I was really hoping that our city would begin to get a handle on some of this codes stuff, but I guess I was hoping for too much. By now, we are probably more familiar with our city codes than our codes department, so let's start with the following code regarding real estate signs:
"Only one (1) real estate sign for residential property shall be erected on the property for which it advertises. It shall not exceed eight (8) square feet in sign area per face."
Now, I think that we all remember this house.
The duplicate sign that was in the backyard is now in the front yard. Our codes department does not seem to notice a problem, do you???
Not only do we now allow too many signs on a piece of property, but you can pretty much choose your own size. Forget the code that states "no sign shall exceed 8 square feet in sign area per face" and put up whatever the heck you want? If I were Hometown Realty, I would probably use this sign...
That way you could put over 130 square feet of signage and just move it around from house to house during peak hours. Then, when the large movable sign is not in the front of your parking lot by Ponchos, we could all actually see our new library. (In case you missed it, the library is somewhere behind this particular sign.)
Now, I know...you think that I have some kind of personal vendetta against Charles Raines. Again, that is not the case. Hometown Realty just seems to provide ample examples for me to use. But don't worry, I have several more codes violations to spread around.
Moving along to another sign ordinance that you will all be happy to learn about.
"Directional signs, which are any off-site signs relating to the identification of another premise and its occupants and to products sold or services rendered on that premise, are prohibited."
"Generic real estate directional/open house signs shall be permitted at the entrance of the subdivision at the identification sign for said subdivision on weekends only (4:00 p.m., Friday until 8:00 a.m., Monday). Any sign erected off-premise at any other time may be impounded by the city with no prior notice to the owner."
Now class, how would we classify this particular sign? It is on Highway 31 across from Harvey Park.
Here is another photo of this area. Please note that this photo was taken around 100 yards down the street, near the Harvey Park parking lot. The arrow in the lower right hand corner show the direction of the Autumn Ridge sign (again, around 100 behind where I am standing taking this photo).
Do you all see that little arrow off in the distance several hundred yards from the sign on Highway 31? THAT is the property line of the park and Autumn Ridge. If Autumn Ridge wants to place a sign advertising new homes THAT is the legal spot to place the sign, not at the entrance to Harvey Park.
Here is an easy photo to see this...
Now let's re-visit an eyesore from a few weeks ago, and look at that city code again. First, here is the code.
"No business shall be permitted to erect more than four (4) such signs per year...The banner, pennant, flag, or streamer shall be removed after fifteen (15) days."
15 days huh?
Who is going to take control of our Codes Department at City Hall? When is Mayor Leverette, or Ken York, or our Board of Mayor and Aldermen going to start getting our Codes Department Head to enforce the policies that our BOMA hand down? Who knows, maybe in April we can start fixing some things...like the Historic Commission.
More on that later.
An amazing evening last night! It is just becoming too easy!
18 comments:
Gorilla,
Let me give you one more that I seem to keep seeing;
10.3(11) - Residential Real Estate Developments: Only one temporary (1) sign for a
residential subdivision development shall be erected at the entrance to the
subdivision. The temporary sign shall be removed after the development is
eighty percent (80%) complete. No more than two (2) permanent signs shall be
erected at each entrance to the subdivision. Said sign shall be erected when the
subdivision development is fifty percent (50%) complete. Any sign erected shall
not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area per face. All such signs shall
be set back from the public right-of-way at least six (6) feet. No off-premises
sign erected advertising the subdivision shall be placed within one thousand
(1000) feet of another sign advertising the same subdivision offered by the same
developer. All off-premises signs shall be removed after the development is
eighty percent (80%) complete.
Last time I checked, my development (Haynes Crossing) was 100% complete (definitely over 80%), yet I still see signs for my complex around the city.
Just more food for thought...
I wonder what other codes are not being enforced if a simple sign ordinance cannot be? On the other hand why would the city enforce a code against a developer?
You know, I have probably made a couple of my close friends mad by this post. That was not my intention, and I am sorry, BUT the playing field must be equal for everyone...Those willing to play by the rules, and those unwilling to play by the rules.
There still need to be rules and laws, and those laws (if they are on the books) MUST be enforced. There are many things that I wish we would change in this city, but until we do, the city staff MUST enforce the wishes of the BOMA. That is all there is to it. Our codes department does not have the authority to "pick and choose" what they will or will not enforce.
If we want to have unlimited banner signage, large real estate signs, off premesis signage for every neighborhood, etc, then go to the BOMA and get them to pass legislation making all of these things happen. Until then, play by the rules or pay the price.
As a citizen, I have to play by the rules or I am fined or thrown in jail. Everyone should be under the same assumption.
Free pub is good pub
This is BS
What is BS?
who in their right mind has time to worry about this stuff and has the time in the day to take pictures and look up codes? face it, Spring Hill is booming and it is for the better. If you don't like it, then move away right? Try getting a job or play some golf!
Anonymous said:
"who in their right mind has time to worry about this stuff and has the time in the day to take pictures and look up codes? face it, Spring Hill is booming and it is for the better. If you don't like it, then move away right? Try getting a job or play some golf!"
Is this your opinion because you are one of the lawbreakers?
I love to play golf--an honest game, where you know the rules and call them on yourself....A concept the codes dept and some citizens refuse to abide by....
nope not a lawbreaker, just a resident of Spring Hill who enjoys life and doesn't worry about how big signs are or where they are posted if they don't affect the look of the surroundings and so on...here's a rule of thumb: enjoy life while you're here, you only live once...no need to pull out rule books and codes if no one is affected by it
Anonymous 23 February, 2007 10:56,
Anonymous said:
"I love to play golf--an honest game, where you know the rules and call them on yourself....A concept the codes dept and some citizens refuse to abide by...."
Give them credit, they are just allowing unlimited mulligans.
If only politics was as friendly and relaxing as a nice game of golf...
Gorilla,
So I'm guessing the fact that the Autumn Ridge sign, mentioned in your statement on codes enforcement, is located on private property with the permission of the property owner doesn't matter? I'm sure it makes no difference to you that the private property owner, who by the way donated the land for Harvey Park, has no problem with the sign. Based on your statements/lack of knowledge, I get the feeling that you feel the rights of individual property owners to utilize there property as they see fit shouldn't apply? If so I suggest you move to Cuba otherwise I would do a little more research before posting on topics which you have limited or no knowlege.
I also notice that you did not mention the signs located directly across the street from your Autumn Ridge. If you want to bring up an example of a situation that is clearly outside the TDOT regulations not to mention Spring Hill's - how about the two (2) long standing signs in front of the GBT project on Hwy 31 that are located within the public right-of-way in clear violation of state policies.
Bet you GBT, once they are notified, removes their sign before Donnie Cameron (Autumn Ridge) does. Donnie Cameron is mad because the city would not spend $100,000.00 of taxpayer’s money to promote his subdivision. If he wanted a sign to Autumn Ridge on Main St. then he should have bought the property from the Harvey's. Instead he waits until the city builds the road and park then attempts to use the wonderful improvement to our community for his profit. Yes, he should be ashamed!
ANONYMOUS AT 25 February, 2007 12:46 SAID:
"So I'm guessing the fact that the Autumn Ridge sign, mentioned in your statement on codes enforcement, is located on private property with the permission of the property owner doesn't matter?"
THE CODE SAYS:
"Directional signs, which are any off-site signs relating to the identification of another premise and its occupants and to products sold or services rendered on that premise, are prohibited."
THE CODE DOES NOT SAY:
"Directional signs, which are any off-site signs relating to the identification of another premise are PERMITTED IF JEFF HARVEY SAYS IT IS OK TO PUT IT ON HIS PROPERTY."
I BET YOU WOULD SAY THAT IT IS OK FOR JEFF HARVEY TO ERECT A 50 FOOT BILLBOARD ON MAIN STREET, SINCE IT IS HIS PROPERTY. YOU WOULD PROBABLY WELCOME YOUR NEIGHBOR TO PUT IN A STRIP CLUB BECAUSE HE HAS PROPERTY RIGHTS, OR ALLOW A REAL ESTATE COMPANY TO PUT A 100 SQ FT MOBILE SIGN IN THEIR FRONT YARD ON MAIN STREET JUST TO SPITE THE LAW.
Anonymous @ 12:56 said,
I also notice that you did not mention the signs located directly across the street from your Autumn Ridge.
Beazer moved their sign to the entrance of Harvey Springs off of Miles Johnson Road last week when asked. Come up north of the Maury County line some time.
Long Time SH Resident,
If I had just conned the city into paying for a road and bridge over a creek to the entrance of my subdivision under the guise of an entrance to a new park, I'd let them put my sign anywhere they wanted.
People---you are talking about a man who was disassociated from the University of Tennessee for violating rules regarding recruiting....As a UT alum, I do not have any respect for this individual---obviously the school does not either....
www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=4072887&nav=menu7_4_5
9:40,
Very well said--- I smell a cruck
Post a Comment