Approval of Signs
Last August, about six weeks after being appointed to the Historic Preservation Commission, Peggy Polenberg had a sign installed on the building that she and her husband own on Warren Street, in a historic district. The sign went up without a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. When this oversight came to the attention of the Code Enforcement Office, Polenberg was issued a notice that her sign was in violation of Chapter 169 of the city code.
Not buying into the notion that Caesar's wife must be above reproach and a member of the Historic Preservation Commission should probably be aware of and comply with the laws she is charged with interpreting and administering, Polenberg and her husband canvassed the neighborhood to prove that few if any of the businesses had gotten certificates of appropriateness for their signs.
The evidence the Polenbergs collected and their argument that they had been unfairly treated seems to have had unintended, by them, consequences. In December, code enforcement officer Peter Wurster told the Historic Preservation Commission that the mayor and the city attorney had directed him to contact all businesses whose signs had gone up without benefit of review by the Code Enforcement Office or the Historic Preservation Commission to inform them that they were in violation of city code.
Word on the street is that businesses are starting to receive the "Notice of Violation" and it is causing some consternation. But that shouldn't be the case. The people who neglected to get sign permits and certificates of appropriateness when they installed their signs are simply being asked to correct the problem by doing so now. The applications for sign permits are available by contacting the Code Enforcement Office, 429 Warren Street, 828-3100. The application for a certificate of appropriateness can be downloaded from the City of Hudson website. Both the Code Enforcement Office and the Historic Preservation Commission have expressed their commitment to making this as easy and painless as possible. As HPC member Tony Thompson said in December, "Since we know there are no egregious problems [with the signs], this can be handled very efficiently."
According to this article, the City will be contacting "all businesses whose signs had gone up without benefit of review by the Code Enforcement Office or the Historic Preservation Commission to inform them that they were in violation of city code."
ReplyDeleteThis blog reported,”… the mural was mentioned a lot at the HPC meeting. It's not painted directly on the building. It's painted on a big piece of wood attached to the building. Apparently when it went up, it had a sign permit from the code enforcement office, but it never came before the HPC for approval. Everyone at the meeting, including the architect working on the project, seemed to agree that they thought it would be nice if it went away.” (http://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/2013/01/report-from-historic-preservation.html#comment-form)
HPC member Tony Thompson said in December, "Since we know there are no egregious problems [with the signs], this can be handled very efficiently." I will give him the benefit of the doubt—he must have forgotten about ‘Animalkind.’ When will the “sign” at 721 Warren Street be reviewed by the HPC?
Thanks for the clarification Carole. The way the City Code reads, it would appear this should also apply to the portable "tent signs" that many businesses set out on Warren Street. Is this your understanding?
ReplyDeleteI don't think so, Bob. My sense is that only signs that are in some way affixed to buildings are affected. The Notice of Violation reads in part: ". . . you have been found in violation of the City of Hudson Code, Chapter 244 for erecting a sign without first obtaining an "Erection Permit" pursuant to Section 244-3 of the Code, and for erecting or altering a sign in a historic district or upon a property designated as historic pursuant to Chapter 169, without obtaining a "Certificate of Appropriateness," in violation of Section 169-5 of the Code."
Delete