Sandusky panel tables request for freestanding OhioMeansJobs sign at 221 West Perry Street

The Sandusky Boards & Commissions on March 1 tabled a request to allow a freestanding sign for OhioMeansJobs at 221 West Perry Street, citing outstanding questions about existing signage, exact placement and whether a consolidated sign for multiple county tenants is feasible.

The item asked for a variance from the city's sign rules (zoning code sections 11.37 and 11.43) to allow a freestanding sign that would sit closer than the code's 250-foot separation from another freestanding sign on a frontage category that must be at least 500 feet. Planner Adam Panas told the board he had reviewed the application and advised staff that the project may not require a variance after a closer read of the code, but staff supported the submitted analysis pending clarifications.

The request was presented by Trudy Riddle, who identified herself as the supervisor at OhioMeansJobs Erie County. "We did rebranding, so we did the new signage," Riddle said, explaining that state rebranding funds paid for the proposed sign. Workforce administrator Neil Gingling said the freestanding sign would help visitors identify the office within a multi-agency building.

Resident Wesley Poole opposed the variance, arguing the change would be "contrary to the purpose and intent of the code" and a traffic-safety concern. "A variance of the regulation by 70% is unquestionably substantial," Poole said, adding that motorists could be distracted by multiple signs and that the agency has other options such as using the existing electronic sign or larger wall-mounted lettering.

Board members and staff noted confusion about whether a third sign already exists on the property and asked for confirmation that one sign would be removed if the new freestanding sign were approved. Staff later confirmed that an "all legacy" sign would be removed. The applicant said the building is occupied by four entities, including OhioMeansJobs, the Erie County Health Department and Job and Family Services, and that interior tenant identification is a factor in the request.

After discussion, a board member moved to table the request "to obtain more information and adjudicate at a later time." The motion was seconded and the board asked staff to provide exact placement measurements, confirm which existing sign(s) would be removed, and report back on the possibility of a single consolidated sign that would list all tenants and might be provided or coordinated with the county commissioners.

A roll call on the motion recorded at least two affirmative votes: John Fyke and William Stevens. The board did not record a full tally in the transcript excerpt.

The board also removed an unrelated item from the agenda earlier in the meeting after staff said a newly assigned planner found that a variance initially thought necessary was not required under the code. Staff said they would notify neighbors who had already been mailed notices that the earlier item was removed.

Staff said they will follow up with the applicant and the county, and the panel expects to revisit the sign request at a later meeting after receiving the requested details.