Taylor Zoning Board denies variances for sign at 405 South Main

The Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of Taylor on Tuesday denied three variance requests for signage at 405 South Main Street, rejecting a request to increase letter height, to allow channel (internal) illumination, and related lighting waivers.

Preston Gunn, a planner with the City of Taylor, told the board the applicant had installed the sign without an approved permit in mid-February and later applied for variances. Gunn said staff sent 22 mailed notices for the public hearing and received no responses in opposition or support. He outlined the administrative timeline: the sign permit was submitted Feb. 12, the sign was installed Feb. 17, an internal review was completed Feb. 21, code enforcement was notified March 3, staff met with the applicant March 5, and the variance application was filed March 4.

Why the board’s decision matters: granting variances would modify standards in the city’s land development code for the historic Main Street District. Board members said prior decisions and the absence of statutorily required thresholds — such as the state hardship tests referenced in local government code and the city’s LDC — gave them no grounds to make an exception.

Gunn said the sign does not meet state thresholds that would allow a Board of Adjustment variance, such as a demonstrated financial cost of compliance equaling more than 50% of the appraised value of the structure. Gunn also told the board staff had worked with the applicant to develop an alternate, code-compliant flat-panel sign with 18-inch lettering and gooseneck downlighting that would meet the city’s requirements and position the applicant to apply for grants.

Elma Lepe, who identified herself as the restaurant owner, told the board she paid $4,000 to have the existing sign made and installed and that business increased after the sign went up. "We decided to make a sign but we didn't know that we have all these codes," Lepe said. She asked the board to let the sign remain because she cannot afford to replace it right away.

Property owner Johan Borch, who said he owns the subject property and adjacent lots, urged flexibility to help new businesses on South Main. "If you want to bring businesses, let the business spend the money to make the infrastructure that they need to run and keep open doors," Borch said, arguing that downtown investment is needed on the south side of town.

Board members pressed several points: that similar signage elsewhere had been grandfathered under older codes, that applicants must follow permit procedures, and that verbal staff comments do not substitute for an approved permit. Several board members said staff had offered to help the applicant apply for funding and to fast-track a conforming design for grant reimbursement.

Staff told the board the city’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC) grant typically matches 50% of eligible costs (Gunn cited $15,000 as the matching cap in staff remarks) and that the Main Street program's funding was depleted until October; staff said the EDC grant review can take about two months. Gunn said staff would allow the current nonconforming sign to remain temporarily while the applicant pursues the EDC or Main Street matching grants, provided the applicant submits and secures a conforming design permit and acts in good faith on the approvals process.

The board took three separate motions: to deny (1) the requested increase in letter height, (2) the requested allowance for channel lettering/illumination, and (3) the related lighting-standard variance. Each motion carried. The board chair cited precedent from recent cases and said the applicant had not supplied the specific legal or factual grounds — e.g., a state hardship threshold or evidence of an unavoidable financial burden meeting statutory tests — needed to justify a variance.

The board’s action does not itself require immediate removal of the sign if the applicant pursues a grant route: staff said the city would work with the applicant on timing and reimbursement once a conforming design is submitted and grants are approved. If the applicant wants to challenge the board’s decision, staff told the public the next recourse would be an appeal to the county court (the local procedural rules discussed at the hearing require filing within the statutory appeal period).

The board then closed the hearing and moved on to other business.

Notes: The agenda identified the case as PZ 20252474 and listed the code sections at issue as land development code sections referencing sign letter height and lighting standards in the historic Main Street district; the staff presentation referenced state/local thresholds in the local government code and the city’s LDC.