Archive: News

The latest twist in an isolated neighborhood disagreement that blew up into a major issue for the Town of Lansing resulted in the failure to pass a moratorium on new signs in the town.  Concerns about the length of the moratorium, its impact on attracting new business to Lansing, and impediments to replacing damaged existing signs were not satisfactorily addressed for some residents attending Wednesday's Town Board meeting.

"We're working very hard on a sign ordinance and it will not take six months to get it done," Lansing Town Supervisor Kathy Miller said.  "So everybody understands, if we don't have a moratorium and we don't have a sign law then anybody can put up anything. If you're happy with that, then so be it.  We're doing it only to protect the Town while we don't have a sign law."

Miller said a sign law is nearly complete and would be passed by other committees and the Planning Board for input.  After that it would need a public hearing before the Board can vote it into law.  If the moratorium law is any gauge, however, that assessment may be optimistic.

Former Councilwoman Connie Wilcox said a moratorium is not friendly to business, something the Town government has been trying to be in recent years.  Wilcox said a fair sign ordinance that would be beneficial to existing Lansing businesses should be passed as soon as possible and should have a provision to 'grandfather' existing signage.

"Given the climate the Lansing Town Board seems to be creating for small business I am submitting a petition in support of small business in Lansing and the possible creation of a small business coalition to assure fairness and equality for all businesses in the town," Wilcox said.  "We urge you not to pass the sign moratorium.  This would inhibit any new business that would wish to establish in Lansing and would not have the option of signage for six months."

From the beginning the Board has been split on the need for a moratorium, and action on it was delayed for about two months.  Councilman Robert Cree argued in early March that the board should be concentrating on an actual law, rather than wasting time on a moratorium law.


The flap began when Craig Christopher erected a small LED sign in front of Cayuga Signs, his business that has been tucked into a mostly residential neighborhood on Asbury Road for over 30 years.  Bob and Caroline Rasmussen, whose Asbury Road home is near the sign, presented the Town Board with a petition in February to have the sign removed that was signed by 44 neighbors.  The Rasmussens have addressed the board several times since then, citing safety issues and saying the sign will negatively impact their property value.

In the course of responding to the petition the Board discovered that the Town has no sign law at all.  A previous sign ordinance had been inadvertently repealed from Town law when Lansing zoning was updated in 2005.  In the mistaken belief that there was an active ordinance the Town issued sign permits until officials realized this year there is no law actually authorizing it to do so.  Christopher went through the required steps and received a permit from the Town before erecting his sign.  Additionally he has lit the sign only from 8am to 5pm, Monday through Friday and from 8am to noon on Saturdays, reduced the brightness to 70%, and set the message timer to three minutes to reduce distractions to neighbors and drivers.

The Board scrambled to put together a law, and to draft another law that would impose a six month moratorium on new signs.  Town Supervisor Kathy Miller has insisted the moratorium would not be in force for the entire six months.  As soon as a sign law is passed the moratorium would end.  But Christopher said Wednesday that the draft law has a long way to go before it should be passed.

"There are  lot of things that need to be addressed," Christopher said.  "If you're going to do it you might as well do it right.  The Northeast Sign Association Board wants to give you a guide."

Christopher said the current draft differentiates sign requirements by business category when a more standard practice is to base sign size on the size of the building.  But Christopher said he was hesitant to participate on the committee creating the law until he receives positive assurance he can keep his sign.  Miller was very receptive to Christopher's input, saying she would like him to lend his expertise to the committee that is drafting the law.

"If my sign is taken care of I'll be more than happy to do it," he said.

"It's not going to be taken down," Miller said.  "Part of the sign law that we're proposing says that for LED signs in a residential area, if you had to replace it then it would have to conform to the present ordinance.  But you won't have to replace that."

But questions were raised by Christopher's supporters about replacing the sign if a vehicle hit it or it were vandalized.  In that case the sign might not be replaceable if the new law forbids it in a particular zone.  An example was proffered of a damaged house having to conform to the most recent code when it is replaced.  Councilman Ed LaVigne said that Christopher's sign is 'not taken care of' unless he has a written document from the Town saying he can keep it and replace it with an identical sign if it is damaged.

Town Attorney Guy Krogh said it would be possible for new businesses to get a variance to erect a sign if the moratorium were passed.

"In my opinion a (variance) would be a relatively easy thing to obtain if it was a business in a business zone," said Krogh.  "If someone wanted to put up a neon Vegas-style sign in a residential zone it would be almost impossible under the use variance standard."

He said the decision would be that of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

The board's inability to produce a written guarantee that Christopher's sign can remain presented a 'Catch-22'.  While the law as currently drafted seems to protect the sign, it is only a draft and has not been passed into law.  At this stage there is no assurance the final law will effectively grandfather existing signs.  Councilwoman Katrina Binkewicz urged Christopher to help redraft the law even without assurances on the grounds that his expertise would make it a better law.

A further twist emerged later in the meeting when the Board was about to vote on enacting the moratorium.  Councilwoman Ruth Hopkins lives across the street from the sign.  Her husband has reportedly been vocal in opposition to the sign.  Two months ago Hopkins and LaVigne said that Miller had told them they must recuse themselves from any votes on the issue, Hopkins because of her proximity and opposition to the sign and LaVigne because he had spoken to Christopher about the issue.  Subsequently Krogh said that they could vote on the sign issue.  But Hopkins was uncomfortable with accusations that she has a conflict of interest.

"While I have received legal advice that I do not have a conflict of interest as defined by General Municipal Law, Article 18, nevertheless allegations of a conflict of interest have arisen," she said.  "I am not convinced that my proximity to and concern with one sign impairs my ability to consider a moratorium or a sign law generally.  Still I do believe it's very important to avoid any appearance of conflict and I will recuse myself from tonight's vote."

With Cree absent it would have taken a unanimous vote among the remain three council members to pass the law, because three votes is a quorum on a five member board.  Miller and Binkewicz voted yes, but LaVigne voted no.

"It's dead," Miller said.

When asked if a moratorium would be brought up for a vote at a future meeting she said, "We'll have to discuss it.   If enough people would like to do it again we can always bring it up again.  I think we'll have the law done relatively soon.  Let's hope that nothing happens in the meantime that we wouldn't all be OK with."

v9i19