Germantown aldermen uphold DRC denial of second wall sign for Wine, Beer, Liquor of Germantown

The Germantown Board of Mayor and Aldermen on Monday declined to approve a second wall sign for Wine, Beer, Liquor of Germantown LLC, rejecting an appeal of a March decision by the Design Review Commission (DRC).

Planning Director Cameron Ross told the board the DRC considered and denied the applicant’s request for a secondary sign on March 25, citing municipal code provisions that make a second wall sign discretionary for the commission rather than a by-right approval. Ross said staff had offered alternatives, including reconfiguring the lettering so “liquor, wine, beer” could be presented together as one sign, but the applicant opted to pursue the second-sign route and appealed the DRC denial to the board.

The appeal drew extended comment from Steven Stansell, owner of Stansell Square Shopping Center, and tenant Noel Elie, who said the proposed signage complied with the shopping center’s sign policy, which Stansell said the DRC approved in 1988. Stansell told aldermen that the sign band for his tenant space includes both a brick and a stucco portion and that the combined frontage entitles the tenant to a larger total sign area under the municipal formula tied to linear frontage. “This case is the case regarding a sign application,” Stansell said, arguing the application should have been handled administratively because it met the ordinance and the center’s approved sign policy.

Elie said he had been given administrative approval for a primary wall sign that reads “liquor,” but that staff then declined to approve the additional wording “wine” and “beer” in the area he had designated. “All the reasons given to me were not, in reflection to the application of design ordinance,” Elie said, calling the earlier decision inconsistent with the code and the center’s policy.

Ross and planning staff said the site includes differing materials and articulated facades; that complexity placed the request beyond a straightforward administrative approval; and that the DRC is the appropriate body to exercise discretion on whether a second wall sign is allowed. Ross said the total proposed sign area (40.8 square feet) complied with the city’s square-footage limits, but that the rules governing multi-wall signs and building articulation supported the DRC’s denial.

Aldermen debated whether the DRC’s discretionary role and its March deliberations should be weighed against the property owner’s interpretation of the sign policy. Alderman Hicks, who serves on the DRC, said the commission had tried multiple code-compliant options and had sought a practical solution for the tenant, and that the commission’s judgment should stand. Several other aldermen echoed that view.

A motion to approve the second wall sign, moved by Alderman Hicks and seconded by Vice Mayor Gibson, failed on roll call. The roll call recorded no affirmative votes for the motion to approve the second wall sign; the board therefore left the DRC denial in place.

The board did not prescribe additional remedies or remand the matter; the DRC determination stands unless the applicants submit a revised, code-compliant sign proposal or file a new application.