Grove City zoning board tables American Legion's request for electronic sign

The Grove City Board of Zoning Appeals on Monday tabled an appeal by an American Legion post seeking variances to install an electronic changeable-copy sign at its McDowell Road location, saying the applicants should work with staff to craft conditions that meet the city’s sign code and avoid driver distractions.

An American Legion representative told the board the sign would be used to advertise upcoming events such as blood drives and Veterans Day activities and “to communicate important information to the veteran community during emergencies,” and argued older members and some community residents rely on a roadside sign rather than social media.

Board members pressed the applicants about compliance, asking whether the sign was purchased or donated and whether the vendor was local; applicants said the donation/purchase occurred before the permit process and the sign company was out of state. The applicants told the board the sign package already met some dimensional requirements and that they planned landscaping and to lower the sign to reduce its visual impact.

Several members said they were sympathetic to the Legion’s outreach goals but emphasized the board’s duty to apply the code objectively. One member warned that without clear, enforceable conditions he would oppose granting the variance: “Otherwise, I’m gonna vote down.” The board’s counsel read the applicable appeal procedures and explained that a denial would mean the applicants’ remedy is an administrative appeal to the Court of Common Pleas under Ohio law, using the board’s record.

Discussion focused on limiting the sign’s distracting effects rather than an absolute ban. Members compared the proposal to existing nonconforming signs at the Monterey School and First Baptist Church and to fire-station signs, and floated possible conditions: prohibiting flashing or scrolling displays, restricting how frequently messages can change, limiting changes to overnight hours, and restricting use to the nonprofit applicant (not commercial tenants). Applicant representatives said they would accept no flashing and described keeping messages static for extended periods rather than continuous motion.

During the meeting the applicants gave cost figures for context: they said the sign itself cost roughly $22,500 and installation about $4,500, and that moving the sign back on the site and providing required landscaping would add to expenses; the exact additional amount presented in the record was unclear. Staff confirmed they had circulated a packet of eight suggested options for how the board might accommodate a sign, and said the options were intended as alternatives rather than mandatory choices.

After deliberation the chair moved to table the application so applicants could work with staff and return with clarified materials and proposed language; the board agreed to reopen the item at its December 22 meeting. The board recorded a voice vote in favor of tabling (members present voted in favor). The meeting adjourned with no further business.

What’s next: Applicants will work with zoning staff to draft proposed conditions and revised materials; the Board of Zoning Appeals will consider the item again at its December 22 meeting.