A Livingston resident and former Alderman wants the city to clean up language in its sign ordinances to reduce lawsuits.
Resident Kelly Coleman said the city has gone through several lawsuits, either because the ordinance is unclear or people are misunderstanding the ordinance. Coleman said he submitted a public records request to see what the lawsuits are costing the city.
“I did find from my research that the city, over the last few months, has paid out $14,000 in just direct costs in attorney fees, you know, for sign issues,” Coleman said. “Specific to sign issues.”
Coleman said legal fees are costing taxpayer dollars. Coleman said with a recent sign request being denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals, he feels another lawsuit is on the way.
“My concern again, as I read, is that the city is likely going to face another expensive lawsuit that perhaps may have been avoided if the ordinance were clearer,” Coleman said.”
Coleman said flashing signs and portable signs seem to be a constant issue when it comes to sign requests. Coleman referred to the last sign request, which involved digital billboard-type signs. Coleman suggested that the council incorporate sign examples in the ordinance to bolster the definition of a flashing or portable sign.
“I simply am a believer that incorporating examples into the ordinance may be helpful in clarifying that definition,” Coleman said. “So, you read that definition, perhaps, you could amend the ordinance, strengthen the ordinance, make it more clear by stating, for example, name Firewatch or Watchfire as an example, and maybe list other manufacturers of signs that have similar type signs.”
Coleman said he was not concerned about the type of signs being installed, but that he is concerned about how much the city is spending on sign lawsuits.