Jan 16, 2025 Building and Standards Commission

[00:00:01]

UH, IT IS

[1. CALL TO ORDER ]

AND IF, UH, I BELIEVE WE'RE ALL HERE AND I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE MEETING FOR THE, UH, BEDFORD BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION TODAY, JANUARY 16TH.

AND, UH, LIKE THE CALL TO ORDER, FIRST THING IS TO DO A ROLL CALL.

AND I'D LIKE, UH, EVERYBODY, LIKE WE DID BEFORE, JUST GO DOWN, STATE YOUR NAME AND THAT WILL SIGNIFY THAT WHO'S HERE.

JESSE OWENS YOUNG SONG.

TOM RENAN.

RANDY YOUNGS.

STEPHANIE YARBOROUGH.

JOHN BILLINGSLEY.

WITH THAT, WE HAVE A FORUM, A QUORUM, I MEAN, AND, UH, THE FIRST

[3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

UM, SO, UH, WE CAN SPEND A MINUTE OR TWO LOOKING AT 'EM.

I'VE LOOKED AT IT AND IT APPEARS ALRIGHT WITH ME.

2024 WALGREENS, AND I'LL RESTATE THE DATE.

UH, SO I GOT IT CORRECTLY.

IT WAS JANUARY 17TH, 2024.

AND WE HAVE THOSE ATTACHED.

UM, WE CAN LOOK AT 'EM FOR A MINUTE AND THEN GO AHEAD AND MAKE A DETERMINATION.

OKAY.

AS EVERYBODY, UH, LOOKED AT THE MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING WITH THAT, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR, UH, DENY TO MOVE ON, OR DO WE NEED TO DISCUSS? I MOTION TO APPROVE.

YOU HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

I'LL SECOND YOU.

HAVE A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

THE, UH, THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 17TH, 2024 HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

UH, WE HAVE UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

IS THE READING OF A, UH, CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE? UH, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW WE NEED TO GO ABOUT DOING THAT.

UH, DO WE HAVE TO, HOPEFULLY WE DON'T HAVE TO READ THE ORDINANCE ALL THE WAY THROUGH OR JUST STATE THE ITEM.

SO UNFINISHED BUSINESS IS SOMETHING FROM THE LAST MEETING, AND IF THERE'S NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS, THEN WE MOVE ON TO ITEM

[5. READING OF STANDARDS FROM SECTION 22-35 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BEDFORD.]

AND WHO YOU TYPICALLY IS THE ONE THAT READS THAT.

IS THAT STAFF OR IS THAT A COMMISSION? IT'S IN THE PAST THAT HAS BEEN THE CHAIRMAN.

UM, WE'VE ONLY HAD ONE MEETING.

SO USUALLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS HE JUST READ THAT STATEMENT AND ASKED FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND MOVED ON.

SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS? UH, THIS SECTION 2235.

WHERE'S THAT? UH, FOR THE BOARD'S POINT OF VIEW, THE SECTION 22 DASH 35 ARE JUST THE RULES PROCEDURE FOR THE COMMISSION.

SO MIGHT GET HIM TO CHANGE THAT.

OKAY.

UH, TOM JUST DID FIND ONE, UH, ONE TYPO ON THE, UH, UH, MINUTES.

MY NAME'S YOUNGS WITH AN S IS MISSPELLED.

FOR SOME REASON I CANNOT FIND SECTION 22, I FIND SECTION SIX.

[00:05:07]

I CAN READ IT IF WE WANNA DO AN ACTUAL READING OF IT.

UH, SECTION 22 DASH 35 APPEALS TO THE COMMISSION MEETINGS ON DECISIONS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL OR CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL.

ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY ANY INTERPRETATION OR BY ANY DECISION OR RULING OF THE BUILDING, OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL OR CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL UNDER THE MINIMUM HOUSING CODES, CONSTRUCTION CODES OF THE FIRE PROTECTION CODES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE AN APPEAL TO THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION.

NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS.

A FEE OF $100 SHALL ACCOMPANY SUCH NOTICE OF APPEAL.

SUCH AN APPEAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED AT A COMMISSION MEETING AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN FOR COMMISSION MEETINGS WITHIN A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS FROM THE FILING OF APPEAL.

THE COMMISSION SHALL HEAR THE APPEAL TOGETHER WITH THE TESTIMONY OF ALL PARTIES CONCERNED AND RENDER A DECISION THEREON WITHIN THREE DAYS THEREAFTER.

IN HEARING SUCH AN APPEAL, THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT HAVE THE POWER TO WAIVE OR SET ASIDE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MINIMUM HOUSING, CONSTRUCTION OR FIRE PROTECTION CODES, BUT SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO INTERPRET ITS PROVISIONS.

AND IN CASE OF ALTERNATIVE TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION OR MATERIALS SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH ALTERNATE TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION OR MATERIALS IS IN FACT EQUAL TO THE STANDARDS OF THE CONSTRUCTION CODES CONSIDERING ADEQUACY, STABILITY, STRENGTH, SANITATION, AND SAFETY TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE.

ANY PERSON WHO MAY BE AGREED BY THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION FROM A COMMISSION HEARING SHALL HAVE A RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE DISTRICT COURT PURSUANT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TWO 14.0012 AS AMENDED.

OKAY.

WE'VE READ IT.

DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION OR WE JUST NEED TO READ IT? YEP, YOU MOVE ON TO ITEM SIX.

OKAY.

NOW WE'VE READ, UH, ITEM FIVE, UH, WE'RE, IT'S TIME TO GO TO ITEM

[6.a. Conduct a hearing and possible action regarding an appeal of the staff determination related to Chapter 6 Article III of the City of Bedford Code of Ordinances entitled “Signs,” specifically related to Section 6-74 “Prohibited Signs,” regarding the denial of billboard sign permits for two locations described as 4009 Airport Freeway, Bedford, TX 76021 and 3029 Airport Freeway, Bedford TX 76021. ]

WITH THAT, IS THERE ANYBODY, I BELIEVE THE FIR UH, BEFORE WE GO INTO THAT, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STATE THAT WE'RE A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY, WHICH MEANS ANYTHING SAID HERE IS CONSIDERED TESTIMONY AND NEEDS TO BE BASED UPON FACTS.

WE ALSO NEED TO SIGN IN AND CLEARLY IDENTIFY WHO'S SPEAKING AS WELL AS, UH, WHAT, UH, WHAT THEIR ASSOCIATION WITH THE MOTION IS.

SO IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK FOR THE, UH, UH, UH, FOR THE HEARING, FOR THE APPEAL? MY NAME IS AND ANDREA COOK, AND I REPRESENT THE, UM, APPELLANT HERE OF KEITH JONES, OUTDOOR, LLC.

HI, I AM TAMMY HARDOFF.

I'M WITH TAYLOR OLSON ATKINS, AND WE'RE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

UH, SO WITH THE, UH, UH, PERSON APPEALING, COME UP AND START, UH, THEIR PRESENTATION.

AND THIS IS MY CLIENT WITH ME AS WELL, THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY.

SO, UH, YOU HAVE RIGHT OVER HERE.

OVER HERE.

PERFECT.

UH, IS THERE SIGN, SIGN IN SHEET UP THERE AS WELL AS THE MICROPHONE? SORRY.

NO.

YES.

OKAY.

OKAY.

MY CLIENT FILED, UM, WAS DENIED.

UM, MY CLIENT FILED SEVERAL APPLICATIONS FOR THE ERECTION OF OFF-PREMISES BILLBOARDS, PARTICULARLY ON EARLIER THIS YEAR, AND THEY WOULD DENY ON NOVEMBER 6TH, 2024.

MY NAME IS ANDREA COOK AND I REPRESENT THE, UM, APPELLANT IN THIS, IN THIS MATTER.

AND THE APPEAL THAT WE ARE HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS IS UNDER SECTION SIX, 7.4.

I WON'T BELABOR THE POINT, BUT THERE, THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT THERE IS A DISCREPANCY IN THE CODE ITSELF DETERMINING BETWEEN THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OFF-PREMISES AND ON-PREMISES SIGNS.

SO BUILDINGS AND OFF-PREMISES SIGNS ADVERTISING ARE IDENTICAL AND ARE BOTH PROHIBITED UNDER THE SIGN REGULATION.

HOWEVER, THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THIS PROHIBITION.

IF OFF-PREMISES SIGNS ARE ALLOWED

[00:10:01]

TEXAS LAW GIVES PERMISSION TO APPLICANTS TO ERECT COMMERCIAL SIGNS ALONG STATE AND FEDERAL HIGHWAYS.

MY CLIENT HERE IS AN ADVERTISING COMPANY THAT DOES BILLBOARDS AND HAS OWNED BILLBOARDS AND ERECTED BILLBOARDS IN SEVERAL STATES, INCLUDING OHIO, TEXAS, PENNSYLVANIA, TENNESSEE, AND VIRGINIA.

THESE ARE HIGH QUALITY DIGITAL BILLBOARDS THAT ADVERTISE BOTH COMMERCIAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL SPEECH.

THESE LOCATIONS HAVE HAD NO PROBLEMS IN TERMS OF THE CERTAIN TIME AND PLACE RESTRICTIONS UNDER TEXAS LAW.

AND THERE IS SOME RECENT CASE LAW THAT CAME DOWN IN THE SUPREME COURT THAT STATES IMPERTINENT PART OFF-PREMISES IS CON OFF-PREMISES.

BILLBOARDS ARE CONTENT NEUTRAL AND MUST BE NARROWLY TAILORED TO SERVE A SIGNIFICANT GOVERNMENT INTEREST HERE BECAUSE IT IS NOT NEARLY TAILORED HERE.

AND THERE'S A CONTRADICTION IN THE CODE FOR THE CITY OF BEDFORD WHERE THERE ARE ON-PREMISES POLES THAT ARE 300 SQUARE FEET.

THE DISTINCTION HERE IS PRETTY EGREGIOUS BECAUSE HOW IS THAT CONTRADICTION TO BE EXPLAINED IN THE CODE? IT SEEMS THAT THERE'S SOME CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE SECTIONS AND THE CODE, THEREFORE, IT IS OUR POSITION TODAY THAT IT SHOULD BE APPEALED AND OUR APPEAL SHOULD BE UPHELD BECAUSE THE CONTENT HERE IS NEUTRAL.

THE CONTENT OF THE ADVERTISING IS JUST FOR EVENTS.

UM, IT WOULD BE FOR EVENTS, BUSINESSES, PRODUCTS AND SERVICES THAT ARE ALL IN ALL UNDER THE TEXAS LAW AND ARE ALL LAWFUL.

UM, FURTHERMORE, THERE CAN BE NO REASONABLE DISPUTE UNDER TEXAS LAW THAT TEXAS GIVES PERMISSION TO ERECT THESE SORT OF COMMERCIAL SIGNS, WHICH ARE VERY SIMILARLY WRITTEN IN TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE.

THE PARTICULAR CODE SECTION IS CODE SECTION 3 91 0.001, WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE CITY OF BEDFORD CODE.

SO THERE'S A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE CODE ITSELF AS WELL AS TEXAS LAW.

AND MY CLIENT IS HERE, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I INTRODUCED HIM.

HE IS AN ENTREPRENEUR THAT HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS AND HAS SEVERAL BILLBOARDS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, AND THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY ISSUE WITH THAT.

AND ALSO, ONE OTHER THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THAT THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION OF OFF-PREMISES ADVERTISING IN THE SIGN REGULATIONS AS WELL.

SO THERE'S A LOOPHOLE IN THE, IN THE CITY OF BEDFORD'S CODE ALREADY THAT LEADS TO SOME AMBIGUITY.

AND THERE'S AMBIGUITY AS TO WHY THE ACTUAL APPLICATIONS HERE THAT WERE FOR 4 0 0 9 AIRPORT FREEWAY IN BEDFORD, TEXAS, AS WELL AS THE 3 0 2 9 AIRPORT FREEWAY.

WHY THOSE, UM, APPLICATIONS WERE DENIED.

AND IF YOU GIMME ONE SECOND, I JUST WANNA CHECK WITH MY CLIENT AND MAKE SURE THAT I'M NOT FORGETTING ANY OF THE POINTS THAT HE WANTED ME TO MAKE.

OKAY.

OKAY.

AND HE WANTS TO, IS AND WOULD IT BE ALLOWABLE FOR HIM TO SPEAK REALLY QUICKLY AS WELL? YES, SURE.

OKAY.

SO MY NAME IS JOHN CARRA.

I, UM, THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY, UM, WE HAVE SIGNS, LIKE SHE SAID, IN MULTIPLE STATES, SIX, UH, SIX STATES AS WE SPEAK, AND EXPANDING TO MANY MORE STATES.

UM, THE BILLBOARD INDUSTRY, I'LL JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY OF MYSELF.

THE BILLBOARD INDUSTRY IS AN OLD INDUSTRY THAT CAME FROM 1959, UH, HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT.

UM, THAT'S WHEN THEY STARTED CONTROLLING DIFFERENT SIGNS.

AND IT IS A GOOD BUSINESS, UH, BUT IT IS VERY COMPETITIVE AND VERY CONTROLLED.

IT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE MOST CONTROLLED INDUSTRY OUT THERE.

YOU CAN'T JUST PUT UP A SIGN.

THERE'S ALWAYS ALL KINDS OF ROLES AGAINST IT.

UM, THERE HAS BEEN THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF CASES, YOU KNOW, LAWSUITS BETWEEN DIFFERENT SERIES, BETWEEN, BETWEEN DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES.

AND BASICALLY WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS WHATEVER YOU PUT UP ON THE BILLBOARD, WHETHER IT IS, YOU KNOW, VOTE FOR SO AND SO OR WHATEVER MESSAGE YOU'RE PUTTING OUT THERE, IT IS PROTECTED AT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF, UH, SO BASICALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THERE'S A LOT OF REGULATIONS.

SOME PEOPLE LIKE SCIENCE, SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE SCIENCE.

I LIKE SCIENCE BECAUSE MAYBE I GOT A FINANCIAL, UM, GAIN OUT OF IT.

SOMEBODY MIGHT LIKE THE SIGN BECAUSE THEY ADVERTISES THEIR BUSINESS AND MAYBE THEY, THEY GET THEIR THEIR NAME OUT OUT.

SOMEBODY MIGHT NOT LIKE THE SIGN BECAUSE MAYBE IT'S TOO BRIGHT OR MAYBE IT'S WHATEVER.

SO THE IDEA OF WHERE THE SIGN CAN BE ALLOWED AND WHO GETS TO ALLOW THE SIGNS AND WHERE, WHICH, WHICH SIGNS GET TO EXIST AND WHICH ONE DON'T, CAN'T BE BASED ON PERSONAL FEELING OF THE SIGN BECAUSE THEY'RE PROTECTED ON

[00:15:01]

I CAME INTO THE INDUSTRY, THE BILLBOARD INDUSTRY, VERY LATE INTO THE GAME.

I MEAN, I STARTED IN 2016.

THE INDUSTRY HAS BEEN THERE SINCE 1959.

UM, IT IS NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND A SITE THAT IS GOOD FOR A SIGN FROM THE ZONING FROM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, AGREEING TO THE RISK FROM YOU, FROM THE STATE REGULATION.

THERE IS ALL KINDS OF REGULATION THAT GO AROUND THIS.

SO THE ONLY WAY TO GET NEW SIGNS ANYMORE, LIKE I JUST GOT ONE IN EDGE CREEK, WE GOT ANOTHER ONE, FOUR OF THEM IN SAN ANTONIO.

THE ONLY WAY LEFT AS 2024 TO GET A NEW SIGN ON A NICE HIGHWAY IS RUPA.

LIKE YOU FIND SOMETHING SOMEBODY DIDN'T FIND BECAUSE ALL THE SITES HAVE BEEN SCOOPED UP BY THE COMPANIES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE 1959.

OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, YOU, IF YOU PICK A NICE HIGHWAY IN DALLAS, A NICE SIGN CAN MAKE GOOD MONEY.

THERE'S COMPANIES THAT HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME, SO THEY ALREADY ROOFED UP THAT LOCATION AND EITHER PUT UP A SIGN OR WERE DENIED, OR THERE'S A REASON.

THERE'S NOT A SIGN THERE.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN BEDFORD, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF SIGNS ON HIGHWAYS BECAUSE THE OTHER COMPANIES THOUGHT YOU CANNOT DO A SIGN HERE.

JUST LIKE I SAY, LIKE IN SAN ANTONIO, I HAVE THREE COLLEGE DEGREES.

I HAVE AN EMPLOYEE THAT IS WAY MORE EDUCATED THAN MYSELF.

AND OUR STRATEGY IS TO GO OUT THERE, LOOK AT WHAT THE OTHER COMPANIES MISSED, AND IT COULD BE VERY RARE.

DO WE FIND THAT OCCASION THAT A HUNDRED PERCENT IS GOOD FOR EVERYTHING.

IT CHECKS ALL THE CHECKLIST, AND IT JUST SITS WIDE OPEN.

IT IS ALMOST NEAR IMPOSSIBLE.

THE ONLY WAY WE'RE ABLE TO DO IT IS YOU FIND SOMETHING SOMEBODY DID NOT READ IN BETWEEN THE LINES.

LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR CODE IS IDENTICAL TO A CODE IN NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA, A HUNDRED PERCENT.

YOU, THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW SIGNS.

THEY DO NOT WANT SIGNS.

BUT IF YOU READ IT AND INTERPRET IT WITH THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, THERE IS A LOOPHOLE.

FOR EXAMPLE, THIS IS WHAT YOUR CODE SAYS.

UH, I'M GONNA JUST READ IT REAL QUICK ABOUT THE BILLBOARDS, WHAT IT SAYS, PROHIBITED SIGNS.

YOU KNOW, THEY TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, UM, SIGNS THAT OVERHANG PUBLIC RIGHT AWAYS.

THERE'S ALL GROUP OF, YOU KNOW, SIGNS THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN THIS CITY.

THIS IS WHAT THEY SAY WHEN THEY GET TO OFF-PREMISE SIGNS.

OFF-PREMISE SIGN IS BILLBOARDS, WHICH IS A SIGN ADVERTISING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT OKAY ON THAT PROPERTY.

THEY'RE CALLED OFF-PREMISE SIGN.

IF YOU HAVE A MCDONALD'S AND YOU HAVE A MCDONALD'S SIGN, THAT'S CALLED AN ON-PREMISE SIGN BECAUSE IT ADVERTISES WHAT'S ON THAT PREMISE.

THIS IS WHAT YOUR CODE SAYS, SECTION SIX DASH SEVEN FOUR, UNLESS ALLOWED BY STATE OR LOCAL ROLL, ROCK OR ROLL OR CITY ORDINANCE, OFF PREMISE SIGN ARE PROHIBITED.

BUT I AM ALLOWED BY THE STATE.

I HAVE A, I WILL GET A STATE PERMIT.

ACTUALLY, WE SHOULD BE GETTING IT VERY, VERY SOON.

WE HAVE BOTH, BOTH APPLICATION DONE.

THE STATE ALLOWS IT, AS FAR AS THE STATE REGULATIONS ARE CONCERNED, WE MEET THAT THIS CODE IS, UM, PRETTY MUCH IDENTICAL, LIKE I SAY, TO, UH, UH, A CODE.

WE IN NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA, THAT ONE, WE, WE WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE THING AND ENDED UP, YOU KNOW, SETTLING WITH THE CITY TO GET TO GET OUR SIGN.

SO ALL I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THE INTENTION OF THE CODE WAS NOT TO ALLOW THESE SIGNS, BUT IF YOU READ THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND INTERPRET IT THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN, THEN THERE IS A REPORT.

SO THAT BEING SAID, I LIKE TO BE A GOOD PARTNER.

I AM NOT HERE TO, YOU KNOW, TRY TO STRONG ARM ANYONE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S NOT MY INTENTION.

BUT I ALSO DO WANT TO, YOU KNOW, USE THAT OPPORTUNITY, USE WHAT I FOUND THAT OTHER COMPANIES DON'T KNOW TO DO THIS.

SO IN OTHER CITIES WHERE WE, WE'VE DONE THIS AND WE'VE DONE IT MULTIPLE TIMES, LIKE I SAID, IT'S REALLY THE ONLY WAY LEFT TO GET NEW SIGNS.

THE WAY WE DO IT IS NOT BE GREEDY.

BUT WHAT, BY THAT I MEAN, I COULD HAVE REACHED EVERY LOCATION ON EVERY HIGHWAY IN THIS CITY AND COME TO YOU WITH A THOUSAND APPLICATIONS.

AND IF IT WAS TO GO TO THE JUDGE AND THE JUDGE IS JUST TRYING TO INTERPRET THE CODE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, THEN I WOULD GET A THOUSAND SIGNS.

I MEAN, I, I REALLY COULD, BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS, I, I DON'T, I, THAT'S NOT OUR STRATEGY.

IF WE GET ONE OR TWO, WE ARE GOOD.

SO IN THIS CASE, WE ONLY HAVE TWO APPLICATIONS.

THE IDEA IS, LIKE IN NEWPORT NEWS, THE IDEA IS BEFORE EVERYONE COMES UP TRYING TO USE THE SAME RUPO, WE GET ONE OR TWO, BUT THEN THE, THE CITY GETS A CHANCE TO FIX WHATEVER THE ISSUE OF THE CODE IS.

AND THIS HAS BEEN OUR STRATEGY AND WE'VE BEEN ACTUALLY VERY SUCCESSFUL WITH IT.

THANK YOU.

[00:20:01]

UH, IS THERE SOMEBODY FOR THE CITY TO PRESENT? UH, YES, SIR.

FAIR VIEWPOINT.

HI, I AM TAMMY ROFF.

I'M WITH TAYLOR WILSON ATKINS.

I REPRESENT THE CITY.

IT'S A BIT LOUD.

UM, YOU HEARD THINGS ABOUT LOOPHOLES, YOU HEARD THINGS ABOUT PERMITS UNDER STATE LAW, BUT WE'RE NOT HERE FOR STATE LAW.

WE'RE NOT HERE FOR WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ALLOWS UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION CODE.

WE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE WHAT IS ALLOWED BY THE CITY CODE, THE CITY OF BEDFORD, THEY GET TO DECIDE.

AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CODE, BILLBOARDS ARE PROHIBITED.

IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR PACKET ATTACHED TO THE NEW EVIDENCE, YOU'LL TO THE NEW, UM, THE NEW ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED.

YOU'LL SEE EXHIBIT A AND THAT ACTUALLY HAS A COPY OF THESE ORDINANCES WE'RE ABOUT TO TALK ABOUT.

SO WE HAVE TWO SIGNS.

WE'VE ALL, I KNOW OPPOSING COUNSEL ACTUALLY CALLED THEM BILLBOARDS BECAUSE THAT IS INDEED WHAT THEY ARE.

BILLBOARDS ARE EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED UNDER SYDNEY ORDINANCE, CITY ORDINANCE SECTION 6 7 4 B.

UH, IF YOU'LL TURN TO PAGE FIVE OF EXHIBIT A, PLEASE, YOU'LL SEE THE DEFINITIONS AND YOU'LL SEE THE DEFINITION FOR BILLBOARD.

LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU GET THERE.

OKAY.

SO BILLBOARD QUOTE, ASSIGNED, DISPLAYING ADVERTISING COPY THAT PERTAINS TO A BUSINESS PERSON, ORGANIZATION, ACTIVITY, EVENT, PLACE, SERVICE, OR PRODUCT, NOT PRINCIPALLY LOCATED OR PRIMARILY MANUFACTURED OR SOLD ON THE PREMISES ON WHICH THE SIGN IS LOCATED.

THESE SIGNS ARE GENERALLY LOCATED OFF PREMISES.

SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, BILLBOARD? IT'S WHAT WE ALL THINK OF WHEN WE HEAR THE WORD BILLBOARD.

NOW, BOTH OF THESE PROPOSED SIGNS ARE OFF-PREMISE BILLBOARDS AS DEFINED BY THE CITY ORDINANCE, AND BOTH APPLICATIONS WERE PROPERLY DENIED ON THAT BASIS.

NOW, YOU'VE HEARD ARGUMENTS, WELL, THERE'S LOOPHOLES.

THIS ONE PARTICULAR TERM IS NOT DEFINED, BUT LET'S WALK THROUGH THAT.

UH, IN THEIR WRITTEN APPEAL, THEIR WRITTEN NOTICE OF APPEAL, UH, KEN, KEN, KEN, KEN STATES THAT QUOTE, BILLBOARDS AND OFF-PREMISES SIGNS ARE IDENTICAL, BUT JUST SAYING THAT, OR WRITING THAT OR PUTTING IT IN YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL DOES NOT MAKE IT.

SO IF YOU'LL TURN TO PAGE FIVE OF EXHIBIT A, THIS IS SECTION SIX DASH 67, WHICH ACTUALLY INCLUDES THE DEFINITIONS.

AND YOU'LL SEE THERE'S A DEFINITION FOR SIGN PREMISES.

YOU'LL HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE, THE SECTION THAT SAYS SIGNS.

NO.

DID I GIVE YOU THE WRONG PAGE NUMBER? THIS IS PAGE 18.

UH, PAGE FIVE FIVE.

IT STARTS AT PAGE THREE, UH, WHERE EXHIBIT A STARTS, YOU'LL SEE SECTION SIX DASH SIX SEVEN DEFINITIONS.

IT'S, IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO WHERE YOU FOUND BILL EXHIBIT A AT THE TOP.

OH, PAGE THREE.

AND IF YOU LOOK SIGN, WE HAVE A BROAD GENERAL DEFINITION OF SIGN.

IT'S ON PAGE FOUR.

IT'S ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THE WAY DOWN THAT PAGE.

BUT THEN YOU SEE THERE'S A DEFINITIONS FOR ALL THESE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SIGNS.

AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S A DEFINITION FOR SIGNED BILLBOARD.

AND THAT'S AT PAGE FIVE, ABOUT A THIRD OF WAY DOWN THE PAGE.

AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEXT PAGE, PAGE SIX, ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH, THERE'S A SEPARATE DEFINITION FOR SIGN OFF-PREMISE.

SO AGAIN, IF A BILLBOARD IS THE SAME THING AS AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN, WHY DO WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS? AND I WANNA TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.

UM, WHEN WE LOOK AT STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, THERE'S SOME CARDINAL RULES.

AND ONE OF THOSE RULES IS QUOTE, THE WORDS OF A STATUTE MUST BE READ IN THEIR CONTEXT AND WITH A VIEW TO THEIR PLACE IN THE OVERALL STATUTORY THEME.

THAT'S A CASE.

DAVIS V MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY.

SO YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE GRAND SCHEME.

WE HAVE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS.

[00:25:02]

YOU CAN'T JUST PICK AND CHOOSE.

YOU CAN'T JUST CHERRY PICK.

BUT KENDRA ASKED THE BOARD, HEY, JUST IGNORE THAT.

BUT TO IGNORE THAT DEFINITION OF BILLBOARD VIOLATES THE NUMBER ONE RULE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION TO SAVE AND TO NOT DESTROY.

OR IN OTHER WORDS, YOU NEED TO GIVE EFFECT IF POSSIBLE, TO EVERY CLAUSE, EVERY WORD OF A STATUTE, OR IN THIS CASE A REGULATION.

THE TEXAS SUPREME COURTS HAS STATED THAT QUOTE, EFFECT MUST BE GIVEN TO EVERY SENTENCE, CLAUSE AND WORD OF A STATUTE.

SO NO PART THEREOF BE RENDERED SUPERFLUOUS OR INOPERATIVE.

THESE ARE JUST BASIC CANONS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

OR IN THIS CASE, HOW DO YOU CONSTRUE THIS ORDINANCE? NOW, KENDRA CLAIMS THAT THE BILLBOARDS SOMEHOW FALL UNDER A STATE LAW EXCEPTION PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION SIX DASH SEVEN FOUR A.

SO IF YOU'LL TURN TO PAGE 23 OF EXHIBIT A, AND YOU'LL SEE THE HEADING, IT'S ALMOST AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THAT PAGE.

IT'S SECTION SIX DASH SEVEN FOUR PROHIBITED SIGNS.

AND THERE'S A WHOLE LIST, RIGHT? THERE'S A WHOLE LIST HERE.

IT GOES ON AND ON.

THEY'RE CLAIMING THAT THEY FALL UNDER SUBSECTION A, WHICH STATES, UNLESS ALLOWED BY STATE, LOCAL LAW, OR OTHER CITY ORDINANCES, OFF-PREMISE ADVERTISING SIGNS ARE PROHIBITED.

GO DOWN ONE MORE.

LOOK AT SUBSECTION B.

IT COULDN'T BE ANY CLEARER.

FOLKS PROHIBITED SIGNS, BILLBOARD SIGNS.

WE ALL KNOW THESE ARE BILLBOARDS.

NOW, THERE WAS ALSO A BUNCH OF DISCUSSION ABOUT, OH, THE SUPREME COURT HAS TALKED ABOUT FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, UH, WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING'S CONTENT NEUTRAL.

HOWEVER, THIS BOARD DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO SET ASIDE AN ORDINANCE.

THIS BOARD DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WEIGH IN ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ISSUES OR WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

AND WHY IS THAT SEPARATION OF POWERS? THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE CITY.

IT'S UP TO THE COURTS TO DETERMINE IF IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NOT THIS COMMISSION.

SO I WOULD URGE THE COMMISSION TO IGNORE ALL THAT TALK, BUT IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, I DO WANNA TALK ABOUT IT.

WELL, ACTUALLY, BEFORE WE DO THAT, LET'S LOOK AT PAGE.

IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 10 AND THAT, I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT SECTION SIX DASH SIX EIGHT P, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THE WAY DOWN THE PAGE ARE YOU THERE? AND THE SUBSECTION SAYS, BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION APPEAL.

HEARING YOU GO DOWN A COUPLE OF SENTENCES.

IT SAYS, IN HEARING SUCH AN APPEAL, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY, THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT HAVE THE POWER TO UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVE OR SET ASIDE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIDE ORDINANCE, BUT SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO INTERPRET ITS PROVISIONS.

AND IN CASE OF ALTERNATE SIGNAGE SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH ALTERNATE SIGNAGE IS IN FACT EQUAL TO THE STANDARDS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

BUT YOU, THE FIRST PART OF THAT SENTENCE, YOU CAN'T SET IT ASIDE.

YOU CAN'T MAKE A RULING ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO ASSURE YOU THAT IS IN THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, THIS BAN ON BILLBOARDS IS IN FACT CONSTITUTIONAL.

AND WE HAVE CASE LAW, WE HAVE LOTS OF CASE LAW ON THIS.

THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT HAS STATED AGAIN THAT ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO RULE ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTES AND ORDINANCES.

BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT IT.

IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL? SO THERE'S A CASE CITED IN THE NOTICE OF APPEAL, CITY OF AUSTIN VERSUS REAGAN, NATIONAL ADVERTISING OF AUSTIN, LLC.

THAT WAS ACTUALLY A UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASE.

OKAY.

KNOWLEDGE, THE TIME LEFT.

IS HE COMING BACK? WILL HE BE PARTICIPATING

[00:30:01]

YEAH, THEN YEAH, YOU WILL NEED TO EXCUSE HIM AND, AND NOTE THAT ON THE RECORD.

UH, I JUST LIKE, I, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT, UH, TOM, UH, HAS NEEDED TO LEAVE AT THIS TIME WITH, UH, UH, AND IS UNABLE TO STAY.

SO I'D JUST LIKE TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD THAT HE'S LEAVING AND, UH, HE WILL NOT BE PART OF THE DELIBERATION.

OKAY.

I'M, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT I, I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT WE DID SOMETHING TO PUT TO, TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.

THANK YOU.

SO WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, UH, THE CASE OF CITY OF AUSTIN.

SO THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S BAN ON OFF PREMISES ADVERTISING SIGNS WAS CONTENT NEUTRAL, WHICH IS KIND OF A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF, OF REVIEW, BASICALLY.

AND THEY REMANDED THE CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE BAN WAS NARROWLY TAILORED TO SERVE A SIGNIFICANT GOVERNMENT INTEREST.

THE TRIAL COURT UPHELD THE AUSTIN SIGN CODE BAN ON BILLBOARDS.

AND THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.

THEY CONCLUDED THAT THE CITY STATED GOVERNMENT INTEREST FOR SUCH A BAN, QUOTE, TO PROTECT THE AESTHETIC VALUE OF A CITY AND TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY WAS A SUFFICIENT GOVERNMENT INTEREST.

AND THEN CITING A LONG LINE OF CASES, THE FIFTH CIRCUIT WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE CITY IS ENTITLED TO USE ITS LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT TO CONCLUDE THAT OFF-PREMISES ADVERTISING UNDERMINES ITS INTEREST IN SAFETY AND AESTHETICS MORE THAN ON-PREMISES ADVERTISING DOES.

AND LIKEWISE, THE BEDFORD CITY ORDINANCE PASSES CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER.

SO WE HEARD SOMETHING UP HERE.

IT, TO BE HONEST, IT SOUNDED ALMOST LIKE A THREAT.

UM, THE STRATEGY YOU FIND LOOPHOLES, YOU APPLY FOR A COUPLE OF SIGNS.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE RESOLVE, THEN YOU GO FILE SUIT AGAIN.

THIS ISN'T THIS COMMISSION'S JOB TO WEIGH IN ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY, BUT IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

IF YOU LOOK AT SECTION SIX DASH SIX SIX OF THE SIGN REGULATIONS, IT SAYS THAT THESE SIGN ORDINANCES WERE PASSED, THESE REGULATIONS WERE PASSED IN ORDER TO QUOTE, PRESERVE LOCALLY RECOGNIZED VALUES OF COMMUNITY APPEARANCE, WHICH PROTECT PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN, IN THE CHARACTER OF PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE, WHICH AID IN THE ATTRACTION OF SHOPPERS AND OTHER VISITORS WHO ARE IMPORTANT TO THE ECONOMY OF THE CITY, WHICH REDUCE HAZARDS TO MOTORISTS AND PEDESTRIANS TRAVELING ON THE PUBLIC ROADWAYS AND HEREBY TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE ACCORDINGLY.

THIS APPEAL SHOULD BE REJECTED.

THIS IS A BILLBOARD, THE BILLBOARD, IT, THESE BILLBOARDS ARE PROHIBITED UNDER THE ORDINANCE AND THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.

THANK YOU.

UH, NEXT IS, IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO COMMENT? UH, NOBODY HAS, NOBODY FROM THE PUBLIC HAS TO COMMENT.

UH, DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO REBUTTAL ANYTHING? THIS IS YOUR TIME TO, UH, REBUT OPPOSING COUNSEL MAY VARY CLEAR DISTINCTIONS OR ATTEMPTED, MAKE VERY CLEAR DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OFF-PREMISES AND ON-PREMISES AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A SIGN AND A BILLBOARD.

IF, BUT WHAT IF WE TAKE THE TIME TO REALLY LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE AND WE COMPARE THE LANGUAGE BETWEEN THE TWO? THEY'RE ALMOST IDENTICAL.

SO HAVING THAT DISTINCTION AND TRYING TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION IS, IT'S, IT'S INCORRECT AT BEST.

ADDITIONALLY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO NOTE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE, WERE VERY CLEAR ABOUT IS THAT WHILE BANNING OFF-PREMISES SIGNS, WHILE ALLOWING ON-PREMISES SIGNS, IT'S JUST NOT NEARLY TAILORED.

AND ADDITIONALLY, ONE OF THE THINGS IS THAT IT'S CONTRADICTORY IN THE CODE ITSELF IS THAT THE CITY ITSELF DOES NOT ARTICULATE A REASON WHY AN ON-PREMISE SIGN THAT IS UP TO 300 SQUARE FEET IS LESS HARMFUL THAN AN OFF-PREMISES SIGN THAT HAS BEEN ERECTED AND HAS BEEN PROHIBITED BY THE CITY.

SO THERE'S NO REAL CLEAR DISTINCTION OR, OR EXPLANATION AS TO WHY ONE IS MORE HARMFUL THAN THE OTHER.

SO IN CONCLUSION, WE WOULD, UH, WE WOULD REQUEST THAT OUR APPEAL BE REALLY TAKEN A VERY GOOD LOOK AT, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME VERY CLEAR INCONSISTENCIES IN THE ACTUAL CODE ITSELF, AND IT'S CONTRARY TO TEXAS LAW.

THANK YOU.

ONE THING I WANNA MAKE SURE WE ARE ON

[00:35:01]

THAT IS NOT OUR ARGUMENT.

90% OF THE CITIES OUT THERE DO NOT ALLOW BILLBOARDS, BUT THE WAY THEY DON'T, IT'S VERY CLEAR, IT'S NOT SUBJECTIVE.

SHE GAVE YOU THE DEFINITION OF OFF-PREMISE AND THE BILLBOARD.

YOU GUYS ALL TAKE A LOOK BETWEEN THE TWO DEFINITION LEAD ONE, READ THE OTHER ONE, SEE IF THERE'S ANY DIFFERENCE.

AND IF THERE'S NOT ANY DIFFERENCE, THEN LET'S GO TO THE, THE SECTION THAT WE THINK IS RUPO.

I'M CALLING IT A RUPO BECAUSE WE'VE DRIVE GROUND IT.

SO THIS IS, THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT WE DO.

IF YOU GO TO THE SECTION WHERE I'M SAYING, I'M PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THIS IS MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH, I AM FOLLOWING YOUR, YOUR CODE TO THE T AND BY TO THE T I'M SAYING THE SECTION WHERE ONE SECTION SAYS OFF-PREMISE SIGNS ARE ALLOWED, MY SIGN FITS THE ENTIRE DEFINITION OF WHAT AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN IS.

AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN IS A SIGN THAT ADVERTISES SOMETHING THAT'S NOT A HIDDEN ON THAT PROPERTY.

THAT IS A DEFINITION OF OFF-PREMISE SIGN.

AND THAT'S WHERE YOUR SIGN YOUR, YOUR, YOUR, UM, THE DESCRIPTION SAYS, I FALL UNDER SECTION A.

I DON'T EVEN, I, I CAN, I CAN CLAIM I DON'T KNOW WHAT BILLBOARD IS.

I FALL UNDER SECTION A AND THAT'S MY REPO.

THAT'S WHAT GIVES ME THE RIGHT TO HAVE THAT SIGN.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS ME ON.

BUT I'M NOT HERE TO ARGUE THAT BAN A BILLBOARD, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE WAS NOT THAT CONTRADICTION, THEM MIXING UP BETWEEN BILLBOARD AND OFF-PREMISE SIGN, I WOULDN'T BE HERE IF THEY NEVER DESCRIBED AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN OF THIS.

IF SECTION A WASN'T THERE TO SAY THAT OFF-PREMISE SIGN ARE ALLOWED BY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GET US, BASICALLY THEY'RE SAYING IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PERMISSION TO BUILD THIS SIGN, YOU ARE EXEMPTED FROM YOUR CODE.

YOU KNOW, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY, UH, PERMITTED BY THE STATE, WHICH I'M PERMITTED BY THE STATE, THEN THAT WILL GIVES ME THE RIGHT TO HAVE THAT SIGN.

WE ARE SAYING THERE'S A CONTRADICTION.

THE CODE NEEDS TO BE FIXED.

DEFINITION OF A BILLBOARD, DEFINITION OF OFF PREMISE SIGN.

THEY'RE ALL THE SAME.

THEN YOU GO TO THE SET, THE NEXT SECTION WHERE IT SAYS OFF-PREMISE, SIGNED ALLOWED BILLBOARDS ARE NOT, I'M CLAIMING UP, I'M OFF-PREMISE SIGN.

AND IF I'M NOT, IT'D BE NICE TO KNOW WHY I, I'M NOT CONSIDERED ONE.

BUT I'M NOT HERE TO SAY THAT BURNING BILLBOARDS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

IT IS NOT, UH, IN THE CITY.

UH, COUNCIL, UH, DO A REBUTTAL ALSO, OR NO, UM, UNDER THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THIS HEARING.

UH, THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

OKAY.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE CITY OR FOR, UH, THE APPLICANT OR THE COUNCIL, THEN YOU ARE CERTAINLY, UH, THIS IS NOW IS THE TIME.

OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE IN QUESTIONS.

UH, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER THE, UH, UH, APPELLANT OR THE CITY COUNCIL? SINCE THERE'S NO QUESTIONS? UH, I BELIEVE WE'RE, UH, OPEN TO THE NEXT, WHICH IS DELIBERATIONS AND OR COMMENTS.

ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR, OR QUESTIONS BY THE, UH, BY THE BOARD MEMBERS? UH, I DO, I HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS.

UH, ONE IS MY, AND HISTORICALLY WHAT WE'VE DONE AS A BOARD, WE'VE ONLY GRANTED VARIANCES BASED UPON, UH, WHAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS THINGS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY OR STRUCTURE OR LOCATION, AND, UH, SOMETHING TO BE EQUITY.

UH, AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK ANY SORT OF WAIVER OR UH, UH, TYPE OF THING WE NEED TO FOCUS ON IS THAT, UH, THAT CRITERIA.

THE OTHER THING IS, IS THAT, UH, I HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR SO LONG, UH, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN IT'S AT LEAST 1985.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAD TO DEAL WITH WAS WHEN THE FIRST SIGN ORDINANCE WAS PUT TOGETHER, UH, WE HAD SIGNS THAT WERE PUT UP IN THE 1960S, MAYBE EVEN THE 1950S.

AND, UH, WE HAD LOTS OF NON-CONFORMING SIGNS.

AND SO WE HAD TO WALK, WALK THROUGH THE THING, UH, GET THOSE OUT OF THE COMMUNITY, AND WE WORKED THOSE VERY SLOWLY BASED UPON WHEN THEY NEED TO BE REPLACED.

UH, AND ONE OF THE ISSUES OF, UH, OFF-PREMISE SIGNS WAS, UH, AND AGAIN, YOU GUYS MAY NOT REALIZE THIS, BUT AT ONE TIME THERE WAS A LOT OF OPEN LAND IN, IN BEDFORD.

[00:40:01]

WELL, AT THAT TIME IT WAS ONLY AIRPORT, FREEWAY AND THEN LATER 1 21.

AND SO THAT WAS WHERE OFF PREMISES CAME FROM TO INCLUDE, NOT TO EXCLUDE BILLBOARDS, BUT TO, TO ACTUALLY INCLUDE OTHER SIGNS THAT WERE NOT BILLBOARDS.

UH, I CAN THINK OF THE, UH, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S STILL THERE, THE TACO BELL AND BROWN TRAIL, UH, THEY HAD A SIGN, A ALONG AIRPORT FREEWAY, AND IT, UH, WHEN IT CAME TIME TO RENOVATE THE, THEY HAD TO TAKE THAT SIGN DOWN.

I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST WE'VE HAD OTHER REQUESTS TO PUT SIGNS ALONG ONE OF THE FREEWAYS FROM, UH, COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT WERE NOT ON THE FREEWAY.

THEY WERE JUST BACK.

AND THOSE WERE CONSIDERED OFF PREMISES SIGNS.

AND WE HAVE LOOKED AT NUMBER OF ITEMS AND WITH AND WITHHELD, UH, THAT STATUE OF NOT ALLOWING THEM.

SO WITH THAT, ARE, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I, I WANNA MAKE A FEW COMMENTS.

I THINK WE'RE HERE TO SIMPLY DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY, CITY STAFF MAY THE CORRECT DETERMINATIONS AND WHETHER OR NOT THESE SIGNS ARE CONSTITUTE BILLBOARDS.

AND BASED ON WHAT'S BEEN SAID, I THINK THEY ARE, UH, THE MR IS IT KENZA THE APPLICANT? YOU KIND OF SAID IT MULTIPLE TIMES.

UM, AND NUMBER TWO, I THINK WE'VE HEARD FROM THE CITY THAT WE CAN'T WAIVE OR WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO THE ORDINANCE.

YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE THAT POWER, SO WE JUST HAVE TO, BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE, WE JUST NEED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CITY MADE THE CORRECT, UH, DETERMINATION.

UM, SO BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD WITH OUR LIMITED AUTHORITY ON WHAT WE CAN DO, IF THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDINANCE, I GUESS THAT CAN BE DEALT LATER.

BUT RIGHT NOW, I THINK, UH, WHAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR, YEAH.

ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? WOULD SOMEBODY'D LIKE TO PUT TOGETHER A MOTION? AND I, I CAN I MOVE TO AFFIRM THE CITY OF BEDFORD BUILDING OFFICIALS INTERPRETATION OF THE CITY'S SIGN ORDINANCE, FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED SIGNS CONTAIN I PERMIT NUMBER SIGN DASH 24 DASH 180 1 AND PERMIT NUMBER SIGN DASH 24 DASH 180 3 SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS BILLBOARDS AND ARE THEREFORE PROHIBITED UNDER THE CITY'S CODES OF ORDINANCES.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND WE HAVE A SECOND.

UH, DOES ANYBODY WISH TO, UH, DISCUSS, DISCUSS THE MOTION? OKAY.

THERE'S NO, I THINK THAT MEANS THAT WE ARE READY FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE.

AND MUCH LIKE WHEN WE, UH, UH, DID OUR ATTENDANCE, COULD WE JUST GO DOWN AND IDENTIFY OURSELVES AND EITHER, UH, THEY, YOU EITHER, UH, APPROVE THE MOTION OR DISPROVE THE MOTION.

JESSE OWENS, I MOVE TO APPROVE.

I, I I MADE FOR THE, I MOVE FOR THE, THE MOTION ALREADY.

SO DO YOU STILL WANT ME TO DO IT? YES.

OKAY.

I, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MOTION .

ALRIGHT.

OKAY.

UH, RANDY YOUNGS, I, UH, APPROVE THE MOTION.

STEPHANIE YARBOROUGH, I APPROVE JOHN BILLINGSLEY.

I APPROVE THE MOTION WITH THAT.

THERE HAVE BEEN, UH, FIVE APPROVALS AND NO DISAPPROVALS WITH THAT, THE MOTION CARRIES.

UM, IS THERE ANY, IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS? I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY OTHER BUSINESS.

UH, IT IS, UH, IT WOULD BE TIME FOR A MOTION TO ADJOURN HEARING.

I SECOND IT.

WE HAVE A, A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL THOSE, UH, IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

MEETING ADJOURN HONOR.