Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment reverses Burlington code enforcement notice for auto‑sales sign
Summary
The Burlington Board of Adjustment reversed a notice of violation issued to Jason Ross/ Priority 1 Auto Sales for replacing a nonconforming wall sign, finding the panel removal and reinstallation did not warrant enforcement under the city's UDO as applied in this case.
Chair Steve Heinemann convened the hearing on Notice of Appeal 26‑03 on June 9, 2026, and the board considered whether Burlington code enforcement properly issued a notice of violation after a sign panel at 1927 South Church Street was removed and reinstalled. Jeff McClintock, the city’s principal planner, entered the staff report, describing the property (PID 121448) and citing UDO sections 9.5 and 5.6.j.13 as the basis for the NOV.
Burlington code enforcement officer Matt Thomas testified that he observed the sign removed from the wall and that, after consulting his supervisor, he concluded the removal triggered the UDO provision that any nonconforming sign taken down for any reason must be replaced only with a conforming sign. "I drove by the property, and I saw that the sign was down," Thomas said, adding he did not have exact measurements but believed the reinstalled sign copy exceeded permitted dimensions.
Appellant Jason Ross testified he removed only the panel so crews could repaint the building and re‑letter the same panel, then reinstalled it using the original screws. "We didn't change anything but the lettering," Ross said, adding the sign configuration had been approved by the city when first erected in 2014. A city staff witness outlined the UDO history, saying the 2019 Unified Development Ordinance revised the nonconforming sign provisions and that the city has applied the rule that removed nonconforming signs must be replaced in conformance with the current UDO.
In deliberations board members focused on whether the action constituted a removal that invoked the replacement rule or whether the retained frame/bracket meant the sign remained effectively maintained. After failing to affirm the enforcement decision, the board moved to reverse the code enforcement officer’s determination. By majority voice vote the board reversed the NOV decision and allowed the sign as reinstalled. The record does not list individual member vote tallies.
The reversal means the administrative determination that a violation occurred has been set aside; the board noted the limited discretion of its quasi‑judicial role but concluded, on the record presented, to reverse the administrative decision. The board then proceeded to other agenda items.
