HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2013-03-20
1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
March 20, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann,
Bill King
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning;
Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planner
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:31 pm.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes from February 13, 2013 meetings:
Fred moved and Eric seconded the motion to approve the minutes with changes on page 3; all in
favor of the changes.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continued Discussion of Town Draft Revised Sign Law:
1) Pat Leary’s wording suggestion that was distributed at the January and February
meetings: Pat started with her suggestion to add some language to the Purpose and Prohibited
Sections regarding prohibiting signs that promote violence or create a threat to public health and
safety. Attorney Brock’s opinion and advice was that the proposed language was too vague and
would not be legally defensible if the Town were sued. She reiterated the case law where
“fighting words” and hate speech were not protected under the Constitution – where the speech
was aimed at a particular person, and threats were made face to face, and not just to the public at
large. Attorney Brock felt we couldn’t use any of these situations to justify banning signs that
promote violence.
The discussion went back and forth regarding how the suggested language could be considered
too vague (e.g. would “resist authority” be considered a ‘threat’? what does “promote violence”
mean?) Chairman Goodman asked planning staff if they found any other municipalities that
have prohibited hate speech in their laws. Chris responded that she only found one municipality
that prohibited sexually explicit, obscene signs, but nothing related to hate speech or threatening
public health and safety.
Staff wondered how the proposed language would be enforced. Would complaints regarding
alleged hate speech signs be interpreted by Code staff? Would the Zoning Board decide if a sign
promoted violence? This spurred a long discussion followed with more examples, questions
about billboards, etc.
Chairman Goodman asked the Committee what they thought about incorporating Pat’s proposed
language into the Sign Law. Some members thought that it might be okay to add the language
suggested for the Purpose Section, but none of the members appeared to support the idea of
adding the language to the Prohibited Section. Ultimately, the Committee decided to wait until
the Sign Law updates went to the Town Board. The Town Board could then take up the issue of
2
hate speech. In the meantime, Pat offered to check with the NYS Department of State for more
opinions and examples.
2) Exempt section, page 3: “J-Flags”: Chairman Goodman mentioned to the members that the
size of flags and the height of flagpoles are not currently addressed in the Sign Law. Chris
referred the Committee to the sheet that was included in the mail out that contained various
definitions for flags and flag poles. She then read what was in the existing law: “Flags,
emblems, or insignia of a nation, government or school, may be displayed in any district without
a permit.” Attorney Brock stated that the existing language was not content neutral, that it
treated certain government flags differently than every other kind of flags (favoring one type of
non-commercial speech over another kind of non-commercial speech). Attorney Brock also
gave a case example from a Federal District Court in NY that indicated that similar kinds of
things did not pass the strict scrutiny test. If the government interest was aesthetics or preventing
distractions to traffic, then it could be argued that governmental flags could pose just as much of
a problem in terms of aesthetics and distraction as non-governmental flags. She suggested that
we could just say “flags shall not exceed XX square feet in area” and the Town could also add
language to regulate the height of flagpoles.
Chairman Goodman suggested that flags up to certain square feet in area and flagpoles up to XX
feet in height could be exempt from the law. One COC member was more interested in
regulating the size, height and quantity of flags and flagpoles. The Committee referred to
examples of flag regulations from two municipalities that were provided in their mail out. One
of the municipalities permitted up to three flagpoles on a residential property, leading the
Committee to wonder if the Town should limit the number of flagpoles on a property as well as
the height.
After a bit more discussion, the COC decided to:
- Exempt flags up to 40 square feet in area in the aggregate, flown on one building mounted and
one freestanding flag pole. 30-foot maximum height of the freestanding pole and minimum
setback of the pole from property lines should equal the height of the pole.
- Add new language to the Regulated section of the law pertaining to flags in various zones.
- Define a flag as “any fabric or other flexible material attached to or designed to be flown from
a flagpole or similar device that symbolizes an organization, group, cause, event, activity, or unit
of government.”
- Define a flagpole as “a freestanding structure or a structure attached to a building or to the roof
of a building on a parcel on record and used for the sole purpose of displaying flags.”
3) Page 3: “N – One wall, projecting, or freestanding sign…” (where the Committee left off
last meeting): The Committee started with “N” (‘One wall, projecting, or freestanding sign…’)
on page 3, of the draft Sign Law. The comments and changes are as follows:
N – Planning staff stated the language came from the existing law as written, but that the existing
law also contained a portion that exempted “signs needed to identify the building or activities of
colleges or universities up to 24 square feet in area.” When staff reviewed this, they thought the
size seemed little too large to be exempt, so they recommended those particular size signs
become regulated, where they would require a permit instead of being exempt. The proposed
3
draft law contains revised language for “N”, still exempting signs up to 6 square feet in area that
identify the name and address of the occupants of a residence.
Staff also mentioned that the language in “S” was remarkably similar to the language in “N”, so
the staff suggestion was to combine “S” with “N.” The Committee agreed to combine the two
sections, with rewording of some of the language.
O –Committee agreed to leave as written in the draft law.
P – Committee agreed to leave as written in the draft law.
Q – Committee agreed to leave as written in the draft law.
R –Committee agreed to leave as written in the draft law.
S – Combine with “N”, and reword the language.
Staff brought up the topic of regulating cemetery entrance signs. The existing and proposed laws
do not seem to address signs at the entrance of cemeteries. Code staff would like clarification on
this. The COC decided to take up this discussion at a future COC meeting.
The Committee will start on page 4, “Temporary Signs” at the next COC meeting. Planning staff
will distribute a new draft revised law with the existing changes for the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Other Business: None.
Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for April 17, 2013.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff