This violation notice is being targeted at the men of 135 Burcham Dr. without provocation. The sign in question, a 90 square foot sign of famous celebrity singer, Katy Perry, is accused of being a safety hazard to the house and its occupants for the reasons of it being too large, it being a fire hazard, and it being portable/mobile. The men of 135 Burcham Dr. dispute all these claims as stated below:
1) City Code states that signs may not exceed 120 square feet. The sign is only 90 square feet. In fact, the picture you see above is out of date. The sign is even smaller now.
2) The sign is accused of being a fire hazard although it is made of heavy duty plastic taken from a billboard capable of withstanding all types of weather, heat, etc. The inner structural support boards are not exposed, being covered by the sign’s material which again is weather resistant. To clarify, no flammable material is within reach of any flammable substances, objects, etc.
3) The sign is accused of blocking windows, citing the example that the windows would be barricaded by the sign and could potentially trap a house occupant inside a given room if a fire (for example) were to also block that room's door(s) from the other side. This is false, as the sign stands several feet away from the bottom windows and can be pushed easily from the top. The City also claims that the occupants whose rooms and windows are nearest to the sign, all of whom are former athletes and healthy, would be incapable of moving the sign in the event that the occupant were unable to open their door(s) simultaneously. Even neglecting all this, the picture attached above (which again is larger than our current setup) shows it's not even covering any windows. The current setup rests the sign inbetween any windows on the house.
4) The sign is accused of being mobile/portable. Again, we say this is false. We have it grounded with locked security wires similar to a bike lock. It's not going anywhere.
The men of 135 Burcham Dr. dispute all these claims. The mandate is only being communicated now (June 17th 2013), which draws our curiosity given that the sign has been on our premises since last fall and up until this point has drawn no criticism from any governing body of East Lansing. Thus, the men of 135 Burcham Dr. petition the city to revoke this violation and acknowledge/reinstate our right to display the sign (as not infringed upon up until June 17th 2013).
This petition is not executed lightly by the men of 135 Burcham Dr. We, as reasonable gentlemen, take no pride in fighting the actions of our beloved city and are disappointed that these situations arise; however, this sign bares sentimental value to us, acts as a common identifier of our location, has been the inception of many great memories, and in short, indirectly defines who we are as the men of 135 Burcham Dr. These notions in mind, we consider it our civic duty to pursue our right to display the sign with dignity and ask for the citizens of East Lansing to do the same.
-Adam J. Dimitry
135 Burcham Dr.