The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals of the City of North Ridgeville voted unanimously to reverse the zoning administrator’s determination that a proposed sign for Center Ridge Dental is a prohibited roof sign, clearing the way for the applicant to pursue permitting for a sign above the practice at Center Ridge Road and Leer Nagle Road.

The issue mattered to the board because the business and building owner said road-widening projects removed frontage and parking, limiting visible locations for a new sign; the board’s reversal lets the applicant avoid a flat statutory prohibition while city staff considers how to classify and size the sign under the code.

Planning and development director Lieber told the board the city revised its sign code in 2023 and that the update included a prohibition on roof signs. "In 2023, we updated the sign code, and at that time, we prohibited roof signs," Lieber said, noting the code does not define "roof" or "roof line." Assistant law director Morgan told the board the phrase "roof line" is commonly understood as a building's top profile and that it is not necessarily synonymous with the word "roof." "Does roofline mean roof? And I would indicate that I don't think it does," Morgan said.

Applicant Nathan Harris, who is taking over the dental practice, described visibility problems created by the parcel’s topography and by road projects. "I've been driving by here for 20 years, and my neighbor or a family member told me to come on in," Harris said, arguing patients have difficulty locating the practice and that clearer signage is needed to identify parking and the entrance.

Dr. Arndt, who said he owns the building and sold the practice to Harris, testified about the impacts of two major road projects and about an earlier, larger sign removed during reconstruction. He described lost parking and lengthy periods when the building and signage were obscured by construction materials and changes to the intersection. "We had bulldozers, I had piles of 57 rock out in front of my office where no one could see it for almost 3 years," Dr. Arndt said.

Scott Hart, identified in the record with the owner SMAMM Limited, said the property had a history of sign removal and that options to locate an effective roadside sign are limited on the parcel. He asked the board to consider the business’s long tenure in the community.

Attorney comments and the applicant packet referenced the variance standard (the "Duncan factors") and argued that, even if the board treated the proposal as a roof sign, the facts support relief. The planning director and law director said the matter before the board was an interpretation: either to affirm the zoning administrator's determination that the proposed sign is a roof sign (which the code flatly prohibits) or to reverse that determination, which would allow the applicant to proceed without a variance.

After deliberation, a member moved to reverse the administrative determination that the sign is a prohibited roof sign and a second was recorded. Board members Grotman, Weaver, Toth and Masterson voted yes; the motion carried unanimously. The reversal means the applicant may pursue permitting without seeking a variance from the specific prohibition as originally interpreted by staff.

Board members and staff emphasized that several follow-up items remain: if the reversal stands, staff must determine how to classify the sign for allowable area and other dimensional rules (for example, whether it should be treated as a canopy sign or a wall sign and what percentage-area limits apply). Lieber said she intends to refine the code language to remove ambiguity for future applicants: "It would be my intent to go back to the code and to fine tune the language just to clear this issue up for any future applicant." The building department was directed to follow up with the applicant about permit requirements and sign-size limits.

The board's discussion repeatedly distinguished between discussion points and formal action: members debated statutory construction and neighborhood consistency, staff provided legal and administrative context, and the board issued a formal reversal as its decision. The reversal does not itself set specific dimensional approvals; those details will be resolved through the regular permitting process and any applicable numeric limits in the sign code.

The public hearing record includes photographs and a written packet that address the applicant’s visibility arguments and the Duncan-factor analysis, and the board urged staff to return with clarifying code language so similar disputes do not recur.