LCI Citywide Helper将个问题分配给LCI Dixwell

I agree with the sentiment that they replaced such a nice mural that I really enjoyed with a not very visually appealing logo. Whether or not it is legal is one thing, poor taste is another.

I agree it appears to be a billboard! It should go through zoning for approval.

I'm really hoping that it is determined that this falls outside of the zoning allowances. It's utterly cynical for them to paint over a much enjoyed mural that brought levity and visual joy to the neighborhood. A billboard has no place on that wall. Better yet, I hope they feel ashamed and support a local artist by paying them to paint over it with something of artistic value.

Staff have reviewed the regulations.

This is considered a "Wall Sign" and is permitted at this location (RM-2 Zone)

https://library.municode.com/ct/new_haven/codes/zoning?nodeId=ZOOR_ARTVIISIRE_S60.3SI

LCI Citywide Helper:

Doesn't the code say a Wall Sign is NOT permitted in RM-2 Zone?

Wrong image posted. Sorry

Paul,

Please re-read the image you posted. You put a circle around "RS-1 / RS-2 "

This is an RM-2 so it is permitted

Oops. My bad. Do these sections have any relevance?

"notwithstanding the other provisions of this Section, may not exceed one-third the area of the wall (including windows and doors) on which it is located"

"Any sign authorized in this ordinance can contain non-commercial copy in lieu of other copy."

BTW, graffiti artists have already attacked the advertising.

You can contact the real estate company at the following:

matt@eastrockrealestate.com
(203) 507-2338

35 Elm St.
New Haven, CT. 06511

Please be courteous and respectful!!

My blocked comment was acknowledging my misreading and asking about two other areas of the ordinance. Not sure why it was blocked

I asked if either of these Section 60.3. Signs ordinance sections were relevant here:

(b) (5) says "Any sign authorized in this ordinance can contain non-commercial copy in lieu of other copy"

(f) (1) says "On-Premises Signs in Residential Zoning Districts cannot exceed six square feet except for those signs associated with establishments providing goods or services under Section 31 of this ordinance or providing accessory retail goods or services in an RH-2 District, which signs are not to exceed six square feet or ten percent of the area of the ground floor wall surface on which such sign is located, including window and door area, whichever is greater."

I also pointed out that graffiti artists appeared to take this matter into their own hands.

We don't believe those sections apply given this is a "wall sign".

The graffiti should be removed.

Staff will follow up

Thanks for your response.

The graffiti is preferred to the billboard. >:(

I'm with Goatville Neighbor. I prefer the graffiti!

:)

How it started….

How it’s going

Staff will be following up on this graffiti and sign.

Further research revealed a size limit of 6 Sq./ft. for this type of sign under the Zoning Ordinance.

Thanks for staying on top of this!

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that based the size, the sign is indeed oversized and is not allowed? If that's correct, hallelujah!

But what is the remedy?
Is the property owner then required to paint over it with something that is not an advertisement?

We will update when more information is available.

This needs further review. The owner will be given time to address this issue.

We will keep everyone in the loop.

I'm sure if the neighbors reach out to the owner they can come up with a solution that works for everyone. Seems like a great opportunity for the owners to build goodwill. Maybe keep part of the space as a sign, and dedicate the rest of the space to a mural where local artists can paint something new every month or two

Definitely agree that the billboard was destructive and the graffiti was additive in this case.

The orange doesn't help matters

The graffiti was removed

And the advertising.

While it's good that their gross attempt at a billboard has been removed, their assault on the aesthetics of the neighborhood are unfortunately ongoing. Sadly, this misguided eyesore will take more than a coat of paint to remedy...

The owner should be removing it.

Zoning enforcement may be needed shortly if the size of the letters isn't corrected.

We will continue to monitor.

Issue 10100083 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue.

This issue is closed / resolved