Zoning board gives final okay to Presbyterian sign

After a lively discussion, the Zoning Board of Adjustments (ZBA) ultimately approved a request for the First Presbyterian Church to erect a luminated sign that was earlier turned down by the Downtown Revitalization Board (DRB) in November. 

After convening at 5:35 p.m., the board unanimously approved its meeting minutes from the regular December meeting.

The board then moved on to hearing an appeal from the First Presbyterian Church. According to Community Development Director Tory Niewiadomski, there had been a “mix-up” and church members did not have representation at the initial decision in November regarding their sign by the DRB.

Niewiadomski said that given the church’s location near the railroad tracks, it was “not really in a walkable environment” and therefore a lighted sign did not interfere with the downtown’s historic character. As such, city staff recommended approval. 

This contradicted what Niewiadomski told the DRB in November, which was  that the proposed sign fell within the scope of Section 8.14 of city charter, “signs that are out of character with downtown, historically.”

Board member James Litzler noted that the DRB had approved the sign on conditions that it be 6 feet or shorter, that its brick base structure match the church and that it not be an animated sign, but rather a non-digital lighted sign. 

Church member and spokesman Lee Teetes said the church intended to match the bricks as closely as possible. Teetes said the sign the church would like to replace, “Was going to go whether we had took it down or not” with “water and rot” estimated its age to be “about 1000 years at least.” 

However, Teetes clarified that the church could not comply with making the sign 6 feet or less or a non-digital lighted sign as the church had already purchased the sign they planned to erect from a church donation at a cost of approximately $10,000.

“The sign’s already purchased,” Teetes said. “We never dreamed we’d have an issue with it… it’s just a tad out of line, but the sign is literally on the church property as we speak.” 

Board member Kevin Mohl then moved to approve the sign, stating, “They already bought it and we can’t change it.” 

Board members Brad Burgin, Mohl and Litzler voted to approve the sign, with board member Jay Julian abstaining. Accounting for Julian’s abstention, the motion did not carry as it did not constitute a “supermajority” or a number much more than half the total. The ZBA has five members. With four present and one absent to hear the sign application, all four members present must vote the same way to constitute a supermajority. 

When asked why he abstained, Julian stated he had additional questions. Specifically, Julian wanted to know why the DRB found the church did not meet the criteria to gain exception for their sign. 

Niewiadomski told Julian that the DRB had found that per Section 8.14 of the city charter, the proposed sign would be out of character historically as well as attention-getting.

Dr. Robin Boshears had noted in November regarding her decision, “I don’t like digital.” 

“It’s a subjective standard they [DRB] found on, there’s no clear bright light test,” city attorney Jim McLeroy told Julian.

For example, McLeroy said, the First United Methodist Church hosts a digital sign, but its’ property falls halfway outside the downtown district and therefore has placed its sign outside the scrutiny of the DRB.

“Let’s face it,” Burgin said, “The Methodist church-- and I’m Methodist-- it just happened to be right down the middle of their property, and that’s where they placed their sign.” 

McLeroy also pointed out that while the DRB has purview over signs placed outside, if a business chooses to place a digital illuminated display inside their business, it falls outside the DRB’s jurisdiction.

“Inside stores there are animated, digital and those are not to be policed by anyone,” Burgin agreed. 

“I don’t think we ought to stand in the way of the church, I don’t think it will detract,” Litzler said.

Burgin moved for the church’s sign to be approved, and again the vote came out the same-- three for, with Julian abstaining. At this point, the floor was opened up to questions. 

“What I’m dealing with here… I’m trying not to leave this open for interpretation,” Julian said. “We’ve got a rock-solid line, it’s gone to the DRB and got a recommendation… I’m just trying to make sure from a fairness standpoint that I apply that same method to everything so there’s no ambiguity.” 

“We’ve got the rules and we’ve got the ordinance and I’m just trying to follow it,” Julian stated. 

McLeroy discussed the history of the creation of the downtown district in 2006, which he said was “somewhat subjective.”

“Historically, signs probably weren’t even lit,” Litzler pointed out. “How far are we going to take that?” 

Litzler wondered at that point if the term “animated” was defined in city code. Mohl searched briefly for it, and McLeroy posited that it was not. 

“Historical signs on that downtown square, those are signs that say ‘for sale,’” McLeroy commented. “That’s all they [my kids] ever saw growing up. So that’s a very subjective standpoint as far as a historical context.”

“Why don’t we just put up a little building out there and hang up our sign in there and it can flash all day?” Church member Red Cross asked. 

Church member Myra Grant pointed out that historically, the courthouse has not been illuminated with rainbow-colored lights, although they are not animated displays.

“They’re not digital, they’re round lights,” McLeroy said. “But yeah, historically we didn’t flood our courthouse purple.”

Julian inquired what it would take to change city code regarding historical signage, and Niewiadomski informed him that the DRB could change the code, which would then be ratified by the city council.

After reviewing municipal law, McLeroy stated he determined the board only needed to approve the request by a simple majority, not a supermajority. 

With that, the Presbyterian Church had their sign. 

“It’s already been decided twice,” McLeroy told the group. 

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.

Concerning his abstentions, Julian said he would “rather abstain than risk a bad vote.”

“My vote means a lot to me, just like the chair I occupy,” Julian told the News-Telegram. “I like to be pretty principled on everything, not just the zoning board.”