Red Oak board denies appeal to allow billboard on I‑35 frontage road

The Red Oak Zoning Board of Adjustments denied an appeal of city staff's decision to prohibit a billboard at 507 North Interstate 35 E, voting 4-0 on March 12, 2025.

The board's decision upholds the building and zoning staff's denial of a sign permit for a dual-faced billboard the applicant described as roughly 300 square feet per face. The appeal (ZBA-25-01) was filed by Stewart Law Group, PLLC on behalf of the applicant; the hearing also included written opposition from two residents.

City staff presented the permit review and told the board the sign application conflicted with the city's sign ordinance. Ben Hartman, city staff, explained the ordinance language staff relied on and said billboards are identified in the code as off-premise advertising that is regulated differently than on-premise signs. Hartman described the submitted drawings as a dual-faced billboard of about 300 square feet per face and said the permit was denied based on the ordinance's prohibitions.

Two letters in opposition were read into the record. One, from Herb Corpony, stated support for the city's original decision to prohibit the billboard. A second, from Melissa Person of 104 Hill Lane, said an installed billboard would increase light and noise and would be uncomfortable for nearby homeowners.

Andrea Cook of Stewart Law Group, representing the appellant, argued the ordinance is internally inconsistent and constitutionally overbroad. Cook said the ordinance fails to draw a clear distinction between signs the city permits and what it labels a "billboard," and argued that an outright ban on all billboards is not narrowly tailored to serve the city's stated interests. "The ban on all billboards for your city is not narrowly tailored to serve any substantial government interest," Cook said during the hearing.

Applicant representative John Quirira testified that the submitted application and engineered drawings define what would be built if approved and that the design meets the size standards the applicant relied on for the I‑35 corridor. Quirira also said the parking conflict noted by staff had been resolved and that the engineering plan shows the pole outside the parking stalls.

Board members and staff questioned whether the application was complete and whether the property owner had given a lease with a precise, drawn location for the billboard pole. Staff noted the site is nonconforming because of right-of-way changes by the Texas Department of Transportation and said the nonconforming status limits the board's ability to approve expansions. The board emphasized that, without an owner's consent showing the exact pole placement, it could not meaningfully consider approving the appeal.

After closing the public hearing, a board member moved to deny the appeal; another member seconded the motion. The board voted to approve the motion to deny, resulting in a denial of the permit appeal by a 4-0 vote. The board recorded the vote as unanimous and closed the meeting.

The hearing record includes the appellant's application and engineered plans, staff's report and copies of the relevant sign ordinance language and a cited statutory authority (Texas Local Government Code A7216.901 was provided to the record by staff as the state law basis for municipal sign regulation). The board marked the application and supporting materials as exhibits during the proceeding.