Sign waiver denied

Thank you, Planning Commission, for the time you took to read the letters and to listen to the folks who came out to explain why they felt the overly-bright LED sign would be dangerous. Your 4-1 vote to deny the waiver needed for the sign is much appreciated.

Developers who rely on development guidelines being enforced before they’ll consider developing in an area will take note. We look forward to new ideas that will preserve the walkability and existing fabric of the James Street business district.

3 thoughts on “Sign waiver denied”

  1. I really don’t think the sign is a bad idea. I don’t think it would cause a problem. We have bigger fish to fry around here.
    Looking at the old pictures make me long for the old days when Eastwood was really nice. Much of it needs improvement. The sign is the least of our worries.

  2. It’s as much a matter of case law as the aesthetics of one sign. Once you allow a waiver for this sign, you open the doors to overlarge, extremely bright, distracting LED signs all up and down James Street. The planning commission got it right. There have been slow but steady improvements along James Street, all following the design guidelines without waivers.

  3. Set your sights only on the big fish and next thing you know the little fish you bypassed have gone on to feed a whale of a problem. Let enough things like this sign slip through the cracks and there is little hope of achieving an Eastwood of old.

    Also, there is no reason to believe that both large and small problems can not be worked on simultaneously.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *