001Okay. At 7:08 Eastern time, we shall call to order the Village of Oxford Planning Commission meeting on this day, Tuesday, August 19th, 2025. Let us stand for the flag. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> Madam Secretary, roll call, please. >> Scott >> here. >> CJ, >> here. >> Tom here. Regines absent. >> Do I have a motion to excuse the absences which were um communicated in advance for Justin Ballard and Leslie Pac? >> So moved. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed? Okay. Two absences excused. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda for this evening, August 19th? >> So moved. Second. I'll second. >> All
002in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Okay. Do we have an agenda? >> Do I have a motion to approve the minutes from June 17th, 2025? >> It's a move. >> I wasn't here. >> You want a second? >> Second. Yeah. >> All right. All in favor? >> Any opposed? Okay. Um, in regards to meeting minutes, we had some offline discussion to clean up some uh clerical errors. So, good at that. Um, any correspondence as it relates to Okay. Do I have a motion or can I get a motion to open the call to Well, time out. There's a general call to the public. I don't believe there is anyone here to speak. Let's now move on to the public hearing for the uh 151 South Washington sign approval. Do I have a motion
003to open the public hearing? >> I'll make motion to open the public hearing for the special use sign at 151 South Washington Street at 7:12 p.m. >> And a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Okay. Our public hearing is now open. Mr. and Mrs. Harris, if you so choose, you can either speak now or wait until we get to the actual business review of the application. I'll leave it at your discretion. >> Um, >> Sounds good. And with no public in attendance, do I have a motion to close the public hearing? uh for 151 South Washington. >> I'll make a motion to close a special uh public hearing uh for the special sign use of 151 South Washington Street at 7:13 p.m. >> I second. >> All in favor? >>
004Any opposed? Okay, public hearing complete. Now on to the main event for the sign approval review for Big B Coffee at 151 South Washington. Mario, I kindly ask if you will walk us through your uh assessment. >> Okay. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Uh, yes. So, we're here tonight to consider the application, uh, for the Big B Coffee. The applicant is proposing to install one 31.82 2 ft wall sign which would be on the east elevation of the building that's facing South Washington Street. Now uh the zoning ordinance permits one square foot of wall signage per lineal foot of the storefront given that the building is 20 ft in width. They are they have a maximum permitted sign area of 20 square feet. So the proposed sign exceeds the maximum area permitted by the ordinance.
005However, the zoning ordinance does allow the applicant to go through this process uh which is a special use review of the sign to modify the uh this thing such as the sign area. Uh in order to achieve the approval uh in order to grant the approval of the modification, uh planning commission considers there's seven different criteria within the zoning ordinance that specifically addresses the issue. And a lot of these do revolve around uh safety issues. Um and so um for example, the first one is to make sure that the sign shall not endanger the public health, safety and welfare. And uh the sign will basically not obscure the vision of drivers because the sign it's a wall-mounted sign which should be nearly flush against the wall. So it will not endanger the public health. Similarly,
006uh it will not block the view of other signs on adjacent or nearby sites because once again it's flush to the wall and it is not it will not be located so as to cause a visual nuisance to nearby residents because the sign itself is fronting the commercial frontage of Washington Street and it will not be uh and all those properties either zoned or used as commercial. So it meets a vast majority of those criteria. One just a couple we do want to point out. The second criteria that's on page two of our review our letter. One thing to consider is to make sure that this proposed sign is consistent with the materials used for the construction of other lots in the village. So the applicant is proposing to be an internal the sign shall
007be internally illuminated aluminum box sign and then underneath the box sign they will have aluminum channel cut letters mounted to the wall. Uh so the building itself is act is also is a pretty modern sty style and you know with the use of its materials it simple architectural details. Uh so it's it's intended to be a very clean modern style and so in addition these materials on the facade are uh you know either composite or like a modest quality of aluminum panels which is once again modern with recent building trends. Um, and then finally, the sign itself is being placed on the east wall of it. It's a column style facade. If you you haven't seen the building, the the the when you're looking at the front of the building, the east the right side
008is a projected um column feature that goes a little bit higher than the other roof line of the building. And then the build then the sign itself be placed in that beige colored facade which is lighter in color than the rest of the building. So in the end actually the size they're proposing is actually more appropriate in scale and and size based on this projected portion of the building. If the sign was a little smaller it probably look out of scale with the uh the facade it's being mounted. So, in terms of being consistent with materials and and and with other lots in the village, um we do believe uh as proposed, it's more appropriate than should they comply with our the required minimum 20 square foot. The 31 is a little bit more in
009scale. And then uh finally, we do look at um whether it's compatible with the overall community character. This portion of the South Washington Street corridor, uh you know, we're on the south side of town. Uh so the style down here is a little bit more uh conventional mid 20th century style buildings. We have more of our significantly detailed architectural Victorian style more towards the center of town. On the south side of town things are a little bit more modern. So we do believe that the proposed sign reflects the more modern aesthetic that's s that's on the south side. However, as with most of our signs that we've been uh reviewing in the past years, um as an internally illuminated wall sign, we always want to make sure to make sure there's limited potential to cause
010any excessive glare if the light level creates an overly harsh or distracting illumination. The color itself is going to be orange for the sign. It's not really that probable other than if it was like a white color. But in the end, just to uh to ensure there will be no excessive glare, we would recommend that a phototric sensor and an automatic dimmer uh be installed that'll automatically control the sign's light level so that way the glare doesn't become an issue. Um and with that we would recommend that uh planning commission if you find it meets all the criteria we would recommend you grant approval of this. >> Thanks Mario. Um commissioners any questions for Mario a couple Mario uh um just from my own understanding. So um the square footage of the sun exceeds what
011our allows. Correct. >> Correct. >> Um so why why isn't this coming as a signed variance as opposed to special use? >> So within the zoning ordinance um we usually we if it was to be a variance that you know that's a normal process. If there's any standard of the zoning ordinance you want to exceed, you have to go to the zoning board of appeals for a variance. The standards for dimensional or nonuse variances is very high because the intent of the of a variance is basically because a person is basically asking for permission to break the rules and in order to grant that permission there has to be a practical difficulty. There has to be something physically unique about the site itself that would warrant uh granting the variance because complying with our normal
012standards would would produce an undue hardship on the on the uh the property owner. That's a very high standard. We don't intend to have that very often. As you know, the ZBA hardly meets ever. So when it comes to signs though, many communities now are adopting this process in which while we do have our sign requirements that regulate the time, place and manner of signs, there are some instances where if it's in more proportionate in scale or more aesthetic concerns rather than safety concerns, as long as those can be met, then uh it's a different level that doesn't need to to reach that high level of uh requirement for variance approval. Another aspect of this that's important is that by granting uh a variance would not actually run with the land. So it's there in
013perpetuity. Uh this is a special land use. So it could in theory be revoked at some point in time in the future. Some attorneys will say that the special land use can be revoked once the use goes away. uh and so therefore it doesn't have that once again that high level in which it goes to running with the land and getting that level of approval. That's another reason why the variances are typically hard or have such a high barometer. So, in the end, this process uh deals with the appropriate uh level of uh concern, mainly the the the uh safety issues, making sure it's not blocking visibility of driving vehicles, make make sure it doesn't cause any glare, make sure it doesn't block the visibility of other signs, and then also takes into account modest
014uh aesthetic changes. So that's basically to say this is it's not it's not as high a level as as as variances and it allows people to make this consideration based on their specific circumstance. >> All right. Thanks. And uh the uh you you mentioned about the basically the configuration of the building warrants this type of a a change because it can look a little out of place. So, so the the building itself that the square footage is I mean it is what it is, but it's just an odd shape is what you're saying. >> It's not so much an odd shape is that that because they've chosen a clean modern style, there's a there isn't a lot of architectural detail on this particular portion of the wall. Also, because of the way the the it's
015a somewhat unique building and that it's definitely totally auto oriented on with the drive-through window on one side and then the walk up window on the other. You know, there's not a There's not a door. There's not windows that go in for customers. So, that would probably be in this location on this wall if this was a sit down or a carry out restaurant in which there was an indoor counter. Uh they've chosen to have the drive up window or the carry out window, which which, you know, it's kind of hearkens back to to actually some of the older styles that used to occur for for for coffee uh stands, if you will. Sometimes they get pretty unique. I don't know if you ever saw it. It's not around anymore, but I used to have
016these um coffee stands that look like a little coffee pots drive-thru. So, um so they're they're this is once again somewhat unique in that style. And then with the lack of architectural elements, like there's no break horizontal break midway through the the entire wall. There are no windows, there's no doors. having the sign in the middle kind of makes it a little bit more proportionate in scale. So that's the the one reason it seems like the size will be will will fit for a lack of a better word, you know, the the size of that projecting wall. So, uh, so if we go forward with this, what, um, are we kind of opening Pandora's box for anyone else to come in with their bigger sign and say, you know, hey, listen, I just, you know,
017so, so basically what the the process is in the ordinance, every property owner does have that right to request it and then but then you have the the authority to based on these seven criteria determine whether that's appropriate. And honestly, a lot of times I've seen this work more in other areas in which uh you know, you have a lot of storefronts that are usually like are pretty consistent in a community and there's always one that might get a little bit bigger and then if sometimes you might be driving around and you'll see like a lot of signs and then suddenly the sign looks smaller compared to the size of the building and that's because they they've just stuck with their standards that are based with like a maximum square footage. For example, even even
018we have here uh the maximum square footage for any sign is 30 square foot. So if we ever if if imagine one of the um storefronts on the other side of the side of Washington in the plaza were to ask for for a sign. If they um tended to occupy like like a vast majority of all the units and then suddenly they only get a 30 square foot sign but then so which normally would fit with like a 30 square foot 30 foot wide unit but then they got seven or eight units. it's kind of out of scale with the with the building. So that's why we give the option for this. And so once again, it's it's up to you, you know, if you feel like it's appropriate to scale, it can. And you're
019not really setting a precedent because once again, that it's based on the characteristics of this site. >> So one time kind of a one-time thing just for for this building in particular. >> Yeah. For this particular site because and also what they're proposing >> site or this particular building. >> Both building and site. And I say that because some of the other criteria are by making sure that the signs themselves don't block other signs, >> right? >> So, if they were asking for a ground monument sign and putting it closer to the street and larger, and if it blocked the uh view of the car wash sign, well, that's a that's a reason to say, well, why do you want a bigger sign than the neighbor? No. In this particular >> to the sign, >>
020right? Exactly. Yes. maybe more to specify um the the special sign use request follows the applicant slash business owner. So in the event that the business changes hands that they're not grandfathered in in the event we grant approval. >> That's great. >> Wonderful. Thank you. >> And >> no question. >> Okay. Couple points. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I thought that this uh um uh you had mentioned about the uh Mario the characteristics of the downtown, the aesthetics and whatnot. Um and that's a criteria, but in one of your comments you said it really doesn't meet the characteristic of the downtown. So I'm >> it's not like downtown downtown. >> Correct. And that's Yeah, correct. Because in the downtown we would have different um criteria because of the more architectural details on the buildings,
021the type of materials, you know, they're more masonry or brick and then they have more uh the different um size and scale and more details. this I I meant to say while it wouldn't probably work in the downtown on the south side of town uh with the more modern slightly more modern buildings uh you know it probably fits a little it would fit in a little bit you could see it fitting in and that's mainly because you know kind of the fact that they're coming in after the car wash the car wash is already in that's kind of set a precedent not a precedent but contributed to the character being more to to be newer whereas This is now just uh complementing that newer character. And once again, just one interpretation. You guys can make
022your own. >> Obviously, >> CJ, >> I make no decision. >> No further questions. Oh, >> um Mario, for the sake of due diligence, the section three of the um uh ordinance, no no part of the sign shall extend to a height greater than the height of any other structure within 300 ft. It states that um will not be located higher. Have we confirmed that or what's the means to confirm just out of pure due diligence in the event someone challenges it next door and we have to claim yes or no? Um what have we done to verify that to be the truth? >> The the only thing I've done is a visual survey using Google Street View and and and driving around today. I haven't uh taken any measurements of the existing signage out
023there, but also the you know all the other buildings are one story, but they but some of them have peak roofs on the other on the east side of the of Washington. You know, you do have slightly s higher facads in the in the plaza on the on the other side of the street. So, generally speaking, I would think it doesn't exceed. Maybe the only one might be the the veterary office, but then again, he's further back behind the the gas station, so it's a probability of that is is is low, but hasn't been >> We haven't conducted any field. >> You haven't taken a tape measure. >> No. Yeah. >> Walking around with the pole or anything trying to >> It's also not sitting at the top of the building either. Like it's pretty
024centered. I bring this up with some humor, but also with the comments that have been made here. In the event someone wants to take exception or challenge the ruling of the special case use, I want to ensure that this commission review with Mario's input confirms that not an issue. Right. So, in the event we have to challenge or deal with that in the future, appreciate. >> Yeah. >> Um, Mrs. Harris, you indicated you wanted to stand up and say a few words. >> Sure. >> Yeah. Name, address, and association to the sign application. Just for the record, >> u, my name is Amy Harris. Uh, our address is 943 Waters Drive in Oxford and I am the Big B franchisee owner. So when the way this process works when we go about um getting our
025signage we get to the point of having our signage developed we reach out to the sign company and we are working with Big B's preferred sign company >> uh called vital signs so they're experts in this arena so you present to them you know our building um they create the sign based upon typical standards of big and typically placed in typical sizes. Um, and so that's where they came up with the 31.82 square foot sign, I believe. >> Um, so we thought there would like be no issue. Um, because but I know the signage is a completely different ballgame after the approvals that come. This is when we began um dealing with the process of it. Um so then it came about that didn't meet the 20 square foot um regulations. Um and just in
026full cander they actually recommended that I come here today and um basically just kind of tell our story because um typical big bees are either part of a strip mall um they have the cubes which also have that tower type of look that we have in our building. It's kind of what we emulated to a degree. Um, so the whole standalone building is actually a new door thing from Bigby. Um, but there was another one that was done that we kind of modeled lived after. And when you do look at the tower and its entity, uh, 20 square foot would look very small and it wouldn't stand out. It almost would look a little in my perspective a little odd. Um, also, so 20 foot is our frontage, but the side of our building is
027significantly longer. It's 37 square foot in length. So, while most people have, you know, their front edge being the longest part of their building, our building is actually longer uh on the sides. So, we think um based upon that that we should, you know, be be warranted or we would like for you to consider um allowing us to have this larger sign. And it is I mean it's a little larger. It's you know, we're not looking for it to be like three times as large or anything. Um but we just think it would look, you know, just more in scale and more in line uh with the rest of the building. Any questions for Amy? >> No, >> I have one. >> Okay. >> I'm I'm always good for one. Um, you I'm familiar with
028the the style and design of the this steak building. There's one I pass on every Friday and Sunday. Um, my question and you indicated or Yeah, you indicated that the sign dimensions are typical. Is it a franchise requirement or mandate or are we following precedents set by other big B buildings only? >> There's really I don't believe there's any precedent but we are following bas the basic guidelines of other big B. >> Okay. and like we left it up to the sign company to come up with the appropriate sign for our tower and so that's what they came back with but there's not really >> it's not it's not a specific um parameter or condition within the franchise agreement >> not not that I'm aware of nobody's brought that to my attention yeah >> fair
029enough >> yes Scott uh so I see that you have the sign centered in the middle of the top part of the If the if the sign was smaller, um I don't want to do a design at this meeting, but just a question. Have you thought about raising it up more towards the top so it could be more visible, but yet still meet the sign requirements? >> I don't think that's typically where they're placed. If you look at a lot of the cubes and everything, they're usually more centrally located in the middle. It from that perspective, we are trying to adhere, you know, to that guideline. Um or It's not technically a but that standard that they need >> a recommendation. >> Yes. >> Additionally, we might actually run into like heights height issues like
030if we did that like with the surrounding buildings. >> When you say height issue, >> the number three that we were just talking about. >> Hang on. Time out for a second. Um just for a point of clarification, maybe Mario can help provide quick point of discussion. This this sign layout does not specify the exact location on the wall or it does. >> Um, let me just triple check, but I want to say it doesn't. >> It does not. Um that's something that you could um discuss and ask them where they would like to have it and then you could just make sure that's part of the approval in terms of like the percent the loca the making sure the location is um you know known and appropriate. Mhm. >> Um because as I mentioned,
031I was going off of uh what I've seen in other big bees and then what this sign uh on the graphic is shown. And to me, it's about making it basically almost equidistant obviously, but based on the graphic, it would be equidistant horizontally and then uh vertically it would be u slightly nudged up a little for lack of a kind of accurate measurement >> because of uh the black border around the sign itself and the bigby coffee graphic letters underneath. You kind of don't you know I and I don't even know that that's that's you know honestly the case >> but it just seems to me that that there's >> I agree >> slightly more area to them below the sign than above. Uh, and then it's also intended to be a little bit offset
032with the um not necessarily directly in line with the canopy that's going to be on the um over the pickup window, but um you know intended to have and if I was a graphic designer, I could give you the right terminology, but that there's usually this this Yeah, it's like symmetry. They got their whole thing like in terms of placement of it to make it as pleasing to the eye. Exactly. Yeah. >> So would we would we say is set like a maximum height like >> right you could do >> as a open point of discussion here. Tom, do you have issues with um let me let me rephrase the question. Would you prefer a condition to um ensure the sign placement is >> as presented? A >> as presented in the layout. >> Yes.
033>> Something along those lines. >> Okay. >> It's it's to scale >> to scale of the of the of the draft drawing. Yeah. >> Mr. Chair. Yes. >> So, in essence, what you're asking is, okay, this is what we're looking at. This is what we're basing our decision on. If we approve you this, you're not going to stick this thing 4 inches from the top. >> That That's kind of what you're going at, right? You're saying if this is what we're looking at, this is kind of what you're basing the look of. >> Mhm. >> That's kind of what you're hoping to >> agree. If you agree, >> okay, >> I think that's a good catch. >> Yeah. >> There you go. Because I'm sure if you put dimensions on there, the the sign person
034I'm sure there's known measurements of those. They just have to be don't have to be listed. >> Sure. >> Mr. Schultz, I'm looking at you. >> I don't think so. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Rich. >> No, >> CJ. You're good. Okay, Mr. Sus. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, with that being said, I will make a motion to approve the special use sign review of Big B Coffee at 151 South Washington Street. Uh, contingent or conditioned upon the recommendation from McKenna in the letter dated July 28th, 2025. Um with a further point or condition that the sign placement is to scale of the graphic design presented in the sign application on I was going to specify a page. Um, the graphic design presented from the Vital Sign Company dated June 20th, 2025. >> I
035second. >> Um, Madame Secretary, when you're ready, a roll call vote, please. >> Is it say your name? We're on Gazdor. >> Yep. >> I approve. >> Yes. I'm sorry. >> I approve. and Schultz. >> Yes. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> We didn't want to make that so painful, but to do our due diligence. >> No, we really appreciate it. We just think aesthetically it's going to look so so much nicer and and just visible. And I think that's, you know, try to grab people's, you know, attention. Not too much, but as they they drive by, people will stop in for coffee. Y >> really appreciate it. >> Okay, great. >> Thanks. Yeah. Best of luck to you. >> Thank you. >> All right. We'll wait for the grand opening at some >>
036Thanks for investing with us. >> Oh, we're very excited. We We live as too. So, >> you know, we're we're definitely invested in multiple ways now. So, >> great. Excellent. >> Yeah. And I'll be bringing back some copies. >> Okay. Um, moving on. We have no old business. Um, another opportunity for the public comment. I see no public present. >> Um, consultant and administration comments. Joe or Vicki? >> Hi. Um, I was going to chime in on the DDA down there just but I'll wait. >> Okay. Thank you. Mario, anything from you, sir? >> No, nothing else at this time. >> Good. Um, now for the report out, uh, Oxford Township Planning Commission, Joe, any feedback from you? Okay. And or the ZBA or DA >> ZBA does not meet. That means we're doing a
037good job. >> Yep. Okay. Excellent. >> So, on the DDA, >> yeah. >> Um, at last night's DDA meeting, you guys recall the conditional zoning request you did on the property behind this last year for the Meadows of Oxford 32 condo. >> Yes. So, um they became aware of the uh the uh brownfield tiff for residential that the state statute was uh amended in 2023. If you recall, if you know anything about heard of brownfield over the years, they're normally old industrial sites and things of contaminated sites that they clean them up and if you do all the cleanup, you get a tax capture for x amount of years to help recover your cost for developing that site. you know in 2023 the state and through Misha and stuff uh amended that for residential development
038I mean so they put it under the same umbrella I think just because the process everything is the same it has nothing to do with contaminated sites or industrial sites whatever it's purely how do they drive residential development and one of the questions I was on this thing last Christmas time misha said they go around and ask developers why aren't there any $275,000 homes being built and the answer from the developers was because they cost 300,000 to build. >> They're like, "Okay, there's a problem. How do we fix this?" And so that's why they created they amended the ordinance as a statute for this tiff u kind of like a a DDA. You create an authority. You capture those tax and and as the developer uh builds those go back to developer to refund some
039of their costs on over a time period. And so these developers there have uh learned of that and and they're taking that approach and they've uh come to the council and have said hey here's temp we're thinking a pro uh process that we're looking at. We're hoping that they will get buy in from the village for this as well. The uh particular circumstance here is there's already an overlaying underlying tiff there for the DDA that is in the DDA district. So you already have one tiff capture happening and they want to put their tiff capture on it. So the DDA then would have to then agree to set aside theirs for whatever amount of years this brownfield redevelopment plan is for. And at that time once that brownfield tiff expires it would go the capture
040would then go back to the uh DDA. And if you remember CJ, last year when they were talking about these uh developments and how much it was going to cost and if you calculated quick math, it was going to be about $140,000 in new tax revenue. >> And I burst your bubble afterwards. I say yes, but we don't get into that, >> right? >> It goes to the DDA. So, but the DVA currently probably only gets a couple thousand at the most off this property. So, what they're going to be asked and in concurrence with the village council is sign a resolution or agreement with the county. you will forgo or put your like in abance for 15 years is the is the merit that this developer is looking for. They can go anywhere from
0415 to 30 years. They need go at least 15 years for their financing people to give them credit for this revenue coming back at them. So that's in the works. I I um exposed it and brought it forth and showed some documents to the DDA last night. And for them it's like okay, do we want to give up 1,500 a year for 15 years? and then in 15 years all of a sudden we're going to be collecting 180 grand a year. So, you know, they they see the light at the end of the tunnel and they're not giving up much on the front end to do so. So, I think they're going to be fully on board with it next year. But, I bring it to you guys because you guys are the ones who
042kind of got this ball rolling with your conditional um approval and the council accepted that conditional resoning and now it's um got another aspect of it that is kind of what it takes, right? It takes a village, >> right? um to make it all happen. The council has to weigh in on it. The DDA is going to have to weigh in on it. The DA is perhaps going to set aside their capture on it and an effort to help the developer make it a possibility. So that that's uh it was about a year ago you guys approved it and I think it's a two-year process they have >> for that to expire or get some extension. I they're working pretty diligently on it. We've uh been working with them uh and their developer or their
043engineer Jim Sharp here in town on the the sewer and the water connections and the plans and how they extend it and coming down from Lincoln Street down around the backside. We've been working them met with them over the summer on that plan through infrastructure stuff as well. So, it's been inching along. >> Mhm. >> But you guys sometimes don't you don't you know you approved something a year ago and you maybe haven't heard much. >> Yeah. >> So, that's good. >> That's the process. That's where it's going. And um I don't tell developers about this tiff plan that but they find it on their own. So >> because I just assume they built it without it. But if that's what it takes for them to do it, um >> so be it. >> Uh
044is there any probability that a an amended site plan would come back for review or >> I don't think so. They're sticking right with what you guys approved. Um minor tweaks on like the retention pond, the engineering stuff, you know, but that's that's just more engineering. Hey, we don't want to see the all these 45s on on the water main dipping below the storm drain. We like them kind of deflect it down and come up more. Some of those just technical things on the engineering side of things, but as far as the site plan goes, >> nothing. >> Okay, great. >> Good. >> So, it's still on track. >> Um, it'll go to the village council and and we hopefully have everything in the row. It's pretty straightforward. A couple things. Um the county takes
045over and creates the brownfield redevelopment district authority district and then they kind of run for they keep 15% off the top of the whole thing but they run everything and they do everything for the next years and collect that tax and then took money and disperse it and everything too. So it's kind of like >> Mhm. >> We hand it off and it's done. >> Okay, that's a good update. Thank you. You're >> welcome. >> Uh commissioner comments. >> I'm good for a couple. Um Regina, welcome. >> Thank you. Yeah. Welcome to the uh greatest planning commission in the village of Oxford. >> What I know. >> Yes. >> Mario, question comment for you regarding the um sign ordinance amendments. When should we expect to put that on the agenda? >> Um we can put
046that on next the next meeting that we have something scheduled. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um good. I was trying to follow along with your explanation to Tom regarding the difference between a zoning ordinance and a special sign use. >> Um, is there a need to incorporate any verbiage in our sign ordinance amendments to provide further clarity on when a um zoning ordinance deviation is requested or required versus special sign use. Sorry that as part is there special sign use versus >> versus the >> the variance the actual varian >> zoning variance. Is there any need to add that verbiage to clarify the difference or when one is needed or the other? >> I don't believe so right now because the way it's worded in the ordinance it does say so I'll just read it because
047it's just easier. says, "When a sign is proposed to be constructed in the village and the proposed sign does not meet the specific requirements of these regulations, the following review procedures shall apply to that sign. The zoning board of appeals shall not have the authority to vary the standards of this chapter of the zoning ordinance." So it does >> carve out the sign any any sign that wants to have a a a norm normally it would be some kind of non-use variance or dimensional variance from the sign standards. This particular paragraph carves that out and creates this special use process. And like I said, I actually do like it. I've actually promoted this in other communities because to me once again granting a variance for a sign I just, you know, there really is no
048criteria that would justify granting a fullblown variance because >> the want or need aesthetic need for a larger sign. You know, that's not a hardship. That's just your your want. It's not >> there isn't anything physically unique about your site that would would really substantiate giving somebody a variance. >> Okay. and and and does seem that you know and I guess the only thing I could say is like if you guys think that these criteria aren't specific enough or you want to add more or less you could maybe consider that. Uh but I know we don't get to any we don't get these that often. >> So u so yeah it's up it's up to you if you ever think that maybe we got to tweak this part. >> It's in an hour. Well, >>
049I I I I think it's reasonable, honestly. When you when you look at it, it's like especially if it's a if it's a if it's a onetime thing dependent upon, you know, how big the building is and stuff like that that really doesn't attach to the, you know, the the land itself. I I I think it's actually a good idea for it to be separate. So >> yeah, I I was not indicating that it should be combined, but rather >> I know I know, but I I think especially with the explanation, you know. >> Yeah, that was a really good explanation of the difference. >> Yeah. >> You know, >> so thank you. I appreciate that. >> Thanks. Uh with that, do I have a motion to adjourn at 7:49 p.m.? >> All right. >>
050Excellent. >> Thank you. >> Great.