The application, represented by Powerhouse Signs LLC, requested variances for the installation of additional signage at the Jackson Mall. The proposed signs totaled 113.32 square feet, surpassing the 80 square feet typically allowed. The representative emphasized that Ulta Beauty’s occupancy of two units justified the need for increased signage, as the units would usually be leased to separate tenants, each entitled to their own signs.

Compelling arguments were made supporting the necessity of the additional signage due to the mall’s architectural features that obscure visibility. The unique layout of the shopping center was cited as a reason for needing enhanced visibility from internal roads, with no pylon sign listing tenants for guidance. A professional planner, Barbara Alen, corroborated these points by stressing the outdated nature of current sign regulations and the importance of supporting local businesses. Alen argued that the proposed signage was consistent with the shopping center’s existing character and vital for effective wayfinding.

Despite the support, several board members expressed reservations about the potential impact on tenant relations, particularly concerning the extension of signs over shared spaces. It was revealed that while the applicant had obtained approval from the mall’s landlord, explicit consent from the adjacent tenant was not secured. The board deliberated on the legal implications of this approval, ultimately concluding that maintaining tenant harmony was the landlord’s responsibility.

The board’s discussion also scrutinized the signage’s structural and aesthetic aspects. The sign’s circular design and dimensions were contrasted with the mall’s typical rectangular signs, sparking debate over its suitability and effectiveness. Questions arose about whether the proposed sign’s size aligned with the plaza’s aesthetic and safety requirements. Nonetheless, the representative assured that the sign would be structurally sound, with proper brackets and illumination managed by a timer to coincide with business hours.

Board members weighed the potential safety benefits of increased signage against the absence of historical complaints about business visibility within the mall. While some members were skeptical of safety claims without substantial evidence, the applicant’s representative contended that the store’s location on the shopping center’s far left made it challenging for customers to find, thus justifying the need for enhanced signage.

Ultimately, the board approved the variance. The decision was reached with an understanding that permits and inspections would follow, although no additional conditions were imposed.

In other matters, the board addressed several resolutions, including the approval of a bulk variance for a second-story deck and use variances for a mobile concrete batch plant and a construction project involving a metal pole barn. Each resolution passed unanimously.

The board also conducted administrative discussions regarding the ongoing search for a ninth member, a vacancy persisting nearly a year. This led to suggestions that applicants should be present during hearings for more efficient decision-making. Additionally, the board discussed upcoming meeting schedules, noting the cancellation of the April 1 meeting and a member’s planned absence on April 15 due to travel.

The meeting concluded with an executive session to discuss personnel matters related to hiring a traffic engineer and anticipated litigation involving Garden View Homes. Upon reconvening, the board remained complete, except for one member who left the virtual meeting.