City council sides with business owner, votes against its own sign ordinance

The discussion during the hearing at Tuesday’s council meeting focused partly on the sign ordinance’s wording of what makes a vehicle sign “permanently attached.”

By JIM BROOKS
Nelson County Gazette / WBRT Radio

Rosemary Humkey makes a point during a hearing to consider her appeal of a sign ordinance violation she received for a vehicle-mounted sign.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014, 11:55 p.m. — In a 4-2 vote Tuesday night, the Bardstown City Council sided with business owner Rosemary Humkey in her appeal of her notice of violation of the city’s own sign ordinance.

Humkey, owner of Bardstown Barber Shop, was cited in June after the vehicle-mounted sign on her car was determined to be out of compliance with the city’s sign ordinance. After listening to testimony from Humkey, planning administrator Jan Johnston-Crowe and code enforcement officer Steve Hatter, several council members zeroed in on the lack of definitive language in parts of the sign ordinance.

The sign ordinance allows for vehicle-mounted signs that are permanently mounted, but gives no definition of which mounting methods are considered “permanent.” The ordinance — last modified by the council four years ago — leaves a number of important terms undefined or vague.

One of the planning commission’s exhibits included photos of Humkey’s sign on top of a different vehicle, which Johnston-Crowe pointed to as evidence the sign was not permanently mounted. Had the sign not been moved, Humkey would not have received a notice of violation, she said — an assertion Humkey disputed.

Planning commission attorney Michael Coen presents evidence prior to testimony in the hearing conducted at Tuesday’s Bardstown City Council meeting regarding a sign ordinance notice of violation issued to Bardstown businesswoman Rosemary Humkey.

Humkey said she moved the sign to see if it worked on their vehicle. The sign, she insisted, was securely mounted on the roof of her car. “My intention was to stay within the limits of the ordinance,” she said. The notice of violation she received in the mail was mailed before the sign was ever moved to the second vehicle.

Humkey noted roof-mounted signs on pizza delivery vehicles and asked why her sign was unacceptable.

The main intent with pizza delivery vehicle signs is to identify delivery drivers, not to serve as signage for the respective businesses, Johnston-Crowe explained. Vehicles with roof mounted signs that are parked to draw attention to a business are functioning as signs, she said.

In his closing statement, planning commission attorney Michael Coen told the council their ordinance gives Johnston-Crowe the authority to interpret and enforce the sign ordinance.

“These aren’t her words, they’re your words,” Coen told the council after reading a portion of the ordinance. “You leave it to the sign administrator the obligation to making an interpretation to without any definition of what permanently attached means. We’re here today arguing whether or not this should be upheld and this is your ordinance.”

The councilmen explained their reasoning as each cast their vote to support or not support the sign ordinance.

Councilmen Joe Buckman and Roland Williams voted to uphold the ordinance because it gives Johnston-Crowe the authority to make interpret and enforce the sign ordinance — even if it has flaws.

Councilman John Royalty gave Johnston-Crowe kudos for doing her job well, but noted she can only operate with the rules elected officials create. The sign ordinance wording leaves too much to interpretation, he said, and he voted to support Humkey. Councilmen Francis Lydian, Tommy Reed and Bobby Simpson also cast votes in Humkey’s favor.

The council’s vote against supporting the planning commission administrator and the city’s sign ordinance prompted planning commission chairman Todd Johnson to request the city take over administration and enforcement of its sign ordinance effective immediately.

After the decision, Humkey said she felt she was in the right, but never intended for the issue to become as big a deal as it became.

-30-