Owner says city sent him back and forth on sign permits; city solicitor and staff direct him to planning board

Frank DeMarinis, owner of the Shermerhorn property at 224 Westfield Road, told the Development & Government Relations Committee he believed he had followed the city's required permitting path for modifying existing nonconforming signs but that the building-permit application was rejected and the city solicitor and building department advised the matter belongs before the planning board.

DeMarinis said he reduced sign size to address zoning concerns and took the package to city council as directed; after council approval the building department denied the building permit, and his attorney was told by the city solicitor that the planning board handles sign special permits for nonconforming signage. He described the result as costly and frustrating and asked the body for clarity.

Councilor Panitch and other members said review of the solicitor's advice and the building department's zoning interpretation indicated the planning board is the correct venue and that most routine sign special-permit reviews should be straightforward for planning staff. City solicitor Mike Bissonnette advised committee members that three categories of pre-existing nonconforming signage now must go through the planning board special-permit process, but noted staff suggestions to have the city cover notice costs for a rapid planning-board filing if the package is straightforward.

Committee members urged staff and the owner to work together to avoid further redundant expense and delay; the owner said he felt bounced between departments. Staff offered to help guide the planning-board submission to reduce the time and cost of re-filing.

What comes next: owner to file with the planning board per solicitor and building-department guidance; staff offered limited assistance and suggested helping cover notice costs to expedite process.