Business owner disputes sign ordinance, files complaint against administrator

By JIM BROOKS
Nelson County Gazette / WBRT Radio

Wednesday, June 25, 2014 (UPDATED June 26, 2014, 8:15 a.m.) —   A Bardstown businesswoman’s disagreement with a notice of violation about her vehicle-mounted sign was shut down before it started at Tuesday night’s meeting of the Bardstown City Council.

Jan Johnston-Crowe, right, talks to the Bardstown City Council Tuesday, June 24, 2014, about the process to appeal a sign ordinance notice of violation while Rosemary Humkey, owner of Bardstown Barber Shop, listens.

At the end of the council meeting, Rosemary Humkey, owner of Bardstown Barber Shop, 133 W. John Rowan, rose from her seat to speak to the council in regard to a sign she had on top of her car that was cited as being out of compliance with the city’s sign ordinance. But as she began to speak, Janet Johnston-Crowe, the administrator of the joint city-county planning and zoning office, also rose to speak.

Mayor Bill Sheckles banged his gavel several times to silence both women. Johnston-Crowe told the city attorney that a notice of violation of the sign ordinance had indeed been issued and because the city council would hear an appeal of the violation, it wasn’t proper for them to discuss the matter outside the proper appeals procedures.  For that reason, the council should wait for a hearing on the matter before taking testimony and considering the evidence, Johnston-Crowe explained.

City Attorney Bruce Reynolds agreed. “I believe the council should refrain from listening to anything that might later become evidence in the event there is an appeal to this body,” he said.

Citing Reynolds’ advice, Sheckles said there would be no discussion on the matter. Humkey told the council she also had a formal complaint to file regarding Johnston-Crow, but as she began to distribute the complaint documents to the council, Sheckles told her the council could not accept them.

Councilman Tommy Reed said that he and a committee that included Johnston-Crowe are meeting to review the sign ordinance for possible updates or revisions. Reed asked anyone with questions, complaints or suggestions regarding the sign ordinance to send them to himself or Johnston-Crowe and the issue will be reviewed by the committee.

Click the image to read Planning Commission Chairman Todd Johnson’s response to Rosemary Humkey’s complaint. Click here to download a PDF version.

HUMKEY’S COMPLAINT. Following Tuesday night’s council meeting, Humkey emailed copies of her complaint to the mayor, city council, county judge executive, fiscal court and members of the media.

The complaint alleges that Johnston-Crowe visited Humkey’s business on Saturday, June 7, 2014, and demanded Humkey remove the sign on her vehicle. Humkey alleges that during the discussion, Johnston-Crowe “was rude, inappropriate, unprofessional, hostile and threatening.”

A code enforcement officer visited Humkey’s business Tuesday, June 10, and informed her the vehicle sign was not in compliance with the sign ordinance. When asked for an explanation, he referred Humkey to the Johnston-Crowe at the planning and zoning office.

The following day, the complaint states the same code enforcement officer returned, handed her the notice of violation and told her “You’ve been served” in a voice loud enough for her customers to hear.

When Humkey went to the planning and zoning office to discuss the violation, the complaint alleges that Johnston-Crowe was rude and attempted to intimidate her.

Humkey’s complaint was accompanied by four witness statements, three of whom are Humkey’s co-workers.

PLANNING COMMISSION RESPONSE. Late Wednesday, Todd Johnson, chairman of the Nelson County Planning Commission, provided a copy of the commission’s response to Humkey’s complaint. In the letter, Johnson said the commission believes there was “some level of misunderstanding / misinterpretation of the events” Humkey described.

Johnston-Crowe’s visit to Humkey’s shop on Saturday June 7 was an informal advance notice of the pending notice of violation, Johnson said, adding that the intent was to provide Humkey an opportunity to avoid the more formal violation process.

“It is now apparent to all involved that the attempt may have been a poor one,” the letter states, adding that Johnston-Crowe is “matter-of-fact in her nature and is clear in her understanding of the local ordinances with which she is charged to administer, to the point of a fault at times, when others are not so familiar with said ordinances.”

Johnson adds that the commission was unable to confirm Humkey’s description of the events that took place during her visit to the planning and zoning office on June 12.

“Ms. Johnston-Crowe’s recollection of the event is merely a matter-of-fact discussion of the violation and the steps of remedy in the case of your continued disagreement,” Johnson wrote, adding that the planning office staff confirmed Johnston-Crowe’s recollection of the discussion and did not note a heated exchange.

The letter notes that moving forward, the commission has advised Johnston-Crowe to conduct commission business only in the more formal manner; in the case of Humkey’s issue, it would mean Johnston-Crowe would not have stopped in for the informal notification on June 7. Johnson also noted that Humkey’s complaint and supporting documents will be placed in Johnston-Crowe’s personnel file.

At Tuesday’s city council meeting Humkey indicated she will appeal the notice of violation, a step Johnson welcomed in the commission’s response to her complaint.

“If your appeal of the violation to the City somehow brings better language, additional clarification, or other improvements to the City’s sign ordinance, then we are all the better for it.”

There has been no date announced for a public hearing on a possible appeal.

-30-