Board of Zoning Appeals denies sign-variance request for Legacy Point development

The Spring Hill Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously denied a sign-variance request from South Star Company for two 15-foot, 56-square-foot monument signs proposed for the Legacy Point development.

City staff told the board the Unified Development Code (UDC) allows one monument sign a maximum of 8 feet and 32 square feet; the applicant proposed two signs that exceed the UDC in height, area and number. Staff recommended denial, saying the property lacks topographic or size constraints that would justify a variance and that approval would create disparity among commercial properties.

Staff explained the site is roughly 19.3 acres and noted the planning commission approved a site plan earlier in 2025 for a roughly 166,000-square-foot building up to 28 feet tall and a 17-foot gas canopy. "The applicant is proposing 2 monument signs at 15 feet tall with 56 square feet of sign face," a staff presenter said, and added that the UDC allows for a single monument sign at a maximum of 8 feet tall with 32 square feet of sign face.

Daniel Milligan of BRR Architecture, speaking for the applicant, said the larger signs were intended to improve wayfinding on the 20-acre site and to make the fuel center and pricing more visible to drivers approaching from different directions. "We really want to be a good neighbor," Milligan said, adding the signs would meet design standards and help prevent drivers from traversing the entire site just to find the fuel center.

Board members pressed on two central points: whether the UDC-sized signage would prevent brand recognizability and whether the site had unique conditions that justified an exception. One board member noted the approved building height and facade allowances make the business visible without oversized monument signage. A staff representative for Development Services said the city has not regularly approved sign variances, and variances are generally reserved for genuine topographic or visibility constraints.

A member offering a legal perspective advised that the application did not meet the legal standard for a variance and warned of litigation risk around signage cases. The Chair then moved to adopt staff's findings of fact and conclusions of law and to deny BZA 1977-2025; the motion was seconded and the Chair announced, "The ayes have it. Unanimous." The transcript does not record an exact vote count.

The denial leaves the UDC limitations in place for the site; the applicant may choose to redesign signage within code allowances or pursue other lawful remedies. The board moved on to other business after the vote.