The meeting’s central issue involved a pole sign at the Dunkin Donuts location, which had been partially damaged since 2022 and failed to display a message for over 180 days, a condition that classifies it as discontinued under local code section 34450. The magistrate emphasized that all remnants of such signs, including poles and supports, must be removed if no permit for a new sign is submitted. Despite prior extensions and opportunities to present evidence of compliance, the representatives for the property failed to provide the necessary documentation to support their case, prompting the magistrate to enforce the removal order.

A representative for the property, Paul Walter Amarl, had requested a continuance due to the absence of Mr. Patel, the individual responsible for the sign, and a delay in receiving pricing estimates for a replacement. However, the magistrate was firm in the decision, highlighting the absence of sufficient evidence to support any deviation from the code. The magistrate set a deadline of August 4 for the removal of the pole, with a warning that failure to comply would incur fines of $250 per day starting August 5.

The debate around the pole sign’s compliance status was further complicated by conflicting interpretations of the city’s code. Christian Papoli, a senior planner, maintained that the sign should be considered a single unit, thereby not eligible for repair or relocation once damaged beyond 50% of its replacement cost. Meanwhile, the magistrate referred to a previous order allowing the existing sign face to remain, provided certain conditions like pole height adjustments were met. However, Papoli and Ireland both reiterated the city’s stance that no reconstruction would be permissible unless the sign adheres to current monument sign requirements, which mandate specific size and height limitations.

Adding to the complexity, a member of the audience expressed confusion over the timeline for the sign’s removal, mistakenly believing there was a 30-day window for compliance. The magistrate clarified that immediate removal was necessary, though she considered a brief extension to August 4. The magistrate encouraged ongoing cooperation with the city to explore the feasibility of a new monument sign that would meet city standards, acknowledging the business’s interest in a compliant replacement.

The magistrate emphasized the necessity for respondents to be well-prepared in presenting their case, noting that this was the third hearing on the matter and ample time had already been provided. The magistrate closed the discussion by scheduling a follow-up for August 27.

Additionally, the meeting featured another case concerning a non-conforming sign for Des Luna LLC, which was resolved with the removal of the offending sign. This case was closed without further ado.