Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates digital signage and variances after split decisions by design review and planning commissions
Summary
Canfield council discussed a proposed LED sign for the green after design review approved the proposal 3–2 but planning and zoning denied a variance; council members raised concerns about visual impact, precedent, and ordinance language governing LEDs and window signage.
Canfield City Council members spent substantial time discussing a proposed electronic sign near the public green after the item split between the city’s design review body (which approved the design 3–2) and the planning and zoning commission (which denied the required variance).
Council members and staff described the proposed installation as a digital, single‑faced LED sign mounted near the Odd Fellows building that would have been roughly the same size as an existing perpendicular two‑sided sign but displayed electronic content. A representative from the sign company identified in the record as Ittersource appeared at planning and zoning; the property owner did not appear. Council members noted that the design‑review panel had approved the design yet planning and zoning rejected the variance needed for the sign to be installed as proposed.
Speakers raised three practical concerns: visual character and scale in the historic green, the risk of creating a precedent that could allow larger or brighter signs elsewhere, and compliance with existing sign rules. Staff and council referred to several ordinance constraints: digital signs are prohibited from flashing; window signage may not cover more than a specified portion of storefront glass (mentioned in the discussion as a 75% limit); and signs are required to dim after sunset (described in the discussion as a 90% dimming requirement). Council members suggested the item revealed ambiguities between what design review approves and what planning and zoning must grant by variance, and they discussed whether council should convene with design review to consider ordinance changes governing size, illumination and locations of digital signage within the Design Review District.
Council made no formal amendment or ordinance change during the meeting; discussion closed with members expressing willingness to examine ordinance language and to coordinate between council and design review on possible revisions to preserve the green’s historic character while clarifying rules for electronic signage.
