Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance for proposed billboard at 716 North Main Street
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for a proposed billboard at 716 North Main Street, finding the request did not meet the municipal sign-code variance standards; staff said the sign code will be reviewed later this year and recommended City Council consider revising the ordinance.
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for a proposed billboard at 716 North Main Street after concluding the application did not meet the city’s variance standards for sign code relief.
Staff member Tom, presenting the application, told the board the municipal sign code requires 600 feet between billboards. He said two of the ten variance standards were inapplicable and that the application failed to meet most of the remaining standards, so the staff recommendation was denial. "The text of the law is not flexible on this part," Tom said in his presentation.
David Burke, representing the applicant, said the proposal complied with Tennessee Department of Transportation rules and that several existing billboards installed after the city’s 2005 code adoption are closer than 600 feet. "We feel like the justifications and benefits far outweigh any sort of negative impacts," Burke said, asking the board to consider the commercial character and traffic of the area.
Board members questioned the difference between TDOT spacing (which applies a same-side measurement within some limits) and the city's 600-foot rule. Several members expressed concern about selective enforcement and whether prior nonconforming signs were permitted because of procedural errors in past permitting. Staff said the department had surveyed permits and found multiple instances of closer spacing, some dating back to 2007 and others more recent.
The board considered a motion to approve the variance, which failed for lack of a second. A subsequent motion to deny the variance — on the basis that it did not meet the ordinance’s variance guidelines — carried on a roll-call/voice vote and the board formally denied the application.
Members and staff urged the City Council to review the sign code. Staff said the department plans to revisit the municipal sign code later in the year to address inconsistencies and procedural gaps.
The decision was procedural: the board denied the specific variance request but indicated the underlying municipal sign ordinance could be changed only by the council.
