Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs And Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds inspector and denies variance for proposed larger sign at 113 South Main Street
Summary
The board upheld the building inspector’s denial of an administrative appeal and then denied a separate variance request for a larger pylon sign at 113 South Main Street, citing the city’s sign ordinance and failure to meet variance criteria. The votes were unanimous.
The board heard an administrative appeal and a variance request from New Hampshire Signs over a freestanding gas-station sign at 113 South Main Street and ruled against the applicant on both matters.
Applicant Peter March of New Hampshire Signs told the board he was appealing the building inspector’s denial under RSA 674:19 and cited New Hampshire case law, arguing the existing sign (about 89 square feet) is a protected nonconforming structure and that replacing or reconfiguring it should not trigger today’s size limits. March said the application had been amended several times (earlier figures discussed included 57, 73 and references to 79 square feet) and that the company sought to reuse foundations and some poles while updating the face and lighting to a Citgo brand design.
City staff told the board the downtown commercial sign rules were intentionally strict after the 2014 zoning overhaul, and that a change to the sign’s face or configuration generally converts it into a new sign subject to current limits (about 20–25 square feet in the downtown district). Staff emphasized that a property’s financial hardship is not a legally cognizable criterion for a variance and pointed to local examples of successful conforming signs.
Board members questioned whether smaller, LED-lit conforming signs could provide adequate price legibility at traffic speeds and whether parts of the existing sign could be reused. March argued that small digit heights (6 inches) would be hard to read from distance and that a 25-square-foot standard would reduce visibility to the point of harming the station’s ability to display prices clearly.
After closing the public hearing the board moved to action. A member made a motion to uphold the building inspector’s decision on the administrative appeal; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously (Tate Adams — Yes; Matthew Winters — Yes; Robert Jaffin — Yes; Lance Powers — Yes; Larry Spector — Yes).
On the separate variance request for a 79-square-foot pylon sign, the board again heard argument from March and public questions about comparators and tenant panels. City staff reiterated that the ordinance’s intent and criteria (including the requirement that hardship be related to the property, not the business) were not met. A motion to deny the variance, based in part on the board’s finding that the application did not meet the applicable criteria, passed unanimously (Tate Adams — Yes; Matthew Winters — Yes; Robert Jaffin — Yes; Lance Powers — Yes; Larry Spector — Yes).
The board advised the applicant that an appeal of either decision to superior court is available under state law within the statutory appeal period.
The rulings leave the property constrained by the downtown sign standard; the applicant may choose to seek a new design, pursue a different permit pathway, or pursue a court appeal.
