Sep 10, 2024 Board of Adjustment

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:07]

>>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY . MY CLOCK SHOWS 8:30 , SO WE WILL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. THIS IS OF ADJUSTMENTS .

[MINUTES (Part 1 of 2)]

PREVIOUS MEETING. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

MOTION. >> MOTION PASSES.

>> FOUR FAVORABLE VOTES ARE REQUIRED TO APPROVE ANY REQUEST UNDER CONSIDERATION. IF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THIS BOARD, THE APPLICANT HAS 180 DAYS FROM THIS DAY TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT IF ONE IS REQUIRED. A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS BOARD IF REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT AT THIS HEARING. A BUILDING PERMIT MAY BE APPLIED FOR THE DAY IT IS APPROVED. IF THE REQUEST IS DENIED, IT MAY NOT BE REGAN'S ENTERED BY THIS BOARD UNTIL 12 MONTHS FROM THIS DATE. APPEALS FROM THE DECISIONS OF THIS BOARD MAY BE MADE TO A COURT OF RECORD WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE STATE. I AM GOING TO STOP US RIGHT THERE BEFORE WE SWEAR ANYBODY IN FOR OUR MEETINGS. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IN THE CITY OF ABILENE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT ANY TIME TO DISCUSS ANY MATTERS LISTED, AND WE ARE GOING TO MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION BRIEFLY. SO WE WILL

RETURN HERE IN JUST A MOMENT. >> JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE TOPIC LISTED ON THE AGENDA ITEM IS CONSULTATION WITH

>> ALL RIGHT. MY CLOCK READS 8:44 , AND WE WILL OFFICIALLY CALL THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER. THERE WAS NO ACTION TAKEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, SO WE WILL CONTINUE ON WITH OUR

[MINUTES (Part 2 of 2)]

[2. BA-2024-12: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a request from Kent Store Development, LLC represented by Prince Signs, LLC for a variance to allow a 32' tall pole sign within the Corridor Overlay, which allows pole signs at maximum height of 10' at 4202 Buffalo Gap Road. (Clarissa Ivey]

>> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS CLARISSA AND I'M A PLANNER WITH ABILENE. THE LOCATION OF THIS IS FOR 202 BUFFALO GAP, AND THEY ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE, A 32 FOOT VARIANCE FOR THIS SIGN. YOU CAN SEE THIS IS AT THE INTERSECTION OF BUFFALO GAP ROAD NEAR LOOP HIGHWAY 83/84. THIS IS CURRENTLY ZONED HEAVY COMMERCIAL WITH A CORRIDOR OVERLAY FOR THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SIGN THAT THEY ARE WANTING TO INSTALL. IT IS 32 FEET IN HEIGHT. THEY PROVIDED THIS PROPOSED VIEW OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND ON THE BACK, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE THE ORIGINAL SIGN EXISTS

[00:05:03]

THAT YOU HAVE. >> I AM CURIOUS ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE CURRENT SIGN. DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION?

>> IT IS THE SAME HEIGHT. THE CURRENT SIGN IS THE SAME HEIGHT. I DON'T KNOW THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. THEY ARE JUST PROPOSING THAT AT THE LOCATION. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SIGN, BUT THIS ONE IS 32 FEET IN HEIGHT.

>> TO GO BACK TO THE PICTURE OF THE ORIGINAL -- OKAY. THEY ARE JUST WANTING TO MOVE IT -- OKAY.

>> SO THE CURRENT SIGN IN THIS LOCATION, THIS IMAGE THAT IS SEEN ON YOUR SCREEN , YOU SEE THE EAST CORNER , LIKE NORTHERN EAST CORNER OF THE CANOPY, AND IT IS THAT RELATIVE DIRECTION.

WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IS ACROSS THE SITE, NORTH OF WHAT

IS LABELED E. >> AND IT WILL BE ON THE HARD SURFACE, NOT THE GRASS, RIGHT ?

>> NO, THEY ARE PROPOSING IT IN THE GRASS AREA. THIS IS IN FRONT OF THE DUMPSTER . SO IT SHOULDN'T INTERFERE WITH TRASH PICKUP, BECAUSE IT IS COMPLETELY OUT OF THE ROAD.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CLARISSA? OKAY. THANK YOU. WILL THE PROPONENT LEASE COME FORWARD TO THE MICROPHONE, STATE THEIR NAME, AND WHY THEY ARE REQUESTING THIS SPECIAL

EXCEPTION VARIANCE? >> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS

KEVIN FRYER. >> KENDALL ROBINSON, PRINCE

SIGNS, LLC OUT OF HOUSTON. >> EXCUSE ME. I AM SO SORRY.

>> CLARISSA DID A GOOD JOB OF SHOWING WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE. ESSENTIALLY, WE'VE GOT AN EXISTING SIGN THERE. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF CONVERTING THAT. PART OF THE CONVERSION IS GOING FROM AN EXXON TO A CHEVRON. THE BRAND STANDARD FOR CHEVRON CAN'T EFFECTIVELY BE RETROFIT TO THE EXISTING EXXON SIGN. ALSO, I BELIEVE THE INTENT OF THE DISTRICT IS TO MAYBE BEAUTIFY THAT CORRIDOR THEREBY KEEPING THE SIGNS LOW, SO ESSENTIALLY WE ARE TAKING A 30 FOOT SIGN IN THE CORNER THERE AND MOVING IT 150 FEET FURTHER AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION THERE. HOPEFULLY IT'S A WIN-WIN FOR BOTH THE

CITY AND THE BUSINESS. >> ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE OLD ONE IS CURRENTLY HITTING AT 170 SQUARE FOOT. THEY WILL BE 30 FEET FROM GRADE, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THE TWO FOOT PEDESTAL. SO EXISTING SIGNAGE,

[00:10:05]

>> YOU ALL KNOW HOW MANY HIGHER IT IS FROM THE ADJACENT

OVERPASS? >> I DO NOT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ? ANYONE I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND HAVE MORE DISCUSSION.

THOUGHTS, ANYONE? >> CLARISSA, DID YOU SAY THAT IT DOES MEET ALL THE CRITERIA ?

>> IT DOES. I HAVE IT ON THE SCREEN IF YOU WANT ME TO GO INTO MORE SPECIFICS. IT WASN'T CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND GRANTING THE REQUEST WOULD HAVE BEEN CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. ALSO COMPLETELY ENFORCING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MIGHT CREATE UNDUE HARDSHIP ON THEM.

>> WE NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE WEST.

>> I SECOND THAT. >> AND JUST BEFORE WE VOTE, IS IT BASED ON THE FINDINGS AS WRITTEN IN THE STAFF REPORT?

>> YES. BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND THE STAFF REPORT.

>>

>> THANK YOU. OKAY. MOVING ON NOW, WE WILL LOOK AT CASE

[3. BA-2024-13: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a request from Jimmy Campbell represented by Tim Smith for a variance to allow off-site signage at 1357 Butternut St., specifically, to allow a 6 X 8 electronic message sign on the building at the previously mentioned address. (Adam Holland)]

>> MY NAME IS ADAM HOLLAND, THIS IS A REQUEST , BA-2024-13 , PRESENTED BY TIM SMITH FOR PROPERTY FROM JIMMY CAMPBELL.

THIS IS FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 6X8 ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGN AT THE BUILDING SHOWN ON THIS GREEN . HERE IS THE CURRENT ZONING MAP OF THE PROPERTY. CURRENTLY, THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED HEAVY COMMERCIAL. THE ORDINANCE FROM THE CITY OF ABILENE, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, DOES NOT PERMIT ADVERTISING ALONG BUTTERNUT STREET, HOWEVER, IT DOES ALLOW OFF-SITE SIGNAGE WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND OTHER COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. IT IS A CONCEPT PLAN KIND OF SHOWING THE PROPOSED SIGN. THIS IS A SIX BY EIGHT L.E.D. SIGN , KIND OF SIMILAR TO THE VARIANCE THAT WAS REQUESTED OVER OFF OF BROADWAY A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. HERE ARE SOME VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS ANOTHER SIGN KIND OF TO THE NORTHWEST. THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE ADVERTISING SIGN ON BUTTERNUT STREET. THIS IS OUT OF THE 250 FOOT RADIUS WHERE THE VARIANCE IS NOT REQUIRED. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES FOR AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS, THE EXISTING LOCATION

[00:15:06]

SIGNS. SO THIS MAY BE AN STAFF IS FOUND THAT THERE ARE NO SITE CONSTRAINTS. SPECIFIC TO THIS SITE. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE FOR ME.

>> EARLIER, YOU HAD SHOWN WHERE IT IS HEAVY COMMERCIAL, BUT THEN THERE WAS A NOTE THAT IT WAS CHANGED TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL THAT WAS SPECIFIC PROPERTY, RIGHT?

>> I DO NOT BELIEVE SO. THIS ONE HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED TO

GENERAL COMMERCIAL. >> YEAH, IT DOES SAY THAT.

>> THAT MAY NOT MATTER AT ALL.

>> THIS ONE HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED TO GENERAL.

>> OKAY, SO WHICH ONE HAS BEEN? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SAY ON

THEIR FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL. >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT IS

REFERENCING. >> IF IT'S NOT SOMEWHERE ON THE PAGE, THEN IT WOULD BE CHANGED, I GUESS.

>> YEAH, THAT WAS KIND OF ODD.

>> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ADAM? OKAY. THANK YOU, ADAM. WILL THE PROPONENT PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE THEIR NAME AND WHY THEY ARE REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF VARIANCE?

>> GOOD MORNING, TIM'S MYTH. REQUESTING THE VARIANCE, IT IS CURRENTLY THE SIDE SCREEN CURRENTLY AT 833 SOUTH FIRST, WHERE THE DISTRICT FUNDING SIGN IS. IT'S BEEN THERE FOR SEVERAL YEARS, WE HAVE AN UPCOMING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT GOING ON THERE, SO WE HAVE TO FIND A NEW HOME FOR IT. I EMAILED ADAM PROBABLY 10 POSSIBLE LOCATIONS THAT I COULD MOVE IT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH A VARIANCE PROCESS .

SEEMINGLY CAN'T BE DONE. AT EVERY LOCATION THAT I THOUGHT MIGHT BE A LOCATION . COULDN'T DO IT WITHOUT A VARIANCE. AND WE STILL HAD TO HAVE THE OWNER'S PERMISSION . WE KNOW JIMMY VERY WELL. HE WAS GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO ALLOW US TO PLACE THE SCREEN THERE. IF WE GET YOUR APPROVAL. DO YOU HAVE

ANY QUESTIONS? >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR TIM?

>> WHICH WAY WITH THE SIGN BE FACING?

>> SOUTH. >> OKAY.

>> AND TIM, I'M ASSUMING YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE SAME PICTURE THAT I AM LOOKING AT? THE L.E.D. OVERLAY ON IT?

>> YES. >> AND IT'S NOT THAT PARTICULAR ONE OF THE POLE THAT IS GOING AWAY, RIGHT?

>> IT'S THE ONE ON THE RIGHTS THAT SAYS L.E.D.. AND IT WOULD BE MOUNTED .

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ? >> IS THE SIGN ON THE POLE

FUNCTIONING? >> IT IS JIMMY'S. I DON'T KNOW WHY . IT IS HIS SIGN FOR PROCTOR AUTOMOTIVE.

>> AND THIS IS STRICTLY JUST A SEPARATE SIGN FOR DIFFERENT

BUSINESS USE? >> YEAH, AND I SPECIFICALLY USE IT TO PROMOTE OTHER SMALL BUSINESSES IN TOWN. THAT IS WHAT WE DID. I BOUGHT THE TWO PROBABLY THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO AND THEN HAD TO MOVE THE ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TRACKS. TO TREADWAY. AND THEN WE NEED TO MOVE THIS ONE

[00:20:08]

>> WOULD IT BE A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT HOME?

>> AS LONG AS JIMMY ALLOWS ME TO KEEP IT THERE. SO FAIRLY PERMANENT. AND IT'S ABOUT A DAY'S LABOR TO TAKE IT DOWN

AND RELOCATED. >> JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THAT WON'T BE TO NECESSARILY PROMOTE THIS SECOND BUSINESS, BUT MORE OF A GENERAL SIGN TO PROMOTE VARIOUS BUSINESSES , PROBABLY MAINLY WITHIN THE SODA DISTRICT?

>> WELL, NOT NECESSARILY. I ORIGINALLY BOUGHT THOSE TWO TO PROMOTE THE BITS BUSINESSES IN THE SODA DISTRICT. BEING THAT WE ARE MOVING IT, WE MAY ADVERTISE OTHER SMALL LOCAL BUSINESSES. AND PROBABLY BECAUSE THERE IS MORE TRAFFIC FOR VISIBILITY. AND I THINK IT'S A BETTER LOCATION,

PERSONALLY. >> THANK YOU.

>> COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE CRITERIA ? THANK YOU.

>> YOU ALL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR TIM AT THE MOMENT? OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANYONE IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM. PLEASE COME FORWARD. ANYONE IN OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE , WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING . DISCUSSION.

>> THE CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT THERE ARE NO APPARENT HARDSHIPS PRESENT ON THE FIRST CRITERIA .

>> CORRECT. >> IT WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC PERMIT. IT'S JUST -- IT IS KIND OF -- IT IS NOT CAUSING A HARDSHIP TO THE BUSINESS ITSELF.

>> RIGHT. >> LIKE IF THEY DIDN'T GET IT

PUT THERE? >> IF THEY DIDN'T GET IT, IT WOULDN'T HURT THE BUSINESS WHERE IT IS. IT IS NOT FOR THAT PARTICULAR BUSINESS, IT IS FOR OTHER BUSINESSES. THAT IS THE FIRST THING THAT STRIKES OUT TO ME. I MAY BE THE LONE RANGER,

BUT THAT'S WHAT JUMPS OUT. >> THE CRITERIA SAYS THERE HAS TO BE A HARDSHIP FROM THE TOPOGRAPHY, SHAPE, OR OTHER FEATURES OF THE LAND. I DON'T FIND A HARDSHIP FOR -- NOTHING

CAUSED BY THE LAND. >> BASED ON THE PICTURES, IT SEEMS TO START RIGHT THERE. SO BY ADDING IT, IT IS NOT FOR THE

BUSINESS ITSELF. >> ACTUALLY, FOR THE BUSINESS,

IT IS RIGHT THERE. >> YEAH, BEING A VARIANCE, IT IS -- THAT IS THE FIRST THING WE GOT TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT.

>> GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BRING ISSUE TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE.

THE SECOND AND THE THIRD ONE, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF ABILENE'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT OF -- I GUESS THE FOURTH ONE -- THERE IS NO

[00:25:18]

>> THAT TAKES ME BACK TO BUTTERNUT STREET, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE OFF-SITE SIGNAGE, RIGHT? THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL. SO I GUESS IT IS THE BUTTERNUT OF IT ALL.

>> SURE, TIM . COME ON UP. >> SO ADAM TOLD ME THAT OFF-SITE ADVERTISING WASN'T ALLOWED ON BUTTERNUT, BUT I KNEW THERE WAS. THE OWNER HAS FIVE BILLBOARDS ON BUTTERNUT.

AND ESSENTIALLY, THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN MONOPOLY WHEN IT COMES TO ADVERTISING. THIS ONE IS MUCH SMALLER . I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THE SAME AS THE GIANT BILLBOARDS.

THERE'S AT LEAST FOUR OF THEM ON BUTTERNUT, SO HOW DID THOSE GET THERE IF OFF PREMISE ADVERTISING ISN'T ALLOWED?

>> IS THERE SOMEBODY FROM THE CITY WHO CAN ANSWER THAT? HOW

LONG HAVE THEY BEEN THERE? >> THEY APPEAR TO BE EXISTING NONCONFORMING PRIOR TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BEING ADOPTED.

THEY ARE OLDER FRAMES. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT YEAR THEY WERE INSTALLED, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO PROFESSIONALLY ASSUME THAT THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING DO TO AGE. THE LEAD DEVELOPMENT CODE WAS CONSISTENT PRIOR. IF ANYTHING WAS TO HAPPEN TO THOSE BILLBOARDS, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE REPLACED. THEY WOULD

GO AWAY. >> OR IF THEY CAME AND ASKED FOR ANY SORT OF REDOING OF THOSE BILLBOARDS.

>> THEY ARE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN AS IS, BUT NOT REPLACE.

>> OKAY. >> MY QUESTION IS, IF I CAN'T MOVE UP TO THIS LOCATION, WHERE WOULD I BE ABLE TO GO? I HAVE SEARCHED. I JUST DON'T SEE ANY REAL REASON NOT TO ALLOW IF IT IS NOT HAMPERING ANYTHING OR ANYONE , AND NOBODY HERE HAS OPPOSED IT. THE LETTERS WERE SENT OUT WITH NO NEGATIVE

FEEDBACK. >> IS THERE PLANS FOR THE CITY TO LOOK AT THIS TYPE OF ADVERTISING?

>> YEAH, WE ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF REWRITING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THAT THIS TYPE OF SIGN WILL BE CONSIDERED WHEN WE GET TO THAT SECTION. WE HAVEN'T MADE IT THAT FAR YET, BUT WE WILL BE HEARING FROM STAKEHOLDERS AS WE

GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. >> OKAY.

>> WHAT KIND OF TIMEFRAME ARE YOU LOOKING AT ON THIS?

>> THE PROJECTED ADOPTION DATE OF THE NEW ONE IS 18 MONTHS.

>> OKAY. >> TIM, I KNOW -- YOU KNOW, IT IS NOT FOR ANY SPECIFIC BUSINESS, AND THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES DOWN THERE. BUT -- I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE THERE ARE SOME OTHER PROPERTIES OR SOME SIGNAGE MAY BE ABLE TO GO THAT MAY NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE. BECAUSE I KNOW, YOU KNOW, FOR US AS A BOARD, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO FIT ALL THAT CRITERIA .

>> HOW IS THIS ONE ANY DIFFERENT ?

>> I HONESTLY CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT ONE. SO I'M NOT SURE, AND I DON'T HAVE THAT STUFF IN FRONT OF ME.

THANK YOU. FURTHER DISCUSSION.

[00:30:18]

>> IT IS GOOD TO KNOW THE CITY WILL BE LOOKING AT THIS. THIS IS THE WAVE OF TECHNOLOGY THAT IS TO COME. IT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE. WE'VE GOT TO CATCH UP WITH IT.

>> YEAH, AND I AGREE. YOU SEE MORE AND MORE DIGITAL BILLBOARDS POP UP ACROSS THE CITY. I DO THINK THAT IT IS A PROGRESSIVE WAY TO GO. I THINK IT IS A GREAT IDEA , AND I THINK THE PROPONENT IS MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION . HE IS NOT JUST TRYING TO ADVERTISE A CERTAIN BUSINESS, BUT HE IS TRYING TO PROMOTE OTHER BUSINESSES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH DOWNTOWN , THAT SORT OF THING. SO I DEFINITELY THINK THOSE AREAS ARE -- DEFINITELY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE CITY FOR FURTHER MOVEMENT GOING FORWARD.

>> I AGREE. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE CRITERIA? THERE YOU GO.

SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL , NUMBER ONE, THERE IS NO APPARENT HARDSHIP PRESENT. THREE, THAT IT IS NOT REALLY INCLUDED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE YET.

AND IT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE FUTURE IF THERE IS A HARDSHIP, BUT THERE ISN'T A HARDSHIP. OR CONSTRAINT THAT RESULTS IN THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE.

>> SO IN A SENSE, UNLESS WE CAN FIND SOMETHING WITH THE PROPERTY, THE LAND THAT IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT -- THEN WE

CANNOT ANSWER NUMBER ONE . >> SO LET'S GO DOWN AND DISCUSS IT. CAN WE GO DOWN THE LIST AND TALK ABOUT EACH ONE?

LET'S DO THAT. >> SO NUMBER ONE. YOU KNOW, BASICALLY, IT'S NOT SHOWING UP THERE, BUT THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS RESULTING FROM PHYSICAL SURROUNDINGS, SHAPE, TOPOGRAPHY, AND OTHER FEATURES AFFECTING THE LAND. SO BASED ON THE CITY'S FINDINGS, THERE WERE NO APPARENT HARDSHIPS PRESENT THAT ARE DUE FROM THOSE PARTICULAR REASONS OF THE SHAPE, TOPOGRAPHY, OR OTHER

PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE LAND. >> SINCE WE HAVE TALKED , HAVE

WE FOUND ONE? >> A HARDSHIP?

>> YEAH. >> NO. I SEE THE DESIRE FOR ONE, BUT NOT -- WHAT BOTHERS ME IS THERE IS ALREADY A SIGN THERE, AND THE OWNER MAY TURN IT ON OR OFF ANY TIME.

>> YEAH. AND USUALLY, THAT STUFF IS, YOU KNOW , THERE IS -- YOU KNOW, A DROP IN TOPOGRAPHY OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE THAT DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO PUT A SIGN IN A SPECIFIC AREA. WHEREAS, ALONG BUTTERNUT, IT IS REALLY FLAT. NOT MUCH TOPOGRAPHY CHANGE. THEN YOU CAN LOOK AT THE SHAPE OF ANYTHING, BUT BASICALLY, IT IS CONSTRUCTION THAT IS CAUSING THIS TO BE MOVED. SO THE SECOND ONE, THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR BE INTERESTED TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. YOU KNOW, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE THE GRACES OF THE BUILDING OWNER , SO OBVIOUSLY, IT IS NOT -- IT WON'T BE IN DISTRESS TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. WE DID HAVE A COUPLE IN FAVOR OF IT, WHICH WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL. SO OBVIOUSLY, THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE INJURIOUS TO

[00:35:03]

SO DO ANY OF YOU SEE ANY SITE CAN THAT RESULT IN THAT?

>> NO. IT'S NOT THERE. >> OKAY.

>> I AM OPEN FOR ANY MORE DISCUSSION OR A MOTION ON THIS

CASE. >> I MOVE THAT WE REJECT THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE BECAUSE WE CAN'T LEGALLY FOLLOW THE CRITERIA THAT WE WERE GIVEN .

>> I AM GOING TO SECOND THAT. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A

SECOND. >> MOTION TO DENY THIS REQUEST CARRIES.

>> ALL RIGHT. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER BUSINESS ON THE AGENDA.

SO IN THAT CASE, IT IS 9:20, THE BOARD

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.