Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board deadlocks on I‑90 plaza sign variance; no variance approved
Summary
A variance request for larger and additional freestanding signs at a commercial parcel near I‑90 was not approved after a series of motions produced tie votes; the applicant may appeal to city council.
The City of Brandon Board of Adjustment failed to approve a variance request for larger and additional freestanding signs at a commercial parcel near Interstate 90, leaving the applicant able to appeal the board’s non‑decision to city council.
The applicant (Quickstart representatives) asked for variances that would allow signs larger than the city’s proposed maximum and more signage than current rules permit. City staff summarized the draft sign calculation in the packet and the sign allowances envisioned under the city’s pending ordinance revisions: one square foot of sign area per linear foot of frontage for the first 200 feet, then one additional square foot per two linear feet of frontage beyond 200, with a current single‑sign cap of 200 square feet under the draft ordinance. Staff calculated the parcel’s frontage at roughly 926 feet and ran the math showing how the draft rules and the applicant’s request compared.
The Board debated whether sign size limits should be addressed through individual variances or by finalizing the pending interstate overlay district and a general business sign amendment. Several commissioners said they were uneasy granting a large, 600‑square‑foot sign variance because granting one large exception could set precedent for other properties. An applicant representative urged the board to decide that night, saying, “We would prefer a decision tonight, one way or the other, and then have it move forward to council.”
Three separate motions were put before the board over the course of the meeting: a motion to table the variance to allow staff and the commission to address sign‑size rules in the overlay and other pending ordinance work; a motion to deny the variance; and a motion to approve only the height component of the variance while denying additional sign area and additional number of signs. The motions produced mixed and tie votes; the board reported a deadlock (3–3) on later motions and an earlier tally on the tabling motion that left it without the needed support to carry. Under the board’s variance rules, a concurring two‑thirds vote is required to approve a variance; the board’s votes did not meet that threshold and no variance was approved that night.
Board members and staff discussed scheduling and appeal options. Staff advised that a written notice of appeal to city council must be filed within five business days and that council would consider the matter based on the record presented to the board. Staff also noted the overlay district and related sign ordinance language remain on the commission’s calendar and could be revised before city council hearings.
Because no variance was approved, the applicant may either ask the board to reconsider, pursue a city council appeal within the five‑business‑day window, or await revisions to the overlay and sign code and reapply. The board’s discussion made clear the commission is wrestling with how to handle sign height, total allowed square footage, and quantity of freestanding signs for parcels with extensive street frontage as it finalizes the interstate overlay district and the general business sign amendments.
