11-29-07 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment

Browse Search

. I Zoning Board of Adjustment January 16,2008 Page 3 primary highways, consistently sets forth the spacing requirements of two signs in terms of a specified distance "on th~ same side of the highway". More specifically, the statute states in pertinent part as follows: (d) Signs may not be erected closer than 1,500 feet apart on the same side of a regulated highway. ( e) Signs erected outside of incorporated municipalities along the nonfreeway primary system may not be closer than 750 apart on the same side of the highway. (f) Signs erected in incorporated municipalities along the nonfreeway primary system may not be closer than 300 feet apart on the same side of the highway. See 43 Tex. Admin. Code 21.153(d) through (f) (emphasis added). Absent specific language in the Code stating the distance requirements are to be measured across a roadway, in addition to along the same side of the road, it is unreasonable for the City to impose this additional requirement. A reasonable sign operator applying for a permit under the City's Code would logically conclude that the City's ordinance should be read the same way as the applicable State statute. Finally, SignAd argues that the City's past interpretation and application of the pertinent Code language serves as a precedent for the interpretation and application as pertains to SignAd's Application. For example, on July 1, 1999, the City granted a permit for another sign operator to erect an outdoor advertising structure on the west side of Highway 146 north of W. Barbours Cut Blvd. A copy of the referenced permit is attached as Exhibit 4. This permit application was granted two years after the current Code went into effect in 1997. In granting the permit, the City allowed the sign operator to erect and operate a new sign structure located approximately 500 feet from an existing sign owned and operated by SignAd, measuring across the roadway. This past pattern of behavior by the City serves as an authoritative rule or pattern in future or similar analogous cases, such as this one. Indeed, sign owners such as SignAd, should be able to rely on prior acts of the City as a justification or guideline in applying the same provisions of the Code in future situations. Conclusion In conclusion, SignAd respectfully suggests that the January 9, 2008 denial of SignAd's Permit Application by the City was incorrect for the foregoing reasons. As such, the Zoning Board of Adjustment should overturn the decision based on this appeal. Pursuant to Section 106-89 of the Code, please contact me at your earliest convenience regarding the scheduling of the appeal hearing in this matter. In the meantime, please let me