Sign Law: Paige Was Right
Last Updated on 12/1/2008
Published on 10/7/2008
Written by Tommy Howard
On Friday, Sawyer -- who is also a member of City Council -- received a letter from Stephen Stack, deputy director of development for the city.
"City staff has reviewed the tape of the sign workshop held on January 31, 2008," Stack wrote. "After listening to the pertinent information on the tape it was evident that staff did indeed state the existing home based business signs existing prior to the adoption of the new ordinance would be grandfathered. Therefore we will not be continuing enforcement on the sign located at your residence and home based business."
Stack also told Sawyer he could consider this the decision of the Zoning Administrator.
The issue came up in July when local computer technician and activist Marty Tennant filed a complaint against Sawyer for the sign, saying it was a violation of the city's sign ordinance.
As reported in the Georgetown Times on Sept. 8, Sawyer said when workshops were held in January to discuss the sign ordinance, he asked whether existing signs would be allowed to remain and was told that they would be.
Although Sawyer and Jamie Davis, at that time the city's Zoning Administrator, talked about the sign issue previously, she didn't present anything to him in writing until Aug. 12.
Sawyer sent her a letter the next day saying his sign was on a gate, not the fence, at his studio on Highmarket Street. He also wrote that he had been told it would be grandfathered, and that it was put on the gate in the early 1980s with approval from the city's Building and Planning Department.
He asked Davis to contact him so they could discuss the matter further. On Sept. 8, Sabrina Morris, director of development, wrote saying that Sawyer could appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. On Sept. 12 he met with Morris, and on Sept. 18 he gave her a letter outlining the timeline of his sign.
Sawyer also asked that City staff listen to tapes of the workshop and give him a reply by Oct. 8, in case he decided to appeal. He got his letter on Oct. 3.
Proof positive
When contacted about the sign issue on Tuesday, Sawyer said, "Instead of the proof's in the pudding, the proof was in the tape."
"I wasn't trying to hide anything, to do anything illegal. Just like I said a month or so ago, everything I told you was true."
He got permission to put the sign out front, to build a fence with two gates and then to move the sign to the gate.
"It's been there since with no complaints until this past July, when a disgruntled citizen with a personal agenda complained about it," Sawyer said.
The sign ordinance, which was adopted in early February, is a 27-page document. He and other Council members asked a lot of questions during workshops on revising the ordinance. Citizens also had a chance to ask questions, he said.
Since then, Council realized there was a mistake in prohibiting roof signs. The ordinance has since been amended to accommodate signs on Mitch Thompkin's dry cleaners and for a Mexican store in Maryville.
During the same period when the complaint was filed about Sawyer's signs, there was quite a controversy about 18 American flags that fly at the used car lot at Parrish Motor Co. on Fraser Street. The car lot is made up of two separate parcels, and the city ordinance states that up to three "governmental flags" are allowed per lot.
Davis sent a letter to Jeepy Ford, president of Parrish Motor Co., telling him to remove all the flags on the lot.
Ford had the flags put up shortly after the terror attacks on 9/11, as a sign of patriotism and reminder of the war on terror.
"As far as Jeepy's flags, that was an issue close to my heart, moreso than a violation of the sign ordinance," Sawyer said.
He sent an e-mail to Davis, Ford and members of City Council telling them he thought that flying America flags should be allowed and left alone.
Set priorities
"I believe that the city needs to prioritize some of these demands from the citizens about signage," Sawyer said, "because it's no telling the number of hours spent on my sign issue, when the city's time could be occupied with more pressing issues."
|
Regarding Marty's lawsuits, they were either dismissed or settled for their "nuisance value" (an amount less than it would cost to pay defense lawyers to go to trial). That's generally in the neighborhood of $5,000 or so. His appeal of the conviction for violating the city's sign law (before he asked for and received a variance which is what he should have done in the first place) was denied. In short, he's about as good a lawyer as George Bush is a statesman. Posted by Lamont Cranston on 10/16/2008
|
|
Ok Marty continuing my quest for answers, how many law suits have you started and how many have you actually WON? I know this is quite annoying but I think that it should be answered if you are not ashamed of your record. We dont want stories behind each suit but all we want is an answer. Posted by WOW on 10/16/2008
|
|
I have a legal sign. It was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. I got a variance that allowed me to have it. Paige, on the other hand, told me during my sign trial he had a variance, but couldn't find a copy of it. Now he never mentions having a variance. Paige, were you lying? I think you were. Posted by Marty Tennant on 10/14/2008
|
|
"wasting my tax money", you sound like the voice of reason, the sort of person needed on city or county council. If Sawyer has any sense at all, he will take your advice and reach out to Marty. Posted by John Q on 10/14/2008
|
|
I agree with Paige having a sign up. But here is the deal,quit arguing with Marty and help him get his sign up.Put your childesh ways away. He has a small business in Georgetown trying to make a living just like you are.I feel if you can have a sign to promote your business everybody else who tries to have a business should be able to have one.Its your job as a councilman to help everyone to get them a sign.AS much money as the council waste we need all the business in Georgetown as we can get. so if a sign can generate more money ,than you better help everyone to get a sign up. Maybe even two signs. Posted by wasting my tax money on 10/13/2008
|
|
It’s time to move on because we have heard enough about the sign and it being illegal. I have a degree in law and Paige is right about the sign. Posted by table1945 on 10/12/2008
|
|
Hey Marty, it would be appreciated if you would trim those unruly bushes and run that little remote mower of yours! Posted by Yard Work on 10/11/2008
|
|
It is either a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing or much ado about nothing. Posted by Shakespeare on 10/11/2008
|
|
Professional Person, What a complete jackass you are. How on earth you turn this into a racial issue is beyond me. You claim "The people of Georgetown are white, black and other" yet you only make mention of the black community. You state "What is the problem with people of another race who work for a living, compete in life, abide by the laws and have pride in their life style". Why do you think that making an honest living is competition? Do you really feel so inferior that you must compete with Whites or any other race. It sounds to me like you have a bit of a complex and that what ever it is that sours your stew has nothing to do with Paige Sawyer or any other Professional Person!!!!! Maybe you should submit a list of charitable acts you have done for the white community, Oh wait we can't have a White community because that would be considered racist. You'll probably say that was a racist statement too, huh? Be accountable for yourself you pompous jerk. Posted by Citizen X on 10/10/2008
|
|
Can't we all just get along? Posted by CoolBreeze on 10/9/2008
|
|
"City staff has reviewed the tape of the sign workshop held on January 31, 2008," Stack wrote. After checking the city website, council meeting meetings, the newly revised sign regulations, presented by Mrs. Morris, were approved on 2nd reading 4-3 vote, Bradley and Wayne voting against at the 2/21/08 regular council meeting. Mayor Wilson told Mrs. Morris she is doing a great job. (it's in the minutes)Also approved at that meeting, were the 1/17/08 regular council, and 1/31/08 workshop meeting minutes. Funny those January minutes aren't posted on the city website. There is February 7, 2008 then Special Meeting December 13, 2007. No January minutes. Is this just another erroneous of the Director and Deputy? Posted by Voting & Taxpaying Resident on 10/9/2008
|
|
Set priorities "I believe that the city needs to prioritize some of these demands from the citizens about signage," Sawyer said, "because it's no telling the number of hours spent on my sign issue, when the city's time could be occupied with more pressing issues." I agree, there are some really important pressing issues that local leaders from govt and business need to focus on ... like jobs, education, the environment (water and air) and flooding. Posted by Set Priorities on 10/9/2008
|
|
I have lived here for 38 years and i have seen alot of people come and go. but what takes the cake is that we are letting people from outside of our community move in and tell us what we are doing wrong. this just kills me. if you dont like the way we do things then leave. why wouldnt the life long residents of our community have its best intrest at heart.Paige has always acted in the best intrest of the city.some people just need to back off and the local people govern our historic city and county.I promise you they have its best intrest at heart. Posted by life long citizen of georgetown on 10/9/2008
|
|
Your headline is wrong. The city's indefensibly wrong actions do not mean "Paige Is Right". It is beyond the pale that Paige would force Jamie Davis to apologize to local patriot Jeepy Ford when Ms. Davis was simply doing her job. What a man! Posted by I. John DeConkey on 10/9/2008
|
|
Everyone needs to get a perspective. Try reading this editorial from this paper. Flagging the city Published on 8/17/2008 Georgetown Zoning Administrator Jamie Davis learned something about life in the fishbowl of City Hall last week: It's folly to do anything other than salute the American flag. When Ms. Davis wrote a letter to the owners of Parrish Motor Company ordering removal of six American flags from a used car lot along Fraser Street, she stumbled into public relations quicksand. In her defense, Ms. Davis was enforcing a city code that says "No parcel of land shall display more than three governmental flags." (The reference to land, perhaps, allows the Harborwalk to legally display U.S. flags on Veterans Day, Memorial Day and July 4). That code was constructed around the standard image of three flag poles bearing an American flag, a state flag and a third flag of identity such as the City of Georgetown or the U.S. Army Reserve. Many municipalities make exceptions for displays of the American flag because it's a no-win situation to order it taken down. Flag-wavers claim a Constitutional right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression and can paint a municipality as unAmerican from their moral high ground. After he was ordered to remove the flags, Parrish Motor Company owner Jeepy Ford complained to City Councilman Paige Sawyer, who demanded that the city "back off" in an e-mail reading, in part: "Until we get rid of ALL the dilapidated houses, abandoned vehicles, street signs that should have been replaced years ago, people living aboard boats in our harbor that use our garbage service, but not our sanitation service and pay no city or county taxes, derelict boats in the harbor, trees that need trimming, employees not returning phone calls and/or e-mails, drainage problems and a more efficiently run city, I say BACK OFF! "Leave him alone." Ms. Davis was forced to apologize personally for ordering the flags removed after Mr. Sawyer said that the city needed to overlook its policy in this case. As good as that must have felt for Councilman Sawyer, policies can't be overlooked for some individuals and enforced for others. The city sign ordinance needs to make an exception for everybody's American flags. Sign ordinance changes are difficult under the best of circumstances for municipalities. The present selective enforcement and reaction to individual complaints are not working. It's time to go back to the drawing board for an ordinance that can be applied in an even-handed manner that won't pit the city against its residents in no-win confrontations. Posted by Informer on 10/9/2008
|
|
Yeah, I am black, my whole family is black, and Paige has been nothing but pleasant and friendly to all of us since we have known him. Let's not turn this into something it is not - racist mud-slinging! Posted by Minority on 10/9/2008
|
|
I've known Paige Sawyer for many - many - years. The preceeding post that implies Mr. Sawyer is a racist is absolute bull. He has worked hard for the City of Georgetown and its residents and has always been there if anyone wants to talk to him. Have you ever tried to gain his attention by sayng hello and offering your hand before speaking your mind? He really listens. And, Marty - clean up your yard!!! Posted by WHAT are you thinkin' on 10/8/2008
|
|
Now I don't speak for Davis, but who's to say she was shown the door? How do you know she didn't see the leaky holes in the bottom of the City's sinking ship and jumped off on her own? Everyone seems to be leaving nowadays, even the computer technician has left--and he was making a very handsome salary and did nothing wrong in his position. Everyone seems to go negative and think the worst about everyone. Well, Marty does. Anything to stir the pot stirs him. Professional person: what the heck are you talking about? Give examples, man. Posted by xuhong gaio on 10/8/2008
|
|
You say Sawyer is a good guy!! He is a concerned person for the white historic crowd. That is not my opinion, but only a perception of most people in Georgetown and in my community. Just to remind you Sawyer. The people of Georgetown are white, black and other. Mr. Sawyer, you could enhance your image and maybe character by extending a hand of kindness to the black community. It might be awkard at first, but it is the right thing to do. You just might sleep better at night!! I am sure the teachings of your church tell you to treat others as you would want to be treated... What is the problem with people of another race who work for a living, compete in life, abide by the laws and have pride in their life style? Even though I think you send the wrong message to our city by your ACTIONS, I respect you as a person. Isn't this the teachings of The 10C? Judge me by the content of my character.. Not by the color of my skin!! Posted by a professional person on 10/8/2008
|
|
I agree with longtime resident, "After listening to the pertinent information on the tape it was evident that staff did indeed state the existing home based business signs existing prior to the adoption of the new ordinance would be grandfathered. Therefore we will not be continuing enforcement on the sign located at your residence and home based business." What is that supposed to mean, what else doesn't get transcribed from recordings of public meetings? Do they only transcribe what they want the public minutes to read? Withholding public information, isn't that against the law? Posted by Voting & Taxpaying Resident on 10/8/2008
|
|
You say you have known me for 25 years. I moved here in 1996. Better check your math. What is a higher calling than to press for the equal and non-political enforcement of the laws so that all people can trust our government? Posted by Marty Tennant on 10/8/2008
|
|
Page is a good guy and I beleive he has Georgetowns best interest in mind when he does something. If many others in town acted with the same interest in mind it would be a much better place. Marty has been fussing about anything and everything for the last 25 years I have known him and even though he may feel hes done good things for Georgetown I dont remember anything but a fuss correct me if Ive missed something . Marty come from the dark side and do something positive show people that you want the best for Georgetown and you know how to do more than try to pick a fight . Posted by sad to see the fuss on 10/8/2008
|
|
We should celebrate the fact that our City Govt has admitted that they made a mistake and demonstrated the integrity to admit it...and that our paper put it in print. One of our citizens has been exonerated (of false charges) and can now advertise his commercial business in the way that the City Govt told him he could. I call that a victory for us all. Posted by Free Paige Sawyer on 10/8/2008
|
|
The worst part of this whole deal is that the woman hired to enforce our ordinances, Jamie Davis, was run off by City Administration after she stood up to Ford and Sawyer. Not only does the City give preference to some, but they also get rid of those that try to be above politics. She wouldn't play right and got her special Georgetown reward. Anyone know how to get in touch with Ms. Davis? Posted by Marty Tennant on 10/8/2008
|
|
GEORGETOWN ..you have real problems. This Sawyer situation is not really about a picture sign..it is like ole Barnwell politics. Deals cut in smokey rooms by a few who deem themselves powerful and ABOVE the law.. Mr. Tenant, I don't know you but the majority of people support your cause. I suggest that a signed document by both parties is NOT available for review. Even if a conversation is on tape, a voted on transcript by council must be produced. If this IS on file, I submit the case is a done deal..Otherwise, NO.. Mr. Tenant, I would encourage you to use your legal skills to NOT let this issue die. As I mentioned, this is larger than a sign on a post. It represents the absolute disregard for the law with no oversignt. This kind of deal cutting kicks the blocks out from under the entire system of governance in Georgetown. Posted by real ole timer on 10/8/2008
|
|
The city muddied the water for everybody just to accommodate Sawyer. Very short-sighted. A responsible councilman would have set a better example by complying not only with the letter of the law, but also with the spirit. Sawyer made the water even muddier by carving out an exception for local patriot Jeepy Ford. The City Code of Ordinances only applies to the little people. By the way, what is the local patriot's military service record? How about Sawyer's? Posted by Jabo on 10/8/2008
|
|
Good to see this petty issue is resolved and hopefully over with! Let's try and tackle real life matters within the city now... Posted by Georgetown Republican on 10/8/2008
|
|
Longtime Resident--some of the problem came from our public servants, yes. The rest of it came from busy bodies, not unlike Marty Tennant, that kept pushing the issue onto City Hall. And Marty-thats your opinion. The FACTS are that Paige's sign is not illegal. Paige asked if current signs would be grandfathered. The answer was yes. The spirit of the law prevails and you quake yet again. No one should ever take legal advice from you; you a very low winning percentage. This article just proves that on this issue I was right and you were your usual self. Posted by xuhong gaio on 10/8/2008
|
|
Marty, I guess that means that Paige is SPECIAL! And, he is, too his many friends & supporters. No matter how hard you try, that will never change. Get some friends, clean up your yard, trim the bushes so we can see to turn onto Black River Rd & you'll be happy, too. Posted by Happy Face on 10/8/2008
|
|
Paige was right! Doesn't it bother anyone that this comes from the incompetent staff? How much did it cost the taxpayers to work this out? Paige had to tell them to listen to the tape. All these mistakes are being made because these people are obviously NOT qualified to do their jobs. Posted by longtime resident on 10/8/2008
|
|
Sawyer will not get away with breaking the law forever. Normally, people like Sawyer get away with a lot of little bully stuff but in the long run HE WILL GET CAUGHT IN HIS OWN WEB. The bad thing is that it will take time but it will come.. What a great example this character sets for leadership in the city. Posted by Outraged on 10/8/2008
|
|
I agree with clean up your yard and quit complaining cause it clearly shows your jealousy of Paige who is not picking on you. Pick on someone who is really doing something wrong or maybe help the city clean up it's streets. Go volunteer somewhere or maybe the hospital since you can walk over. Find something positive to do rather than negative and you may even feel better about yourself. You are nothing but a big bully in the school yard!!! Grow up and find something else to do. Posted by Longtime Lowcountry Resident 2 on 10/8/2008
|
|
Marty Tennant: Get a life! Move on! You sound like a child that didn't get his way and so you're having a temper tantrum! I am sad for you and feel sure that you will continue to whine and complain - and for what??? You lost. Move on! The law is clearly not on your side. Do you have anything at all better to do with your life other than be a hater of those who do things you simply don't like? Posted by Concerned citizen on 10/8/2008
|
|
The know-it-all below is wrong. Paige was already told his sign was illegal, in writing and by proper authorities. You can't grandfather something that was illegal at the time the new ordinance was passed. Grandfathering is designed to allow signs that are made illegal by the new ordinance to stay in place, not signs that were already illegal under the pre-existing ordinance. ***** The Winans sign was in the right-of-way and clearly in violation of state law. ***** I do not allow emotionalism to rule. You wish, but you are wrong. ***** Paige is allowed to ignore the law because he is Paige. For a law and order Republican, he is a disgrace. This is a small but important issue. It is all about the rule of law. And by the way, after all the patriotic emotionalism is out of the way about the flags that Jeepy Ford has at his car dealership, he is wrong too. The law Paige voted for is clear. Three flags, period. Once again, the law means nothing and Paige can just say "back off" and the powers at City Hall bow down. Posted by Marty Tennant on 10/8/2008
|
|
Lawmakers can grandfather anything they want to grandfather. It obviously was not illegal before the sign ordinance or he would have been ticketed. Regardless, the new ordinance was put enacted to replace the broken one before it. Council took action that, in a nutshell, said all current signs will be ok after this new ordinance goes into effect. As usual Marty, your emotional involvement in the issue has caused you to be blinded by the facts of law. Does this mean the Winans can replace their old sign since it was taken down under bad interpretations of the law? Or is theirs a simple right-of-way issue? Posted by xuhong gaio on 10/8/2008
|
|
Instead of worrying about being wrong, AGAIN, clean up your yard, literally. Posted by Happy Face on 10/8/2008
|
|
Please get over it and move on to more important issues. Posted by CeCe on 10/8/2008
|
|
Yes once again its who you are in the city of Georgetown not what the law is that matters. Well Paige won this one but not to worry we will be back. Posted by Paige is a lawbreaker on 10/8/2008
|
|
Buy an ad in the phone book and get over it. Your constant complaining has given you more advertising than any sign in your yard ever will. Next your nickers will be in a knot at the hospital when it moves and takes all of your "potential business traffic" away. Just let this go so you can move on to your next agenda. Posted by Ha ha ha, agenda... on 10/7/2008
|
|
My only agenda is to see the law enforced. The law is not being enforced because it is Paige Sawyer that is violating it. You cannot grandfather something that is clearly illegal. The original determination by the city still stands. How convenient that they got rid of the woman that was just doing her job. Posted by Marty Tennant on 10/7/2008
|
