Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies request for larger gas-station sign advertising liquor in Southfield
Summary
The Southfield Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 2, 2025 denied a request by Avery Sign Company and property owner DB Best for an 80-square-foot ground sign at 24960 Telegraph Road, citing permit history, ordinance limits and concerns about precedent for liquor advertising.
The Southfield Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 2, 2025 denied a request to enlarge a ground-support sign at 24960 Telegraph Road after city staff said the proposed change was inconsistent with the sign ordinance and could set an undesirable precedent for liquor advertising.
Chris Karate of Avery Sign Company, representing property owner DB Best, asked the board for a waiver to allow an 80-square-foot ground-support sign where 50 square feet is the limit. Karate said the additional cabinet was to advertise that the business holds a liquor license. "We're just asking for a small variation that we can allow us to advertise the liquor on premises," he said.
City staff told the board that permit records were incomplete, that the existing ground sign had a complex permit history and that a small nonconforming "liquor" placard already attached beneath the sign appeared to be on the property. Staff recommended denial, citing chapter 99, article 11, section 8.60 of the sign ordinance and raising concerns that the proposed sign was out of character for the area and could have traffic-safety impacts.
Board members pressed staff on the exact size of the existing sign; staff said the sign appeared to measure roughly 8 by 8 feet (about 64 square feet) based on a site visit but that the records were unclear. Several board members said they were reluctant to approve a large, conspicuous liquor banner that could encourage similar signs across the city. "I really don't want to see liquor signs on every corner in the city," said Mr. Rogers, a board member.
Mr. Rogers moved to deny the variance request; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. The board suggested the applicant consider a wall sign alternative or a different sign plan consistent with the ordinance. The denial requires the applicant to pursue other options if they wish to advertise the liquor license on site.
No members of the public spoke for or against the request during the hearing.
