Fenton board continues variance request for boundary adjustment at South Highway Drive

The City of Fenton Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to continue consideration of case 2025‑VD‑01‑A, a petition to adjust the shared lot line between 670 and 690 South Highway Drive that would create two separate parcels and leave a nonconforming billboard on a very small lot.

Amy Stark, the city’s community development director, summarized the staff position at the hearing: “The petitioner is proposing a boundary adjustment to move the shared lot line between 670 and 690 South Highway Drive. That would be to move this lot line approximately 50 feet to the west.” She told the board the change would reduce the size of the lot containing the billboard from about 0.41 acres to roughly 0.18 acres and shrink the lot width to about 47 feet, compared with a current minimum lot size requirement of 1 acre and minimum lot width of 150 feet in the HP‑1 (hospitality park) district.

Petitioner Mark Dohring, president of Dohring Engineering, said he represents Watson Home Properties LLC and owner Tyler Watson. Dohring told the board the applicant seeks to subdivide so the restaurant lot can be sold and redeveloped: “Our purpose here tonight is really for Tyler. He wants to sell the restaurant lot and get a new restaurant. We wanna tear the building down. That's our goal here tonight.” He described the existing billboard as 60 feet tall, noted it exceeds the city’s 35‑foot height limit for billboards, and estimated the sign generates about $3,000 a month in revenue.

Stark and the petitioner explained the billboard is a legal nonconforming structure that received a variance in 1984 allowing the sign to be built; that 1984 approval included a condition that the billboard be removed if the property was sold, a condition the city later attempted to enforce but did not pursue to completion. Stark told the board the billboard currently sits closer than the code’s required 150% of the sign height (90 feet) from the lot lines; the proposed boundary adjustment would reduce the side‑line separation from about 58 feet to approximately 6 feet, creating an even larger encroachment.

Board members raised several concerns during discussion. One member said they were “not in favor of making that boundary adjustment personally,” citing uncertainty about future uses of the small sign lot and the risk of creating a tiny, stand‑alone nonconforming parcel that could complicate future development or sales. Another member recommended combining the two lots to create a single, conforming parcel and then addressing the billboard as a single‑parcel nonconformity. Vice Chairperson Mike Mooney asked whether the sign could instead be leased or otherwise monetized without subdividing; the petitioner said leasing is possible but he did not have contract details available at the hearing.

Faced with unanswered marketing and layout questions, the petitioner asked for more time to prepare alternate layouts and financial details. The board voted to continue the case to the next meeting. The roll call recorded five yes votes and no no or abstentions; the motion to continue carried and the item was postponed to the April meeting for further information and potential redesigns.

The petitioner and staff may return with alternative lot layouts that would either (a) combine the lots to create a conforming parcel while retaining the billboard as a single nonconforming structure or (b) revise the boundary adjustment with parking and layout plans showing how a restaurant could be developed despite the billboard encroachment. The board did not approve any variances at this meeting.