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

Browse Search

Board of Adjustment 2/28/08 - #A 08-001 Page 2 of 4 Analvsis: Here, the placement of off-premises sign conflicts with the distance required by the ordinance. Staff used the procedures mandated by City Ordinances, the sign in question is located within 1,000 feet from the nearest sign in the vicinity or 1,000 ft. radius. This has been the City's standard rule of measuring or spacing requirement. As in the case of mail out for a public hearing before the Board/Commission, current City Ordinance and State Law 211.007 (c) requires prior to the hearing date, a written notice of public hearing before the Board/Commission on a proposed change shall be sent to each owner in the surrounding area, as indicated by the most recently approved municipal tax roll, of real property within 200 feet of the property on which the change in classification is proposed. The applicant's grounds for request, as the proposed sign is located in excess of 1,000 feet from the nearest sign on the same roadway, is not consistent with the ordinance, or prior interpretation. There is a sign within 500 feet on the same roadway to the north side of Spencer Highway. The City's decision and interpretation of the said section is the 1,000 feet radius circle, not linear feet nor along the same side of the road. Several cities (Baytown, League City, etc.) have a similar approach, measuring and spacing mechanism and have adopted same procedures for mandating an off-premises signs. In describing the action of appeal, the Code of Ordinances states: In exercising the powers set forth in Section 106-88, the Board of Adjustment may, in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the enforcement officer from whom the appeal is taken. The Board must find the following in order to grant an appeal: a) That there is a reasonable difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the zoning regulations or zoning map, provided the interpretation of the enforcement officer is a reasonable presumption and the zoning ordinance is unreasonable. Current regulations are written in a clear manner which allows the enforcement officer to understand the intent of City Council as it relates to the off-premises signs. This regulation has been in effect since the January 26, 1987 adoption of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 106) and the regulation has not been proven to be "unreasonable". No reasonable difference exists regarding the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. Alternative remedies exist for the property owner in which the applicant would be compliant with the Ordinance; therefore the Zoning Ordinance should not be construed as unreasonable. b) That the resulting interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated