Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

We are ready to go. Okay. Good evening. Welcome. The February 2026 meeting of the city of Bowling Green zoning board of appeals is in session. Will the secretary please um Jeff Crawford here. Tim Emmer here. Bob Mccumber here. Brad Noble here. David Fer here. Jay Sachman here. Jerry Anderson yes here. Very good. We have a quorum. The first order of business is the approval of the minutes from the December 2025 meeting as previously circulated. Is there a motion for approval? So moved. Moved by Mr. Fleger. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Emerick. All those in favor say I.

I. I.

The minutes are approved. Um, first of all, welcome um to our our humble hometown here. And uh we uh I'd like to say at the onset, we understand that zoning is sometimes difficult for people to to understand, particularly when the city's trying to tell you what you can or can't do with your property. And with that in mind, um I'd like to encourage you to be at ease. Uh we are trying to keep this as informal as we can. Uh we're fellow citizens here and generally nice people and we are interested to hear what you have to say and listen to your concerns this evening. Uh so our zoning code was updated just a couple of years ago. So presumably it's a fairly modern document that recognizes that one size doesn't fit all when it comes to certain regulations. As we proceed tonight, I will read the request uh that's on the agenda. the city's planning director will then give us an overview of the situation and the applicable sections of the zoning code. And as the applicant, you will then be invited to present your case. And others who may want to uh do so will be allowed to testify uh at that time as well. Uh anyone who does provide testimony this evening must have standing in order to do so. And we will consider we may consider only uh credible ev evidence in in this case that consists of factual firsthand or expert testimony. Uh during this time uh the board may have questions for you and others. It's the appropriate time the public comment portion of the hearing will be closed. you may return to your seats at that time and the board will then discuss amongst ourselves the request and testimony and any other evidence that's uh offered this evening. Um at that point in time, the board may either approve the request, deny the request,

modifications or table it for further information. Appeals to the decisions of the board may be made to the Wood County uh Court of Common please. And as such, this is a quasi judicial proceeding. Anyone who testifies must swear an oath to tell the truth and as I mentioned have standing, meaning that you would be directly affected and in a different way as to the request than members of the general public. A court reporter is also present and will be taking a verb verbatim record of the hearing and uh transcript would could be made as as necessary there. Uh if you haven't already done so, there's a sign-in sheet at the back of the door at the uh would please sign in. Um at this time, if you intend to or think you might testim testify in this hearing this evening, would you please stand and raise your right hand? I do solemnly swear that the testimony I give in these matters this evening will be the tr the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help me God. I

do.

Very good. All right. Um, we, as I said, only have the, uh, one case this evening, and it involves J. Peter Milan uh Esquire from the Spangler Nathan Law Firm on behalf of ATP Investments 2 LLC. The property owner has requested an appeal of the opinion interpretation of the zoning code by the planning director concerning the number of signs allowed at 15022 East Worster Street, which is zoned interstate commerce and considered a multi-tenant building per section 150.85 85 and table 28 of the zoning code, a maximum of two signs are allowed, quote, if there are multiple businesses on the same parcel or located within the same building. Close quote. Heather, can you give us the summary and run down on the code sections, please?

Yes, thank you. Um, first of all, in your packet, I did um put a memo in there um about the um meeting tonight and some additional history. So, I will summarize the letter. Um, it's to provide additional background information on the request to appeal the opinion interpretation of the zoning code by the pling director concerning the number of signs allowed at 1502 East Street. The property is zoned IC, which stands for interstate commerce. The pling director has determined section 150.85 and table 28 found in section 150.84 of the zoning code. A maximum of two signs are allowed if there are multiple businesses on the same parcel or located within the same building. There are currently two wall signs approved for each business. Um, attached are the applicable zoning code sections which I'll review again during this presentation. Um, below is additional background information with an aerial view of the property. Also in your packet, uh, the prior building at this location was demolished this past spring for the construction of a new building which was completed in August. On August 4, sign permits were applied for to construct two wall signs for each business and to utilize the existing pylon, which staff believes was approved by the zoning board of appeals on April 14th, 1993 due to being located in the front yard setback, not due to the number of signs, which back then was limited to a maximum of three signs per business. Um, and we reference exhibit A. City staff let the sign company know that the zoning code only allows two signs for a multi-tenant structure. And in order to approve the sign permit application, a sign would have to be removed from the sign package application, the sign company responded via email that the property owner would like to move forward with the wall signs and consider variance for the pylon in the future. Uh reference exhibit B. The city approved the sign permits with only approval of the wall signs, making a note that the pylon sign could not be utilized. C exhibit C. The pylon was rem has remained since the business opened in August and the property owner decided to apply for variance on October 3rd, 2025. The variance request which read as

follows was denied by a tai vote of 3 to three which reads as follows. New signs Ohio LLC on behalf of Jersey Mike and Wingstop at 1502 East Wooster Street has requested a variance to allow the refacing of an existing 8 foot by 8 foot pylon sign which would cause each business to exceed the maximum number of two signs allowed per business by one sign currently permitted for two wall signs for each business. Uh 1502 East Booster Street also had a setback related variance on October 10th of 2001 which is exhibit D which the new building was built using and the site plan is enclosed exhibit E. Um so getting back to the code under section 150.84 84. The sign regulations table, table 28, um, lists the zoning of IC, the sign types permitted that are allowed, and then the number of signs per business, three maximum, unless the cross symbol applies, which indicates a maximum of two signs are allowed if there are multiple businesses on the same parcel or located within the same building, i.e. a multi-tenant building or building with shared walls. Under section 150.10 1000 appeals from the planning director are actually a power also of the zoning board of appeals and that section reads appeals from any determinations of the planning director shall be made to the zoning board of appeals. Also under section 150.104 104 zoning board of appeals appeals of planning director decision under a an appeal may be taken from a decision decision of the planning director with respect to the interpretation of or decision made under this chapter are from the decisions of the historic preservation commission under chapter 158. Here's an aerial view of the property showing there is um basically two parcels there. So one pretty narrow parcel and a a larger parcel there. using pecttometry. This is a view of the old building since we don't have it updated yet to be able to see the new building.

Another view of the property of the side there along Mercer. Another view of the front of the property and another view of the side of the property. And here's a picture of the existing signage at the front there. This would be facing uh East Wooster along with that existing pylon. And then here are another view of the two wall signs there again facing East Worster. Another view of a wall sign. This would be um the west wall of the building and that would be facing South Mercer Road. And here is the pylon sign that they originally had applied to uh reface with the business um there Jersey Mike's and Wing Stop. And then as part of your packet, I just uh we gave you a copy of course of the application and the their reasoning behind requesting the appeal of the interpretation of the zoning code. We did not receive any written correspondence, emails or phone calls after the required notifications were sent. An advertisement was placed the newspaper of general circulation is required. A site notice was placed at the site. The other notices required by the Ministry of Code were posted in the proper time and location. A letter was mailed first class mail to the tax mailing address of the owner and adjoining property owners. Therefore, all the procedure requirements for the hearing have been met. Thank you, gentlemen. Since I know everybody else in the room, you must be the applicant. So, who's ever going to speak, please come to the podium and state your name and your address for us for the record.

Um, thank you for having us tonight. My name is uh attorney Pete Milan. Um my address is 900 Adams, Toledo, Ohio. That's where Spangler Nathan is located.

Okay, Mr. Millan, before we start, I'd like to clarify um as a procedural matter what exactly we're being asked to consider this evening. Um and to make sure this isn't just a way to somehow get a second bite at the apple. As you know, in November 2025, the board considered an area variance for signage at this location. And uh the variance request was for a total of three signs per business when as Heather pointed out the code only allows for two. And uh at that time that request was not approved. Um I'm struggling to understand how we should proceed right now and I want to get some input from you. Um, first, the public notice for this hearing states that the applicant is now appealing the opinion interpretation of the zoning code by the planning director as Heather outlined in section 150.100 and 150.104 and is concerning the number of signs allowed at 1502 East Worooster. Um, and that's considered a multi-tenant building that is limited to two signs per business. Um second, um the application that was submitted by the applicant states that it is requesting quote uh requesting that this property be granted a variance from the from being considered a quote multi-tenant building or building with shared walls that is restricted to science per business. It's not mentioned in there the fact that uh the the the notice that was sent out talks about an appeal of the opinion interpretation of the planning director only that you are again requesting a variance and it appears from the uh attachment to the application that's what you're doing uh because you go through and address the seven criteria that are in the code for uh proving a practical difficulty the Duncan factors that control and that um appeals from the decision of

the planning director don't require that exercise. Finally, um we are limited, as I think you probably know, to considering what is included in the public notice. Um for instance, if the public notice indicates a request for a parking variance at that same meeting, we can't grant a variance for a setback on a building. Mhm.

Um likewise on in this case um the public notice included that uh stated that this was an appeal of the opinion and interpretation of the zoning code of the planning director um versus a variance. So you know it's kind of that where are we falling here? So um I just wanted to ask you given that we've already considered and did not approve a variance request for three signs per b business we can't take that up again. So, is it your intention this evening to appeal the opinion and interpretation of the planning director of the zoning code uh regarding this matter of of the the three uh signs?

It is our opinion to to challenge that determination. I think the intent was that to do so would necessarily require the consideration that this sign be allowed, which would be a variance from the strict reading of the code. I know that sounds like a conflation of the two, but but what we're here today asking is that this property be treated similarly to the other end units of multi-tenant buildings that are allowed to have more than two signs historically. Okay, that we'll get into the facts in a minute, but I want to get through this procedure uh matter first. So, it is your intention to um appeal the planning director's interpretation of the zoning code. Correct. As opposed to asking for another area variance.

Correct. Okay. So that's off the table. Now, um last thing on the procedure, um section 150.104 that talks about the uh appeals of the decisions of the planning director, uh requires that the board be given a 20 days a 20-day notice after the decision of the planning director. Uh I might not have said that clearly. Um, the code requires that an appeal of the decision of the planning director be filed within 20 days of uh the the uh applicant being notified of the planning director's decision. My question is was that done?

No, not to my knowledge. Um,

okay. Help me understand and I want to work with you here, but help me understand how we can move forward. We've already we've already decided that the the uh area variance is off the table. We've already considered that and it was not approved. So now we're being asked to consider an appeal of the planning director's interpretation and decision on the zoning code, but the proper notice wasn't given. So how can we move forward? Well, I think, you know, I want to back up to if we're saying that the published notice was only for an appeal of the of the zoning board. I think if you look at the application and what was requested in the application um is for a a variance request also um especially looking when you look at the plain letter of the of the application. So, I guess that if the comment is that the notice that was sent out doesn't include that this was requested for a variance from being considered a multi-tenant building, then then I can understand the confusion. But we agreed that the the variance request is off the table because we've already considered that. And from what I see in your in your application and the attachment to that, if if we were going to just hypothetically, if we were going to talk about a variance request, the request is identical to the one that we considered and did not approve in November. So, we can't consider that one again.

I think there is some nuance there and I and I understand the question on it being identical variance because the outcome would be the same for what was asked for. Um, but previously the request was that this be a variance on just only being allowed the two signs. Here the request is a different request because it's based on being considered a multi-tenant building. Um, okay. So, we're we're we're back to the appeal of the planning director's interpretation of the code. So, I want to be fair. I want to hear your arguments. Um, I think what the best way is for us to proceed, uh, is to give you the chance to make your case on an appeal basis, not on a variance request basis. Okay?

So, we're not talking about the seven criteria, the the the Duncan the Duncan criteria. We're just talking about the appeal at 150.104 and and that's what was noticed and that's what I think we can only consider. So, let's go ahead and proceed that way. And uh our board members can then weigh how they feel or the significance of um the lack of that notice within 20 days of the planning director's decision decision and and other considerations that may come up. Does that sound fair to you? That that sounds fair. Sure. Okay. Um sorry for the big long- winded

No, that's fine. But I wanted to just get that straight because I didn't want to get into a situation where we were considering an appeal that we've already cons or or a variance that we've already considered and we were considering an appeal that wasn't noticed properly. So with that out of the way, go ahead.

Yeah, I don't I won't reiterate too much of what was already submitted and included in the packet. You know, I'm sure this board's reviewed it. Um and so I'm not going to sit here and reread kind of what we submitted. Um, but what I would highlight is that these two businesses um and the landlord invested significant money with the the the non-conforming, so to speak, sign um at issue. They built around that sign that's existed for years and years and years. Um I I'm not sure if the picture did it justice that the existing sign doesn't look so great. Um that that's been there for years. They're trying to invest uh more of their money to make that sign look better. Um, and I think the key consideration that we'd really like the board to to to consider here is that when you look down that neighborhood in East Worster, when there is an end unit of a multi-tenant or multi-business building, they have three signs. Um, you can I I noted the addresses, but it the businesses it's Elar, um, it's Starbucks, and it's Chipotle. So all of those businesses are in a multi-tenant or multi- business building, but they have three signs. Um, and and I think with the key character of these restaurants and these which are primarily food service like the applicant, the tenants in this particular building, foot traffic is key. Getting the name out is key. People drive down, they see signs, and they pull in because they decide to go there. um the the businesses and multi-b businessiness units that aren't on the end um are not treated that way. They have two signs. If you look at what's in Elra, that's kind of the main other building on East Worster. If you go down that um business park, they have the front-facing signs. Then they have the signs up on the big uh tall signs on East Worster. So here, these two buildings, these two businesses are both end buildings because there's only two.

Um, it's almost identical to which is 1560 East Worooster where there's two separate businesses. It's Starbucks and it's Chipotle. They both have a sign on the front sign on the side and then a large sign out front advertising for both of them. So, what what is being requested here and and I made a note when they purchased the building. I don't think this was really a consideration of the signs that would be allowed because they saw other similar businesses. It just seemed if if that's that's how it goes. Most people, like you said, the zoning code can be dense and confusing. Um and and here this restriction is in a footnote really. You the the cross asterisk on the chart. Um, so they're not asking to be treated any different than the other businesses on East Worster, uh, have been treated with their signage. Um, which is what is kind of the genesis for their request. They want to fix that sign. They want it to look nice. They built the building around it. Um, and they'd like to be able to follow through with their plans to to make that signage, uh, what they had submitted, um, to to repair it, so to speak, make it nicer. I mean, for lack of better words. Anything else?

Uh, I don't believe so. I don't know. Um, no, I I don't think so. I think that if you if you if you want to speak, please come up to the podium. And if you would please state your name and address for the record. Uh, Ryan Le Point, uh, 2730 Centennial Road, uh, Toledo. And you confirm for me that you swore your oath to tell the truth. Uh, I did. Yes. Go ahead.

I actually stood up. I I didn't know I have to be here, but I I did it preemptive. Uh, okay. I'm the development director uh for Wingstop and Jersey Mike's for our small company. We have 70 80 stores uh around the company or around the country. We I'm going to give you a little background of this. So, we work with with MUS. We were originally going to lease the building uh strictly for Wingstop and realized there was too much uh uh improvements that we would have to do to that that property and and it's been it's been noted. I you got number one bowling has been great to work with, but uh so we realized that it it was way way too much u to do that. So we would have to demolish the building and build new and figured we could also bring in Jersey mics and and do that. And the pylon sign was already there. So we developed the plan and we went in with the intention there was no mention of any of this in site plan approval with you know anything that we did it. It's there we built it around you. You can go over there. You can see it in the, you know, in the sidewalk. Uh, I know Bowling Green does not have a parking requirement. So, could have we could have, you know, moved the building in the back. Uh, but we didn't because the request from Bowling Green was you really wanted the um curb cut on Worcester to be gone. So we complied with that. We did it. You guys and I and not when I say you guys maybe not you,

but so we agreed to that. So we had to move it up because we want we wanted the parking and that pilot sign was existing and I know it could not have been um it was grandfathered in. So it would not have been something that we could have applied for and did that. And by moving the building up because we wanted the parking, we could not do a monument. There's not enough room. So, we did that and had no idea really that this would ever be an issue. We're talking about two pieces of plexiglass. Uh that's it. I mean, really what we're coming down to. So, uh, we put over 2 million bucks into, you know, into this. It I think the building looks great. Sign looks like So, I don't know what we do, you know, if it doesn't get approved. It's going to be there look like an isore. So, um, that's pretty much it. again had no idea about the two three or whatever. So,

okay. Any questions for me? Any questions from board members? Yeah, I do have one. Yeah, you work directly with the people of the sign company, right? Uh, we contract them. Okay. But you I mean, you were in contact with what the city told them and everything. Uh, but it's after the fact. Well, because they were told right up front the numbers, but they weren't told upfront. I'm sorry to cut you off. Yeah. No, no, I'm reading I'm just reading what they were not told up front.

Well, planning department gave us to look at and and fact it stated that the sign company were told exactly what signs they could have and that they said we will come back and ask for a variance in lie of that. We our process. So we went from lease to acquiring from the mowers to going through this sign company was the last thing we contracted for after we designed the building.

So we had engineers, we had everybody designed it, laid it out, built it. There was nothing for the sign company to do prior to that. There was no building. There was nothing there. We built the building with the assumption, which is stupid. It's one of our mottos. We assume it was it but assuming that we could actually use it. Otherwise, I don't know why the city why everybody approved the site plan with that knowing we couldn't use it. and then the same company went in went in for that's when we found out

I think we're drifting off into the area of of variance as opposed to an appeal of the interpretation of the zoning code from the planning director and as I said we we have to stick with what's in the public notice and what we can we have to protect the public's interest in that way and I don't want us to get too far I'm talking mostly to the board here I think is Let's don't get too far a field from the idea that we're we're talking about an appeal that this applicant is making of the uh opinion and determination of the zoning or I'm sorry, the planning director as opposed to variance requests and getting into all those things that we talk about when we're when we're into a a variance situation. I I understand that. I get emotional when I talk about it. It was two and a half years of my life and

I understand all of a sudden we we get this and it I used to do quite frankly it looks like Uh and we know that you know it's going to be pained. It's going to be it's that's and so I mean I don't know if we go interpretations. Could I put McDonald's on there uh on that side? Could I use it for something else that wasn't Jersey Mike's or Wingstop? Uh technically I probably could, you know, it's there. It's not. So I I it it was Look, I I was kind of blown away that it actually didn't pass the last time. Um you know, I don't know.

Well, I I supported it the last time and I and but we're not that's not what we're really discussing. I think we're all are we all in agreement that Heather interpreted though the zoning correctly because I didn't hear any argument that she interpreted this the planning director interpreted it cor incorrectly. Am I wrong? I is that that's what the request is to I would

well well we based it on an Arby's layout that was originally approved for a single building. Right? That's how this all kind of came about. So because we put a wall up that changes the zoning. That would be my but again we're we've already considered and decided on those factors. I don't want to okay digress but the variance for that sign the pylon sign in 1993 was for setback not number of signs. Right.

So but but that that's irrelevant. I think as Jeff pointed out, we're we're here to talk about did the planning department make the right call when they interpreted the code and saying that this is a uh multi-tenant building with a shared wall. So therefore, the code says that it's limited to two signs per business. So did was there a mistake made there in that in that determination by the planning director? Yeah, I guess we look at it because we're it's one owner and there's two parcels and one owner. So, we look at it for me, it's one business. I understand the names may be different, but it's one business for us. There's not two separate owners. We didn't buy this as an investment and lease it out to two separate parties. It's one tenant and that's us.

Okay. So, not to um I can't think of a better word than offend. I don't want to offend you, but that's the first argument that I've heard relating to the interpretation of the planning director's uh interpretation of the facility. And I I I'm not here to offend anybody. That's how we try to search for a word. Hey, trust me. I look I truly disagree with anything you said tonight. Yeah. But if I employ that logic you just used, then you'd only be allowed three signs there. What if you're one business? You get three signs.

You already got four. That's a good point. I I agree, but I I didn't I Yeah, I I understand the the the difference, but it's Yeah. Um we're just kind of stuck, you know. It's I appreciate what you said that you were surprised that it didn't pass the last time around. Well, I was surprised it even went to that, but quite frankly,

that's that's water over the dam. And we're we're here now with the potential to give you what you want, but it's got to be based on that appeal, this interpretation issue. So you if you if you can come up with anything else besides you feel like it's one business as opposed to two.

Well help us get past the fact that it's it's got a common wall. Well, I mean, I think Pete said it well that there are other businesses that do have the three sides that are that are within that. So, when I do initial uh site tours like this, I spend a lot of time in Bowling Green looking up and down the road. I never thought this would be an issue. And again, it was one of those things when we went in with our site plan with uh the approvals with everything signage comes after after that. Uh I thought how our very first meeting that I had with the city was about that pylon sign and we said and they said it's grandfathered in. We can do it. So we gave concessions again to the curb cut. I I I I I understand where where why you're shaking your head, but you got to also understand my kind of mentality. So, I'm thinking so it's there. We can use it. Again, it's two pieces of plexiglass. Uh it's I'm not asking for a new sign. I'm asking to reface uh existing sign that identifies who is there. Right now it's there. It's white. It's my And we actually did that because it looked even worse. We could have left the whoever was up there last. We actually made it look better. It's just simply replacing that and letting people know it's there. I'm not asking for a new sign just to reface it. That's that's and and I understand I don't understand.

And that's why Pete was here. The the law I'm looking at like logic. What do we do with it? If it's not, again, by the letter of the law, could we lease it to McDonald's? Could we lease it to, you know, Wendy's that's over there, Tim Hortons? Could they do it because they're not on the property? Could we utilize it for something else that we wouldn't do? But it's there. All we want to do is identify who's there.

And I mean, I I don't I don't know about those hypotheticals, but you know, again, I'm just coming back to what what we can consider, right? See, come back up if you just very briefly.

Yeah. because I hear what the board is asking um and and asking for an interpretation of the determination and I think that the determination is that an end unit building is considered a multi-building multi- business building um which is inconsistent with how the neighborhood has been treated. So what what our request is is that that interpretation that other buildings have been given the benefit of if they're an end unit. So if they have a corner um that they are not considered a multi- business unit or for the purposes of the zoning restriction which is the two two sign limitation as opposed to three that any other unit would have or any other business would have. That's that's what our request is. you're appealing that determination and interpretation.

Two things. I think you're again wandering away from that opinion and interpretation of the zoning code by the planning director. Um the other thing is each variance request if it were a variance request that comes before us stands on its own. We don't look at what McDonald's did or what somebody down the street did. We consider each request individually. And finally, and probably more importantly, is those businesses that you're you're pointing to were all permitted under the prior zoning code. This was a this was a pretty major change in the current zoning code uh to limit these multi-tenant buildings to to two signs. So, you know, that's that's a that's a real big factor there. But again, we we still have to stick with that interpretation part.

Okay. The appeal part. One question. When was that new step up if you would? I'm sorry. When was that new zoning code? 2024 September. Uh June of 2023. 23. 23. Sorry. So about the time we went under contract with that property. The zoning changed it. It changed during development. Just Yeah.

Point taken. Okay. Um, do you gentlemen feel like you've gotten a chance to to make your case? Have you said everything you want to say before we stop the public comment portion of the hearing? I don't want I don't want to I want to make sure you get to say everything you want to say. Please confine your comments to the because I don't think the new say a different way.

Okay. Anyone else care to make a comment? ask on this matter. Okay, we'll we'll close the public comment portion of the hearing and and we'll open it up to discussion amongst the board members. I I have what was the zoning before? Do you remember for business multi- business? Were it was it more signs than two? Do you remember if it was three? You're testing my memory here.

I am testing your memory. I believe it was three per business, but we were trying to clarify language because it did mention something about a single business in a in a larger commercial strip, but it wasn't clear. It said or and it didn't it pointed to you maybe could have three. It just wasn't clear is what I recall. And that's what we were trying to clean up. Bob, you were on the planning commission, I think, when this was all under review. Do you recall discussions about this issue and the the need to limit or the desire to limit uh multi-tenant buildings to two signs?

I don't recall uh discussion of that particular point. I do seem to recall that over the I have trouble placing the timing of it, but I do seem to recall over the years, even goes back to when I was on city council, that there were there there there was um a an opinion of a number of people in town that we had too many that we allowed too many signs and that when the zoning code was revised that that that should be that issue should be addressed sort of generally speaking. Now, I don't recall it being specific to multi-tenant buildings, but I think there was a general sentiment that the the prior code might have been too generous in terms of allowing too many signs. And the particular area that I I know seemed to come up in conversation was that area between Mercer Road and I75 uh out there as as the prime example of that.

I apologize. I sort of went against my own admonition there and brought something up that's not related to the appeal matter. So, but thanks for that clarification. Gentlemen, you're awful quiet this evening. Anybody else have any There's been scintillating discussion. Now, let's get into this a little bit since we have the folks here who normally just give us the, you know, disimp. But since your opinion and your interpretation is what's being called into question, I'd like to ask you some questions. Is that fair? Yes.

All right. So, you've heard the discussion tonight. Are you comfortable with your description of quote, "There are multiple businesses on the same parcel or located within the same building?" Yes,

you're comfortable with that. I go out there, I see two businesses tonight with two entrances and and we're glad they're in town. That's the thing. We're glad they're here. Um would you like to weigh in on even though we don't go by precedent there the the the question being raised of other developments in bolding green end cap stores who have their signage and still have pilots. Can you help me Jerry with how that goes towards this uh appeal issue that we need to consider?

Because at the end of the day, if we can just stop dancing for a second among all of us, we're sitting here and and talking about your there's an appeal of the interpretation of the zoning code, which is what I've been asking about. If we grant that variance, you know where we're going next, right, Pete? you're back up to say, "Well, now we have a different set of rules and we got all the signs that we wanted." Not all the you that's where we're going here. So, we can you can try to separate the two. And yes, for tonight's purposes, it's are we going to give a variance on the interpretation and opinion of the zoning code by the planning director, but this is all aiming toward science eventually, right? All right, let's stop that.

But variance is off the table. We've already considered the variance request and it was not approved. But but when it's back in a new form that would allow how many signs? Only only three I think for a single single business. There's only three signs and they already got four. And this is where you want to go. Fewer signs. Is that right? No. No. We're can't talk to them. Well, okay.

All right. We're not going to be done with this then because I understand where you're going with this. Um, let me also ask Chase if I can. I'm reading from the fact city staff let the sign company know that the zoning code only allows two signs for multi-tenant structure. They were notifiable. I was not here at the time of those communications. Yes, that's why we gave you that exhibit showing the permit and the condition on there. Okay.

And just to add to this, I think what they're saying is if you did not agree with our interpretation, then that would be or my interpretation that would be three signs allowed per business. So, three for unit A and three for unit B, right? which would equal what they already have is the two wall signs for each business plus utilizing the pylon. Okay.

Thank you. I mean I was like Mr. Crawford, I voted in favor of this last time realizing if you were after a new pylon, you're not going to get that in Bowl and Green these days, but you have an inherited pylon which was to me a total eyesore. A lot of money's been invested at that corner after years of other things coming and going at that. And I was a yes vote on that. I And what you are doing tonight is, and I think it's very good, Spangler Nathan, good good law firm, finding another way to get back at the sign issue. That's what we're doing here tonight. Through the appeal. Yep. Of the interpretation of the planning director.

Got it. Thank you, Heather. When did they put the uh actual request in? Would it have fallen within the old zoning code within the new one? You know, do you mean the permit application? Right. Right. When or the signage or the building?

It would have to have been Well, if the building plan was put in and they're looking at we are assuming we can make this out of that based on the old thing. I guess you know if when they put it in say we're going to build here, we think we can do it this way. But I also think that they had it was only going to be one business in initially anyway and then they decided to go with two when they tore it down. Correct. From what I understood what what it said.

So if we're looking at the building, we actually approved the site plan on September 27th of 2024. I don't know the exact date was applied for. I know as um he mentioned in the discussion, we worked together for a while. Right. Well, that with the development put in when they put in the request that's the clock starts at that point in my eyes. The sign the sign application was made August 4th, 2025. Okay.

Anybody else discussion? I guess I would like to see them. In my opinion, I I wish they had their sign. I wish I wish we could grant that that they could use that sign, but I'm a little bothered by questioning our planning director's interpretation when that really wasn't ever that appears to me that really wasn't ever in question her interpretation of it. That's not why why we're here. I I'm not going to express an opinion about whether or not I think they should or shouldn't have the number of signs they want, but it's pretty clear to me that we were asked to consider allowing three signs through an area variance and that was not approved. And that's full stop. That's off the table. I don't blame you a bit for coming back and trying to appeal this whole idea of the opinion interpretation of the zoning code by the planning director to sort of get another bite at the apple. But as Jeff points out, I have a hard time I haven't heard any evidence offered that leads me to believe that that interpretation and opinion of this planning director is wrong. So I I on based on that I just have a hard time I uh coming to yes on this. I'm sorry. Yeah. I I man this is kind of gone off the rails a little bit it seems like. And I apologize for not hatching some of

these issues out the first time. And I guess based on what's just in front of us, we're only interpreting whether the interpretation of definitions were correct and not any of the previous uh you know points from the previous hearing. Based on just this application, it's tough to support But the fact of the matter is we got a terrible sign that is legal. So I'm not really sure. I know what I think is best and then I know what's like I think technically is our obligation. So that's my feelings. But would it require us to vote that Heather interpreted it wrong?

Right. Yes. And that's to me that's I just can't vote that she interpreted wrong because she clearly didn't. I would concur. And there even the folks making the request admit that she didn't. David, Bob, anything from that end? I I asked my questions. Jay,

well, I totally agree with uh the planning director's interpretation of the of the thing. Um, I know that pulls an eyesore out there, but I think the new zoning uh is what we kind of stood on last last time. We kind of want to stick with that. Uh get a nice clean look on on these multi-buildings that have we don't want signs all over the place. Um and I kind of agree with that. So that's

I guess I one of the thoughts crosses my mind is that um it's a little tough for these folks to takeau partly because when the request for the variance was was considered before of course I wasn't here then I wasn't on the board at that point in time but it failed by a three to three vote it didn't like lose seven to nothing or six to one it was a tie vote which means there wasn't a majority in favor of but that's a tough way to lose on a tie vote with one one member of the either the seat was open or one member of the board wasn't here that night so to cast the tiebreaking vote. So I think it makes it difficult from from their uh end of things. But on the other hand, I think the uh the the ordinance and and Heather's decision is clearly what the ordinance says. It's she's not she's not having to make any far-fetched interpretation to come to the result that she came to. She just read the ordinances and it's pretty clear-cut. Uh, so I I I don't I don't think I can could could support their request because the the issue is did she make a mistake? The answer to that is no, she didn't make a mistake given the ordinances she was working with.

I mean, I also feel that I mean they can take it to court. I mean, that's the first one. They don't like it, I guess. Okay. Not that I want to, but All right. Um, is there a motion for the disposition of this case? We're gonna come out session first. Already did go back into public session. That's that's we're fine. I so move. You're moving.

Let's let's make a positive motion. uh move that the request be submitted as or approved as submitted. Yes, that's that's what I did. Okay. Is there a second? Wait, I need to hear the mot. What are we? Yeah. That the request be approved as submitted. I'd like to make the motion in a positive way, not that we move to not approve the I move to approve the the request as submitted. As submitted. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Moved by

Mr. Sman, seconded by Mr. McCumber that the request be approved as submitted. Will the secretary please call the Is there any more discussion? First of all, okay, hearing none, will the secretary please call the role? Jerry Anderson, no. Brad Noble, no. Jeff Crawford, no. Tim Emer, no. Bob McCumber, no. David Fleger, no. Jay Sachman, no.

Okay. Uh, gentlemen, uh, your request was not approved. Uh, you you may appeal to the Wood County Court of Common, please, if you so choose. Thank you. All right. Um, lobby visitation. Anyone have anything that they would like to discuss with us this evening? Anything else from the board? All right. Is there a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second. Second. All those in favor? I journ.