Archive: News

It started with a simple neighborhood disagreement.  An established, local sign company nestled on a residential street installed a small digital sign along the road.  Neighbors objected.  They asked the owner to remove the sign, which he declined to do on the grounds that it is allowable by Town law and he had obtained a permit.  He did offer to turn it off at night, which he has been doing.  But the neighbors want the sign gone.

That was the beginning of a series of events that led to a dysfunctional Town Board meeting Wednesday at which two board members were told to recuse themselves from any votes on the issue, and the remaining three found it hard to agree on whether a six month moratorium on new commercial signage is even necessary.

Bob and Caroline Rasmussen, whose Asbury Road home is across the street from the sign, presented a petition in February to have the sign removed that was signed by 44 neighbors.  Since that time they have asked for a response from the Town three more times, but were told the Board could not respond at Wednesday's town meeting.

Supervisor Kathy Miller told them Town Attorney Guy Krogh has been contacted by two attorneys asking about the incident.  He, in turn, told Miller that because of the potential for a lawsuit the board should not make any statements on the issue publicly or to any of the parties.  Se did not know who the attorneys represent.  The Rasmussens said they have not engaged an attorney, but will do so if they can find no other recourse.

Lansing currently does not have a sign law.  Town officials were unaware that there was no law until this incident brought that fact to light.  While other laws refer to a sign law, and permits have been issued in the mistaken belief that there is a law, a previous sign ordinance inadvertently repealed when Lansing zoning was updated in 2005.

Earlier in the meeting Councilman Ed LaVigne and Councilwoman Ruth Hopkins were told by Miller that they must recuse themselves from any votes on the sign moratorium and law.  Hopkins also lives on Asbury Road and has talked to neighbors about the sign.  LaVigne has spoken to Craig Christopher, owner of the sign company.  Miller said the Town Attorney advised that because of those contacts the two should be excluded from votes on the issue because of possible conflicts of interest.  LaVigne was clearly upset that he is not permitted to listen to or respond to a constituent, and was surprised that he could not vote on a new law.

That left a bare quorum of three board members including Miller, Katrina Binkewicz, and Robert Cree.  Cree argued that the board should concentrate on creating an actual law, saying the likelihood of a business wanting to erect a new sign in the time it will take to enact a law is low.  He said the board should be concentrating on an actual law, rather than wasting time on a moratorium law.  After much discussion he agreed to go forward with the moratorium.  The moratorium would be enacted for six months, but Miller says it would be lifted sooner if a sign ordinance is voted into law before that time.

The Rasmussens were outraged that town officials had not responded to their four attempts to address the issue, including an attempt to get onto the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting agenda.  ZBA members are reportedly confused by what the law actually is and are therefore unable to decide one way or the other.

Miller said she would contact the Town Attorney Thursday with questions the Rasmussens asked to be made part of the public record, and that the attorney or she would get back to them as soon as possible with whatever answers they can provide.

Meanwhile, the board picked apart the wording of the proposed moratorium law.  As originally written existing signs would not be permitted to be repaired or changed.  That language was removed.  Miller told the Rasmussens that it is possible to require existing signs to be removed even if they have been installed before a law is passed.  But she warned that even if existing signs are not 'grandfathered' new laws must provide a long period that she said could be five years before the sign must be removed.

A public hearing on a sign moratorium law was scheduled for April 17 at 6:05pm at the Town hall.  The Town is still looking for volunteers to sit on a Codes Revision Committee that will work on a sign law once the moratorium is in place.

v9i9