7/18/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

money back. He asserted the reason it has taken so long was because Planning and Zoning had some doubts about it. The definition of right-of-way in the Code has been amended since he and Kathaleen Inman had raised the issue. He recounted his version of the process and the problems he had encountered and assured the Board that if he had been given a two-day notice, he would have corrected the problem. He quoted the old definition pertaining to road rights -of -ways and cited reasons why the definition was very unclear. He added that a lot of people misunderstood, but only two were willing to stand up and fight. He asked the Board to remember that he was being penalized for something that happened when the rules were unclear. Commissioner Eggert asked for clarification whether the statement was made that the new ordinance defines right-of-way in the same way as it was being used before it was put in writing, in order to understand how staff was determining violations, and Community Development Director Bob Keating advised they were looking at the poles and sidewalks, but not necessarily the 20 feet which was put in the ordinance to provide something definite. Chairman Macht asked if Mr. Hedin had failed to respond to notification to remove his signs, and Mr. DeBlois explained that Mr. Hedin had been notified in October when signs were first observed and had complied with the notice and obtained a permit, but no other notice had been issued to him. Commissioner Adams felt that clarifying the ordinance would not solve the problem. She felt they would either have to eliminate election signs entirely or have a place for them. She felt that the present rules have only created more work for staff and what bothered her in this instance was that they had tried to comply, but still got punished while others were not. She believed signs were an incredible aggravation and it seemed to her that they were going about the solution in the wrong way, but was not sure of the correct way to do it. She did not fault staff, but predicted they would be discussing it again after the next election, and asked the other Commissioners if they agreed. Commissioner Eggert commented that she had handled it by not using signs. Commissioner Tippin commented that, with a law this vague, there was little hope of ever fairly enforcing it. Chairman Macht detected a motion forthcoming and suggested an "amnesty motion" might be in order to grant the appeal and not prejudice the law. 21 l �.. July 18, 9 1995 300A ' r:AtI" .I?