Ms.
Betty Waller
Waller
& Stewart, LLP
201
Re: Your Letter Dated
Dear
Ms. Waller:
Mr.
Bill Coleman, Town Manager, has received and will respond separately to your
appeal on behalf of Fairway Outdoor Advertising and Elizabeth C. Nowell Family Limited Partnership. I am responding to a number of the extraneous
matters you raise in those appeal letters.
You
met with Ricky Barker and Chris Simpson last year to discuss this matter. You have met with Chris Simpson and me. You have also contacted Town Council members,
have communicated with the Town Attorney separately, and have spoken to Council
members in private and at public Council meetings about this matter. In every communication with Town staff, we
have clearly expressed the Town’s position in this matter as outlined below.
Billboards
have been prohibited in the Town of
However,
it is the policy of the Town to encourage and, to the maximum extent
practicable, require that all signs within the Town be brought into
compliance with the requirements of the LDO.
Further, under
Signs or
signage which meet the definition of a pole sign (including billboards)
in this Ordinance are considered to be nonconforming, and shall be removed or
replaced with signage which conforms to the requirements of this Ordinance no
later than July 1, 2006. Existing lawfully-placed signs associated with an
approved Uniform Sign Plan shall be exempt from this provision. Owners of
record for such signs shall be notified of the nonconformity via mailed notice.
(emphasis added)
This ordinance
provision required pole signs and billboards to be removed or replaced with
conforming signs no later than
The Town
believes it has taken all actions regarding this matter in accordance with the
law. You appear to take the position
that your client’s sign is two separate signs: a billboard that could somehow
have been remedied prior to July 2006 to make it conforming, and a pole sign, which
you claim your client could have eliminated and brought into compliance. This claim is without merit. For many years, pole signs and billboards
have been nonconforming signs. Repairs
or replacement of nonconforming signs beyond $1,000 or 50% of the replacement
value of the sign would not have been permitted. Your client would not have been able to get a
permit to replace such nonconforming signs.
You claim the
town’s purported ‘unequal treatment’ somehow prejudiced your clients. This is also not true. Because of your client’s type of sign, there
was no replacement option of which the Town was, or is, aware.
You claim the
Town Council “has not responded to
Fairway’s specific requests for assistance in the design of an acceptable
replacement structure for its Billboard or its formal request, pursuant to
Section 12.3.1 (C) for approval of a digital, high definition ‘Billboard
Communication Center’ as an Unlisted Use as provided in Section 5.1.5, or
otherwise respond (sic) to Fairway’s attempts to obtain the necessary
permission from TOC to modify its Billboard in a manner that brings its
supporting structure into compliance with the LDO.”
Your request for
an ‘Unlisted Use’ was discussed in your meeting with Mr. Barker and Ms.
Simpson, and they believe it was clear in that meeting that such a procedure
was not available. If you believed that
“unlisted use” was a viable option, the burden was on you to make the
appropriate application to me, providing the information set forth in “Criteria
for Approving Unlisted Uses” in Section 12.3.1(C) upon which I could make my
determination. Raising such a
possibility during “Public Speaks Out,” if that is what you claim to have done,
is not sufficient application under the Cary LDO. Nevertheless, for your benefit at this time,
I will reiterate that I do not believe the “unlisted use” route to be an option
as the LDO clearly provides that uses are prohibited unless expressly
permitted, and billboards and pole signs are expressly prohibited and otherwise
provided for in the ordinance.
Finally, as to
your allegations concerning Council not responding to your requests for
assistance, the Town’s LDO is very specific about the procedures available for
making formal application for approvals.
To my knowledge, no such formal applications have been made by you. Ms. Simpson advised you in a letter dated
In conclusion,
the Town believes its enforcement actions concerning your client’s pole sign
(billboard) has been fair and consistent with the law. We have made every attempt to meet with and
fairly respond to you. If you or your client have concerns about ordinances that were adopted, or
decisions made, the appropriate method of raising these concerns is by appeal
to the appropriate review body. If you
or your client desire Council to consider an LDO text amendment or to avail
yourselves of other processes available under the LDO, there are clearly
specified procedures to follow.
Sincerely,
Jeffery G. Ulma, AICP
Planning
Director
cc: Bill Coleman, Town Manager
Chris Simpson, Town Attorney
Ricky Barker, Associate Planning
Director