Officials with the City of Greenfield opened a court case against Greenfield McDonald’s. It seems the golden arches are in violation of the city code on signs and have not complied. The local store is accumulating $2,500 in fines each day according to the lawsuit. Friday, August 16, 2024.
Tom Russo | Daily Reporter
GREENFIELD — Officials with the City of Greenfield have grown weary of waiting for a local fast food establishment to get in compliance with city code surrounding signage and have moved forward with a civil lawsuit.
The case was opened in Hancock County Circuit Court Aug. 6 and pits the City of Greenfield against the McDonald’s Real Estate Company, at 1490 N. State St., Greenfield.
According to court documents, the defendant (McDonald’s) has been advised by written communication from the city on January 23, January 29, February 2, and again on February 7 that the subject premises located at 1490 N. State St., Greenfield is in violation of the city’s sign code.
In a letter to McDonald’s city officials ask McDonald’s to please comply with city code. One of the letters says, “please be advised that the use of the temporary signs at the business you operate at 1490 N State St., Greenfield, is in violation with the Zoning Code of the City of Greenfield, Zoning Ordinance Section 155.065.”
One of the letters also states, “temporary sign usage may require permitting based on unified development ordinance guidelines and is limited to one per business location. Permitted temporary signs are allowed for 30 days per permit four times a year.”
A total of four like letters were sent to McDonald’s officials alerting them to the violation and fines they are accumulating.
The paperwork goes on to say, “the defendant (McDonald’s) has chosen to ignore and have failed to bring their property into compliance with the code provisions.” The lawsuit then notes, pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Ordinances of Greenfield, a fine not to exceed $2,500 for each violation with each day a violation continues to exist constituting a separate violation may be imposed in addition the imposition of attorneys’ fees if the City of Greenfield required to institute litigation to enforce the provisions of the code.
City officials are asking the court to respectfully enter a temporary, preliminary, permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant, requiring them to bring their property into compliance within a designated time. City officials are also asking the Defendant maintain their property thereafter in a condition of compliance with the Code of Ordinances of Greenfield, and fines of $2,500 per day for each day the violation has existed continues to exist.
The case is in the preliminary stage and was officially opened earlier this month with no other court dates pending just yet. Court records show, the civil lawsuit has been sent to officials with the McDonald’s Real Estate Corporation in Pennsylvania.
The complaint was officially filed by Greenfield building inspector Brian Gutierrez and Greenfield attorney Gregg Morelock.
Morelock noted that, over the past year or two, they’ve designated a code enforcement officer who goes around the city and determines when a business or home owner is in violation.
“By the time the issues get to the courts, we’ve given two, three even four notices that they’re in violation, and when they ignore the notices we have no choice but to take the issue to court,” Morelock said.
He also noted they’ve sent the violation letters to the McDonald’s corporate offices in another state, and he feels like maybe the information has not gotten to the proper people.
“What happens is, we send the notices to wherever the property cards say the owner is, and that’s what we did in the McDonald’s case,” Morelock said. “Well, in big corporation, it goes to some headquarters and maybe it doesn’t get to the right person so they may not be ignoring us after all.”
That’s why Morelock noted they plan to make an effort to send the information of violations to the property owner of record and also send the violation information to the local business itself.
However, for now Morelock noted the city had no choice but to file a civil lawsuit after the warnings were repeatedly ignored.
