Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Code Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears heated debate over Union Bank rooftop signs, continues case for legal briefs and more review
Summary
After the zoning administrator acknowledged city planners issued two sign permits in error, Union Bank pressed vested-rights and 'roof sign' code interpretations; the board continued the appeal to Dec. 16 for written briefing on vesting and code interpretation.
A protracted hearing over rooftop signage at Union Bank’s downtown addresses ended on Nov. 2 with the Board of Appeals continuing the case to Dec. 16 so parties can submit written legal briefs addressing vesting, estoppel and competing interpretations of the sign code.
Zoning Administrator Larry Badner opened the discussion by saying the Planning Department mistakenly issued permits that, on closer reading, appear inconsistent with the Planning Code. He characterized the installed signs as 'wall signs'—flat to a building wall—and invoked Planning Code §607(g), which limits signs attached to buildings in C3 districts to 100 feet, to argue the permits are not lawful. ‘‘We made a mistake,’’ Badner said, adding that an improperly issued permit is not vested.
Union Bank’s counsel, Benjamin Resnick, pressed a different reading. Citing the code definition for 'roof sign' (Planning Code §602.17) and other subsections that expressly permit roof signs in C zones subject to criteria, Resnick argued the installed letters and logo are a permitted subset of roof signs—because portions of the signs sit at or above the roof/parapet/penthouse level—and that the city’s own planners and inspectors reviewed and permitted the work, creating reliance-based equities and potential vesting or estoppel.
