John S. La Tour
Certified
Public Accountant First Place. Suite 560
.
501-443-7878
.
Fayetteville. AR.
72701
May 26, 2000, A.D.
Mr. W. Brant Warrick
Deputy City Prosecutor City of Fayetteville
140 West Rock Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Re: Complaint of Mr. Mike McKimmey
Dear Mr. Warrick:
As a follow up to our phone conversation of yesterday, I am writing to explain why my indoor sign is legal and why I should not be put in prison as per your suggestion.
On December 23, 1999 I went to the City of Fayetteville administrative offices to apply for sign permits for two exterior signs. I received the required applications from either Jan or Sharon, I don't remember which, at the inspections desk and I sat down at the wooden work desk in front of the inspection desk in order to complete the sign permit applications.
As I was sitting and working on the application, 'Mr. Mike McKimmey came by
and sat down. We visited while I completed the forms and Mike helped me answer some of the questions. He was friendly and professional.
The signs that I was applying for were positioned on the exterior east and west. wall structures of the building. Accordingly, as traffic was approaching the building
from the east or west people could easily see the signs and identify the business located in this new building. However, I was concerned that if, as is often the case, traffic was stopped right in front of the building, there was no sign facing the north and people stopped in traffic would not know about our business. .
I asked Mike if I could have a third exterior sign facing north and he told me that the planning department had only approved two exterior signs.
I then told Mike that there was a large window facing north and I asked if I could install an indoor window sign. Mike asked if the new sign would be indoors and I ' confirmed that it would be. Mike then told me that the city does not regulate indoor Signs.
Mike did not inquire as to the type of sign, or any other details. He simply stated that if the sign was indoors, he would not "mess with it~'. I am certain that as of this date, Mike was convinced that if the sign was indoors, there were no regulations that applied.
In spite of Mike's assurances, I did not order the electronic sign until I had made a further inquiry.
On or about January 6, 2000, while Sean Minor, an employee of Sprint Tax, Inc., and I were installing some of the landscaping, I placed a cell phone call to Mr. Bob Estes, a local attorney in Fayetteville and a member of the city planning commission. I told Bob that I was thinking of installing an indoor window sign and I wanted to know if there were any permits or anything else that I needed to do with the city. He got my cell number and said he would make a phone call and then call me back.
Bob called back about thirty minutes later and said that he had had a phone conversation with a city employee. According to Bob, the employee said that if the sign was located "behind the glass" there were no regulations and I could do as I pleased.
At this point I placed the order for this $5000.00 sign.
A month or so after the sign was installed and attached to the window, Mike, the sign inspector, stopped by the Sprint Tax office and informed Mr. Nate McGooden, the employee on duty, that the sign was illegal and would have to be removed. Nate phoned me, I phoned Mike, and we have now arrived at this point. .
Brant, I completely acted in good faith and I made two separate inquiries. I ~ completely relied on the opinions of the city staff when I went out and bought the sign. The city staff, in both instances, never qualified their answers in any way, shape or form..
Now that I have incurred the cost of the sign and its installation, the city comes ,f;: back, after the fact, and says the sign has to go. This is not right or fair.
The citizens of the city have to be able to rely on what the staff tells us.
Brant, I would like to settle this issue as quickly and' fairly as possible. However, I don't think it is fair for the city to require me to throwaway my $5000.00 sign. Think of the logic of these circumstances. If Mike or the other city staff person would have indicated that an indoor sign was restricted in some way, what did I have to gain by trying to avoid these restrictions. After all, this is a sign in the public view. I certainly didn't think that I could avoid detection by hiding the sign. A hidden sign, of course, defeats the entire purpose of the sign and the corresponding inves1ment
I appeal to you, please do not deprive me of my property. Because of the advice and information I received from the city, at the very least, the city should compensate me for the sign and its installation if I am forced to remove the sign.
Brant, you are in a position where you can help me and every resident of Fayetteville, by helping the city to be consistent in the application and enforcement of its ordinances and advice. Inconsistency in these areas serves no public good and reflects very poorly on our wonderful community. Surely, we all desire some other result.
Sincerely,
John S. La Tour