Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs And Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brentwood Board of Adjustment grants rehearing in sign‑size dispute; applicant must refile
Summary
The Board of Adjustment voted to allow a rehearing of a Dec. 17 decision about allowable sign square footage after board members said the original hearing record lacked accurate measurements; the applicant must submit a new application and pay abutters' notice costs.
Doug Kelly, chair of the Brentwood Board of Adjustment, moved and the board approved a rehearing on an appeal of the board’s Dec. 17 decision about allowable sign square footage for a commercial property. "The applicant will be allowed to reapply and have the whole thing reheard and resubmit his information," Kelly said after the board voted to grant the rehearing.
The rehearing stems from disagreement over how much existing sign area to count when deciding whether the applicant needed a variance. Board members said the original hearing record lacked definitive measurements: new information presented after the first hearing indicated the existing sign is 108 square feet, a figure board members said was not in the application or the packet they reviewed.
The rehearing was approved after Commissioners said the applicant — or the applicant's agent — had not supplied complete dimensions at the first hearing. Frank Albert, vice chair, seconded the motion. Board members described the rehearing as a "clean slate": the applicant must refile the application in full, serve abutters' notices again and pay related costs.
Town counsel Christopher Perry explained to the board that the standard for rehearing is fact-dependent. "In general, it would be just evidence that was not available to the board that would have enabled the board to have made a decision in a certain way," Perry said, describing rehearing criteria that can include evidence unknown to either the applicant or the board at the time of the initial hearing.
Public comment and board discussion focused on where the burden of proof lies and whether the missing dimension should have been the applicant's responsibility. Bruce Stevens, a resident, asked whether the size had been supplied at the first hearing and asked the board to state for the record what constitutes "substantial new information." Mark Kennedy, the town's land use administrator, said applicants are normally responsible for supplying measurement evidence and that the applicant will be financially responsible for new abutters' notices for the rehearing. Kennedy also noted that the original sign had a building permit and that, to his knowledge, there was no variance on the original sign.
Votes at a glance: the board voted to grant the rehearing (motion by Doug Kelly; second by Frank Albert; voice vote, motion passed). At the same meeting the board also approved corrected minutes from Dec. 16 (voice vote), approved continuing to receive planner Glenn Greenwood’s comment letters for applications (recorded 2–1), and voted to go into a nonpublic session for legal advice.
Next steps: the applicant must submit a new, complete application and documentation of existing sign dimensions, and pay for re-notification of abutters. The board indicated staff will treat the rehearing as a new ZBA hearing and notified the applicant to clarify what specific relief is being requested before the rehearing.
