Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Signage Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA denies Tom Wood Power Sports sign variance request, 4-1
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request from Tom Wood Power Sports for additional signage (docket PZ202400224). The petitioner requested five signs; the board voted 4-1 to deny the variance after staff recommended denial and the petitioner was not present to answer detailed questions.
The Board of Zoning Appeals on Feb. 24 denied a variance request from Tom Wood Power Sports that would have allowed five signs at the business when the UDO permits two. The board voted 4-1 to deny docket PZ202400224 after planning staff recommended denial and board members expressed concerns about noncompliance and lack of cooperation from the petitioner.
Why it matters: The petitioner sought four wall signs and one ground sign beyond the two permitted by the Unified Development Ordinance. Planning staff said the petitioner had not been willing to make concessions that would bring the signage into compliance and recommended denial.
Details provided at hearing: A representative for Patterson Sign Group attended but said he could not answer all substantive design and strategy questions on behalf of Tom Wood. Planning staff told the board the petitioner had two existing wall signs and requested four additional wall signs plus one ground sign. Staff noted alternatives the petitioner could use to meet the ordinance, such as installing exempt directional signs (3 feet tall and up to 3 square feet) or reducing the service sign to a size that would be exempt; the petitioner declined those options.
Staff also said the proposed ground sign did not meet UDO design requirements (masonry base, delineated cornice) and lacked a landscaping plan. One board member offered a compromise to allow only the ground sign, but staff and other members disagreed because the ground sign did not meet design standards and the petitioner had not demonstrated hardship or willingness to work with staff. With the petitioner not present to directly answer questions, the board moved to deny the variance request; the motion failed 4 in favor of denial, 1 opposed, and the petition was denied 4-1.
Next steps: The petitioner may revise the signage plan to conform with the UDO, propose exempt directional signage, or return with a revised application that addresses the design and landscaping requirements the staff identified.
