Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Board of Adjustment <br />January 16,2008 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />application ("Application") is attached as Exhibit 2. The City denied SignAd's Application on <br />January 9, 2008, stating "Permit denied based on inadequate pl~s and information." <br />Additionally, the City stated, "As per section 106-875 Chapter 106 (h) all off premise free <br />standing advertising signs shall be spaced at intervals of not less than 1000 feet."l <br /> <br />The Application conforms in every respect to the City's ordinances and regulations, <br />including Section 106-875 of the Code. In particular, the site for the proposed sign is not within <br />1,000 feet ofthe closest sign located along the same roadway. <br /> <br />Tvpe of Relief BernI! Sou2:ht <br /> <br />SignAd respectfully disagrees with the decision and analysis made by the City, seeks a <br />reversal of the denial in this appeal, and asks that the City grant its Application. <br /> <br />Grounds for the Request <br /> <br />Section 106-875 (h) of the Code states that "(a)ll off-premises freestanding advertising <br />signs shall be spaced in intervals of not less than 1,000 feet." As evidenced by the drawing <br />provided by SignAd with its Application, copies of which are included in Exhibit 2, the proposed <br />sign site is indeed located in excess of 1,000 feet from the nearest sign on the same roadway. <br />Presumably, the City seeks to impose an additional requirement that is not stated in the Code, <br />i.e., that the spacing requirement apply not only to signs located along the same side of the <br />roadway, but to any sign within 1,000 feet, measuring in any direction. <br /> <br />The City's decision and interpretation adds requirements that do not currently exist in the <br />City's ordinances and regulations, i.e., that the spacing requirements apply to a sign in any <br />direction from the proposed sign. By imposing additional requirements that do not exist under <br />the Code, the City has violated SignAd's rights under the Due Process Clauses of the Texas and <br />United States Constitutions. In particular, constitutional due process requires the City and its <br />officials to give fair and adequate notice to permit applicants like SignAd as to what laws are <br />applicable, so that they know when permits are to be granted or denied. Since the existing law in <br />this case compels the grant of SignAd's Application, the interpretation of the City is incorrect <br />and violates due process. <br /> <br />Additionally, the imposition of this new requirement by the City is arbitrary and <br />discriminatory, as it imposes an illogical and unreasonable interpretation of the Code that is <br />contrary to the applicable State statutes. 43 Texas Administrative Code 21.153, a copy of which <br />is attached for your convenience as Exhibit 3, regarding spacing of signs along interstate and <br /> <br />1 SignAd initially applied for a permit at this site on July 5, 2007. That application was denied on September 20, <br />2007. SignAd failed to timely file its appeal of the denial, however, the result of which was the filing of this second <br />permit application. <br />