>> Y'ALL JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN Y'ALL ARE PREPARED, OKAY?
[ CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:05]
ALL RIGHT. THE CLOCK SHOWS 8:31.>> A PRESENTATION FOR -- >> WE'RE GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2026.
WE NEED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
I'LL ENTERTAIN ANY COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, BUT WE'LL NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE BOARD MINUTES FROM OUR PREVIOUS MEETING.
>> A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
>> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY "YEA."
[2. BA-2026-10: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request for a Variance Located at 4801 Buffalo Gap Road to Allow a Monument Sign to be Located on the Property Line Instead of the Required 10’ from the Property Line. (Kera Valois)]
"NAY"S? THE MOTION PASSES.THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. THANK YOU.
THE BOARD PROVINCE ADJUSTMENTS HAS FIVE MEMBERS, FOUR OF WHICH MUST BE PRESENT AT EACH MEETING. 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 DATE TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT, IF ONE IS REQUIRED.
A LONGER TIME -- 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 THE REQUEST IS APPROVED AFTER THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED IF THE REQUEST IS DENIED. IT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THIS BOARD UNTIL 12 MONTHS FROM THIS DATE.
APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD MAY BE MADE TO A COURT OF RECORD WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THIS DATE.
ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
THAT'S -- HERE WE GO. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
WE -- JUST A SECOND HERE. THIS MORNING, WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER CASE BA-2026-10. LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS STATED IN THE NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS A PROPERTY LOCATED AT -- WHERE'S THAT ADDRESS? -- AT 4801 BUFFALO GAP ROAD.
MASON? >> I DON'T HAVE ANY SLIDES FOR YOU RIGHT NOW. I'M GOING TO GET THOSE TO LOAD,
SO... >> DO WE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK
AND FIX THAT? >> SHE KNOWS THE -- THERE IT
>> WE MAY HAVE IT NOW. >> OKAY.
>> IT'S NOT WORKING UPSTAIRS. >> THE NETWORK'S FEELING THE
MONDAY BLUES AS WELL, I GUESS. >> YEAH, THE INTERNET'S STILL ON
>> WELL, FOR ALL OF YOU WATCHING ONLINE, WE'RE JUST TAKING A BREAK HERE. IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GETTING
SORRY ABOUT THAT. >> WELL DONE, I.T. DEPARTMENT.
>> OKAY. TODAY, I'M GOING TO BE PRESENTING CASE BA-2026-10. THE OWNER IS BUCK HEADS, AND THE VARIANCE IS ALLOW TO HAVE A MONUMENT SIGN TO HAVE A ZERO FOOT SET BACK WHERE A 10-FOOT SETBACK IS USUALLY REQUIRED.
[00:05:02]
HERE WE HAVE AN AERIAL LOCATION MAP.AND A ZONING MAP. IT IS ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL.
HERE WE HAVE SOME VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE SIGN IN QUESTION.
>> SO THE PROPERTY LINE IS AT THE FRONT OF THE SIGN?
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> YEAH, BASICALLY, WHERE THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK IS THAT'S CLOSEST TO THE SIGN IS ROUGHLY WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS, ACCORDING TO TEX DOT.
WE RECEIVED TWO IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL.
THERE'S A ZONING VIOLATION CASE CURRENTLY OPEN FOR THE SIGN.
IT WAS BUILT TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND WITHOUT PERMITS. THE SIGN WAS CHANGED OUT AND THE NEW DESIGN WAS PLACED IN THE ORIGINAL LOCATION.
AS SHOWN IN THE PHOTO, TEX DOT DESIGN HAS CURVED THE SIGN TO PUT IT BACK FROM THE CURB. WE HAVE DETERMINED THERE ARE NO APPARENT CONDITIONS OF THE LAND WITHIN THIS PROPERTY THAT CREATE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP. GRANTING THE REQUEST WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC OR INJURIOUS TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THERE ARE NO APPARENT HARDSHIPS.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> SO, WAS THE SIGN BUILT BY THE ORIGINAL OWNER, WHICH WAS THE BARBECUE PLACE, OR DID THEY BUILD THE SIGN?
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA? >> THE SIGN BEFORE THIS ONE?
>> UH-HUH. >> I BELIEVE IT WAS THE BARBECUE PLACE THAT HAD HAD THAT FOUNDATION THERE WITH THAT ROCK THAT WAS THERE, AND THEN I THINK WE HAVE A LITTLE LED SCREEN ON IT. I DO BELIEVE THAT WAS DONE BY
THERE WAS WHEN THEY BUILT THAT. >> IF YOU COULD MOVE THIS DOWN.
I DON'T THINK IT'S PICKING UP. >> YEAH.
SORRY. WHEN THEY BUILT THE BARBECUE PLACE -- THE HOUSE WAS TORN DOWN IN 2010.
THE BARBECUE PLACE WAS BUILT IN 2011.
THAT'S WHEN THAT ROCK BASE AND THE SIGN WAS PUT IN.
I CHECKED BACK ON GOOGLE EARTH. >> SO DESH -- MASON, SO IT STATN THE REPORT THAT THERE WAS NO PERMIT PULLED.
THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BUCKET HEADS, BUT WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BARBECUE
SO THERE WAS -- WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL PERMIT PULLED. OUR RECORDS DON'T GO BACK THAT FAR. BUT -- SO, WHENEVER THERE'S AN EXISTING SIGN, IF IT IS A NON-CONFORMING SIGN, THEN YOU CAN RE-FACE OR KIND OF MAINTAIN THE EXISTING SIGNAGE, BUT IF YOU'RE CHANGING THE FOOTPRINT AND WHETHER THAT BE EXPANDING OR, LIKE, MAKING IT TALL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IT TRIGGERS KIND OF THIS PROCESS AND A NEW SIGN PERMIT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO WHENEVER THEY TOOK OUT THE ROCK AND DID THIS, THEY DID NOT GET A PERMIT FOR THIS.
>> SO, YOU'RE SAYING THAT BASIC -- THAT BOTTOM ROCK IS NOT THE SAME, BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?
>> SO, THE FOUNDATION, THEY ARE STATING, IS STILL THE SAME, YES.
>> OKAY. >> SO, BASICALLY, THEY JUST WIPED OFF WHAT WAS ON THAT FOUNDATION AND BUILT -- BUILT IT TO THEIR NEEDS, ESSENTIALLY. BUT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IT WAS NOT -- IT WAS NON-CONFORMING.
THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF THAT, THAT IT WAS
NON-CONFORMING? >> I DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY KNOW IF THEY WERE AWARE THAT IT WAS NON-CONFORMING, BUT THEY DID NEED A SIGN PERMIT FROM THE GET-GO.
ONCE THE ROCK WAS TAKEN AWAY AND THE LED SCREEN AND ALL THAT STUFF, THAT'S WHEN THE NON-CONFORMING STATUS WENT AWAY.
SO, ONCE THAT WAS MOVED OUT, THE NON-CONFORMITY THAT -- THE NON-CONFORMING SITUATION THAT ALLOWED THEM TO MAINTAIN THAT EXISTING SIGN WENT AWAY WITH THAT SIGN.
>> EVEN THOUGH THE BASE OF THE SIGN IS STILL THERE -- THE MONUMENT SIGN, THE BASE IS STILL THERE, BECAUSE THEY TOOK THE TOP OFF OF IT, IT'S NOT GRANDFATHERED IN?
>> CORRECT, BECAUSE THEY TOOK THE SIGN AWAY.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MASON?
>> JUST ONE. JUST REAL QUICK: SO THE PROPERTY LINE IS USUALLY -- YOU KNOW, ANYTHING LIKE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE SIDEWALK WOULD BE CONSIDERED, LIKE, A PARKWAY. SO --
>> CORRECT. >> SO THAT -- ACTUALLY THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE THAT SIGN ABUTS RIGHT TO THE SIDEWALK, IS
[00:10:03]
THAT -- IS THAT THE PROPERTY LINE?>> YES. SO, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE, THERE'S, LIKE, A LITTLE SMIDGEON OF GRASS BETWEEN THE SIGN FOUNDATION AND THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK.
THAT ESSENTIALLY WOULD BE WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS, ACCORDING TO TEX DOT. THEY DID SAY THAT IT VARIES OVER HERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE SIGN OR HOW THE CONSTRUCTION LAID OUT, BUT THEY DID SAY THAT'S ROUGHLY WHERE IT
WOULD FALL. >> SO BETWEEN THE SIGN AND BUFFALO GAP ROAD, I GUESS THAT BELONGS TO THE STATE, OR TO THE
CITY? >> IT'S PARKWAY WIDTH, SO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THE SIDEWALK AND ALL OF THAT IS
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. >> TEX DOT USUALLY OWNS THEIR
>> YES, SIR. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> SO, ESSENTIALLY, WHAT -- SINCE THERE'S A VIOLATION, Y'ALL ARE WANTING THEM TO MOVE THE SIGN BACK 10 FEET?
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT OUR CODE REQUIRES.
SO YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO DETERMINE IF IT'S OKAY TO STAY OR IF THEY NEED TO MOVE IT, AND THEN THE VIOLATION PART WILL COME FROM THE DECISION TODAY. -- ON HOW THEY HAVE TO RECTIFY
THANK YOU, MASON. >> THANK YOU.
>> AT THIS POINT. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS ANYONE INTERESTED IN SPEAKING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD. AND, MASON, PROBABLY DON'T GO FAR. WE'LL PROBABLY NEED YOU AGAIN HERE IN A MINUTE. BUT DISCUSSION...?
>> SO, IF IT WAS NOT WITHIN THE -- WHERE IT SHOULD BE, WHY DID THEY GO AHEAD AND PUT THE SIDEWALK AROUND IT?
I MEAN, WHY DID -- >> WELL, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A -- YOU KNOW, THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE HERE; WAS THAT I THINK THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PARKING LOT AND THE SIZE THAT THE PARKING LOT NEEDED TO BE, AND THEN WHERE THE SIDEWALK -- THIS IS WHAT I'M SEEING IN THE PICTURE AND JUST KNOWING WHAT I KNOW, IS THAT IT LOOKS TO ME THAT THERE WAS A CONFLICT BETWEEN WHERE TO PUT THE SIGN BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE PARKING LOT. AND SO AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IN 2011, IT'S, WELL, WE'LL PUT THE BASE OF -- WE'LL PUT THE SIGN HERE. THE SIDEWALK WILL HAVE TO JUT AROUND THAT. YOU HAVE PLENTY OF SPACE ON THE WEST SIDE GOING BACK TOWARDS BUFFALO GAP ROAD.
THAT'S JUST AN EASEMENT RIGHT THERE, YOU CAN TELL, BASED OFF OF THE FLAGS. YOU KNOW, THERE'S WATER LINES, GAS LINES, ELECTRIC LINES RUNNING THROUGH THERE.
PUT A SIDEWALK, YOU KNOW, AND ALTER THAT.
AND TO ME, BASED OFF OF WHERE THE PARKING LOT IS -- AND I'D HAVE TO PHYSICALLY GO AND MEASURE THAT, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE'S 10 FEET THERE BETWEEN WHERE THE BACK SIDE OF THE SIGN IS AND WHERE THE PARKING LOT IS.
MM-HMM. >> DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> MM-HMM. >> SO THAT'S WHAT I THINK WAS THE THOUGHT PROCESS BACK IN 2010-2011, WAS IT'S NOT -- THE SIGN'S LOCATION IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO TRAFFIC, VISUAL.
IT'S -- IT'S FAR ENOUGH BACK FROM THE ENTRANCE TO WHERE THERE'S, YOU KNOW -- IT'S NOT GONNA HINDER TURNING IN OR OUT OF BUCKETHEADS, YOU KNOW. THAT'S REAL LITT REALLY NOT THET WE'RE SEEING HERE. IT'S JUST BASICALLY THAT
PROPERTY LINE THERE. >> BASICALLY, ON TOP OF THE PROPERTY LINE INSTEAD OF BEING OFF OF IT 10-FOOT.
AND IT APPEARS IT'S BEEN THAT WAY SINCE 2011 -- 2010-2011,
WHEN THEY BUILT THE SIDEWALK. >> YEAH.
>> CAN YOU GO TO THE SLIDE WITH THE QUALIFICATIONS?
[00:15:14]
HOW WOULD YOU -- THE FIRST ONE? >> JUST MY OPINION ON THE FIRST ONE: I DON'T THINK THAT YOU HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO PHYSICALLY BE 10 FEET, UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THAT SIGN IN THE PARKING LOT, OFF OF WHERE IT CURRENTLY SITS. I THINK THE SIZE OF THE PARKING LOT, THE -- AND, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN LOOK AT THE -- --NECESSARILY WHAT BUCKETHEADS NEEDS FOR THEIR PARKING LOT.
YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THAT 2010-2011, TO THEIR NEEDS OF WHEN IT WAS A BARBECUE PLACE AND, YOU KNOW, SERVING HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE AT LUNCH, DINNER, WHATEVER THE SITUATION WAS, AND THE SIZE OF THE PARKING LOT THAT THEY NEEDED.
YOU KNOW, BUCKETHEADS JUST INHERITED THAT SIZE OF THE
COULD YOU TRY AGAIN? >> I WILL DO MY BEST.
>> THEY ALSO HAD A DRIVEWAY. SO THEY HAD TO ACCOUNT FOR NOT ONLY PARKING BUT FOR PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THAT DRIVE THROUGH, , BECAUSE THE BARBECUE PLACE ALSO HAD A DRIVE-THRU.
>> RIGHT. >> WHEN THE PREVIOUS SIGN WAS THERE, DID THEY GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS? LIKE, FOR IT TO BE A NON-CONFORMING SIGN AT THAT POINT IN TIME? DID THEY GET -- DID THEY GET A VARIANCE, I GUESS, IS MY QUESTION?
>> WE LOOKED, AND WE COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING FOR VARIANCE CRITERIA. OUR CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE GOES BACK TO 2010, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CHANGED WITH THE NEW CODE OR IF IT WAS THE SAME REGULATIONS OR NOT, DEPENDING ON WHEN THEY APPLIED FOR THAT, BUT AS FAR AS WE WENT BACK TO LOOK, WE COULD NOT FIND WHERE A VARIANCE WAS DONE FOR
THAT PREVIOUS SIGN. >> WE HAVE SEEN THAT THROUGH -- THROUGH PREVIOUS PICTURES, THAT IT WAS THERE IN 2011.
SO IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE THE CURRENT RULES.
>> SO, SO ME, AS FAR AS SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS, I THINK, YOU KNOW, PURCHASING THE PROPERTY -- THIS COMPANY THAT REVITALIZED THAT SECTION AND THAT AREA THERE.
THEY'VE BUILT ON TO THE BACK. BEEN SUCCESSFUL THERE.
ARISING FROM THE PHYSICAL SURROUNDINGS -- SHAPE, TOPOGRAPHY -- I THINK WHERE THAT PROPERTY LINE IS LOCATED AND WITH THE EXISTING PARKING LOT AND BUILDING, I'M NOT -- OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IF YOU DID TEAR DOWN THAT MONUMENT SIGN AND RIP UP ALL THE CONCRETE AND MOVE IT BACK 10 FEET, YOU KNOW, IT DOES -- THAT WOULD CREATE -- WHICH IS -- IT'S NOT AN ISSUE HERE, BUT NOW YOU'VE GOT A SIDEWALK THAT CURVES AROUND THINGS THAT NOW WOULD LOOK ODD. YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD NOT EXIST THERE ANYMORE.
>> AND THE MONETARY VALUE OF REPLACING THAT BASE, ELECTRICITY AND THE WHOLE NINE YARDS, MOVING IT 10-FOOT.
>> RIGHT. BUT I JUST -- I'M NOT SEEING, AND BASED OFF THE PHOTOS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE PROVIDED -- AND OBVIOUSLY I'VE BEEN THERE. I KNOW THE PROPERTY WELL.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE IS 10 FEET THERE TO GIVE, UNLESS YOU PUT IT IN THE PARKING LOT. AND THERE MAY BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 5-FOOT VARIANCE, YOU KNOW, FROM 10 FEET TO ZERO, BUT -- SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS ON THAT, AND THEN GRANTING THE VARIANCE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST...
YOU KNOW, WHERE THE SIGN IS LOCATED, IT IS FAR ENOUGH BACK OFF OF BUFFALO GAP. IT IS NOT A -- IT'S NOT A PROBLEM WITH TRAFFIC. IT'S NOT A PROBLEM WITH VISIBILITY. YOU KNOW, THERE'S -- THERE'S A
[00:20:02]
LOT OF ROOM GOING FORWARD UP TO BUFFALO GAP.THERE'S A LOT OF EASEMENT THERE, SO...
>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS TO GO ALONG
WITH THAT STUFF? >> I MEAN, IN MY MIND, THERE WAS A SIGN THERE FOR YEARS BEFORE THIS ONE, YOU KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE, LIKE, THE SAME SIZE OR -- AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S CAUSING ANY KIND OF TRAFFIC HAZARD OR
ANYTHING LIKE THAT, SO... >> YEAH, THE ONLY PART I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS THAT THERE WERE NOT ANY PERMITS PULLED.
>> WELL, AND I CAN SEE THEM NOT KNOWING --
>> -- FROM THE BEGINNING. >> -- BECAUSE THERE WAS ALREADY
>> ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE HAVE A MOTION OR --
>> WHAT ABOUT THE LAST ONE? >> THE PETITIONER DIDN'T ACTUALLY START THE PROBLEM, IF IT WAS -- IF IT HAD BEEN THERE ALL ALONG, SINCE IT'S NOT GRANDFATHERED, BUT IT HAS THERE FOR 16 YEARS -- OR 15 YEARS, THAT WE KNOW OF.
SO THERE'D BE HARDSHIP IN -- FINANCIAL -- TO HAVE TO TEAR THAT ONE DOWN AND BUILD A NEW ONE, IS ALL I CAN SEE AS A
>> FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. >> UNFORTUNATELY, FINANCIAL IS NOT REALLY A HARDSHIP WE CAN USE.
>> RIGHT. BUT THAT'S THE ONLY ONE I SEE.
>> WELL, AND I DO SEE -- >> TAKING AWAY THE PARKING.
>> YEAH, YOU HAD THIS EXISTING STRUCTURE THERE, SO IF YOU ARE GOING TO MOVE IT, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY -- YOU CAN TEAR DOWN WHAT THE BARBECUE COMPANY HAD PUT UP, THE LED SIGN AND THAT SORT OF THING. AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE THAT CHOICE OF RIPPING OUT THAT ENTIRE BLOCK OF CONCRETE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PART OF THE DISCUSSION WHEN BUCKETHEADS MOVED IN THERE. BUT THE WAY THAT I WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE'S REALLY NO POINT IN STARTING OVER WHEN WE HAVE THIS GIANT CONCRETE BASE HERE THAT WILL HOLD A MONUMENT SIGN FOR OUR COMPANY MOVING IN, RIGHT? SO YOU DON'T TEAR THAT OUT TO DO ANOTHER ONE. BUT TO ME, I THINK THAT HARDSHIP THAT'S SUFFERED BY THE PETITIONER IS NOT CAUSED BY THEM, BECAUSE THEY'RE INHERITING THE SIZE OF THAT PARKING LOT AND THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT THEY HAD TO WORK WITH --
>> RIGHT. >> -- BASED OFF OF THE SHAPE OF THE LAND AND THE SHAPE OF THAT LOT, SO YOU'VE GOT THIS EASEMENT. YOU KNOW, IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE SUCH A GIANT EASEMENT OFF OF BUFFALO GAP THAT IS TAKEN BY TXDOT. WHEN BUCKETHEADS MOVED IN THERE, IT WAS ALREADY THIS LARGE PARKING LOT WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS, THERE IS NOT 10 FEET FOR THEM TO WORK WITH IN ORDER TO REPLACE -- COMPLETELY REPLACE THAT SIGNAGE.
>> OF COURSE, THEY'RE NOT HERE, SO WE CAN'T ASK THEM WHAT THEIR
ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON WHAT WE'VE --
>> WHAT WE'RE SEEING. >> WHAT WE'VE SEEN AND WHAT WE'VE RESEARCHED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS OF THIS BEING -- BEING OVER THERE. DOES ANYONE WANT TO PUT THAT IN
[00:25:05]
THE FORM OF A MOTION? OR HOW DO WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ONE? IT'S ALWAYS THE HARDEST PART OFOUR TUESDAY MORNING. >> IT IS.
I THINK WE ALL ARE IN FAVOR OF IT.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF PUTTING IT INTO THE CRITERIA.
>> SO, IF WE DID GRANT THE VARIANCE, THEN WOULD THAT PRECLUDE THEM FROM HAVING TO GET A PERMIT, OR WOULD THEY STILL
HAVE TO GET A PERMIT? >> THEY WOULD GET A PERMIT AND WE WOULD INSPECT THE ELECTRICAL ALTERATION THAT WAS DONE IN ORDER TO PUT THE LIGHTS IN. AND THEN MAKE SURE IT MEETS THE MINIMUM -- OR THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE MONUMENT SIGN.
I THINK ALL THAT'S BEEN PRE-REVIEWED A LITTLE BIT.
SO IT'S JUST A FORMALITY. BASICALLY JUST LOOK AT THE ELECTRICAL AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY MADE THE CONNECTIONS PROPERLY AND THAT THEY'RE ALL WEATHER-TIGHT.
>> IS THIS -- BECAUSE THIS IS NOT --
>> THIS IS THE FINISHED PRODUCT HERE, YEAH, THAT YOU'RE SEEING.
>> ANYONE WANT TO TAKE A STAB AT IT?
WE GOT YOUR BACK. >> I'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS HERE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT THE APPARENT CONDITIONS WITHIN THE LAND THAT CREATE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP ARE PROVIDED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT DUE TO THE CONDITION THEY RECEIVED THE PROPERTY IN WHEN THEY PURCHASED SAME, THEY HAD THE MONUMENT SIGN AT THAT LOCATION AND USED THAT AS THEIR FOOTING FOR THEIR CURRENT MONUMENT SIGN.
SO I SEE THAT AS A HARDSHIP OF THEM USING WHAT WAS ALREADY
THERE. >> AND WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER CRITERIA? IT LOOKS --
>> WOULD BE INJURIOUS OR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC OR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY THAT WAS ORIGINALLY -- AS PER THE SPECS THAT WE'VE SEEN ON THE PROPERTY LINES, AND IN THE INEQUITY SUFFERED BY THE PETITIONER WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WAS ALREADY THERE. AND SITUATED AS SAME.
THAT'S THREE OF THE FOUR, AND THE FOURTH ONE.
>> YEAH, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT LAST PART.
I JUST DIDN'T GET IT ALL DOWN. >> SORRY.
>> NUMBER 4. >> THE HARDSHIP WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNERS.
IT WAS NOT CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER.
PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY LINE THAT WAS ALREADY EXISTING.
IF GO BACK TO THE FIRST PAGE, IT WAS SHOWING THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT PROPERTY WAS LARGER THAN THE OTHERS, AS IT
ENCROACHED ON BUFFALO GAP ROAD. >> SECOND.
>> WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND TO APPROVE.
>> YEA. >> AND THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> SEEING NOTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA, I WILL CALL THIS MEETING ADJOURNED. THANK YOU ALL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.