PARK RIDGE, N.J.—Despite warnings from a resident that repealing a local sign ordinance violated state ethical standards and the U.S. Constitution and that repealing it affected an ongoing municipal court case involving a local official, the council approved a repeal ordinance by a 3-0 vote on Sept. 8.
“I do believe we’ll live to regret that,” said Mayor Keith Misciagna following the vote. The mayor votes only in case of a tie.
Resident Howard Fredrics, whose wife, Lori, has a municipal court case pending against councilor Gregory Hoffman, alleging that Hoffman violated a sign ordinance by placing his political sign on public property and also for using his mobile phone while driving.
Ordinance 2026-018 repeals the prior sign ordinance “and makes it align with the Supreme Court ruling where religious and political signs must be treated equally,” explained Borough Clerk Maggie Giandomenico .
Voting to approve the new sign ordinance were Bruce Goldsmith, William Fenwick, and John Cozzi. Councilors Michael Mintz and Greg Hoffman abstained from voting. Neither stated a reason, though previously Mintz abstained, noting he was running for reelection and his vote could be seen as a conflict of interest.
Fredrics addressed the mayor and council ahead of the vote, alleging that it was an ethical conflict for councilors to repeal an ordinance that would affect the ongoing court case of another local official. However, Fenwick noted that since the revised ordinance was tabled at the July meeting, now neither he nor Hoffman were on the November ballot as they were then.
Both Fenwick and Hoffman were “placeholders” for two Republican candidates, who recently took their places (see story, page 12). Moreover, Fenwick said the borough attorney, Brian Giblin, said there was no conflict of interest for either him or Hoffman to vote on the repeal ordinance.
Fenwick also claimed that the new ordinance cannot retroactively change the legal consequences or punishment for an action that has already taken place. “There are no ex post facto laws in the U.S.,” Fenwick said, using the legal term.
The new sections state: “Election or political signs, as well as signs for non-profit entities and charities, provided that said signs do not exceed 16 square feet in area. In addition, a person or entity requesting to place election or political signs on public property shall pay a fee in the total amount of Twenty Five Dollars for the permit regardless of the number of signs proposed.”
The replaced section notes, “Signs permitted under this section shall be issued “approved” stickers by the Borough and any such sign must have an “approved” sticker affixed if placed on public property. Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit commercial signs to be placed on public property.”
Following the vote, Fredrics told us, “They didn’t just re-introduce the sign repeal — they passed it. But Hoffman abstained, which is an admission that his prior votes in favor, and his having co-sponsored the repeal in the first instance were improper. If as Fenwick insists, there is no conflict of interest, why did Hoffman abstain this time after voting in favor of repeal on three other occasions? It’s called cognizance of guilt. This should be front-page news,” charged Fredrics.
In addition to approving 2026-018, council also introduced Ordinance 2026-031 that approved an amended version of the sign repeal but without a permit requirement, and that was reviewed and approved on Sept. 9 by the Planning Board. A public hearing will be held on Sept. 22.
Fredrics claims the permit requirement for signs is unconstitutional as it prevents sign posters from being anonymous, which is their constitutional right.
Misciagna said he agreed with Fredrics. He said the vote repealing the sign ordinance “doesn’t look proper… in light of a hearing/trial beginning in the next few weeks. Unfortunately, I do not have the authority to stop it but I think you’re correct in your argument,” Misciagna told Fredrics.
Fredrics told councilors Sept. 8, “If there is a genuine concern about the constitutionality of the current Ordinance, why not table the repeal measure until after the conclusion of the current case before the Court when there can be no appearance of impropriety and no question of potential Ethics Law violations. Moreover, errors in the stated rationale could then be corrected, and the constitutionality of the permitting requirement could be fully examined and rectified, as needed.”