My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2315 NE Loop 286 - Variance denied to allow sky sign
City-of-Paris
>
Boards and Commissions
>
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
>
DECISIONS
>
2315 NE Loop 286 - Variance denied to allow sky sign
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/19/2021 11:53:28 AM
Creation date
5/19/2021 11:53:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I <br />i e <br />t <br />ci G <br />l� <br />DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS <br />RE: Variance Request <br />Shawn Coyier <br />2315 NE Loop 286 <br />Paris, TX 75460 <br />ACTION REQUESTED: Variance to allow a Sky Sign <br />The above -reference request was denied by the City of Paris Zoning Board of Adjustment <br />("Board") on 04/06/2021 by a unanimous vote of four (4) against the application with none <br />abstaining and one (1) absent. On this date, the Board found that the request did not meet the <br />conditions set forth in Sections 4.10.003(e), 4.10.004(a)(1), 4.10.009(a), 4.10.009(b) and <br />4.10.081 of the City of Paris Sign Ordinance. These were determined as follows: <br />(A) There was no unique condition or feature of the property which is not generally common to <br />other properties, where literal compliance with this article would cause unnecessary <br />hardship. <br />(B) The granting of the variance will violate the spirit or the intent of these articles. <br />(C) The condition or feature which creates the need for the variance resulted from the property <br />owner's own actions. <br />In the board's denial of the request, the following additional findings were adopted as the reasons <br />for this denial. They are as follows: <br />A) There are no known unique conditions or features regarding Mr. Coyier's building that would <br />require a "sky sign" versus an allowable sign per this Article, thus no known hardships. <br />(B) The Article clearly prohibits "sky signs" in this situation and roof structures are not normally <br />designed with the purpose of supporting an added wind load caused by such a roof -mounted <br />sign, thus engineering should have at least been performed per the building code. Mr. Coyier <br />has informed staff that the sign was not engineered. <br />(C) Mr. Coyier installed the sign prior to having sought a building permit, which would have <br />given City Staff an opportunity to address this prior to expenditure of funds and installation <br />of the sign. In addition, Mr. Coyier, via a license contractor had in fact properly permitted <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.