Public hearing draws frustrated crowd of 60
Discussion on a dispute involving antique signs in Marquette drew a crowd of nearly 60 people to a public hearing Monday night at the Marquette Village Board meeting, though many left disappointed that the issue has still not been resolved.
By the end of the one-hour meeting the board unanimously decided to support a proposal to amend the village’s zoning regulations to include a definition of “yard art,” but because the agenda called only for discussion on the matter and not taking any action, the final decision was postponed until the board’s October meeting.
At the heart of the matter is a number of large, antique metal signs put up over the years by Randy Beckman, who owns Scotty’s Restaurant with his family. The signs in question are located on Beckman’s residential property across the alley from the restaurant, some of which village board members have ruled are in violation of the village’s existing signage regulations. Signs erected before the village adopted its new zoning regulations are grandfathered in, Beckman has been told, but six newer signs are reportedly in violation, even though Beckman said he was not advised of that prior to their installation.
Hoping to find a resolution to the matter, Hamilton County Planning and Zoning Administrator Hillary Betka recommended that the village board adopt an amendment proposed by the county planning commission last month, which would add a definition of “yard art” to Marquette’s sign regulations. According to that definition, “yard art” would include any ornamental decal that decorates a residential lawn or yard such as vintage signs aging 30 years or older, lawn statues, sculptures or various art types excluding billboards.
According to that proposal, a property owner in Marquette would have to apply to the county zoning commission with such requests, paying $150 per permit, with each permit including up to four examples of the yard art.
Prior to Monday’s meeting, however, Marquette village attorney Drew Graham had offered an alternative recommendation. Though Graham did not attend Monday’s meeting, he explained in a letter his preference that the village board handle all signage requests on its own, using the permits allowed within the village’s zoning regulations.
Betka explained to the crowd that because there were two recommendations to be discussed Monday, the agenda did not include a line item calling for a final decision. That frustrated many in the audience who vented their frustration.
“We’re all tired of this and want to put this to bed,” said Beckman, one of several people speaking during the 20-minute public hearing. “We just want to make Marquette better. I’ve been here 35 years and have never done anything to take Marquette backwards and I never will. We just want to do something to make Marquette a stopping point, or destination. It’s not about winning or losing, it’s just about doing the right thing.”
When asked what initiated this sign dispute, board chairman Rich Archer had this to say.
“He didn’t get the proper permit,” Archer explained. “That’s all this was ever about. We made a couple of people follow the zoning regulations and we had someone who didn’t follow them, and that shouldn’t be allowed. It’s simply about following the zoning regulations.”
Tina Patrick of Marquette then stepped to the front of the room, saying she once had to pay $10,000 to have a shed moved because she had been advised, with 10 days notice, that she was in violation of the zoning regulations.
“I think what we’re trying to do here is equalization,” Patrick began. “I think as a community we need to band together and all get on the same page. We all need to have a common ground and I’m sorry this got to be so out of hand.
“We’ve made it one side for and one side against, so why can’t’ we come together and figure it out,” she continued. “The signs are beautiful. There’s just a lot of crap that went on in this town because it was the old boy’s club. It can’t be about a personal vendetta.”
Several other people spoke up, none voicing complaints with the Beckman signs, but several citing concerns with the way the process was handled and allowed to drag on.
“I can’t understand why Randy is unable to simply compromise back to where it started,” said Marquette area farmer Todd Danhauer, who shared that he was informed he wasn’t in complaince on an issue and it was fixed within a matter of minutes after he was notified by letter. “Why are we wasting so much time on this? It’s hard to comprehend.”
Archer ended the public hearing after 20 minutes and the board then began discussing its options. There was no microphone system set up and many in the room could not hear those discussion, which added tension to an already tense meeting.
“I think if we’re going to allow signs I don’t think the board should be able to decide which ones are appropriate or which ones are not,” said board member Nicole Nelson. “Everybody here needs to be treated equally. I don’t want the responsibility of saying that’s not appropriate, because no matter what somebody is happy and somebody is mad.”
After several minutes of hushed conversations, Archer announced that the board had decided to support the Hamilton County Joint Planning Commission’s amendment to add “yard art” to the village’s sign regulations. No vote could be taken, so the meeting was adjourned, with Archer noting that the item will be placed on the board’s October agenda for a final decision.