Town Averts Eyes From Lit Signs

Erik Sine · October 23, 2009

Ordinance Enforcement Department ignores a 1960 ban on neon

By Leigh Goodstein

(10/22/2009) Internally illuminated signs, such as neon or LEDs, are banned in East Hampton Town but, in recent months, the town’s Ordinance Enforcement Department has looked the other way as dozens have been installed, particularly in Montauk.

Town Councilwoman Julia Prince, a former code enforcement officer who lives in Montauk, said yesterday that the law was “black and white. If it’s prohibited by the code, code enforcement should be enforcing it.”

The sign ordinance was adopted in 1960, at the same time that roadside billboards were eliminated. The town board revisited the regulations in the 1990s, adding a ban on lighted vending machines outside buildings.

In a recent drive-by survey, a reporter counted more than 30 internally illuminated signs in Montauk alone. Although some may be “grandfathered,” that is, legal because they predate the sign code, none of the businesses had been cited by the enforcement department for violations.

However, in an interview this week, Dominic Schirrippa, head of the department, said he had not been aware of the apparent violations, but that they would be cited. Mr. Schirrippa said he would investigate each of the signs on an individual basis to determine whether they were grandfathered.

He was specifically concerned, he said, with a sign for Wok ’n Roll, a Montauk restaurant, which has blinking, scrolling letters, which he called “definitely illegal.” The regulations prohibit “flashing, blinking, tracing, flickering, or neon signs, or other signs containing internally illuminated lettering, logos, or characters.”

“People have proved this in very strange ways,” said Ms. Prince. A business owner once proved his neon sign was legal by pointing to an old photograph hanging in his store that showed the sign.

At another place in Montauk this summer, Chet Kordasz, the owner of O’Murphy’s Pub on Edgemere Road, began a campaign to save the neon shamrocks in the window, which he says predate the code. Mr. Kordasz said this week that he, too, was looking for photographic evidence, adding that the community had rallied in support.

In Mr. Kordasz’s view, which apparently is widespread, Montauk is “so unique” that neon signs and others with internal illumination may be suitable. Most signs in the hamlet, he said, are “not obnoxious” or “beyond reason.” He pointed to small interior “open” signs as examples.

Richard Kahn of the Concerned Citizens of Montauk had a similar view, saying any recent proliferation of banned signs in Montauk had not “struck me as a major problem.” He noted that C.C.O.M. is focused on the environment and rarely investigates “quality of life issues.”

Joseph Gaviola, a Montauk resident and owner of a liquor store in the hamlet, said this week that there is a small neon sign in his store window, but that he was unaware of the restriction. He said he would “take it down” if the enforcement department discussed it with him. Mr. Gaviola is a member of the town budget advisory committee and a former member of the East Hampton Town Planning Board.

A new, internally lighted sign was recently installed on the I.G.A. building in Amagansett following the removal of a free-standing roadside sign. Apparently, it is different from the sign approved by the architectural review board. David Wilt, the board’s chairman, was unfamiliar with some of the details of the sign ordinance, but he said it had approved a sign that conformed to the square footage permitted and that would be lighted from top-mounted fixtures. He had not seen the sign that eventually was installed. Mr. Wilt said if the sign were indeed not the one that had been approved, he would notify the enforcement department.

Another new sign, this one neon, is almost in the shadow of Town Hall. It has gone up at Peconic Beverages, which sells beer and soda.