The Culver’s restaurant on M-24 and Dutton is set to open later this month.
But issues with signage on and around the building have puzzled owner Joe Zimmer.
The township board denied a request in early June to allow Zimmer to change signs. He wants a variance to allow two signs on his building, one facing M-24 and one facing Dutton, as opposed to the usual one building sign allowed.
Reservations from some board members center on a separate LED electronic messaging sign in front of the business.
‘I’m applying for signs that are in compliance with the township ordinance,? Zimmer said of the two building signs. ‘What the township seems to not understand is that I’ve applied for an electronic messaging system.?
Zimmer said that sign is not a flashing, colorful sign, but one similar to what is seen at some gas stations and banks.
‘They’re confusing what I’m applying for with what the bocce place has and what Canterbury Village has,? he said.
Zimmer said he just wants to advertise the ‘flavor of the day? for Culver’s custards, but some township officials say allowing his sign would open the door to others.
Supervisor Jerry Dywasuk said he doesn’t want the township to look like ‘the Vegas strip,? or some other nearby communities with an abundance of LED signs.
The motion to deny the changes was carried by a 4-3 vote, with Trustees Matt Gibb, Neal Porter and John Steimel the dissenters.
The board’s action went against the recommendation of the township planning commission, which unanimously approved the changes.
As a result, the issue went back to the planning commission and then to the board of zoning appeals, and Zimmer said both groups gave him the approval he was seeking in the last two weeks.
He says the signs will be back on the board’s agenda on July 7.
With regard to the electronic sign, Zimmer said it would help eliminate temporary signs and noted it is more efficient than a glowing neon sign.
There is some confusion over the issue, centering on which township board has jurisdiction over the matter.
The planning commission approved the signs, but some trustees wondered if the zoning board of appeals should be involved instead and questioned what role the township board should play, if any, in the matter.
The PUD ordinance and sign ordinance have both been brought into question in this special case.
‘In my mind, we are overdue for a review of our sign ordinance,? Steimel said at the board’s June 2 meeting.
In addition to the issue being discussed by all three boards, many candidates for township office have brought forward the idea of revising or scrapping the current ordinance.