Brandon meeting pauses sign-ordinance rewrite, directs variance route for nonconforming freestanding signs

Participants at a meeting in Brandon discussed changes to the local sign code and agreed to pause a proposed ordinance that would have addressed nonconforming off-premise freestanding signs, directing staff instead to handle individual requests through the variance process.

The change matters for businesses that share lots with existing billboards or other nonconforming signs. Supporters of pausing the ordinance said a broad rewrite could unintentionally allow multiple new signs on a lot; those who favored the ordinance said it could help businesses blocked from installing compliant signage because of preexisting leased billboards.

Speaker 4, staff member, summarized the draft language and the practical effect: the draft would allow a lawful nonconforming off-premise freestanding sign to remain without preventing the installation of another freestanding sign on the same lot provided the second sign complied with the sign code. Speaker 4 said, “So if the other sign would be legal, then what was legal but now is not would not preclude it.”

Speaker 3, board member, urged a measurable buffer in one line of discussion, saying, “I would say go 1,400 feet.” The group discussed several alternate distances and mapping approaches; one option suggested coloring the zoning map to show allowed areas instead of specifying a single numeric buffer.

Speakers raised examples and factual questions frequently cited during the discussion. The property at 1001 North Split Rock was cited as having an existing taller sign (discussants referenced roughly 38 feet versus a 30-foot standard and larger surface area) that complicates how a new on-site sign would be evaluated. Businesses cited by speakers included McDonald's, Circle K, Blaine's, Buffalo Wild Wings, Les Schwab and Menards; River Park and Tenth Street were mentioned as locations where signs have been removed or affected by roadway projects.

Legal constraints also shaped the debate. Speaker 4 referenced a recent U.S. Supreme Court development and described the on/off-premise distinction as a “time, place, and manner” distinction rather than a content-based rule, saying, “You just can't regulate content further than that.” That framing informed caution about broad ordinance language that might be vulnerable to legal challenge.

Several members favored resolving individual situations through the variance process to allow case-by-case conditions such as requiring a sign to be removed when a lease expires. As Speaker 5, board member, put it when describing the evidentiary burden for a variance applicant: “If they're gonna claim the hardship is that they can't put up a sign because of the existing sign and that they can't take down the sign, I would need to see proof that they can.”

Staff was directed to gather specific technical information for upcoming hearings, including elevation comparisons between the interstate, existing signs (several speakers asked for McDonald's sign elevation as an example), and the height approved in a recent variance so commissioners can assess relative visual impact. Speaker 4 confirmed staff would work to assemble that information and return with an updated draft or materials.

No ordinance or regulatory text was adopted at the meeting. The group agreed to pause further work on the proposed ordinance language and to consider variance applications (staff noted a variance application had been filed for 1001 North Split Rock and was scheduled for a public hearing on April 3). The meeting concluded after routine closing business and a motion to adjourn.

Ending: Staff will meet with applicants before the hearing to advise them on the documentation needed to demonstrate hardship; applicants retain the burden of proof for variance requests, and the commission will determine conditions if it approves any variances.