by Andrew Getty
Who knew the sign ordinance would rise above other Code Office issues, seemingly, including those dealing with life safety, health and water quality, and assistance to numerous individuals with their major home projects.
But signs are important to many, whether they be businesses or opponents of sign clutter.
After receiving many comments, both complaints and kudos, it is clear there will be a wide range of opinions on the use of short-term signage.
Although there are those who think small temporary signs placed everywhere is critical to the success of special events, there is an equal, less vocal group that thinks the town and our roads look and feel better without all those signs.
Yes, this Code Officer did instruct his assistants to remove any sign inappropriately placed in any road way, as described in a recent Weekly Adirondack news report. Many signs were collected, probably over one hundred. And communication has begun with some businesses regarding their signage on buildings and/or free standing.
I recently received written musings and suggestions from a community member that follows the issue, yet gains nothing from any sign’s existence or absence.
—
This individual said…
“People seem annoyed or worse about sign removals by the code enforcement officer, a crabby-pants who is unsupportive of business and the average joe…
“To understand the issue, here or anywhere, it seems you have to go back to the beginning. During the six days of creation, God looked around and decided all was good… But soon thereafter, man started to do things that would give rise to the word ‘tacky.’ As The Garden became more densely populated, tackiness proliferated in direct proportion. Flash-forward to the mid-1960s, when the good-and-decent bulk of the mainstream citizenry—despite their profound reverence for individual rights—began demanding, for the sake of the greater good, that ‘tacky’ be brought under control. Ordinances were created and, when self-policing proved a dismal failure, the governing officials decided an enforcement authority was necessary, and thus created. “Should we abolish that enforcement office today in 2015? That is the question. Have past decades proven self-policing, though flawed, to be the preferred method of compliance? That’s fine, let’s go back to self-policing, no problem. And let’s for the sake for all that’s good and decent let our long-suffering, interminably beleaguered Code Enforcement officer off the hook, to return to the peaceful ranks of private existence.
“The alternative would be to look at the ordinances he is enforcing, find the ones we don’t like, and rally the Town Board to strike them down. The Code Enforcement Officer can’t enforce ordinances that don’t exist, nor does he have an interest in doing so. So, let’s change those suckers.
“Or, how about this? Why don’t we create a permit process that allows temporary exemption from what would otherwise be considered a violation? How about the Planning Board be given the authority to weigh permit applications that, if approved, would allow signs to be installed at 5 o’clock Friday morning in places that would ordinarily constitute violations, as long as they are removed by 9 a.m. Monday morning?
“That seems to be something people want, some of them; maybe even many of them.
“In the meantime, maybe Andy Getty should be not only the enforcer, as his job description requires, but also chief advocate for the common man—everyone from the roadside berry seller to the local fire department…
“Whenever somebody complains about a sign removal, I, as code officer, would tell them that, although I empathize and may even AGREE with their position, my hands are tied by the laws of this Town; that I would be delinquent in not enforcing our laws as written and adopted by our Town Board, which is SOLELY responsible for their existence. But again, having said that, I do understand your position and am willing to ADVOCATE on your behalf to the Town Board, asking them to consider a resolution that would allow your sign.
“If the Town Board agrees, we can high-five and leave that sign untouched. But again, the decision is the Board’s, theirs alone, and I am not authorized to defy their directive as chiseled in local law. It’s just one of those things.”
—
While writing this article, it has become clear that this office should take a more active role in seeking change.
However that role must be inclusive of all opinions and not be one-sided.
Maybe someday we will have that perfect sign ordinance. An ordinance that everyone likes; one that supports our businesses, the not-for-profits, our Fire Department and even supports those who do not like sign clutter; who truly believe that fewer signs are better.
Until that time, this code office will continue on the same path.
Trying to balance our time with all the regulatory requirements we administer.
Not forgetting our mission of life safety… the administration of building and fire codes.
The NYS Department of State says it quite simply regarding a code officer’s job… clearly we are not first responders; we are not trained in firefighting, protocol on a scene or even equipment operation… but we are clearly “first preventers.”
Hopefully, every set of plans reviewed for building permits, and inspections of the same, is testimony to that.
Let’s keep the issue of signs in perspective.