City businesses allowed free-standing signs
Last Updated on 3/19/2010
Published on 6/28/2009
By Tim Callahan
Timcallahan01@aol.com
Home-based businesses in the residential districts of the City of Georgetown may no longer have to go to the wall to attract customers.
The city planning commission on Tuesday revised the zoning signage ordinance to allow home-based businesses the choice of a wall sign or a free-standing sign.
There was no choice before -- it was the wall or nothing.
The signs still have to be less than two square feet and non-illuminated, according to commission member Gerald Williams.
Signs in the historic district will have to conform to the zoning district regulations and the board of architectural review guidelines as determined by the city of Georgetown board of architectural review.
City Council has the final say on all planning commission recommendations.
Comprehensive plan
City planning department staff also discussed the comprehensive plan in general, Williams said, and the commission will have some workshops in the near future to go into more detail.
"There wasn't any real meat to it at this time," Williams said.
To add meat to the bones, commission member Bob Sizemore said the board decided to form a task force consisting of some commission members, citizens and members of similar boards, like the board of architectural review and zoning board of appeals.
The state mandates that the comprehensive plan be updated regularly, Sizemore said.
The planning commission also decided, after hearing a presentation from the Coastal Conservation League, to consider their input as part of revising the comprehensive plan.
"They had some good ideas for enhancing the city and we want to follow up on that," said Williams.
The CCL was founded in 1989 to protect the natural environment of the South Carolina coastal plain and to enhance the quality of life of coastal communities. It has four offices across the state, with one in Georgetown. The Georgetown office intends to make a meaningful difference in community planning and resource protection, CCL officials state.
|
Hey Jack, maybe you wrote this amendment to help your good buddies the Winans? Can we all say special purpose amendment? Posted by tired of the lies on 7/2/2009 |
|
Whine whine whine. If it were you running a small business in your neighborhood you would be all for the change. Leave the businesses alone and quit complaining. Posted by on 7/1/2009 |
|
Perhaps Mr. Scoville doesn't understand or realize that this change does not only affect the Historical District but any district that allows home based businesses. Although I don't live in the Historical District I do live on a very nice quaint residential street that has two home based businesses on it. They have been in business for years – one having a small sign on the front of the home and one having no sign at all. I attended too many of the workshops and council meetings that discussed not only the home based business signs but every other part of the new law. I understood that the purpose of not allowing freestanding signs in the yard for home based businesses was to protect the neighborhood from looking commercial. If everyone on my street decides to open a business within their home and all would place a freestanding sign in their yard then my quaint residential street would look like Fraser Street. Mr. Scoville perhaps you are trying to help some friends in the Historical District but you are jeopardizing the protection that comes alone with living in a residential neighborhood as compared to living in a commercial district. I end with this: The Historical District (whatever its zoned) allows for both residential and some limited commercial uses - by approving this change you are going to create an Historical District that has NO residential feel and beauty. Don't approve a change that will allow my neighborhood and many others in town to become commercial developments. Posted by on 7/1/2009 |
|
This amendment has nothing to do with Paige Sawyer and will have no effect on his sign. Under the present ordinance, home occupations cannot have a stand alone sign in the Historic District. The next door property can as long as the owner/renter does not live in the house. For example, Jimmy Chandler can have a stand alone sign in his office yard, but Paige cannot since Paige lives and works in his house. This makes no sense and I initiated this change to correct this. Paige's sign is on a fence so this amendment has no effect on his existing sign. Posted by Jack Scoville on 6/30/2009 |
|
Signs in the Historic District have been taken away from the Architectural Review Board as was announced at their last meeting. Posted by on 6/30/2009 |
|
Why does everyone assume that city staff initiates these ridiculous changes?? Some should call the Planning Department before assuming anything... ask what the change is about and who initiated it... Jack Scoville initiated the change... not staff... it is my understanding that Scoville even composed the wording to the new sign change. Mr. Stack presented the change as a member of the Planning Staff not as a proponent or opponent of the change. Maybe you should call the City Administrator and as him where this proposed change came from. Posted by on 6/30/2009 |
|
isn't this just being done to legitimize Paige Sawyer's illegal sign after the fact and to take the heat off that sleazy Steve Stack that still works for the City after getting it into a $10 million lawsuit. I also understand he got promoted for his incompetency. what a town! Posted by sick of the lies on 6/28/2009 |
