Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mitchell council approves billboard variance after reconsideration, sets 320‑sq‑ft cap and 10‑ft clearance
Summary
After an initial 5–3 defeat, the Board of Adjustment on reconsideration approved a variance for an oversized billboard with conditions that it be two‑legged, at least 10 feet above ground and no larger than 320 square feet; council debate cited neighbor concerns about location and worries about future precedents.
Mitchell’s Board of Adjustment approved a variance allowing an oversized advertising sign on private property after reconsidering an earlier failed motion and adding specific conditions.
The council first considered the JTRT conditional use and a related variance June 2026; neighbors and council members debated location and size. An initial motion to approve the conditional use failed on roll call by a 5–3 margin, with council members Smith, Doscher and McCardle recorded as voting no and five members recorded as voting yes.
On reconsideration, councilors voted to approve a revised variance that limits the sign to a two‑leg design, requires the bottom of the sign to sit at least 10 feet above ground, and caps the face at no more than 320 square feet. The motion passed on roll call during the revote.
Applicants said they reduced the proposed 384‑square‑foot design after neighborhood pushback and provided revised images; the applicant’s representative said the smaller 320‑square‑foot layout would reduce cost while preserving visibility. Landowner Spencer Mason told the board he bought the site in September 2024 and had sought a local billboard operator to keep business in Mitchell: “I wanted to keep as much business local here rather than just saving some money and having a different billboard company come in here,” he said.
Council discussion highlighted two recurring concerns: neighbors’ repeated objections to the sign’s placement, and the potential precedent of approving oversized signs. One council member said past approvals for larger signage raise the risk of a “can of worms” of future requests; another pointed out that an earlier, larger sign at Machesney’s had been erected without a council variance. Supporters of the variance cited concessions made by the applicant (height and two‑leg design) and historical precedent for variances in other cases.
Applicant Jeff Trevino addressed the board before the final vote and moved the revised motion: “So, I’ll move to approve pending two‑legs and 10‑ft off the ground,” he said; the board included the 320‑square‑foot limit in the motion and then approved it.
The board also approved a companion advertising variance with the same conditions for the related applicant. Council members set a Board of Adjustment follow‑up hearing date for June 15, 2026.
The decision imposes clear physical limits and layout requirements but does not change the underlying sign ordinance; neighbors may use the city’s appeal or enforcement processes if they believe the conditions are not met.
