Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oxford BZA directs law director to draft decision denying appeal of electronic marquee at 36 East High Street
Summary
After deliberation, the Oxford Board of Zoning Appeals directed the law director to draft a written decision denying an administrative appeal over a proposed electronic marquee at 36 East High Street and advised the applicant to submit a variance; officer elections and routine approvals followed.
Oxford — After deliberating an administrative appeal over a proposed electronic marquee, the Oxford Board of Zoning Appeals on an undocumented voice vote directed the law director to draft a written decision denying the appeal and scheduled the written decision for review at the board’s next meeting.
The appeal, listed in the meeting as B.C. 20250336 and concerning replacement of a changeable marquee sign with electronic message boards at 36 East High Street, had been heard in November and the board confirmed the hearing record met the required 45‑day timeframe. The board then moved into deliberations to consider whether the replacement sign must conform to the current zoning code.
Zack, the city’s Zoning Administrator, told the board he had reviewed the appellant’s summation and the appellant’s expert report and that he believed he had “appropriately and correctly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions appearing in the Oxford Planning and Zoning code” while acknowledging language in the code that could present legal difficulties if challenged in court. “I do recognize its existence in the code,” he said of a potential content-based restriction, and he cautioned there was “some legal risk inherent” in the present wording.
Board members questioned whether signage constitutes a principal land use under state law and whether replacing a nonconforming sign triggers the requirement to conform to current regulations. Zack said signs are “an accessory improvement” rather than a use and noted that when nonconforming signs are replaced they lose their nonconforming status and must meet current code requirements.
Following discussion, a board member moved that the board “direct the law director to draft a written decision, denying the appeal and that this decision will be reviewed by us and voted on at the next meeting.” The motion was seconded and the chair called for voices; the motion passed with no opposition announced.
The chair addressed the applicant directly, encouraging them “to submit a variance for this request” and saying the board could likely place a variance application on the February agenda given the existing record.
The meeting continued with routine business: the board elected officers for 2026 (Mr. Russo as chair; Steve Chaffin as vice chair; Mr. Creech as secretary), approved the minutes of the prior meeting and adjourned.
The board referenced several legal and administrative authorities during discussion, including the Oxford Planning and Zoning code and a cited code provision described in the record as section 11 37.1 0.1 c; speakers also referenced the Ohio Revised Code in discussing nonconforming uses. The law director will prepare the written decision denying the appeal for board review at the next meeting.
