Zoning board denies variance for oversized wayfinding sign at Woodgate Business Park

The Zoning Board of Appeals on the March 2025 agenda voted 2-5 to deny a variance request to install a larger wayfinding sign at 134 Woodgate Drive.

The request, presented by Carrie Bracken of FASTSIGNS on behalf of VTech Systems Inc., sought approval for a 24-inch-by-48-inch sign standing 65 inches tall — a sign the planning director said would be 5 square feet larger than the 3-square-foot maximum and 29 inches taller than the 36-inch height limit in the zoning code.

The variance mattered to the applicant, Bracken said, because "they get a lot of truck traffic, semi truck traffic," and a slightly larger, taller sign would make the truck entrance legible to drivers approaching the site. Heather Sailor, the City Planning Director, told the board the property is in the Innovation and Employment zoning district and that wayfinding signs are allowed but subject to a 3-square-foot size and 3-foot height cap under sections 150.82 and 150.84 of the zoning code. Sailor said procedural notice requirements were met and that the rest of the sign package had received permits.

Board members split over whether the application showed the required practical difficulty. Several members said they were hesitant because no representative from VTech was present to answer questions about site operations and potential storage or stacking on the property. One board member said they needed "more questions answered before I would vote to support this," and another noted concerns about allowing extra display or advertising on the site without clearer limits. Supporters of the variance emphasized the site's status as the first developed parcel on a new road, Woodgate, and the expectation of future truck traffic to the business park.

Motion and vote: Judy Annis moved to grant the variance; the motion was seconded by (Coby) Johnson. The roll call produced the following recorded votes: Judy Annis — yes; Rod Noble — no; Hobie Johnson — yes; David Flager — no; Jay Sockman — no; Tim Emmert — no; Jeff Crawford — no. The motion failed and the variance request was denied.

After the vote, board staff told the applicant the options were to alter the plan and refile or to appeal the board's decision to the Wood County Court of Common Pleas.

No written objections from adjoining property owners were reported to planning staff.

The board signaled it could attach conditions — for example, landscaping — if an approval were granted; the applicant said she could convey that to the property owner. The planning director also noted that site landscaping would be required as part of the site's overall plan, though not specific to the sign.

The board moved to the next agenda item after giving the applicant her post-decision options and thanking her for attending.