Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Oxford BZA adopts written decision denying appeal to install LED sign at Brick Street
Loading...
Summary
At its March 24, 2026 meeting the Oxford Board of Zoning Appeals adopted a written decision memorializing its prior denial of Weisman Enterprise Holdings’ appeal to install an LED sign at 36 East High Street (Brick Street). The board found the LED would be a replacement, not maintenance, and said such direct-illumination signs are not permitted in the Uptown Zoning District; it advised the appellant to seek a variance.
OXFORD, Ohio — The Oxford Board of Zoning Appeals on March 24 adopted a written opinion formalizing its earlier decision to deny an administrative appeal from Weisman Enterprise Holdings seeking to install an LED sign at 36 East High Street, the location of the Brick Street bar and entertainment venue.
The board’s written decision, read into the record by the chair, concluded that installing an LED sign constitutes a replacement rather than maintenance under the city’s sign rules and therefore a legal nonconforming sign would lose that status if replaced. "In our view, installing a new LED sign is replacing the existing sign," the chair read as part of the board’s rationale, and the decision cites city code provisions that bar direct-illumination signage in the Uptown Zoning District.
The ruling follows a full hearing that produced testimony and exhibits — including a Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the Historic and Architectural Preservation Commission (HPAC) and an HPAC hearing transcript submitted as evidence. The chair told the board the record includes expert reports submitted on behalf of Dr. Josh Keeley and Thomas W. Bredenstein, AICP, and that deliberations had previously occurred in closed session under the court authority cited in the record.
While adopting the written decision, board members discussed a paragraph in the draft noting that portions of the sign code are outdated. One board member asked whether that observation was relevant to the board’s legal holding; the chair and another member said the statement reflected the deliberative record and staff testimony that code updates were underway.
The decision instructs the appellant to pursue the proper administrative route for relief: the board "strongly encouraged" the applicant to seek a variance under the variance provisions of the city code and, if pursuing variance relief, consider conditions similar to those approved by HPAC. When a board member asked whether "exhaust administrative remedies" meant pursuing a variance rather than going to court, the chair confirmed that the administrative remedy referenced was seeking a variance.
The written decision memorializes a denial the board said was voted at a prior meeting; the chair noted that the earlier denial had been recorded as a five-to-nothing vote. At the March 24 meeting the board voted to adopt the written decision on the record; two members audibly indicated "Aye" and the chair stated there were no oppositions. The chair signed the written decision and confirmed that two signed copies would be filed in the record.
The Board adjourned after completing the administrative business.
Votes at a glance
• Prior meeting (date in record): denial of Weisman Enterprise Holdings administrative appeal — recorded in the file as 5–0 in favor of denial.
• March 24, 2026: formal adoption of the written decision memorializing that denial — recorded in the meeting as "Aye" by two members; no opposition was recorded on the audio.
