Brookfield planning commission continues sign-variance request for Castle Motors after code concerns

The Brookfield Planning and Zoning Commission on Jan. 23 continued a public hearing on a request by Castle Motors for multiple sign variances at 9000 Ogden Avenue after staff reported several signs had been erected without issued permits and commissioners expressed concern about precedent and code compliance.

Staff told the commission that Castle Motors' contractor erected a large wall sign on the Ogden Avenue frontage and an awning sign without final permits. The wall sign measures about 102 square feet, exceeding the code limit of 1 square foot per linear foot of zoning-lot frontage (or 100 square feet, whichever is less). The awning sign shows more than two lines of text and more than the 30% allowed coverage for awnings, staff said. Staff recommended the petitioner work with staff to resolve outstanding issues and requested the commission continue the case to allow that process.

Commissioners questioned the chain of events that led to the unpermitted installations and debated how to balance aesthetics with enforcement. Several commissioners praised the design of the Ogden Avenue wall sign while stressing that the petitioner — as property owner — bears responsibility for ensuring permits are pulled. Commissioners said approving variances for signs installed without permits could create a precedent encouraging other property owners to “ask forgiveness rather than permission.” The commission voted to continue the case so the petitioner and staff could work toward compliance; commissioners also asked staff to check installation details such as illumination levels and anchoring that would normally be inspected under a permit.

Staff said the property is in the C-1 commercial district on a lot of about 21,000 square feet with a building frontage of roughly 50 feet; those dimensions affect allowable sign area under the code. The staff report identified five variance requests related to the wall sign size and height, the awning sign size and line count, and the total number of signs on the building; staff noted an additional requested variance (two lines of awning text) that was not enumerated under the five-count list in the packet and would be treated as an additional item. Petitioner Paul Castle (who identified himself as owner/operator) said he and his son invested in the sign and want to improve the business frontage; they repeated that a sign contractor handled permits and that they believed permits were pulled.

Because no permit file could be located for the signs, staff recommended the applicant narrow the scope of requested variances or remove some signage and return with a clarified proposal. Commissioners suggested options including approving the Ogden Avenue wall sign while requiring removal of other noncompliant signs, or continuing while the applicant reduces the number or size of signs. The petitioner agreed to work with staff.

The commission voted unanimously to continue case number 2501 so staff and the petitioner could resolve outstanding code, safety and permit questions. No final variances or approvals were granted at the Jan. 23 meeting.

Petitioners will return to a future Planning and Zoning meeting; staff said a continued review should include on-site inspection information (anchoring, illumination measurements) that would normally be produced during a permitted installation.