The Bedford Building and Standards Commission on Jan. 16 affirmed the city building official’s denial of two permit applications for off‑premise billboards, voting 5-0 to find the proposed signs are billboards prohibited under the City of Bedford sign code.

The decision resolves an appeal by Keith Jones Outdoor LLC, whose representatives argued the city code contains conflicting definitions of “off‑premise” signs and billboards and that state law permits commercial signage along highways. City counsel urged the commission to defer constitutional and statutory challenges to the courts and to apply the city ordinance as written.

Andrea Cook, an attorney representing the appellant, said the core issue is statutory ambiguity: “the issue here is that there is a discrepancy in the code itself determining the differences between off premises and on premises signs.” Cook told the commission her client had applied earlier in the year for permits that were denied on Nov. 6, 2024, and that the city code does not clearly define “off‑premise advertising.”

John Quirida, the applicant and owner of the outdoor‑advertising company, described industry practice and his view that commercial messages on billboards are protected speech: “it is protected under freedom of speech,” he said, and argued the company had satisfied state permitting requirements where applicable.

Tammy Arnoff, representing the City of Bedford, responded that the commission must apply the city code. Arnoff pointed to the ordinance’s definitions and to the section on prohibited signs, saying the proposed structures meet the city’s definition of billboards and were properly denied. She also told commissioners that “this board does not have the power to set aside an ordinance” and that challenges to constitutionality belong in the courts.

Commission members discussed the historical purpose of the city’s off‑premise provisions and their limited authority in appeal hearings. Commissioners noted the board’s role is to decide whether staff correctly applied the ordinance, not to rewrite it or rule on constitutional questions.

A motion to affirm the building official’s interpretation — finding the proposed signs identified in permit records Sign‑24‑181 and Sign‑24‑183 are billboards and therefore prohibited — carried on a 5‑0 roll call. The commission recorded five approvals and no disapprovals. The record includes varying transcriptions of the street addresses described in the applications (the items were described in the hearing record as locations on Airport Freeway; address numbers in the transcript differ), and the commission’s action focused on whether the city code had been applied correctly rather than on any broader statutory or constitutional ruling.

The commission took no further action on code changes; members noted that perceived conflicts or ambiguities in the ordinance could be addressed through the city’s legislative process or by judicial review. The meeting adjourned after the vote.