Confusion – NRH Style!
By Ron
West
In an effort to “beautify”
our city, a couple of years ago, the City Council attempted to effectively
outlaw pole signs in the City of
When it became apparent that
the ordinance did not prohibit pole signs across the city and that the actions
of Code Enforcement were indeed not supported by the ordinance, one of the
assistant city managers “added a footnote” to a table that contained specific
language to outlaw such signs. There
were no hearings, and no public input allowed for this ordinance change that
occurred at tonight’s city council meeting.
The following is a report
from Councilwoman Nancy Bielik who has done extensive research of this issue
In 2002, the council
decided they didn't want any more pole signs in the city. Their (Staff or
Attorney?) idea of how to go about that was to simply delete the section of the
rules that regulated pole signs (height, size, etc.) and say that made them not
allowed. They did not put pole signs in the section that lists signs that
are not allowed. In the sign rules there is a chart of allowable signs.
Imagine, they left pole
signs in the chart, the reference to the deleted section of the code, and said
a permit was required for a pole sign. What they did in fact was to
remove all regulations of pole signs that were outside the Freeway Overlay
Zone.
When a business went in
for a permit for their pole sign, they were charged a $100 permit fee, then the permit was denied. That
denial made the fee non refundable. The only place to appeal was
to the sign review board, the council, and required a $500 fee. The
council would then demand that they show a hardship, which is not required by
the sign rules, and deny the permit. Our business owners were paying a
total of $600 and getting nothing.
In fact, there is a very
specific state law that governs what the city can and cannot do in regards to
signs. We appear to have violated several sections of that law.
State law says we can regulate the signs and demand that they be removed, but
we have to follow certain rules. We must have a Municipal Sign Board with
specific members, not the council. We must have a plan to reimburse the
owners of the signs, and the funds available to do so. We must make a
list of all signs we declare as non conforming and
submit that list to TAD so the property owners' valuations can be adjusted
downward because of the non conformity.
The city of
NRH has no Municipal
Sign Board, no payment plan, no list submitted to TAD. City staff says
the city does not require removal of signs that would be subject to the
law. However, there is a section of the law that states that if the city
has a rule that would make the sign ineffective for it's
intended purpose, then it is treated as a removal.
These rules would apply
to certain businesses with which we might all be familiar: Mobley's Car
Wash, It's Your Floor, Hammer's Bar B Q, the car repair shop with the tarp over
the sign, and I'm sure many more.
These laws are contained
in
We have given our
business owners no recourse under Chapter 216 because they must follow specific
steps in order to appeal a permit denial. The first step is an appeal to
the Municipal Sign Board, and we don't have one. Therefore, it appears
that our businesses are stymied in trying to fight, or to be compensated.
If, however, a business
does take the city to court, Mr. Staples would be the counsel for the city, and
he wrote the bad ordinance.
The footnote the city added
to the chart Monday night says pole signs are permitted. The footnote
reads: "Pole signs located in these districts must be located within the
boundaries of the Freeway Overlay Zone per Section 2-M. Pole signs
located outside the Freeway Overlay District are prohibited unless part of a
major development per Section 13-A-4."
Please understand, Section
2-M does not say pole signs must only be located within the Freeway Overlay
Zone. It simply regulates signs that are in that area. Section
13-A-4 does not allow any Pole Signs in major developments. In fact, it
prohibits them.
The bottom line of all of
this is that the City has been charging small business owners for a pole sign
permit then denying the permit and keeping the money. Depending on the persistence of the business
owner this could be $100 or $600. Since
there was not Sign Review Board as called for by State Law, the business owners
had no recourse to recover their money.
The City
Council’s 5 to 2 vote to add the footnote Monday night – while Mayor Trevino
would not permit real questions on the ordinance – appear to be a defacto
admission of guilt for the actions of the Code Enforcement people over the past
two years.
Since Mr. Staples stands to
gain by additional legal fees from potential litigation, shouldn’t he excuse
himself from advising the city on this matter?
Prior to Monday nights meeting, I sent the following e-mail to each member
of the City Council and to the City Manager:
Dear Mayor &
Council Members,
It has come to my attention that you are intending to modify the existing city
sign ordinance in order to
bring regulation of all pole signs into the ordinance. As the ordinance
is currently written, pole signs
outside 200 feet from the 820 corridor are not regulated.
If you follow through with this action, the city is admitting wrong doing by
all code enforcement personnel
since the original ordinance was written. It is a written acknowledgment
of wrongdoing. This action
is on the consent agenda to avoid public exposure but I hope that it will not
remain on the consent agenda.
It would seem a wiser course of action for the city council to openly announce
hearings regarding changes
to the sign ordinance to allow for public input. It is
also appears that, the base sign ordinance is in violation
of existing state laws since the city has not provided for
the required board. As the ordinance is
written, the
city
can still claim that the code enforcement personnel have been mistakenly
enforcing a wrongful
interpretation of the ordinance and can be instructed to
cease such efforts pending open hearings and
modifications
to the sign ordinance. This would seem to be a better defense of their
actions than putting
written proof of the enforcement of a non existent ordinance
on public record.
The attempt to "cover up" illegal activities by code enforcement
personnel enforcement of non-existent
ordinance
regulations will be confirmed by your proposed actions and the city will be
liable for all signs
removed
in the interim by the defacto admission of guilt by
your actions. While Mr. Staples might enjoy
this
position due to ever more fees for himself, outside legal council might be
warranted for review prior
to consideration of this "modification" or
"clarification" or whatever you call it. Mr. Staples
stands
to personally gain by
advising you to pass this change.
It is my hope that there is some semblance of common sense that will prevail in
this matter to avoid making
a really bad situation for
our city much worse. This email is neither pro nor con pole signs.
It is intended
only
to suggest a wiser course of action than what appears to be planned.
Regards,
Ron C. West
They did it anyway – even
after admitting that the ordinance was “confusing”.