North Ridgeville board denies South Ridge Inn appeal over pole sign

The North Ridgeville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals voted unanimously to deny an appeal from South Ridge Inn over an unauthorized pole sign at 32801 Lorraine Road, concluding the sign lost its legal nonconforming status after being structurally altered.

City staff said the former Super 8 (rebranded South Ridge Inn) was issued a notice of violation on Jan. 1 for installing signs without a permit and for using a pole sign type the city now prohibits. Chief Building Official Furston and other staff told the board the sign's cabinet was removed and replaced rather than merely refaced, which constitutes a structural alteration and triggers current zoning requirements.

Assistant Law Director Morgan told the board that because pole signs are a prohibited sign type, the board could not grant a variance and must consider only whether the administrative official correctly refused to issue a permit. Morgan said, in part, "In an appeal ... the only thing you're looking at because this is a prohibited type sign, is whether or not they would need a permit to do it and they can't get a permit because it's specifically prohibited, so whether or not the administrative official made a correct decision in not issuing a permit for the pole sign."

Representatives for the applicant described their actions as a rebranding and said they obtained a permit to reface building signage but were unaware replacing the pole sign cabinet would eliminate its legal nonconforming status. Sully Patel, who identified himself as at the Lorraine Road address, said the motel lost franchise branding and needs visibility: "If we don't have a sign... they're not gonna see us," and argued a lower sign would harm business.

Staff cited the zoning code's sign-size limits and prohibitions. The record notes the applicant's plan showed a new sign area of about 150 square feet; the zoning code allows a maximum of 65 square feet at 8 feet high or 50 square feet at 10 feet high (Section 1286.11, as cited in the staff report). The staff report also referenced the prohibition on pole signs (section cited in the record as 1286.05).

The board made a motion to deny the application; the clerk recorded unanimous votes in favor from members Kane, Grotman, Weaver, Toth and Masterson. The board's denial leaves the administrative determination in place; staff noted the applicant could pursue the administrative-appeal path but a variance was not a legally available remedy for a prohibited sign type.

The application record and staff report note the city issued the initial notice of violation and that the applicant had previously been granted a permit to reface building signage but did not obtain a permit for the new pole-sign cabinet. The staff report also advised the applicant that a separate application would be needed for any lighting improvements.

The board did not adopt any alternative remedy at the hearing. The applicant was permitted to leave following the vote.