way do I want to see billboards come back,” Davis said. “I just want to find a way to help the little businesses.”

Davis sympathized with Mazur’s plight, a story he has heard numerous times before. He recalled that a former Abbot restaurant owner battled the DOT over a sign before that business closed. The owner of the former Whistlestop Restaurant located off Route 15 in Abbot had a large sign erected off-site on private property but was ordered to remove it because it violated Maine law. The owner then paid the state to install a small green directional sign but was upset with its location. The owner told Davis that the large directional sign she had installed and later removed meant a difference in revenue of $1,000 a week.

After The Shop had been open for three years, Mazur figured it was time to replace the small sign he had posted to a gate that secures his $1 million investment – a machine shop, a parts and accessories store, clubhouse, rental and storage, and bar and lounge, all related to the snowmobile business. This spring, he erected a sign, at a cost of about $3,000, that bears the company name and the message, “We support our Troops,” as well as an arrow that can be lighted to point to his business. He placed an American flag on top of the sign.

Before installing the sign, Mazur said, he checked the location of other signs in the region and learned from a former DOT employee that it had to be at least 33 feet from the center roadway line. From his observations and the information provided by the former DOT employee, Mazur found a spot for the sign 33 feet, 91/2 inches from the center line and installed it on land he owns next door to a DOT garage. Other than being higher up, his sign is no different and no farther away from the road than a lighted sign with an arrow indicating the Rockwood Community hall next door.

While preparations were being made to install the sign on April 26, Mazur claimed, a local DOT supervisor drove by and noticed the work being done. What irks him, he said, was that the official could have stopped and told him before the cement was poured for the foundation and the sign erected. Instead, Mazur received a call the next Monday from a DOT official in Augusta, who said someone had complained about the sign, that it must be removed or the state would remove it for him and bill him for the removal costs.

The Rockwood man isn’t the first targeted by the DOT, which is merely enforcing the law.

“He’s [Mazur] not the only person who’s had a problem with this [law],” Bob Sinclair, DOT supervisor of right-of-way control, confirmed recently. “Unfortunately, this gentleman was given incorrect information.” He said a lot of people are aware that the law exists.

Sinclair said the law is specific: No on-premises signs are permitted within 33 feet of the centerline of any public way if the highway is less than 66 feet in width, or within the full width of the right of way of any public way. In addition, a sign must not attempt to direct the movement of traffic or interfere with or imitate any official traffic sign; contain or include a flashing, intermittent or moving light or lights; obstruct a driver’s view of official signs and approaching or merging traffic, nor use lighting that causes glare or impairs the vision of drivers.

It can be confusing for business owners who do not first seek help from the DOT regarding proposed signs, Sinclair said. Signs that may be permissible on one side of a road may not be so on the other side because on some roads, the state owns 40 feet on one side and 75 feet on the other side, he said. In Mazur’s case, the sign had to be 50 feet back from the centerline.

According to the DOT official, a significant number of signs in the state may be in noncompliance. He disputed that the DOT is inconsistent in its enforcement but admitted it was difficult to identify them all with only one field inspector.

State officials have to rely on people reporting illegal signs, including DOT workers, he said. And when a report is given and a determination made that the sign is illegal, Sinclair said, they hope to get voluntary compliance.

Mazur believes in following the law but finds it difficult to accept if others aren’t made to follow the same law. He looks no farther than his neighbor to the north, the Rockwood Community Center, which has a sign with an arrow covered with light bulbs. He said he is sick of the politics in play in Maine that may frustrate him enough to move.

Sinclair understands Mazur’s frustration. “Does it make a hardship on some people? Yes, it does, but the law is the law,” he said.

“We surely don’t want to push business out of the state of Maine,” he said.