Friday, January 4, 2008
Welcome to ehosigns
Welcome to ehosigns, our Easthampton community blog for signage issues. Your involvement through this site may be crucial to the future of Easthampton's sign regulations, and to our community's economic prosperity. We will be posting information from various sources to share with you, and we need you to post your own information, comments, ideas and proposals. Thanks for being part of this important and exciting communication process. Derrick Mason
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
"City Goes After Outdoor Signs That Violate the Law"
So read the headline on page B4 of the "Towns/Region" section of Thursday night's Gazette.
I'm writing to all of you collectively because I've either sold sandwich signs to you (these seem to be a target, according to the article) or you have a sandwich sign or you are a business that uses temporary signage or you're simply a business that might be concerned. I'm concerned, obviously, because this is a product that I sell, but also I'm concerned about all the small businesses/community organizations who use these signs to draw attention to themselves and/or special events.
Don't get me wrong. I live here in town, on a busy street, on a corner. Every Monday morning I'm picking up people's signs out of my yard. I am also invested in the good quality of life and aesthetic beauty of Easthampton. But I'm also a small businessman, and not only that, a small businessman whose job it is to help businesses draw more customers. I feel our rights are being compromised as a result of the more aggressive stance being taken by the new building commissioner and his new enforcement "volunteer", according to the article. This is NOT a policy conducive to bringing in more business.
I think of those of you that have a business whose storefront butts against public sidewalks. The article states that these are illegal and will be confiscated. What can you do now, if not the sidewalk? This threat has been made before and followed through. As you know, it's important to have that temporary (sandwich board/real estate) sign out there to advertise a sale, or what's on the menu or an upcoming event or an open house. Does this mean no "Fall Fest" signs? Does it mean no Trout Derby signs? No Open Studios signs? These people depend on these signs to make their living or to raise money for worthy causes. You can't buy a permit for these, they're just illegal. The articles says the enforcement volunteer said "lax by-laws have created anger and resentment...when an applicant is told he cannot build a sign, even though his neighbor has one"... I suggest that even if his neighbor does not have a sign, the applicant is angry and resentful because they cannot advertise their business in their own store.
The purpose of this email is to warn all of you about your signs. But it's also an attempt to gauge how all of you feel about this issue. Whether it's worth making a stink about. I would volunteer to make up a petition and collect signatures. I know, personally, that there are many that I have failed to include on this list that have a strong feelings about this issue and their inability to promote their businesses due to bureaucratic roadblocks. Don't hesitate to present opposing viewpoints. I'm genuinely interested in hearing all sides. I don't want to go kickin' and screamin' if there are sound reasons for this new aggressive policy. Other than the building commissioner/enforcement "volunteer" deciding that he just doesn't like the signs he sees. It's looking like a permit will be needed to put someone's name on a glass door. A permit is now required to just change the information on an existing sign. Obviously, this adds much effort and wait time and cost to seemingly simple signage.
Thanks for your opinions in advance. If any of you are missing any signs, the article suggests you might find them at the municipal building.
A Call to Action on Easthampton sign regulations 2-10-09
Are you worried that your business, service or event might be losing the visibility you need, due to over-restrictive City sign regulations and enforcement policies?
Many Easthampton citizens and their economic well-being were threatened by the recent crackdown on directional, sidewalk and for-sale signs last December (Daily Hampshire Gazette article Dec. 21, 2007).
Here is our opportunity to correct and resolve this unfortunate adversarial situation. A growing grass-roots group is preparing to advocate for better sign regulations and a more business-friendly environment.
Many of our directional and temporary signs, banners, for-sale and sidewalk signs are “illegal” under current zoning regulations. City administrators and enforcement officers are out to criminalize and confiscate these signs. Unfortunately, many well-intentioned people do not see that the most basic economic and cultural activities of our community depend on these very signs. How can people find our open houses and homes for sale, neighborhood tag sales, business openings and sales without these signs? How can we get people to our special events, such as fireworks, school plays, fundraisers, holiday and recreational events? How can we get people to our open studio events, arts & crafts fairs, art walks, etc.? Without these signs, how can we remind a highly-mobile public that our downtown businesses are noteworthy and need their patronage to survive?
Please help us make the case that our signs are essential. Signs need to be appreciated and permitted for the cultural variety and economic prosperity that they bring to our community. We are looking for a pro-active way to educate the community and our leadership, to re-think our policies and re-write our regulations, so that everyone can benefit and prosper in Easthampton.
The EDIC (Economic Development and Industrial Committee) will host a public forum on these issues soon; we expect a date and place for the forum will be set by the EDIC at its next meeting. Please plan to attend this forum, tell your personal story and present your case for better sign regulations. A public hearing can set a new tone for a more user-friendly city government and a more positive economic future for our community.
We have a new web blog on this topic to use for your convenience. You can check in, review other comments, and post your own anytime. The address is http://ehosigns.blogspot.com/. We need to hear from you; it won’t happen without your effort. We will keep you informed by email and blog as events unfold. Please remember, the public input has to come from you!
You are also welcome to write or call us directly by phone or email:
Clay Crow – clay@mantisgraphics.com tel. 527-8716 x3
Derrick Mason – derrick@sign-grafx.com tel. 527-4282
Please bookmark these links!
Hi. I am David Gardner. Today I read a copy of an email message that was composed by a local sign maker and distributed to a number of business owners and city officials in mid-December. In it I am portrayed to people I don't know by a person who does not know me as a person who: has a zeal for "no signs"; does not favor signage in general; must be watched very closely; has a questionable ability to remain objective; and is operating under questionable authority. In my view, the sign maker who sent out the email has done a disservice to the community by disseminating false, slanderous, information designed, in part, to cause fear, mistrust, and loathing me. I had hoped that after my meeting with him on Monday of this week he would have taken the time to retract his injurious statements but I see that he has not. A formal apology from him would be appropriate and most welcomed. I think that it is important to set the record straight. I have been resided in Easthampton for 16 years. About 8 years ago I was appointed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. At the time, there were a few vacancies on the board so I volunteered to fill a seat having no idea what I might be getting myself into. It has been quite a ride. My involvement with the ZBA made me aware of the need for additional efforts to enforce the bylaws that members of the community apparently saw a need for. If you have ever been involved in the process of enacting new regulations, then you know that it involves a lot of work and time. The people who invested their time and effort to produce the current sign use regulations intended them to be implemented and enforced. It became my view that the historical level of enforcement and, at times, the seeming lack thereof undermined the intent and will of the creators of these bylaws and made waste of their time and effort to do so. The Gazette article of December 13, 2007 includes more reasons for my interest in volunteering my time to assist Building Commissioner Fydenkevez in enforcement efforts that he had no time to do himself. In fact, the prior building inspector also did not have the time and level of resources necessary to adequately enforce sign usage. So I stepped up to the plate to volunteer my time to serve Easthampton in this capacity. I feel that what I'm doing is a needed service to the city. I feel that if more people volunteered to serve their community in whatever capacity they can commit to, there would be fewer people playing the 'us against them' game. Many of my goals and methods are stated in the Gazette article of December 13. Please read the article. If you need a copy, please let me know and I'll see what I can do. I think it's important for all interested parties to compare the statements that have been presented by the aforementioned sign maker that are purportedly based on the newspaper article with the actual article. I'm currently engaged in doing exactly what I set out to do. I've produced information packets (at my own expense) that I am now distributing to business owners in various business districts. I'm also asking businesses to remove their signs that are on public property. The bylaw is crystal clear on this. This activity has been mostly confined to the Downtown Business District and therefore has involved mostly sandwich board signs on public sidewalks and streets. It seemed like a good place to start because of the lack of ambiguity in the regulations on this. I also believe that it should be reasonable to accept that private, for-profit commercial enterprises should not expect or demand the privilege of placing their signs on public property. Would you agree that anyone should have the right to place a sign on your property because they feel that it is the most advantageous and effective way to advertise their business? I’m guessing not. And on this point I want to be right up front in saying that I happen to agree with the creators of the current bylaw on this particular part. But I also disagree with some of the regulations and have said as much to some business owners and sign-makers I've spoken with. I think some changes are warranted and welcome the opportunity for public input and dialog to bring them about. In the meantime I haven't yet confiscated nor do I plan to confiscate any signs. None of my activities threaten properly displayed special event, community interest, and non-profit fund-raising event-type signs. Contrary to statements made by the “sign maker”, accommodations for the use of these signs do exist in the current bylaws. One limitation on their use is worth mentioning here. They may not be placed on public property without permission. Historically, permission has been sought and received which is how we have all come to see these kinds of signs, some very familiar, emerge periodically year after year. The use of these signs is not threatened and the displaying of these signs will continue to be allowed unless the bylaws regulating their use changes. I will continue to provide information on sign use regulations to anyone who wants it and make myself available for conversation and dialog by phone, email, or face-to-face meetings. I will also continue seeking the removal of signs from public property because it is a very obvious, straight-forward place to begin. I’m open to suggestions on how to go about doing this short of not doing this. If you have any questions or concerns about any of this, please contact me. David Gardner 529-0741, davgardner@gmail.
Sorry for all the typos in my prior submission. There appears to be no way to edit comments once they’re posted. It was written in haste after just reading, for the first time, false comments made about me that have been somewhat public for the past two months. I knew going into this that there would be some negative reaction. What I didn’t expect is that it would result in personal attacks directed at me. Should I just accept that this is normal and, therefore, ok? I could and probably should but I can’t. I believe we can only achieve a desirable outcome on this issue if we behave as a community that respects and values everyone’s contribution or view. This venue and the upcoming forum are good places to start. Please share your views.
Ok. I can definately see both points. I am a business owner in Easthampton. I also work 2 other jobs. I opened my business with the hopes of bringing people to downtown and becoming a valued community member. I don't have alot of money. In fact, I barely have enough money to pay my own bills but I think that it's worth it every day to be able to open my business and meet new faces. Every day I have new people coming in saying, "Wow! What a great place!" and that is why it's worth it for me to struggle in owning my own business. Because people recognize that I am working hard and offering a place where anyone is welcome. Being that I struggle, I rely on any type of advertising I can get for little to no cost, including a sandwich board on the sidewalk. Which my customers look at on a daily basis to see what's new, if I have a sale or just a funny quote to brighten someone's day.
In regards to the Sumit article written on February 14,2008, I was left feeling upset by this quote:
"They're a potential liability to the city and they're insensitive to people in wheelchairs who have to navigate around them."
I have a number of customers who are in wheelchairs, push baby carriages, have a kid on each arm, walk with a cane, bags full of groceries, etc. This list could go on forever. Not a single one has EVER complained about the sign being in their way. I would hope that I would be the first to know if there was a problem with the placement of the sign. I think that this particular quote is insulting to business owners. Each and every business owner I have ever worked with personally or business related is COMPLETLY sensitive to those mentioned. Every rack in a store is spaced "just in case" a person in a wheel chair were to come in. The signs are placed outside with PLENTY of distance between the store and the street so even 2 wheelchairs can fit by next to each other!
Please understand that I am not trying to "rip on anyone". This is just where I'm coming from and I hope that the other businesses that operate in Easthampton will comment as well. I am not trying to step on anyone's toes, merely trying to state my opinion on this as this does affect my livelyhood.
Again, I want the zoning person to know I understand that he is doing his job. I understand that laws need to be followed, but I also understand that there are some laws that need to be altered. This should be one of the latter. I will be at the next town meeting to voice my opinion. I think that all of the business in town should be too. I also plan on keeping my sign out until I recieve one of those pamphlets. Thanks! A concerned business owner.......
To: a buisiness owner - Thanks for your sharing your views. Sorry to insult you and possibly other business owners by my comment printed in the Summit concerning persons in wheelchairs. I was not referring to your sign in particular. But I have personally witnessed a person in a wheelchair having difficulty navigating around a sandwich board sign placed on a sidewalk which is why I used that as an example. The fact that nobody has ever complained to you about your sign doesn't mean that your sign has never posed an inconvenience to anyone. Most people might wish to avoid the uncomfortableness that goes along with complaining. But whether or not your particular sign has caused any concern to your clientele is beside the point. My concern at this time is only that your sign not be placed on public property or a public way without permission. If you want a copy of the sign regulations, please let me know how to get them to you. I can be reached by calling 529-0741. The entire bylaws document is also available in PDF format for downloading at the new Easthampton website: www.easthamton.org. Or you can go to Easthampton Municipal Building at 50 Payson Avenue and read them there. Thanks again for sharing your view.
Yes. This the "the aforementioned sign maker" in reply.
Since my meeting that fateful Monday, in which our newly "appointed" sign enforcement volunteer indicated that he would be willing to cooperate with the community (businesses included), it has become very apparent that his actions indicate otherwise. I have been on the receiving end of several complaints about his actions around downtown Easthampton. These complaints only reinforce my my stated opinions. For which I will not apologize. The Sign Enforcement Volunteer (Abbrev. SEV from here) must now realize that he is a public figure and legally open to public opinion and ridicule.
That said, I continue to warn local business people of an SEV pursuing a personal agenda. I have heard this SEV's opinions about signs and business here in Eho and I find them to be very disturbing and bad for business in Easthampton. I also, personally, believe that a person with such a subjective point of view should not be on the ZBA in the first place. Not to mention a conflict of interest. Your fanatical political beliefs have been noted, with witness. And will be revealed to the public at the appropriate time.
To other readers, make no mistake, SEV is not pro business. He has very unrealistic views as to what it takes to promote a successful business.
I am on the Board of Directors of the Greater Easthampton Chamber of Commerce. I am always on the look out for ways to promote a healthy economic environment in Eho. And, yes, I will fight for those whose efforts at advertising their business are being thwarted by those might use their positions of supposed "authority" to pursue their radical agendas. These are complaints by members of the chamber, who I am officially defending. I'm hearing new "horror" stories as each day passes.
I'll relate one here:
A local business was approached by SEV about an existing sandwich sign on the sidewalk. As many know, the sign regs are filled with holes and gray areas, and can be interpreted in many ways. The local owner is aware of this and asks SEV to leave. SEV leaves, but returns with threats of using the building inspector and health inspector to achieve his end result, removal of said sign. He was then politley asked to leave again. Gray areas include: ownership of area on sidewalk, authority of sign enforcement "volunteer" to ticket and remove signs from private property (I might add that SEV has created his own "tickets" by his own admission) Repeated visits by SEV to these businesses' private property during operating hours may be considered by a court of law as "harassment". Each incident is being recorded. Legal opinions on the matter have been sought and it appears the SEV's interpretations of the sign regs may be in error. Nobody is sure yet (therefor the importance of a sign forum). But that won't stop SEV from aggressively enforcing his interpretations of the law.
While it is unfortunate that such language is being used, it is a subject that affects the livelihood of many in Easthampton, and it affects Easthampton as a city that needs commerce. This is a very important and emotional issue. SEV...This is not corporate America. We are simply trying to get people in the doors of our businesses so they can put food on the table, and you are working actively to stop it. Given that, I know you expect heated opinions, of which, one is yours!
I'd like to describe a couple more incidents, so folks can recognize that these aren't the rantings of a sign maker with sour grapes.
!) SEV confronts a business owner on Main Street. SEV accuses owner of having an illegally placed sandwich board on sidewalk. Owner points out the legal extension of his property 10 feet into the sidewalk. Owner pulls out tape measure to show that his sign is in compliance and asks SEV to leave the premises. This information confirmed at the time by city planner to owner. SEV returns to Main Street business, same day, and threatens action by various inspectors about previously unmentioned window lettering, (window lettering is not addressed AT ALL in sign by-laws). Business owner has to be called in to deal with SEV during deliveries.
Once again, I suggest that these actions may be considered harassment by a court of law, and they are certainly considered harassment by any level-headed individual. And are being recorded for legal purposes.
2) SEV observes signs not in compliance on Pleasant street. SEV attempts contact with property owner. Owner is out of town on business but is informed by assistant that SEV has called every hour, on the hour, six times during that same day. SEV proceeds to attach personally made "violation" notices on signs that were actually permitted at an earlier date.
The point I'm trying to make is that these actions are very unprofessional, most likely illegal (according to legal counsel) and, in my opinion, obsessive to say the least!
Why is it that I am not allowed to have a sandwich board in front of my store but I am held liable if a person slips and falls on ice and snow in front of my store?? If this is public property, then the city should have adequate people cleaning to snow and ice themselves. You can say that I am responsible for removal as I am the business owner but that is not my property. So I can either clean the sidewalk myself and keep my sign or I can do nothing and assume the city will pay for the frivolous lawsuits. So, this is starting to look like a tit for tat so to speak. If you want all to business to keep off of public property, then you should have more city workers cleaning the public property. You can't say that I am responsible for some public things and not others.Thanks!
To Business Owner
If you dig deeper, you'll find many more inconsistencies. That is one of the reasons for the upcoming sign forum. Contrary to SEV's opinion, there is nothing "crystal clear" about sign by-laws in Eho. They must have been hastily created. I hope that you will come to the forum to tell your story. You will hear many others like it. Take comfort in knowing that almost all business owners in Eho feel the way you do. And we're going to do something about it.
As of this moment, my understanding (as a result of research due to previous complaints mentioned in this blog) Businesses on these main downtown streets whose storefronts butt up against sidewalks are entitled to right of use of a percentage of the sidewalk. Exactly what that is has yet to be fully explained by the city planner. I do know that it's 10 feet, up on Main Street, where the sidewalk is wider.
I was hoping the SEV would take it easy until these things have been clearly settled. But he came out fast and furious. This is the reason for my lack of confidence in SEV's statements of neutrality.
Good luck to us all!
By using my sandwich signs affectively I have increased sales and developed new customers. (Stated in less than 15 words guys)
http://blog.masslive.com/breakingnews/2008/02/agawam_panel_to_clarify_signs.html
It seems to me that there are numerous areas where the ordinance and its regulations could be clarified in Easthampton. It also seems to me that if we want to foster a "POSITIVE" business climate in this city we must learn to accommodate, listen and react constructively. The above posted link is to an article in The Republican on sign issues in Agawam. The slant given to this article is "COOPERATION". I hope all players in this sign arena are open to this same level of "COOPERATION". As native to Easthampton, home owner and business owner it is my belief that a viable economic base in our community is absolutely essential to promote quality of life and sustainability.
I own Cherry Picked Books. My sign is inside my window, but I understand clearly why other businesses cannot do this.
As a former selectman and school committeeperson, I value any municipal employee who works hard and does the job thoroughly and conscientiously. But when I read that our building inspector has worried for years about unenforced regulations, my response is "lighten up"--and set priorities. Rigid and compulsive enforcement of every single municipal rule leads to conflict and burnout.
As a former political science professor, I am highly doubtful that any public official can delegate his or her job to a "citizen's committee" of volunteers. I am convinced that Mr. Gardner, notwithstanding his sincerity, has absolutely no authority to enforce the building inspector's rulings.
I understand there are citizens who have "aesthetic" objections to the sandwich signs. Given how developers have laid waste to East Street--now an unsightly collection of Monopoly-style condos--and the bombed out shells on Ferry Street, it seems almost ridiculous to worry about signs on sidewalks defacing our fair community.
Let's get reasonable. Signs should not block pedestrian passage--which the current regulations actually require! Signs should be a reasonable size and in good taste. But aside from that, prohibitions make no sense at all.
Michael Engel
Cherry Picked Books
Well, I'll keep this brief. Here are some issues that should be explored. I am an Easthampton business owner as well. Of course I will remain nameless since I have heard stories of people being threatened with various inspections if they don't comply... Now Easthampton, if you were really concerned for peoples' safety perhaps you would: Paint the crosswalks. Is that so much to ask? Enforce the law that says vehicles must stop for pedestrians crossing the street. How about stopping the kids from riding bikes very fast on the sidewalks. I've had customers almost run over. I myself have almost been hit. You could also fill in some potholes... I'm sure someone could just as easily fall in one of those as much as trip over a sign. There are so many things you could put some effort into for our town, but it's always easier to pick on the little guys and girls. By that I mean small businesses. As if we don't have it hard enough. If taxes and fees aren't enough, you have to hound us about such a small thing that I have had no one complain about. It's a waste of time at our expense. Please apply your energy to constructive things. A sure way to boost up our economy here in Easthampton, is to promote what our town has to offer! Many people drive through our streets and anything to help showcase what businesses we have is beneficial to this town. Perhaps we should cherish our local businesses and not start down a path of pushing them out of town. Remember, it's a slippery slope! And one thing leads to another.
Slippery Slope indeed! Well said!
I have read the comments about the signs and I have to agree with Micheal Engel in regards to other matters in this town. Ferry St. does look like a bomb went off and all the pods of condo popping up everywhere. Easthampton is a growing city and I think the time wasted on who can put up a sign or not, is so wasted! I feel for the business person who is trying to make a living.
Here's a news flash! Easthampton's EDIC (Economic Development & Industrial Committee) is planning a public forum on the sign regs issue for Thursday March 20, late afternoon-early evening. The overall aim of the EDIC in hosting this forum is to get the wheels in motion to revise the current sign regs. Details on the forum will be worked out within the next few days, and we will post them here. Please save this date, and start thinking about what you want to say about your personal interest in improving the sign regulations. There are a number of different types and uses of signs, such as banners, sandwich signs, real-estate signs, directional or wayfinding signs, temporary, portable and permanent signs, etc. Each has its own regulatory issues that will need to be addressed. You may have a special interest in one or more of these types or uses, and that would be where you want to focus. You will probably need to research the current City regs about the signs and issues that concern you before the forum, in order to speak from knowledge as well as opinion. We are and will be posting a variety of web links on this blog site that offer helpful background info.
To Clay Crow -
You claim to know me. You claim to know me so well that you seem to be comfortable “rousting the ranks” of those you claim to be “officially defending” to wage a campaign of personal attacks, lies, and innuendo against me in an apparent effort to undermine the enforcement of the sign use regulations adopted by the City of Easthampton 13 years ago.
You claim to know me so well, in part, based on your observation of my behavior at a ZBA hearing involving signage for Eastworks (11/22/05) in which you had a financial interest. To my knowledge, the only times we’ve actually spoken to each other were our brief conversations at your office and the Sign GrafX office a couple weeks back. What took place at the ZBA hearing is documented in the form of minutes which I have posted below. I didn’t think to take minutes of our conversations at your office and the Sign GrafX office. If I had, I would post them as well. But, from these brief, limited exchanges, you claim to know me well enough to confidently announce publicly your assertions that I am a person who has a “zeal for no signs”, has a “radical agenda”, and who possesses “fanatical political beliefs”. You have implied legal action and threatened to publicly reveal these so-called fanatical political beliefs to the public at the appropriate time. You have suggested that I should not have a seat on the ZBA because of so-called “subjective point of view” and “conflict of interest”. And you have accused me of “actively working to stop people from putting food on their tables”. Did I miss anything?
Perhaps you’ve done all of this because you see me as one of the “bureaucratic roadblocks” you referred to. Perhaps enforcement of the bylaws has already negatively impacted your bottom line as a sign maker and might impact your future sales as well. Or maybe you’re upset that a client of yours has been asked to remove two very nonconforming signs that you sold to him for use in a residential district even though, by your own admission, you possess a copy of the sign regulations and should have known that such signs are illegal.
I don’t claim to know what your motives are because I don’t know you. And I believe that you really don’t know me, either. If you did, I feel you might have chosen a different way of achieving your goals.
Minutes of ZBA hearing 11-22-05 –Eastworks
EASTWORKS —Special Permit and amendment to previously granted Variance Property is located at 116 Pleasant Street (MI).
Chairman Renaud opened the public hearing by reading the legal notice. Mr. Will Bundy, Adell Donaghue and others working with Mr. Bundy were in attendance to explain the application to the board,
Mr. Bundy said that he is seeking a Special Permit under Section X to allow multiple business signs for the Eastworks complex. He is also seeking to amend the Variance that was granted in 2002 to allow oversized signage. The amendment would allow the signage size to increase from 90 square feet to about 200 square feet.
He explained that due to the building’s size and complexity, clearly identifying entrances into the complex has become alarmingly important. He told of a very recent incident where the Fire Department did not know where to enter the building when called for an emergency. He said that signage has become a very important tenant and consumer safety issue. The new signs would identify the major entrances into the building. Due the large setback, the signage must be oversized for it to he seen. He added that interior signage would also be improved and the security system would be redone.
At the street entrances, he is also seeking a Special Permit to allow multiple signs which would list tenants and identify parking areas which correspond with business locations in the building. The existing signage would be removed, Mr. Bundy said. The new signs would he back lit and plans are to have an electronic “soft fade” banner running along the tops to announce events. Ms. Donaghue said the signs would be simple and would have a minimum amount of information which would not be rolling, but instead would have a slow fade of about 15 seconds. She emphasized it would not be a ‘ticker tape” sort of sign.
Chairman Renaud said he is “ok” with the signs on the building, but is nervous about distracting signs on the street. He also noted that “moving” signs are not allowed under the zoning ordinance.
Members Perrone and LaChapelle said they both liked the proposal. Member LaChapelle said she didn’t think it would be distracting.
Member Gardner said he would not approve the request for moving signage. Mr. Bundy said the marquee is critical for tenants — a static marquee is currently located over the main entrance door. He added that tenant signage is extremely limited and the announcement of special events is very important.
Member Perrone wondered if there shouldn’t be signage guidelines specific to the mill complexes due to their unique structures. Chairman Renaud said he believes the board’s “hands are tied” and that any changes to the zoning ordinance would have to go before the City Council.
Mr. Bundy said it is critical that the new signs be installed as soon as possible and for things to move forward he would be willing to remove the electronic signage portion of the request.
City Planner Beckley said the Planning Board was concerned over the number of small and large signs being proposed along Pleasant Street. Mr. Bundy was adamant that both types were critical for identification of businesses and their locations within the large building. Mr. Beckley said that a site visit was planned on December 8th by the Planning Board.
On motion made by Member Gardner and seconded by Member Perrone, it was unanimously voted to close the public bearing.
Chairman Renaud recommended that the board vote first on the request to amend the November, 2002 variance for oversized signage and then on the Special Permit request for multiple business signs.
Amendment to November, 2002 Variance:
A motion was made by Member Gardner and seconded by Member Perrone to amend the Variance granted on November 26, 2002 under Table 10-2 to allow the oversized signage at 116 Pleasant Street to be increased Tom 90 square feet to approximately 200 square feet.
A roll call vote was taken and it was declared to be unanimously voted (5 to 0).
Special Permit for Multiple Business Signs:
Board members agreed that the electronic portion of the signs could not be allowed as it would be a violation of the zoning ordinance. Member Gardner felt the applicant “had made his case” for the necessity of the number of signs being requested. Chairman Renaud said he felt the parking lot entrance signs were necessary.
A motion was made by Member LaChapelle and seconded by Member Gardner to grant the requested Special Permit under Section 10 for multiple business signs at 116 Pleasant Street (in accordance with plans submitted by the applicant) with exception that the electronic signage be removed as it is not permitted under the city’s zoning ordinance.
A roll call voted was taken and the motion was declared to be unanimously voted (5 to 0).
Valley Resident says:
Slippery Slope? You know what else is a slippery slope? When members of a community think they have a right to ignore laws on the books of that community and expect public figures to look the other way just b/c they think it is good for their business... asking city/public officials to ignore or not enforce laws on the books leads is a slippery slope towards CORRUPTION OF OFFICE. If you don't agree with the laws of the town that you all collectively CHOSE to open a business in, then do something about it besides attacking the messenger. Go to public hearings, GET THE LAWS CHANGED but until then, quite frankly the issue is simple- what you are doing is ILLEGAL. Clay Crow is angry that selling sandwich board signs to Easthampton business owners is going to be more difficult now. Being in the business he is in, he certainly was (or should have been)familiar with town signage laws, which begs the question- has he been knowingly selling sandwich board type signs all these years to Eho business owners and telling them that street use of these signs is OK? Hmmmm...
He needs to pepper his posts with words like "fateful" and "fanatical" and write the word "volunteer" in quotes as if it has some ulterior meaning. His very personalized attacks on the sign enforcer shows just how much of a vested interest he has in this matter and to me, takes away from any 'greater community benefit' position that he seems to think he's portraying. Other business owners who have posted here are professional enough to stick to the actual issues without all the hate. Mr. Crow states in one post a "new aggressive policy" = in-accurate statement. It is an OLD policy that the town finally has the rescources to enforce. Be responsible law abiding citizens of the town that you all claim to love so much. If you have a problem with the laws, get them changed. If you are un-willing to put in the time and effort that it takes to get laws changed, then I guess I don't believe that it really is affecting you all as much as you claim.
New Britain, Connecticut- Fire trucks must travel at a speed of 25 m.p.h., even when going to a fire.
Lehigh, Nebraska- It is illegal to sell doughnut holes
Tucson, Arizona- It is illegal for women to wear pants.
http://www.helium.com/tm/174681/there-still-exist-books
So there you have it. If you just read the above laws, you are probably thinking, WOW!
But these laws are still in effect. As outdated as they are, they are still on the books and you can be fined.
I seriously doubt that in Lehigh Dunkin Donuts doesn't sell munchkins( a clever word used to disguise what they really are,donut holes!)
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? EVERYTHING!
Dear Valley Resident,
You really seem to have some anger built up towards Clay and other business owners. I feel bad for you.
If you or David feel that we are trying to get the city to disregard the laws or start some form of corruption, you are sadly mistaken! All we are trying to do is get the law changed! That is why this site was formed. To inform business owners and residents alike of some rediculous laws that need to be changed, updated or just tossed.
I use a sandwich board for my store everyday. It helps me get new customers. It helps me help you, the customer, by keeping you informed, wether it's a sale or just to let you know, Hey! I'm here!
One of the reasons we use these signs is because:
When you drive down Cottage Street, all the stores have the same front except KWHome. So everything blends in. The signs help breakup the monotony and also grab people's attention.
This topic means alot to me and I plan on attending the meeting scheduled for March 20th at 4:30. Which I would like to say is conveniently the most inconvenient time for most of the business owners in town. But, I guess you can't look a gift horse in the mouth, right?
I for one have not attacked the messenger with any of my statements. I support the fact that David has a job to do. We all know what it's like to be put in to a bad postion. But, like you said, we "chose to open our business in this town" and guess what: David CHOSE this position. He is a VOLUNTEER. No one can make you volunteer. This is something that he CHOSE to do.
So, in a way, I do feel bad that the messenger is actually a nice guy, but I really don't feel bad because in all honesty, he CHOSE to have this job.
If he doesn't want people saying bad things or reacting negatively, all it take is a simple change in words. Instead of going in and accusing someone of doing something illegal, that they had no knowledge of, he could have gone in, introduced himself and made the business aware of the law and what we,including David, are going to do about it.
He CHOSE to come in and throw around his new found "authority" to get his way. There are 2 ways of apporaching any situation. One will always have a more favorable outcome. Maybe if he wanted the business owners cooperation, he should have taken a look at how this was going and stopped and changed his course of informing the business owners.
And one more thing. I would like to solve the puzzle, Pat. The word is CONSISTANCY.
Buisiness owner-
Let's adress a few things. You bring up some VERY old & outdated laws to try to justify your position of law breaking. Say I speed down a street every day for 13 years (the length of time the signage regulations have been overlooked)and don't get caught, then one day, the town finally is able to put a cop on that street, do you think that when he pulls me over I should be able to say "hey, what's with this 'new agressive' authority you think you can just 'throw around'. I think you have a personal agenda and a 'zeal' for cars" Doesn't make much sense does it? Seems to me, you have been enjoying 13 years of breaking the law with no consequenses, no confiscated signs etc. Say Mr. Gardner decided to step down and another sign enforcer took the job. His job would still be to enforce the signage law. Would Clay Crow and Possie try just as hard to smear the next guy too? This is especially ridiculous when you consider that Mr. Gardner is NOT currently fining or confiscating and being very fair about giving you all your chance to get this resolved, it seems he wants this resolved as well. For the record, I feel bad for you too. You can say that I'm sadly mistaken, but I'm not- the crux of your position is after all- you want someone who's job it is to enforce the towns signage laws not to do their job, period. You can't wiggle out of that. If "all you are tying to do" is get the laws changed, then good for you, do it. I realize you have never personally attacked the sign enforcer in your posts, and I never said you did. And as far as Consistancy goes... that's what started this whole thing, (thank you for bringing this up!)when a business owner actually did what he was supossed to do by trying to legally obtain permission for his sign (silly him!), which was denied b/c of the current laws, he cited that many other business owners use these signs illegally- so now where does that leave the ZBA? Should we expect that business owner to now just go ahead and do it anyway b/c everyone else has been? FYI, I do not have a problem with sidewalk sandwhich board signs. I think (some of them) look nice. Then again, I'm not in a wheelchair, not on crutches, and not responsible for sidewalk snow removal except for in front of my house. I am (not yet) a business owner but would consider it being in Easthampton. There is disagreeing with something, and then there is embelishing stories and trying to bring up stuff to scare people that would not happen. "Does this mean no more fishing Derby signs?" OMG!*gasp!
"It's looking like you will need a permit to put your name on a glass door". Don't be foolish. Of course not. You can try again and again to chane the pretext of this matter, but in the end, it will always be the same. SEV is indeed a valid posistion appointed by the town to ENFORCE signage law and approved by the town's mayor. Are you going to call the Mayor a fanatical sign zealot as well? Didn't think so.
Hi there Valley Resident!
So,the first thing I want to say is that yes, the laws I brought up are indeed VERY old and outdated. I did that for a reason. I brought up that point because it shows that some laws are just absurd.
Second, I am NOT by any means trying to get away with something illegal. I DO support the SEV believe it or not. I feel that this is a job like any other. David just happens to have that job and he has to deal with consequences of enforcing the law per his job. But I do know he has infact threatened business owners with inspections and fines and confiscation.
Your example of speeding is not the point I was trying to make. The point is to try to have this law changed,right? Right.
If you KNOWINGLY are breaking the law then by all means you should be held accountable.
But we business owners DID NOT KNOW we were breaking any laws.
I would gladly accept a ticket if I was speeding in a marked zone. That's plain and simple.
What you are arguing is that we are all taking part in a huge illegal ring of sandwhich board signs. You do realize that this is what we are talking about, right?
A sign! Some with chalk, some with marker, some fancy and some home made.
If Clay or anyone else knew out right they were doing something illegal by supplying these signs then shame on them! But I fear that they along with the rest of Easthampton, were not aware of this law.
Let's get this straight. I support the fact that there is an SEV. I do support the fact that this is a law. I do support the fact that there are some rediculous laws that need to be changed and this is one of them. I will be taking the day off of work (with out pay mind you) to go to this meeting. I do think that EVERYONE should follow the same rules. I do feel that the SEV should be consistant in enforcing and not making exceptions which he has done.
David gave most of the businesses a hand out saying that we can have our signs until after this meeting and I am appreciative of that. Thankyou for that David.
To a business owner -
You could not possibly know that I "infact threatened business owners with inspections and fines and confiscation" because I have not threatened anybody with inspections or confiscation. The person who the source of that propoganda is not being truthful about this. I also take strong exception to your statement that "the SEV should be consistant in enforcing and not making exceptions which he has done". I'm not aware of any such exceptions. Please provide examples.
This is outrageous! The town has bigger problems than signs. I once complained to the Chamber of Commerce over the loss of our cool, telephone pole mounted Christmas luminaries. Their excuse, "they weren't part of the new image we are trying to create for Easthampton". Now this? Both the sandwich signs and the telephone pole mounted luminaries are very small town, very American, which we are. Also, they(the sandwich signs)are very effective. For example, I once saw a ad on one outside of Ralphine's on Main St. stating "Wi-Fi Here". I've never been there before. However, I did go there once with my PowerBook to go online. While there I ordered some food, and found it to be quite good. All all because I read the sign outside the building. Also, Easthampton relies heavily on small, independent stores to keep it on the map. Take away their signs, you take away their business. Take the business, the stores close. The stores close, the town looses even more revenue. I say to the town, Grow Up! Why fuss around with signs when we should be doing things like finding ways to raise money to replace our aging, outdated public school buildings, or maybe trying to get communications companies to compete for business in town. I live out in the "old plains" and go online via dial up, and that's because the only other option is Charter Communications' cable access, which I think is over priced for the service.
Nicky D's, Bety Duprey
I was visited by the "sign enforcer" a couple weeks ago on a Saturday (my busiest day) he enformed me that he just happened to be driving by and noticed my flags and my baloons and felt that they fell under the catagory of being in violation. I laughed! BALOONS?? (He drove by Cernak's and must of closed his eyes because they have the same)
I explained to him that for 25 years this year I have been fighting to bring busines to Easthampton, and have to be open 7 days a week in order to do that. I then asked him to leave.
If this is a violation and such an imporant law to enforce then all holiday decorations are going to be Ban, any tag sale posters Ban, any lost kiten signs Ban, property for sale signs Ban, special events Ban.etc. I think that in a small town when you give someone power that has never had that POWER they go a litle POWER CRAZY. Having a business is a very difficult, tiring, consuming task in todays economy. Our city government needs to wake up and put the energy into bringing more business owners in not push away the ones we have. See you at the meeting on March 20th.
In response to comments by Bety Duprey -
The problem signs at your location were the 2 vertical banner flags located next to the roadway. At the time, they were placed in a way that did not observe the minimum setback as stated in the current regulations. I related to you through conversation that a few evenings prior, a vertical banner flag of the same type and size displayed by the Mobil station down the street had blown down into the roadway (Rt.10) forcing cars to drive into the oncoming lane to navigate around it. Indeed, Cernak also had at least 2 of the same kind of signs on display but well within the regulation setback. Again, this is another situation where it’s not about the type, size, or content of the sign but where the sign is placed. The regulations do require setbacks in most zones. I believe this regulation is more about safety than aesthetics. I can’t say that I remember conversing with you about balloons, though I might have. If I did, it would have been in the context of regulations that need clarification. Section 10.06 ‘Prohibited Signs’ lists “tethered balloon signs” as one type of prohibited sign. It may seem obvious to some that this is not referring to a bunch of common balloons displayed in a way so as to attract attention to a business. But along with the definition of ‘sign’ in the bylaws and the absence of definition, size constraints, etc. concerning ‘tethered balloons’, it becomes less obvious. In my view, and from an enforcement perspective, it’s not ok to say we all know what we’re talking about when it comes to displaying tethered balloons. The lack of specificity in the regulations on this leaves open many possibilities of how the use of tethered balloons to attract attention to a business could manifest. I believe that this part of the regulations is currently not viable for enforcement which is why you were not asked to remove any balloons you may have had next to the roadway. You were asked, not forced, to remove the vertical banner signs next to the roadway from within the required setback. I did notice that within a couple days you had done so. Thank you. I believe that that small piece of the roadway is now a bit safer. I also left you with a copy of the sign regulations. If you take the time to read them you will see that all of the other signs you have concerns about are not threatened at all unless they are displayed in a way that is clearly inconsistent with the current bylaws.
Easthampton Signs – Talking Points 3-10-08
1. In my humble opinion, the main issue now facing us is about signs (temporary, portable, or permanent) posted on “Public” property. Specifically, does the City have the authority to prohibit any use of public spaces? Probably only if it is prohibited by the consent of the community.
2. Community use of public property is an ancient and well-established right in the U.S., going back to the nightly stockade of domestic animals on town commons for security, access to public buildings, marketplaces, places of assembly, public wells, public parking, pedestrian and vehicular ways and routes of travel, routing of public and commercial utilities, etc. Notable examples of signs and advertising in public places include men carrying sandwich signs, street peddlers with carts, delivery vehicles and taxis, vocal advertising by sidewalk vendors, street-spanning banners -- all well-established historic traditions.
3. We argue that the community and the participation of the citizen forms the constitutional basis for democratic government, which is usually defined as “… of the people, by the people, for the people”. The community, not the government or the administration, owns and controls its public spaces, and has the pre-eminent right to determine and regulate the manner of their usage and access, as well as the enforcement of its regulations. This is why Easthampton citizens are interested in the present debate over current sign regulations, which arguably do not meet the needs of many businesses as well as the public in general, and need to be modified.
4. Signs are indisputably the primary and most cost-effective means of guidance, communication and advertising in public use. Signs are vitally important for traffic control and traffic safety, for quickly connecting people with destinations and valuable information of all kinds. Signs help us with our shopping, travel, emergency evacuations, community events, deliveries, meetings, political campaigns, and so on. Without adequate signs, our modern society and economy would be badly crippled.
5. Many studies have been done in recent years, by government and academic institutions, to determine the role of signs in public safety, partly because it has been argued that signs – too many, too large, too crowded, too highly-illuminated, moving, etc. – could cause traffic accidents and endanger the public safety. No study has ever proved a link between signs and increased risk to the public safety. On the contrary, studies have shown that the lack of sufficient, adequate, visible signage in fact can cause driver confusion, disorientation, accidents and injuries.
6. Other equally-reputable studies have determined that adequate and visible signs are essential to the survival and success of businesses, and that poor signage is a key factor in business failure. The economic activity, vitality and prosperity of a community are also directly related to its permissive or over-restrictive regulation of signage. In commercial zones, businesses themselves should have the right to reasonably determine and agree on a set of regulations suitable for their signage, and appropriate for their communication with the public with maximum effect and efficiency. Businesses in the collective should be allowed and respected for their ability to draft, and support the enforcement of such regulations.
7. We recognize the valid issue of poor sign design (which like a run-down house in an up-scale neighborhood lowers nearby values as well as its own image) and argue that there are several remedies available to the community, such as design review boards, funded subsidies for design work and/or better signs, etc. We believe that the corollary issue of “landscape clutter” is only valid in the context of poor design.
8. We argue and propose that in Easthampton, the community is perfectly suited and able to (1) write better sign regulations to meet its practical needs, in particular for temporary/portable and way-finding signs (2) devise a new system of self-enforcement for such regulations which will (a) reduce the “burden of government” on taxpayers, (b) transfer permitting and enforcement (especially of temporary signs) from a central (City) authority to a neighborhood-based, volunteer function, and (c) allow for flexibility and periodic modification to meet changing needs as the community and the neighborhoods see fit. A positive side effect of such a system would be to encourage more active citizen involvement in the day-to-day “work” (meaning shared chores, activities, communication, goals and visioning) of the community. In a larger sense, such a system would facilitate “democracy” (including basic education, leadership training, consensus-building, responsible delegation & exercise of authority, etc.) in our community at the grass-roots level, more effectively than many other devices.
Just a few points for consideration ….
Just an average citizen and E'ton homeowner here with no financial interest in the issue...
I view sandwich signs on sidewalks as a sign of a vibrant business district. Does anyone really prefer the alternative of clear sidewalks and emply storefronts??
Of course there need to be some limits on the sizes and numbers of signs, but I see no reason for a blanket policy that impedes a small business owner's ability to generate revenue. This seems to fly directly in the face of efforts to position Easthampton as a "business-friendly" town.
If the law currently prohibits this then the law should be changed, simple as that. I'll vote for people who support this and against those who don't.
The following are personal and unofficial notes that may be helpful to the average citizen in preparing for the Forum Thursday March 20 4:30pm at City Municipal Building
To the best of my recollection,
The EDIC (Economic Development and Industrial Committee) in planning the agenda for the upcoming Forum on Sign Regulations, has collectively agreed on the following:
1. The agenda will include (a) a historical overview of how the existing sign regulations came to be, by City Planner Stuart Beckley, (b) hearing of attendees' concerns and issues on current and future sign regulations and enforcement, and (c) formation of a committee to develop new and improved sign regulations.
2. Recognizing the emotional and often heated nature of the recent debate on this topic,the EDIC is concerned that the tone of the Forum and presentations be as much as possible factually based and constructive, focusing on the objective issues and avoiding subjective personal attacks.
3. The EDIC wishes all interested parties to know that ALL are welcome, encouraged to attend and speak freely within these guidelines, without hesitancy, fear of intimidation or threat of reprisal from anyone in "authority".
4. A large public turnout and plenty of constructive input will ensure that this Forum results in a much better set of sign regulations for our community.
5. As usual in such forums, a marker board will be used to note down public comments and suggestions, to facilitate reference by the hoped-for new "Committee".
6. The EDIC plans to meet the day before the Forum to make final preparations; I would welcome any posted comments or useful suggestions on the format or agenda prior to that planning session.
Thanks in advance! DM
Post a Comment