Illegal Village Signs – 8/3/09 followup
As of last Thursday, the Pierson signs at Sutherland and Monroe had come down but the Brizee sign was still up. As per the Village, the responsible employee is on vacation and won’t be back until Monday.
Since the Trustees get notified about a complaint, well the Pierson signs are gone.
My intent was just to mention the Village temporary signs before going on to Town temporary signs but there is more. My photos, the property lines as shown on the County mapping site (http://www.mappingmonroe.org/mmb)/ and the Village Code ( go to the Village website http://www.villageofpittsford.org/; use the link in the first paragraph, enter 168-6 as the section number you want to look at) indicate that as of last Thursday you would be hard pressed to find a legal real estate sign anywhere in the village!
Take the signs on the south side of Monroe east from Main to the bank. these include the for rent sign near the corner as well as several for lease/sale signs further east.
Blue line is emphasizes property line
Click on the image to see it blown up or go to the mapping site and look for yourself.
The property line is flush with the buildings, not out towards the sidewalk.
What is going on with code enforcement in the Village? If you understand, please comment below. I don’t have a clue.
And this is a newly revised ordinance as of 4-28-2009!
That for sale sign on the north side of Monroe further east- within the right of way and with the additional part on top, my estimate is that it is over the four square feet limit. The signs along Jefferson are apparently all in the right of way. Shoen Place – Flour Mill for rent sign is legal since the property goes essentially across the street but with the one on the grain tower, there are two signs on the parcel with only one permitted.
Pittsford Dairy has a temporary sign most days between the sidewalk and the curb, in the right of way.
While the Village Zoning Board of Appeals can allow exceptions, it looks like most temporary signs in the village don’t meet code.
Then there are the contractors signs allowed by 168-6 A(3). My guess is the intent of the new law was that these should be set back 10 feet, too, but the law doesn’t read that way. In any case they should be on the property being worked on, not in the right of way and certainly not in the right of way down at the corner.
The ones I saw last week didn’t seem to comply except for the one at Danielle’s which might and I mean might not be in the right of way. And whose house was being painted a few weeks back by the painter that had a sign at Monroe and Washington?
If these signs are gone or more legally placed by the time you look, great! But don’t let anyone claim they weren’t there – I have the pictures to prove it.