Up until and since 2021, the town has had its hands tied in doing any enforcement.”

Town Solicitor Gio Cicione

A commitment to free speech — the First Amendment — is not a temporary right. It doesn’t expire after 90 days.”

Michael DiPaola, owner of "spite lot"

Key changes in proposed sign ordinance

Portsmouth officials say the proposed sign ordinance is designed to bring the town’s regulations in line with constitutional free-speech protections while restoring the town’s ability to enforce basic standards.

The revised ordinance regulates signs based on their physical characteristics — such as size, location and duration — rather than their message. Courts have ruled that sign laws must be “content-neutral,” meaning they cannot treat signs differently based on what they say.

Among the major changes:

• Size limits: The ordinance sets maximum dimensions for different types of signs, including freestanding signs, wall-mounted signs and residential yard signs.

• Time limits for temporary signs: Temporary signs — including those often used for events, announcements or political messages — could remain in place for up to 90 days in most cases, with a longer allowance in certain circumstances.

• Location rules: The ordinance restricts where signs can be placed, including limits in public rights-of-way and standards for placement in residential and commercial zoning districts.

• Lighting and construction: The proposal includes rules governing illumination, materials and structural safety.

Town officials say the changes would modernize Portsmouth’s sign code and allow consistent enforcement while protecting residents’ First Amendment rights.

PORTSMOUTH — The T-shirt alone could have been a public comment.

On the front was a cartoon chicken flashing two middle fingers. The caption read: “I heard they don’t like me/I hope they heard I don’t give a f---.”

The man wearing it — chewing gum and watching the room from beneath a bushy, heart-shaped gray goatee — was Michael DiPaola, the owner of Portsmouth’s most infamous piece of real estate: a narrow “spite lot” on East Main Road decorated with a riot of signs, broken toilet seats and messages that accuse town officials of corruption, incompetence or worse.

Technically, the town council’s public hearing Monday night was about something much broader: rewriting the town’s sign ordinance for all residents. But like so many things in Portsmouth these days, the conversation kept circling back to DiPaola.

The town hasn’t been able to enforce its sign ordinance since 2021, when DiPaola — represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island — successfully challenged the law in federal court. The lawsuit stemmed from a dispute over signs he posted accusing the town of selectively enforcing zoning rules.

A consent judgment in that case barred Portsmouth from enforcing its existing ordinance, which the court found was not “content-neutral” — meaning officials effectively had to read a sign’s message to determine whether it violated the rules, a red flag under First Amendment law.

“Up until and since 2021, the town has had its hands tied in doing any enforcement,” Town Solicitor Gio Cicione told the council.

The proposed ordinance aims to fix that problem by regulating signs based on their physical characteristics — size, placement, lighting and duration — rather than what they say.

Town officials say the new rules were developed over the past year by planning staff and consultants, and reviewed by the planning board and outside legal experts. The planning board voted unanimously in December to recommend adoption.

Town Planner Lea Hitchen said the revisions are intended to modernize the code while protecting both community aesthetics and free speech.

“Is it perfect? No,” Hitchen said Monday night. “But it’s definitely an upgrade to the sign ordinance we currently have.”

The American Civil Liberties Union was also asked to informally review the draft.

In a memo to Cicione, ACLU Executive Director Steven Brown said a volunteer attorney flagged a couple of potential concerns — including limits on how long temporary signs could remain posted and exemptions for flags or visual art displays that might express similar political views but be treated differently under the ordinance.

Still, Cicione said nothing raised by the ACLU appeared legally fatal to the proposal.

DiPaola in the spotlight

Yet for many residents attending the hearing, the issue felt less like a constitutional exercise and more like a very specific local grievance.

This grievance has an address: 1074 East Main Road.

That is the location of DiPaola’s lot, where signs criticize town officials, reference zoning disputes and occasionally feature language that some neighbors consider vulgar.

William Pickett, of Clear View Avenue, urged the council to address a sign he said was supported by rusted rebar and could fall over. “I think that sign should be taken down,” Pickett said.

He also referenced the rest of the display. “There are several signs on that property that are disgusting,” he said.

Council president Keith Hamilton interrupted him. “I’m just going to ask you to stick to the improvements to the sign ordinance,” Hamilton said.

Pickett tried again. “I feel very strongly about the toilet bowls and the fishing poles and so forth,” he said.

Behind him, DiPaola smiled.

When his turn came, DiPaola, who said he lived on Lawton Brook Lane, defended his signs. “For years, my signs have served a vital form of personal and political expression,” he told the council.

Reducing the size or duration of signs, he said, could amount to a “targeted effort to phase out specific voices.”

“A commitment to free speech — the First Amendment — is not a temporary right,” DiPaola said. “It doesn’t expire after 90 days.”

He also argued the town must apply any new rules consistently.

“For an ordinance to be truly content-neutral … it must be enforced with total consistency,” he said.

DiPaola also objected to the ordinance’s amortization clause, which would require permanent signs that no longer meet the new rules to be brought into compliance within three years of adoption. He said the council should respect preexisting rights. 

“In Rhode Island, grandfathered property rights are a cornerstone” of fair zoning, DiPaola said.

Others in the audience described living near the property as exhausting.

Timothy Donegan, who lives on Clear View Avenue, said his son had to ride a school bus past the lot every day. “As a father, I’m stunned it’s been allowed to persist as long as it has,” he said.

Donegan said the signs contain “swears and verbal assault” that children see while passing by. “I wish you would have done something different,” he told DiPaola as he returned to his seat.

Target of vulgar reference

Another resident, Tara Woods, said the display included a vulgar reference of a sexual nature aimed at her personally, after she had complained about the signs.

“That’s not protected speech, and not a single one of you has done anything to protect me or the children that have to see that,” said Woods, noting she formally complained about the sign but to no avail. “Frankly, it’s appalling that the police department would not do anything about it. It’s appalling the town hall would not do anything about it. The amount of time this gentleman wastes of yours, is nonsense.”

Hamilton acknowledged the frustration but pointed to the legal reality. “Vulgarity is in the eye of the beholder,” he said, noting that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that offensive speech is still protected speech.

Cicione said other laws on the books address offenses such as harassment or cyberstalking. “There are certainly avenues outside of the town council and the town planning and zoning department that may be available,” he said. 

Woods repeated: she had already tried those avenues.

Steven Anderson, of Hedly Street, asked the council to consider all farms, farm breweries, and wineries exempt from the sign ordinance. 

But he also had something to say about DiPaola’s signs.

“The proximity of a school bus stop or school zone for the children — we can only do so much to protect them,” Anderson told the council.

Shooting for Monday adoption

The proposed ordinance will not determine whether any specific sign stays or goes, Cicione emphasized. What it will do, he said, is restore the town’s ability to enforce neutral rules.

“This would untie the town’s hands,” he said.

Council members made several revisions to the ordinance during Monday’s meeting and voted unanimously to continue the hearing to March 23, when they are expected to consider formal adoption.

Hamilton cautioned that the new ordinance may not resolve every dispute — including the one over DiPaola’s signs.

“There’s only one person that can fix that,” he said.

“Unfortunately, the mentality of a certain person is what we’re dealing with — not necessarily a sign ordinance.”