Mr. Sullivan shared that he interprets the Zoning Code’s reference to signs differently than city staff. He believes that the sign he is proposing is not a changeable copy sign because the sign would need to be physically changed by an outside vendor. He also believes that the proposed sign is not a directory sign because it is a list of tenants and does not provide any direction.

Mr. O’Connor asked Mr. Sullivan for his interpretation of a wall sign.

Mr. Sullivan said the proposed sign is a multi-tenant wall sign. He shared that the sign company he is working with agrees that this sign is not a directory sign or a changeable copy sign.

Mr. Endsley asked city staff if the proposed sign would be considered a wall sign if it was static and could not be changed.

Mr. Jacques said a static sign would be allowable under the Code but the secondary sign would need to be removed.

Ms. Yankel asked if the sign company is able to change one plate at time or would the entire sign need to be changed.

Mr. Sullivan said that anything can be changed on any sign by the company.

Can change one plate which anything can be changed on any sign by the company.

Mr. O’Connor noted that everything comes back to whether the sign is identified as a changeable copy sign or as a directory sign.

The Board began their deliberations.

Mr. Endsley stated that the Code does not objectively define changeable copy signs or directional signs. He opined that the sign is not a directory sign because it does not point someone to a specific location and that it could be argued either way on whether it is a changeable copy sign. He feels that the sign is an identification sign that is allowable under the Code.

Ms. Yankel agreed. She added that any sign could be considered a changeable copy sign.

Mr. O’Connor agreed that the definitions of the signs in the Code are open to interpretation when it comes to signs, but he is more likely to consider the proposed sign as a directory sign, although he does not feel strongly that it is a directional sign either.

Mr. Endsley stated that he interprets reason ambiguity in favor of the applicant.

Ms. Yankel agreed.

Mr. O’Connor said that in the absence of clarity from the Zoning Code’s definitions of signs, he also rules in favor of the applicant.

It was then moved by Mr. O’Connor and seconded by Ms. Yankel that the denial of a sign permit filed by Rick Sullivan on behalf of 2331 Far Hills Investments, LLC, for the premises location at 2331 Far Hills Avenue be modified and re-evaluated by city staff as an application for an identification wall sign with the following findings of fact:

1. The Zoning Code does not define “changeable copy” or “directory sign.”