Mount Vernon zoning panel denies Take 5 request for second freestanding sign on Coshocton Avenue

The Mount Vernon Board of Zoning Appeals on March 5, 2025, denied a variance request that would have allowed Take 5 to install a second freestanding sign on a multi-tenant parcel along Coshocton Avenue.

The denial came after public opposition, a staff report citing the city sign code and discussion by board members. The motion to approve the variance was seconded but failed on a roll call vote of No: Cunningham, Percy, O'Quinn, Smith and Adams. The board recorded the outcome as "denied as requested."

The case (recorded in the meeting as 2025 BZA — Coshocton Avenue; staff report dated 03/04/2025, Parcel Number 60-6-04268.000) involved a parcel in the GB (General Business) zoning district that contains multiple structures and tenants, and an existing multi-tenant freestanding sign. Planning staff told the board that City Code section 1113.08(a)(2) allows one freestanding sign along each public street frontage per property and that a review of similar parcels found no other property in the city with more than one freestanding sign.

Matthew Lynn, representing Kessler Sign Company on behalf of Take 5, said the applicant sought a freestanding sign separate from the existing directory monument so that the new business would be visible from Coshocton Avenue. Opponents told the board the request would undermine the recently adopted zoning code and create an undesirable precedent. "I ask that you deny the application for this variance for a second sign on the front street frontage," said Don Carr, a nearby resident, during public comment. Resident Gary Kester said the city spent more than $80,000 to develop a new code and urged the board to enforce it: "the intention is to further develop our community so that it has more attractive and has some uniformity in the business districts," he said.

Opponents and the board discussed the parcel layout and sightlines near an exit driveway; one opponent said placement could interfere with a driver's ability to see traffic on Coshocton Avenue. The application materials (as summarized by an opponent in the meeting) described the proposed monument as approximately 10 feet tall, with a 30-inch base, internally illuminated LED faces, two-sided display and an 84-inch depth toward the rear of the property. The opponent also noted the city had recently approved building-mounted signage for the same property, and argued a second freestanding sign would be inconsistent with signs on nearby properties such as Marshall's, Tim Hortons and Advance Auto, which share single monument signs or have building-mounted signage.

Board members asked whether Take 5 could amend or occupy space on the existing freestanding sign; staff replied that the existing structure is a legacy pole sign, that recent code iterations discourage pole signs and that any substantial modification to a pole sign could trigger compliance review by engineering and planning staff. Members repeatedly referenced the recent comprehensive zoning code rewrite and said the code intentionally limits freestanding signs to one per frontage to promote consistency. A board member who said they had been involved in the code process said they intended to vote no to avoid undermining the council's recently adopted regulations.

After discussion, the board proceeded to roll-call votes. The clerk recorded no votes in favor; the motion failed and the variance request was denied. The board had no additional business and adjourned.

Votes at a glance: motion to approve the variance (mover and seconder not specified on the record) — Outcome: denied; Roll call votes recorded as No: Miss Cunningham; Michael Percy; Chris O'Quinn; Mr. Smith; Mr. Adams.