Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tenant’s request for canopy-mounted sign at 397 Millburn carried for re-notice after ownership and notice questions
Summary
A commercial tenant seeking a canopy-mounted sign at 397 Millburn was told to renotice and return; the board flagged owner-consent and public-notice concerns and encouraged the applicant to reduce the sign dimensions or obtain fresh notice before the board considers the variance.
A tenant at 397 Millburn seeking permission for a canopy-mounted sign was asked to return with either a reduced sign or fresh public notice after the board identified problems with owner consent and the notice provided to neighbors.
The tenant’s representative described a canopy sign roughly 12.58 feet long with letters and a maximum element about 20.375 inches high and said the tenant has been operating since about May 1 without a permanent sign. Board staff pointed out that canopy signage is not permitted in the B4 district as a matter of right and that earlier approvals for retail signs across the project had different parameters. Staff and board members also noted the property’s ownership recently changed, and some noticing requirements did not clearly match the change of owner.
The applicant said the sign is important for visibility and for attracting customers, and that asking a small business to renotice hundreds of abutters and pay repeat fees could be burdensome. One applicant representative appealed for a pragmatic path forward but accepted the board’s concern about adequate public notice. A board member suggested shrinking the sign to conform with prior preapproved parameters; staff recommended re-noticing so neighbors have an opportunity to weigh in.
Outcome: The board agreed to carry the application and asked the applicant to either renotice and return or file a revised application consistent with previously approved sign size guidelines. The board tentatively set a continuation scheduling mechanism and suggested a future hearing date would be announced after the applicant and staff coordinate on notice and dimensions.
