(Dec. 15, 2016) A sign inserted into a large pylon outside the Berlin Butcher Shop on Williams Street will stay in place, following a ruling by the Berlin Board of Appeals last Wednesday.
That decision overturns an October order by the Berlin Historic District Commission, when Commissioner Robert Poli said the sign presented a series of violations and that it went up without commission approval.
Citing town code, Poli said at the time, “anyone making changes within the historic district without approval by the commission shall be deemed guilty of a municipal infraction.”
The historic district commission voted 3-0, with two members abstaining, to deny the sign, but a unanimous 4-0 vote by the board of appeals negated that ruling.
Attorney Paul Abu-Zaid, representing Berlin Butch Shop Owner Lisa Hall, said the historic district commission had approved a nearly identical sign that was mounted on the butcher shop.
Hall said the commission gave no specific reasons for the denial of the sign, other than they thought the pylon itself was “an eyesore.”
Planning Director Dave Engelhart said the commission could not order the pylon to be removed, but could only accept or reject the insert.
Abu-Zaid said the commission had not accepted legal design standards, and that town code did not “give a whole lot of guidance” to the panel.
“The decision was erroneous because it wasn’t based on any substantial evidence on the record and it did not adhere to the code requirements,” he said. “[The historic commission’s] issue really is with the pole, and she’s not modified the pole.”
He also argued that because the building, and the pylon, predates the commission, it had no authority to rule on it.
“They have to establish is this a valuable historic site … that wasn’t done,” Abu-Zaid said.
No mention was made of the sign’s installation before a scheduled hearing with the historic district commission in October, which seemed to be part of the basis for its rejection.
Appeals board member Jay Knerr said he was “somewhat confused” by the meeting minutes of the historic commission that provided the bulk of the evidence during the hearing.
“I didn’t feel there was any clear-cut reason to deny the sign,” he said. “It wasn’t clearly articulated or spelled out, in my opinion.”
Woody Bunting, also a member of the appellate board, agreed.
“I felt the same way when I was reading the minutes,” he said. “I didn’t understand what was being rejected or denied.”
Four of the five members of the historic district commission were present during the hearing, but none offered comment on the reason for the denial.
That decision overturns an October order by the Berlin Historic District Commission, when Commissioner Robert Poli said the sign presented a series of violations and that it went up without commission approval.
Citing town code, Poli said at the time, “anyone making changes within the historic district without approval by the commission shall be deemed guilty of a municipal infraction.”
The historic district commission voted 3-0, with two members abstaining, to deny the sign, but a unanimous 4-0 vote by the board of appeals negated that ruling.
Attorney Paul Abu-Zaid, representing Berlin Butch Shop Owner Lisa Hall, said the historic district commission had approved a nearly identical sign that was mounted on the butcher shop.
Hall said the commission gave no specific reasons for the denial of the sign, other than they thought the pylon itself was “an eyesore.”
Planning Director Dave Engelhart said the commission could not order the pylon to be removed, but could only accept or reject the insert.
Abu-Zaid said the commission had not accepted legal design standards, and that town code did not “give a whole lot of guidance” to the panel.
“The decision was erroneous because it wasn’t based on any substantial evidence on the record and it did not adhere to the code requirements,” he said. “[The historic commission’s] issue really is with the pole, and she’s not modified the pole.”
He also argued that because the building, and the pylon, predates the commission, it had no authority to rule on it.
“They have to establish is this a valuable historic site … that wasn’t done,” Abu-Zaid said.
No mention was made of the sign’s installation before a scheduled hearing with the historic district commission in October, which seemed to be part of the basis for its rejection.
Appeals board member Jay Knerr said he was “somewhat confused” by the meeting minutes of the historic commission that provided the bulk of the evidence during the hearing.
“I didn’t feel there was any clear-cut reason to deny the sign,” he said. “It wasn’t clearly articulated or spelled out, in my opinion.”
Woody Bunting, also a member of the appellate board, agreed.
“I felt the same way when I was reading the minutes,” he said. “I didn’t understand what was being rejected or denied.”
Four of the five members of the historic district commission were present during the hearing, but none offered comment on the reason for the denial.