LOCKPORT: Shop owner questions bureaucrats’ take on sign law

By Joyce Miles<br><a href="mailto:joyce.miles@lockportjournal.com">E-mail Joyce</a>

LOCKPORT — An auto repair shop owner seeking the planning board’s direction on legal signage walked away from Monday’s meeting empty handed.

The city building inspection department directed Scott Herald, owner of Canalside Express Lube and Service, 55 Lock St., to obtain planning board approval of two small, “incidental” signs — basically, plaques on his building broadcasting “Castor oil” and “Interstate” — even though the new sign law doesn’t require he obtain a permit to hang them.

In addition, Inspector Jason Dool has advised Herald that lettering on glass surfaces on the front of his building does not comply with the law. He’s been warned the advertising on a standalone window and two overhead garage doors constitute violations and if he doesn’t downsize or remove the messages, zoning charges could be forthcoming. The lettering on the garage doors spells out the types of service Canalside Lube offers, such as “alignment.”

Herald says he’s caught between the city’s old and new sign laws; his business opened in September 2008, while the law was being overhauled, and some of what he imagined would be suitable signage now invites attack by code enforcers.

Herald’s attorney, Vic Orzechowski, says the city’s on shaky ground trying to regulate what’s in the windows of Canalside Express. In one portion, he points out, the new law says no more than 50 percent of a window panel can be covered in advertising; while another portion excludes glass within a door frame from window area subject to the 50 percent limit.

That would appear to make Canalside’s garage doors safe haven for lettering of any size, he said; but supposing it didn’t, another section of the law suggests Dool is overcounting the “covered” area of glass. Dool’s measure includes the space between and around letters, where Orzechowski says the law discounts it, since there’s nothing behind the letters except clear glass.

“This ordinance is like a sieve,” Orzechowski said. “I’m inclined to recommend (Herald) take the ticket and we’ll fight it out in front of (Housing Court Judge Tom) DiMillo.”

Herald filed an application to meet with the planning board over the incidental signs on his building. He paid a $25 fee to get a spot on the agenda and openly sought the board’s advice regarding how to conform with the law that it wrote last year.

“You’re the ‘sign guys.’ Can you tell me how I can advertise my business (legally)?” he said.

As with measuring glass coverage, Herald said, on the topic of incidental signs he feels he’s being subjected to building inspectors’ personal interpretations of the sign law. Dool acknowledged the law doesn’t require Herald to obtain a permit to hang the Castor oil and Interstate signatures on his building, but he also reads it as saying the planning board should approve all signs, so he advised Herald to pay a visit and get the required signoff.

Section 190-143 of the law, “other permitted signs,” says in part: “Up to two incidental signs may be attached ... to a building wall ... . Such signs are restricted to hours of operation, credit cards accepted, official notices of service required by law, or trade affiliations. ...”

Herald asked whether the board would expect him to obtain its approval every time he changes a trade affiliation and therefore an incidental sign; say, for instance, going with Mobil oil instead of Castor. Commissioner Julie Muscato indicated that’s the board’s expectation, to have a say on every new sign.

Orzechowski suggests that’s overreaching on the board’s part. He interprets “incidental” to mean “otherwise provided for,” meaning so long as the trade affiliation signs meet size and placement requirements no further review should be required.

“If it’s allowed in the ordinance, they can’t stop it,” he said.

Commissioners were silent on the subject of allowable window coverage, deferring to Dool and planning board Attorney Matt Brooks — who argued the lettering on Canalside’s windows is excessive and can be made legal only by zoning variance.

The application fee for a hearing with the zoning board exceeds $100.

Herald says he’ll file, if for no other reason than to get a clear indication, finally, what he can and can’t do to advertise his business on site.

“Who is deciding how this law gets interpreted? At the moment it’s Jim McCann, Jason Dool, all the building inspectors — and they all have a different interpretation. I think it should be the people who wrote it, but obviously they’re not touching it,” he said.

In other business, commissioners approved, unanimously and without comment, the replacement sign panels proposed by Dan Pontrello Tax Service, 231 S. Transit St.

Owner Farideh Chubineh relocated the business earlier this year and had signs erected at its new site without board approval and a sign permit. She was summoned to city court twice for zoning violations and settled the case partly by agreeing to cover the signs until she obtained the required city approvals. The signs were covered with black vinyl since early March.

Text Only