Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Zoning Appeals denies variance for Uptown Grainery sign
Summary
After public comment and deliberation, the Plain Board of Zoning Appeals voted not to approve Variance 26-1, a request to increase a projecting sign to roughly 28.92 square feet in the village's uptown district; board members said the variance was substantial and would alter neighborhood character.
The Plain Board of Zoning Appeals on March 11, 2026, declined to approve Variance 26-1, a request to increase the size of a projecting sign for the Grainery in the village's uptown district.
The applicant told the board the design had been revised several times since December 2024 and that the current proposal is about 28.92 square feet (29 inches by 144 inches). The applicant said the sign would not flash electronically and that any temporary color changes would be made manually by swapping bulbs for special events.
The decision followed two members of the public who urged denial. Ina Medici told the board that inflating prior measurements and allowing a multicolored, lighted sign would "significantly alter the landscape," calling the proposed design "quite egregious." Eric Medici said the sign design reminded him of "Las Vegas" and argued that a large, lighted projecting sign is inconsistent with the community's stated preference for a small-town feel.
During deliberation the board considered the zoning criteria for area variances. Members repeatedly described the requested size as a substantial deviation from the code's 9-square-foot maximum for the uptown sign district and said granting it would alter the essential character of neighboring properties. The staff summary and a pending revision to the village sign code were discussed, but board members emphasized that each variance must stand on its own facts.
After concluding the findings of fact, the board put a motion to approve Variance 26-1 to a vote; the motion did not receive sufficient support and failed. The board then moved to adjourn the meeting.
The transcript shows disagreements over the current sign's measured size (applicant and public commenters offered differing figures), and planning staff noted that luminance and mounting details are handled in the sign package review separate from the area-variance questions.
The board did not approve the variance; no date was set for reconsideration in the hearing transcript.
