Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs And Billboards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves billboard sign variance despite cityattorney advice and pending litigation
Summary
The Board of Adjustment voted to grant a variance to sign-spacing rules for a proposed billboard after a contentious hearing in which city attorneys urged denial and opponents warned of setting a legal precedent; the request drew sustained debate about how to measure the 300-foot separation from Historic Preservation (HP) zoned property.
The Board of Adjustment approved a variance request to allow a billboard sign despite objections from the cityattorney's office and a pending district-court appeal over the same permit decision.
The vote followed a multi-hour hearing in which attorneys for both sides debated whether the city—s new sign regulations require 300 feet of separation measured to HP-zoned property and whether the board—s earlier ruling created a new, binding measurement method. Supporters of the variance said the HP property within 300 feet is Broadway Avenue (a street) not single-family homes, and that the separation requirement—s purpose (protecting residences) is not implicated by the proposed sign. Opponents said the ordinance is clear, that zoning lines extend to the center of the roadway, and that granting the variance would conflict with the comprehensive plan and create unlawful precedent.
Why it matters: The hearing split legal and planning opinions and involves major billboard companies; the variance could affect where non-accessory signs may be built across the city and is already the subject of litigation before the district court.
What happened: David Box, attorney for the applicant, told the board the applicant met other permitting requirements and was seeking a variance only because the Board—s prior interpretation of the spacing rule differed from staff and the applicant—s prior approvals. William (Bill) Hickman, representing Lamar (a billboard operator) and Moore Outdoor Advertising, argued the sign code requires measurement to HP-zoned property and said recent court rulings and the city—s written guidance supported denying the variance. Dustin Paris, assistant municipal counselor, told the board the city was defending the earlier appeal in court and recommended denial while litigation is pending.
Board members weighed several factors: some said the variance should be considered on its own merits because the permit had been issued by staff originally and the applicant later faced an appeal; others said the board should not take action while a related legal appeal is pending. Multiple members noted the unusual factual record: staff-issued permits, conflicting appeals, and later private leases and amendments involving nearby property owners.
Outcome and next steps: The board voted to approve the variance. No further formal conditions beyond the variance were specified at the hearing. The city attorney—s office warned the board the decision could be appealed. The district court retained a pending summary-judgment date related to an earlier appeal of the board—s actions; counsel for the city said the court process should run its course.
Context: The dispute centers on a 300-foot spacing requirement in the city—s sign regulations intended to limit non-accessory signs near HP-zoned property. Attorneys debated how that 300-foot measure should be taken (property line vs. curb/right-of-way). Opponents cited a comprehensive-plan policy (E-14) discouraging additional billboard signs.
Board action: motion to approve the variance carried after comment and debate; the public record now includes both this board approval and the separate, ongoing district-court litigation.
