Signs,
signs, everywhere signs: Amongst a sea of signs one Henderson Street sign is
clearly in the wrong place
by Mike
Kroll
Eagle-eyed Galesburgers may have noticed the new 9,000
square feet retail space constructed in the parking lot of the former movie
theater on North Henderson Street. Dubbed ÒHenderson SuitesÓ and currently
awaiting its first tenant, this small strip mall is owned and managed by Bell
Foods of Bloomington. Bell also owns the rest of the shopping center containing
Econofoods and Big Lots. Last fall the company constructed a new sign where the
former movie theater sign had been located along Henderson Street between the
Community Bank incoming driveway and an entrance/exit to the new Airport Centre
strip mall. While everyone involved acknowledges that the current sign is out
of compliance, city officials are currently opting to simply ignore their own
ordinance. Both of the sign's neighbors want the sign either removed or brought
into compliance with the existing sign ordinance.
ÒWhat is happening here is just not right,Ó says Community
Bank of Galesburg CEO Dean Easton. ÒThere is no question that this sign is both
too close to the property line and too close to an existing off-premises sign
[a billboard north of Airport Centre] and the Board of Zoning Appeals denied
them a variance yet the city has chosen to not enforce its sign ordinance. The
Henderson Suites sign is considered an off-premise sign; it must be no closer
than 750 feet from an existing off-premise sign and 20 feet from the property
line. The present sign does not comply with either restriction. From the
perspective of my bank, this poses a number of safety issues to my customers
and employees as well as functioning as an implicit invitation for patrons of
Henderson Suites to use our one-way private drive as a two-way access road.
This is an accident waiting to happen.Ó
The concerns are more than merely hypothetical. Easton
reports that he and his employees regularly see motorists who did not use the
bank zipping through the bank's driveway as both an entrance and exit to the
Bell Properties shopping center. Technically this is a form of trespassing
whether motorists use Community BankÕs driveway or the Airport Centre drive
entrance on either side of the Henderson Suites' new sign. ÒThis problem isn't
new but the sign invites an escalation,Ó pointed out Easton. Beyond the
improper use of the drive is the fact that the new sign's lowered height
obscures visibility to both drives — creating another traffic accident
hazard.
Adding to the confusion is the fact that Bell Properties
applied for and received a sign permit allowing construction of the sign
currently in dispute. Former city inspector Mike Ross issued the permit that
Galesburg attorney John Hanlon now admits was in error and counter to
requirements of Galesburg's sign ordinance. ÒThis is an unusual circumstance,Ó
said Hanlon. ÒBecause the permit was issued in error we believe that Illinois
law would support the property owner's right to keep the sign in place despite
its non-compliance with our ordinance. Therefore the city has deemed that the
sign should be allowed to remain because it was constructed with a city
permit.Ó
Neither Easton nor Joe Mangieri, representing Airport
Centre, want to be the bad guys here. They both realize that use of their
private drives has been a long-established traffic pattern here but in the past
the problem was mitigated by the movie theater's primary activity in the
evening hours. That has changed with a more traditional retail flavor to the Henderson
Suites. ÒMy company does electrical work all over Galesburg and I understand
the need to know and comply with codes and ordinances as should have been the
case with the contractor that constructed the Henderson Suites' sign,Ó
commented Mangieri. ÒIt is easy to see how a permit could have been
accidentally issued in error but the fact remains that the sign is not in
compliance. We have no intention of preventing the use of our drive by patrons
of Henderson Suites but we certainly don't want it to appear that our drives
are the principle entrance to the shopping center and that is what the present
sign does. The legal and established entrances and exits to the Bell property
are off Fremont and Dayton Streets but there is also a drive off Henderson immediately
north of the F&M Bank branch that could be a location for this sign or a
substitute.Ó
The position of Easton and his attorney, Jack Blake, is that
the sign is out of compliance whether or not Ross approved the permit in error.
That approval doesn't negate the sign's impact on the property rights of
Community Bank or Airport Centre nor does it make an unsafe situation any less
unsafe. ÒThe city should publicly own up to their mistake and perhaps subsidize
the cost of moving Mr. Bell's sign to a more appropriate and legal location
rather than penalize the adjacent property owners for the mistake. Both my bank
and myself personally support economic development like the Henderson Suites
shopping center but this ordinance exists for a reason and should be uniformly
enforced.Ó
Bell Foods applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a
variance on this sign in November 2005. At a hearing held on November 15th, the
Board of Zoning Appeals denied Bell's request and Ross sent them a letter the
following day instructing that the sign be removed or a second variance request
be filed. After neither action was taken, Blake wrote a letter to Galesburg on
December 20, 2005. ÒAs of today's date, Bell Properties had not taken any steps
toward the removal of the sign.Ó Blake went on to quote Galesburg code that
sets a penalty of Òa fine of not less than $25 nor more than $500 each and
every day that such a violation continues...Ó
ÒWhile there is nothing documented that the city does not
intend to enforce this sign ordinance, that is what I was told orally during a
conversation with John Hanlon,Ó explained Blake. ÒWe are very hopeful and
anxious that the city will choose to enforce the sign ordinance but, if not, we
are prepared to resort to legal redress on behalf of our client. If the city
erred in granting a permit wrongfully, that error shouldn't be compounded by
penalizing neighboring businesses and the safety of citizens in general.Ó