Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Signs topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies variance for proposed 50‑foot digital interstate sign at Epps Mill Road

Board of Zoning Appeals · July 29, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The BZA denied a variance request (Z26O29) from TriStar/Premier Sign Company for a 50-foot interstate on-site LED digital sign and a second on-site ground sign at 5705 Epps Mill Road, finding the application did not meet the narrow variance standards and raised concerns about precedent and sign type.

The Board of Zoning Appeals denied application Z26O29, a sign‑variance request by TriStar Transport doing business as Premier Sign Company on behalf of the property owner of the proposed 7‑11/Speedway at 5705 Epps Mill Road.

Teresa Stevens, the city’s sign administrator, told the board the parcel lacks the additional street frontage and 200 feet of frontage required to permit an interstate on-site sign under the sign ordinance. “Staff recommendation for use of an additional ground sign and installation of changeable sign, either video display or electronic graphic display is to be denied,” Stevens said. She also noted that the city prohibits LED or graphic displays and that the property’s eligibility could change only if TDOT acquires adjacent right-of-way and frontage is formally altered.

Betsy Shackleford of Premier Sign Company, the applicant, said the firm would prefer a large digital price sign because non-digital options are either impractical (placards) or limited in height (mechanical scrollers). “This is going to be a 50 foot sign, which would be allowed by the code as long as there are 2 street frontages,” she said, adding the client wants to have the sign in place ahead of any TDOT acquisition. Board counsel and staff reviewed the high legal bar for variances and the vote followed concerns about creating a general or widespread condition that would invite similar requests.

A motion to deny the variance based on failure to meet the sign‑variance standards (conditions 1 and 2) was made, seconded and carried by roll call.