Plain Board of Zoning Appeals denies variance for larger projecting sign at 138 West Main Street

The Plain Board of Zoning Appeals on Dec. 10 denied an application from Tim Dawson to install a 40.25-square-foot projecting blade sign at 138 West Main Street, ruling that the proposal exceeded local size limits and risked creating an undesirable precedent in downtown Plain City.

Zoning staff told the board the proposed sign would exceed the roughly 9-square-foot limit for projecting signs in the Uptown overlay and said allowing a sign nearly four times that size would set a "dangerous precedent." "I think it would be dangerous to set that type of precedent on that kind of sign, so staff is not in support of the variance," the zoning officer said during the staff presentation.

Dawson, who identified himself as the owner of the restaurant and entertainment venue occupying the property, asked the board for three dimensional variances: an increase in sign face area to 40.25 square feet, a projection of 44 inches (versus a 36-inch/3-foot projection limit described by staff), and an adjustment to mounting height above the second-floor window. He told the board his building now has substantially more continuous street frontage than when the original sign was approved and said that the larger blade sign is required for visibility, wayfinding and safety at events. "When each Duncan factor is applied to this property, every factor weighs in favor of granting this variance," Dawson told the board, invoking the Ohio Supreme Court's Duncan v. Village of Middlefield test for dimensional variances.

Members of the public and the board offered mixed views. One commenter said the proposed sign was creative and appropriate for the block; another warned that approving a considerably larger sign would amount to ignoring the zoning rules and would be unfair to other businesses that had complied with the code. Dawson also argued uneven prior approvals on the block—he cited one neighboring property he said had about 136.44 square feet of total signage—meant his smaller request was proportional. The zoning officer and other board members questioned whether prior approvals on neighboring properties had followed an appropriate process and whether granting this variance would undercut the intent of the ordinance.

Board members deliberated against the statutory criteria in the local code (11.38.05(c))—including public interest, special conditions, substantiality, character of the neighborhood, and whether literal enforcement would cause practical difficulties. Some members found the property unique because the owner operates multiple uses out of the same building; others said the existing signage and prior variances on the block counseled caution and that the request was substantial relative to the code limits.

During the hearing the board also discussed an upcoming January code amendment that would formally allow modest bracket projections (a 6-inch bracket for a 3-by-3-foot sign) to accommodate mounting hardware; the applicant consented to include the projection issue in the record. The board then voted on the application as amended to include projection, and the clerk announced, "So the application is denied."

The board adopted findings of fact before voting. The record shows the denial pertained to the three-dimensional variance package presented at the hearing (size, projection, height). The board did not adopt or announce an alternative remedy at the meeting and did not set a follow-up hearing date during the session.

The case was heard under local sign code provisions and the applicant referenced the Ohio Supreme Court's Duncan v. Village of Middlefield standard. The record includes the staff recommendation against the variance, multiple public comments, the applicant's written and oral materials (which he offered to submit for the record), and the board's deliberations and vote that resulted in denial.