The Oxford Board of Zoning Appeals on Nov. 25 heard an evidentiary appeal over a denied sign permit for 36 East High Street, the Brick Street entertainment venue, and voted to suspend deliberations and review the record before issuing a decision.

Zoning administrator Zach Moore told the board he denied permit P2025O300-320 on July 9, 2025, after concluding the applicant’s plan to replace two manual changeable-copy marquee panels with LED electronic message displays (an EMV/LED Watchfire product) would be a replacement, not permitted maintenance, and therefore would cause the signs to lose their legal nonconforming status. Moore summarized applicable code sections on nonconforming signs and illumination and said the code specifically prohibits moving, flashing or animated signs.

Counsel for the applicant, Jack Grove, said the owner is seeking to preserve the marquee’s function and historical character and pointed to the Historic and Architectural Preservation Commission’s (HAPC) Certificate of Appropriateness, which approved the LED panels subject to four conditions: static signage, no scrolling or moving images, installer-recommended illumination adjustment to limit distraction, and attempted adherence to traditional character. Grove introduced technical and legal witnesses to support the appeal.

Vince Clusty of Clusty Signs described the proposed Watchfire 6‑millimeter display and its operational controls. “The 6 millimeter has only been out about 2, 3 years,” Clusty said, and he described dimming sensors and image-hold practices designed to avoid animation or flashing. He and other witnesses told the board the proposed panels would fit into the existing marquee recess and that timing/dimming can be programmed to comply with the COA conditions and reduce distraction.

The applicant’s land‑use expert, Thomas Breidenstein, told the board zoning ordinances should be interpreted in favor of property owners and argued that the code’s maintenance and nonconforming-use provisions can be read to permit the proposed substitution and preserve a lawful nonconforming use. “Zoning ordinances are to be construed in favor of the property owner,” Breidenstein testified.

Board members focused questions on three discrete issues: whether replacing internal marquee faces with LED modules constitutes a structural alteration that would forfeit nonconforming status; how to operationalize the HAPC’s “static signage” condition in light of the city’s regulatory definitions for flashing/brightness; and the enforceability of COA conditions over time and with future owners. Moore said the line between repair and replacement is gray in some cases but defended his interpretation that the proposed work crosses into replacement and therefore removed the nonconforming status.

After witness testimony and cross-examination, the board closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing and moved into deliberations. The board voted to suspend deliberations, gather the exhibits and transcript, and review the record with the possibility of obtaining legal advice from the law director; the board set a continuation for its next regular meeting rather than making an immediate ruling.

The board did not render a final decision on the appeal Nov. 25. The next procedural step is the board’s review of the record and any follow-up questions or legal guidance; the hearing will resume at the board’s next regular meeting and a final vote will be taken after deliberation.