City of Roswell Zoning Ordinance

[Daisy]

This thread has been carried over from the old forum to help make the transition easier. It contains one or more of the last on topic post(s) from the original thread.

Posted by Saw: I saw a lot of changes made in the new P&Z ordinance made because of public input before it was passed by the council.

There has been a lot changes made in the proposed sign ordinance because of public input and the public still has a workshop and the public hearing to express their concerns about the sign ordinance before it is passed.

At last I think we have a mayor/council that are ready to listen to the public. That does not mean that all of the public is going to be happy with the ordinances but I hope that a very large portion will be.

If you want some changes made show up and express yourself but be constructive.

[Saw]

The P&Z committee's next workshop for the sign ordinance is the 2nd Thursday in August at 6PM in the conference room. That will be just before the council meeting at 7PM where the signing ordinance will be on the agenda as public hearing item.

After that public hearing the council will take action on the passage of the ordinance.

[Daisy]

Well, not many contested the Zoning ordinance before they voted it in and now many are regretting it. Many of my neighbors have received notices from the city and one guy had his truck towed.

Now, the truck that was towed and the house from where it was towed have been abandoned, so something needed to be done. The weeds are butt high in that yard and now that they towed the truck, all the crap in the carport is visible from the street, so I'm not real sure anything was accomplished by towing the truck. If we're gonna have ordinances, how 'bout some that actually count for something instead of all the petty stuff that's in the zoning ordinance.

On the other hand, my next door neighbor received a notice because a few weeds along her back fence were ankle high. Her husband has been ill for a long time and just passed away last week - maybe the city should actually contact people before serving notices for this stuff. You know, call or knock on the door; actually interact with people. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstance and a few weeds is not that big a deal. My husband is going to spray those weeds for her - she really didn't need that BS right now.

It's too late to complain about all the ridiculous things in the zoning ordinance now - no one thought it would affect them, but EVERYTHING the city does will affect you sooner or later.

If people are against this sign ordinance, they sure ought to show up and make their voices heard!

[Rumpole]

Can the ordinance be posted here?

[Saw]

Check out roswell-nm.gov. then go to planning at left hand column and then go to proposed sign ordinance (like a title) at the top of the page under zoning ordinances.

[Daisy]

Thanks, Saw - here's the link to get started:

http://www.roswell-nm.gov/

http://www.roswell-nm.gov/planning.htm

[Murphy]

Many businesses in Roswell are very concerned about the new Sign Ordinance, but there is another Ordinance that should be carefully reviewed as well, and that is the Home Occupation section. Roswell has a huge underground economy because P&Z makes it way to difficult to operate a simple business out of your home because there is no flexibility in the ordinance definition. The P&Z does have 'special usage' and 'variance' exceptions, but fail to allow them because they don’t want to set precedence. The thinking is that if they open a door, it will open the flood gates.

Has anyone else on this forum had to deal with P&Z for a variance or special use exception before? What were your results?

[Billy Wood]

note: This sign ordinance IS NOT only for businesses it covers every citizen and ever personal residential property in Roswell.

I think all the Real Estate Brokers/Agents needs to take a look at this sign ordinance note: All free-standing signs shall be a minimum of five feet from all property lines. This would place your sign on most properties where it can't be seen by someone passing by without stopping to look at it. If you are told you are exempt that is incorrect, you are only exempt from having to get a Building Permit.

Exclusions:
The following signs are allowed in all zoning districts without a building permit and shall be placed in accordance with the requirements noted for each sign listed, if any. These signs must comply with all remaining Sections of this Article, excepting Section 4. Display Surface Area –DSA.

10. Real Estate signs. (Not to exceed 10 Sq. Ft. DSA in residential district and 32 Sq. Ft. DSA in commercial or industrial districts. To be removed 5 days after transaction for real estate transpires.)

Anyone reading this please call all Real Estate Agents and Businesses Owners you know. Let them know this sign ordinance will effect them and their business.

See the complete ordinance here ---> ( ORDINANCE )

=============================

The City Council will host a public hearing this Thursday August,12,2010 to discuss a controversial sign regulation and will likely vote whether to adopt the new rules.

A public workshop will be held in City Hall an hour before the council meeting to discuss the proposed rules that were part of a larger zoning ordinance approved by city officials in June,2010.

At the time, councilors passed the bulk of the ordinance following a nearly two-hour debate that focused on the sign regulations. Officials agreed to delay a vote on the proposed rules.

The issue is slated to be discussed during this month’s regular City Council meeting.

City officials said little of the rule’s language change since it was last discussed, however, councilors may vote to change specific details.

The regulation would limit the amount of space businesses could use for signs on buildings, and regulate the distance between billboards, for example. It’s been the topic of multiple public meetings.

The workshop is slated to begin at 6 p.m. in City Hall, 425 N. Richardson Ave. The regular council meeting will follow the workshop.

[Murphy]

Originally Posted by shotgun

Another night at the Roswell City Council meeting, hat's off to Sandoval and McWilliams the only two voting for the hairdresser.

I spoke up for that couple at the P&Z Commissioners meeting when they requested their variance. I don’t know them but my argument was about the inflexibility of a variance for such a rigid home occupation ordinance. I told the commission that their decisions are driving people with simple business ideas into the underground economy (non taxed black market). At that meeting, the commissioners took their lead from the City Planner, Mr. Vickers and staff. Also, Ms. Stubbs was there to make sure things went the way the City P&Z wanted it to. I was there to observe the process because my wife and I want to start up two different home occupation businesses that were restricted by the Roswell City Ordinances (but not other NM cities, like Las Cruces). When I was told by the City Planning department that it would cost $150 NON_REFUNDABLE FEE just to get in front of the P&Z Commission, I decided to hold off until I heard back about the couples appeal to the P&Z Committee and City Council. Well, I got my answer.

[oladcock]

Yep, that was a BS decision. I understand the intent of the law but at the same time who would you rather have next door, a 6 kid day care or a 1 chair beauty shop? I feel bad for the couple and I hope the ones who voted nay get their just deserts.....O.L.

[Daisy]

The good news is that the sign ordinance failed!

Ms. Stubbs was quoted as saying the ordinance was "in the best interest of the city", but I strongly disagree. When you put heavy handed gov't regs on your local businesses, it is NOT in the city's best interest. If they wanted to get rid of a lot of the dilapidated signs, why the heck didn't they just make a SIMPLE ordinance about only that, rather than spending two years adding in all the other ridiculous restrictions that hurt local businesses and limited all citizens on what they could do on their own property?

I was very surprised and impressed that Mr. Craig voted against the ordinance. I figured he would go with Stubbs and Henderson on that one. Good job, Councilor Craig!

The paper didn't say who else voted against it, other than Craig and Sandoval - I'm assuming it was McWilliams and maybe Foster?? I was going to post a link to the article, but can't get the RDR website to come up.

I couldn't make it to the meeting as I just got back into town from a family emergency, but sure would like those of you who attended (or watched) to post your thoughts and opinions about the meeting. It sounds like a couple with a home business didn't get a variance for their hair salon. I don't understand why this Council wants to make it so hard for people to have home businesses - that's just wrong! I can't believe Sandoval and McWilliams were the ONLY two to vote in their favor! What's up with that???

[oladcock]

Yep, the sign ordinance is in the best interest of the city if discouraging jobs/business is the goal, which it obviously is. It only failed because it takes six votes, it got a 5 to 4 with one councilor absent. The minions will try again.

The fellow who got up and spoke who's putting in a business in the old Denny's building on Second/Main, asked about issues with that property. Stubbs answered to the effect variances wouldn't be a big deal. Then they promptly shot down a variance for that home owner. I hope the businessman was still there, saw that, and will think twice. At least he knows now which ones need to be paid off.

Some old Roman in about 50ad said the more corrupt a government, the more laws it legislates. Any questions on why we (as a country) are turning into a third world crap hole? It starts with the mindset of people in little towns like Roswell, not Washington....O.L.

[oladcock]

Did anyone else notice in the sign ordinance where it said it complied with the IBC...That's the International Building Code...Does anyone know what that is? Do a bit of investigation for yourself, our building codes come straight out of the UN Agenda 21. Ms Stubbs and 90% of our elected officials are the puppets and we sit back and let them get away with it. We falsely "think" we are governing ourselves through our elected officials while they kiss the ring of the state, feds, and the UN, all so we can stay on their welfare system, groveling for money like stray dogs over a biscuit......O.L.

[Saw]

Foster, McWilliams, Craig, and Sandoval, voted against the ordinance. Elena was in town yesterday so I bet she played hookey so she would not have to vote.

Hucklebee, Maples, Henderson, Stubbs, and Perry voted for it.

Suprise, Suprise!!!!

[Daisy]

Thanks for your info about the meeting.

Hucklebee, Maples, Henderson, Stubbs, and Perry voted for it.

I'm disappointed in Huckabee - I voted for him and didn't expect him to be a go along with that group of councilors.

...the testimony of Ms. Patterson regarding why we so need the sign ordinance really bothers me.

From what I've seen, Ms. Patterson pretty much does as she is told by Capps and his bunch. She stated at one meeting that those flashing signs bother older drivers and even bother her. Well, I'm an older driver and guess what? I pay attention to my driving and simply DON'T LOOK AT THE SIGNS! What's so difficult about that???

The homeowner's request for a home business was well thought out, well presented and very accomodating to both his neighbors and the city.

It's too bad they voted against the variance for that couple. People work hard and try to start a business and are shot down by a controlling bunch of city leaders. That's pitiful and I'm very disappointed in those who voted against granting their variance.

[Rumpole]

Who voted against the variance for that couple?

Yes, Huckabee's vote was disappointing.

[Billy Wood]

I have been opposed to the purposed sign ordinance for the passed two years. " Councilor Stubbs said its original purpose got lost some where along the way". I understood from the beginning it was to address dilapidated signs. I am in no way against that, we need to protect our citizens from harm. However there was all kinds of regulations aimed toward our local Businesses the Citizens of Roswell and their personal property.

I tried several times to get just the dilapidated signs address and leave the rest of the personal property regulation out.

I agree with my council rep. Mr. Craig it was just to intrusive into the rights of personal property owners. I applaud Mr. Craig for voting against the regulation. I am very pleased the sign regulation in its purposed form failed.

[oladcock]

"Who voted against the variance for that couple?"

McWilliams and Sandoval were the only ones that supported the citizen.

Oh yes, Safety..... “The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.”
-Albert Camus

When was the last time anyone was attacked by those EVIL signs? Control and manipulation to feed inflated egos is the root, not safety....O.L.

[jjfergie]

Well, I was glad to see Billy Wood there. And also Bill Glenn and a few others who spoke against the sign ordinance. And yes Daisy, it is sad that people just sat back, even after a lot of us told them what was in that ordinance, and now it's beginning to hit home with some. Maybe we need to drive by some councilors homes and the mayors to make sure everything is up to par since they all want us to be so safe. We wouldn't want them to have bad things either! Jack

[Daisy]

Maybe we need to drive by some councilors homes and the mayors to make sure everything is up to par since they all want us to be so safe.

That's exactly what my husband said - he wants to check all the Councilors' houses for weeds in the alley, RVs, boats and trailers. We just might do it and report ANY AND ALL violations of these outrageous ordinances.

The lady next door to us got a notice about her dinky weeds in the alley a couple days after her husband died - yet the old airport (a city property) has weeds 3 or 4 feet tall! Seems these stupid rules aren't for everyone, huh? RIDICULOUS!