I have to take issue with the approach of this article. As Mayor and a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission the issue wasn't the "city's C-8 Planned Commercial District No. 1001, which authorizes only two signs on buildings for businesses." but the specific site ordinance that was enacted for the entire plaza which includes Dierberg's, Sunnystree Cafe, Hallmark, Wines of Wildwood, One Lucky Mutt and Bank of America among others. That specific site ordinance specified two signs per tenant. See the detail of this on page 5 and 6 of the report provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 17th (http://www.cityofwildwood.com/egov/docs/1355512452_72448.pdf).
In 2007 the City of Wildwood amended it's sign ordinance which would allow for three signs on buildings in C-8 commercial areas. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved amending the site ordinance to the current sign regulations for commercial zoning districts. The forth sign is a projection type which will hang from a mast off the side of the building and is consider a "minor" sign of which one is allowed with each tenant space. Hence all four of the signs were covered by the amending of the specific site ordinance to bring it current with the city sign regulations and not contentious issue that is hinted at in the statement, "couple of other proposed signs that caught the attention of city leaders."

Thank you, Mayor Woerther. Information for this article and wording came directly from the city-issued notification for the public hearing, a notification located at the restaurant's site. The bottomline is that a public hearing was required, due to the request for something that was different than the ordinance(s) and warranted public participation as well as special/extra commissioners' approval. Those actions really did demand "the attention of city leaders," which is what was stated. Not all tenants within the Dierbergs, Wildwood LLC/Town Center development would have need for signage facing numerous directions. Isn't that why this issue originally surfaced?

Not necessarily true the buildings which line Taylor Road in the Dierbergs development have frontages that face both the internal parking field and Taylor Road. and have signage facing both directions. The issue was that the original site specific ordinance was not consistent with current signage ordinances which were adopted in 2007 years after the site specific ordinance was put in place for the Dierbergs development. To add language which heightens concern when this was reviewed and recommended to keep consistent signage policies in place for commercial districts in Wildwood.

Let me finish the last sentence...To add language which heightens concern when this was reviewed and recommended to keep consistent signage policies in place for commercial districts in Wildwood is not correct and paints a picture which was not true during the hearing and action.