Christianity isn't going on here.

[Heretic]

A man was told to remove signs his yard because they contained religious messages.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010 ... -sign-law/

[Bet51987]

.

[Foil]

IMHO, it's a legitimate complaint, and a legitimate lawsuit.

However, the implied subtext (\"It's a conspiracy against Christians!\") is unfounded.

[Ferno]

just had a read of the bylaw. nothing in it says anything about barring any religious signage.

but the article had the plural 'signs' in it, so that leads me to believe there were at least two on the front lawn, which is a violation of the bylaw.

so the lawsuit is trivial.


He could have avoided all this by getting a zoning revision but instead pulled the 'i'm being oppresed!' card.

[AlphaDoG]

All over the town I live in there are:



signs. Not one person has been told to remove their sign, yet.

[CUDA]

So it appears if I live in this town and I want to put a sign on my front lawn about a missing child I need a permit.

[null0010]

So it appears if I live in this town and I want to put a sign on my front lawn about a missing child I need a permit.

Put an ad in the paper, more people will see it.

[Will Robinson]

So it appears if I live in this town and I want to put a sign on my front lawn about a missing child I need a permit.

I promise you if you put "missing liberal, very liberal child" on it they won't bother you.
Berkeley is so far left it's starting to show up on the horizon off the Atlantic coast!

[null0010]

I really love all this manufactured rage. Reminds me of going to punk rock concerts when I was in middle school.

[Ferno]

what's even funnier is no one here bothered to read the bylaw.

but then what would give them reason to rant about the left again?

[AlphaDoG]

what's even funnier is no one here bothered to read the bylaw.

but then what would give them reason to rant about the left again?

Ok, I'll bite. Where in that story are "the bylaws?"

[woodchip]

what's even funnier is no one here bothered to read the bylaw.

but then what would give them reason to rant about the left again?

Perhaps Fernman, you should read the article. The law is a county ordinance and not some condo complex rule written in the "bylaws".

[fliptw]

what's even funnier is no one here bothered to read the bylaw.

but then what would give them reason to rant about the left again?

Perhaps Fernman, you should read the article. The law is a county ordinance and not some condo complex rule written in the "bylaws".

Anything enacted by a sanctioned authority(ie all government below the state level) is a bylaw - because it was enacted by authority by law rather than by sovereignty of legislation.

different levels of government and organizations use different terms however.

[Ferno]

Ok, I'll bite. Where in that story are "the bylaws?"

They weren't in the story, so I dug them up from the county web server.

Link to bylaw PDF

due diligence, my friend.

Perhaps Fernman, you should read the article. The law is a county ordinance and not some condo complex rule written in the "bylaws".

Actually I did read the story. The only thing that was concrete about it was it implied the fact that the guy had more than one sign on his front lawn. Other than that, it was a whole lot of nothing.

Maybe next time, you'll think twice before assuming.

[Heretic]

Ok, I'll bite. Where in that story are "the bylaws?"

They weren't in the story, so I dug them up from the county web server.

Link to bylaw PDF

due diligence, my friend.

Then maybe you should go back and look again.

Berkeley County Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Article 18 titled “Sign Control” is what you are looking for. That link doesn't even have Article 18 in it Nor Appendix A of the Berkeley County Code of Ordinances.

Due diligence

[CUDA]

Yes it would seem that Ferno's link pertains to Business signage or Residential Apartment signage.
Not the type of signage that is being discussed here

[Ferno]

Berkeley County Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Article 18 titled “Sign Control” is what you are looking for. That link doesn't even have Article 18 in it Nor Appendix A of the Berkeley County Code of Ordinances.

see? you're learning. proud of you.

but since you brought up that particular section, I'll paste it here.

18.5. Signs exempt from permit.
a) One nonilluminated "for sale," "for rent" or "for lease" sign not exceeding six square feet in area.
b) On-premises directional signage.
c) Special event signs, grand opening signs and work under construction signs as described herein.
d) Official notice, warning or any informational sign authorized by any local, state or federal governmental agency.
e) Private street or road name signs.
f) The changing of words on signs designed for changing.
g) No trespassing, no hunting, no fishing, no loitering and similar signs not exceeding one square foot in area.
h) One temporary in-season agricultural products sales sign not exceeding ten square fee [feet] in total area.
i) Political signs as defined herein.
j) Flags and banners.
(Ord. No. 02-12-58, 12-16-2002)

18.6. Prohibited signs.
The following signs are prohibited when visible from a publicly maintained street, road or highway, whether county, state or federal.
a) Flashing sign;
b) Moving signs or signs having moving parts;
c) Signs imitating traffic devices or traffic signs and/or signs using the words "stop," "danger" or any other word, phrase, symbol or character in a manner the [that] might mislead, confuse or distract a vehicle driver;
d) Except as otherwise provided, no sign, whether temporary or permanent, except by a public agency, is permitted within any street or highway right-of-way;
e) Freight/cargo containers used as signage;
f) Signs painted on or attached to trees, fence posts, rocks or other natural features, telephone or utility poles, or painted on or projected from the roofs of buildings visible from any public thoroughfares;
g) No sign of any kind shall be erected or displayed in any salt marsh areas or any land subject to periodic inundation by tidal saltwater or any wetlands as defined herein;
h) Abandoned or dilapidated signs;
i) All signs and supporting structures in conjunction with a business or use which is no longer in business or operation unless a new permit for the sign has been obtained.
(Ord. No. 02-12-58, 12-16-2002)

18.7. Nonconforming signs.
If, upon adoption or amendment of these regulations, there exist signs which were lawful before the adoption or amendment of these regulations, but which would be prohibited or regulated and restricted under the terms of these regulations, such nonconforming signs are declared to be inconsistent with the stated purpose of these regulations.
(Ord. No. 02-12-58, 12-16-2002)

18.8. On-premises signs--Area, height, size, number, type, etc.
a) Type. All businesses located in Berkeley County, except shopping centers and multi-tenant buildings, may choose to utilize one "on-building" sign and one "freestanding" sign. In no case shall individual types exceed the limitations prescribed herein.
1) On-building signs. Wall signs are those signs that are erected flat against or painted on the principal building. Projecting signs shall not extend outward from the wall more than six feet. A business may choose to utilize a wall sign or a projecting sign, but in no case shall a business use both types at any one building site and in no case shall the combined area of either type chosen exceed ten percent of the square footage of the front of the building, excluding "false fronts."
2) Freestanding signs. A business or planned neighborhood subdivision may choose to utilize one freestanding ground sign per each highway frontage, but such sign shall not exceed ten feet in overall height. The facing shall not exceed 15 feet in width, with a maximum allowable area of 80 square feet per facing; or a business may choose to utilize one freestanding pole sign not exceeding 25 feet in overall height. The facing shall not exceed 15 feet in width, with a maximum allowable area of 80 square feet per facing. In no case shall a business use more than one type of freestanding sign at any one building site. The sign(s) shall not be erected until a permit for said sign has been approved by the county.
b) When necessary to facilitate traffic movement, such on-premises directional signs as "Enter," "Exit," "Drive-In," "Service Entrance," "No Parking," etc., without any other advertising words or phrases, may be installed without a permit. On-site directional signage shall not exceed one sign for each entrance and/or exit and shall not exceed four square feet in area and shall not exceed three feet in overall height and shall contain no commercial message. Such sign area shall not be deducted from the square footage as permitted in part (a) of this section.
c) Any business whose on-site sign is located on an interstate frontage road or the side of an interstate highway within 1,000 feet of an overpass on/off ramp may erect a sign that does not exceed 80 feet in overall height and does not exceed 250 square feet in size per facing.
(Ord. No. 02-12-58, 12-16-2002)

again, the number "one" appears, suggesting the person in question is only allowed one. Not two, not three, not ten, but one. And I don't see anything in that ordinance stating that any religious messages are prohibited.

http://library6.municode.com/default-te ... n=whatsnew


If the guy only had one sign out, this entire mess could have been avoided.