Board Of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Get it for a minute. Can you go to Munich early?

Here they come. Because I've been asked to.

Uh-oh. Blackout. Got all the controls. Yeah.

My neighbor bought three truckloads of questions for us to plant. And we were in a circle waiting in one backyard for a dog and part of the other neighbor's dog.

This one?

So it took me a minute to move it.

So we just have a minute.

Yeah, it's not showing up.

I've been trying to, I had a plan. Remember when we had the freeze coming? Yep.

And my two Sago palms. And I need to pull up the code that was just amended, but it was supposed to be just for electronic messages. I have the old one that we have.

Yeah, I have the old one, too.

So I'm not the biggest one, but it's big.

So it looks like it's missing the two.

She's been on me for three years now.

I'm going to tell them the HOA is going to get on you and say that this is inappropriate.

Please don't report me. I don't understand what they have because this is the one that we were working on. And those little big parts come down. You have to trim those. And if you don't trim them, they sit there. Yeah, we're not finding anybody yet, but I guess it's coming.

So you see, that's the one that we were working. They still have it. I probably don't want to paint as much as it is, but this is still there. Wow.

Then you go back to 9.76.

of last year, but it's supposed to be just for residential, off-premise signs for Stonebridge. So, .

The time is now 2 o'clock. I'd like to call the Monday, May 18, 2026, Bossier City, Bossier Parish Board of Adjustments meeting to order. Let's stand. And just bow your heads, please. Dear Lord, thank you so much for this great day. Please continue to bless our city, parish, and state as we go forward. Please help us to understand and interpret the appropriate things coming before us. And it's your name we pray, amen.

Amen. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Welcome to the Board of Adjustments meeting, which falls under the Metropolitan Planning Commission for Bossier City and Bossier Parish. This board is appointed by the Bossier City Council and Bossier Police Jury, Parish Police Jury, serves voluntarily and without compensation.

Okay, roll call. We're going to have Charles Davis.

Here.

Megan Davis is absent. Suzette Haddon. Here. Carrie Landry.

Here.

Tim Willihan.

Here.

Michael Vercher.

Here.

We have a quorum. In accordance with Louisiana Open Meeting Law, the Bossier City Parish BOA asks for order and decorum at our meetings. Please silence your cell phones. For anyone who wishes to address the Board on any item on the agenda, we ask you come forward, identify yourself for the audio record, and sign in. Speakers must address the BOA Board at all times. For those that would like to make comments on an item, please limit your comments to three minutes on a particular item that's up for discussion. All other audience members are asked to observe the meeting quietly. If there's a need for an audience member to hold a conversation or take a phone call, you're asked to please step out of the meeting.

Thank you. I'd like to request a motion to approve the agenda as submitted.

I move to accept the agenda.

Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. The first and the only item on our is CBOA 000085, 2026SC, the application of Brian McNew on behalf of Edward Bass requesting an appeal for a use language interpretation for off-premise sign review located at 2011 Airline Drive, Bogota City, Louisiana, City Council District 2, Police Jury District 9. If the applicant or someone can come and speak. And primarily, make sure you write down your name and explain. Yes, sir.

Absolutely. Good afternoon. Thank you for hearing us today. My name is Bryce Kinley. I'm an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Louisiana, and I represent Mr. Edward Bass.

Michael Davis as well.

To the board members, as I said, I represent Mr. Bass. Mr. Bass has been involved in this matter for quite a substantial time. He has been trying to get a LED sign approved on his premises and has consistently met pushback in trying to go through that application process. It seems to be that the fight in this case relates to 9.56, which states a V-type or back-to-back sign surfaces on the same device shall be considered one sign. The previous board that Mr. Bass was in front of took this to mean that they were able to take both sides of that sign calculate the square footage on both sides and add them together to come to a total amount. The problem with their interpretation as we see it is if you look to the table that is referenced as a part of 9.5.6, That leads us to a scenario where the sign is actually off of the charts, essentially. The sign would be over 672 square feet and would be outside of the 1,000 foot requirement being in place of other signs. If we look at other signs that are around that area, and I've got a picture that I could present to the board if y'all would like to pass it around.

Is that some of the same things that you presented before? Is it in the handout? I'm not sure. We weren't present for the prior.

You can put it up there on the projector. Thank you.

If we look at this sign, this is a...

Hang on one second. There you go.

Okay, thank you. If we look at this sign, this is a new Morrison-DeWitt sign. Obviously, we're all aware that they started a big campaign not too long ago here to put signs up all over the state of Louisiana. This is a new sign. I don't think anybody would really dispute that. This sign, if you calculate it, wood is a v-shaped sign by the definition of this previous board they would have you take both sides of that sign add it together and it would still like mr bass's sign be off of the charts essentially that sign is within 600 feet of another sign and so What we're demonstrating here by showing this is that either the individuals who are Lamar, specifically, who are going and maintaining these signs and changing out content, they're either not following the process or the process is being It's being presented to my client differently than it is being presented to these companies. And the argument that we're making here today is one, the interpretation of 9.5.6 is incorrect as applied by the previous board. And two, even if it was correct, they're not enforcing it as to other individuals or other companies. which would be content-based discrimination against my client. And what I mean when I say that is that board is trying to exercise control over, or it appears to be, what content is permissible and what content is going to be placed on a sign. With relation to 9.5.6, When you read that, it's our contention that 9.5.6 is actually supposed to be read the opposite way. When it says that a back-to-back sign surfaces on the same device shall be considered as one sign, That's supposed to mean that you look at one side of the sign, calculate what the square footage of that sign is, and then assign the requirements from there. There is nowhere in 9.5.6 where it says you need to take both sides of the sign, calculate it, and then add it together. That doesn't exist in the statutory language here. If we were to take it there, we would have billboards all over Bossier City that are not in compliance with that provision. We additionally have, here's another billboard. These two billboards are 10 by 36. Those are V-shaped signs. Those billboards are 600 feet apart. They should be, according to this, at least 720 feet apart. Additionally, we have another sign, a 10 by 36 placed up, which would be, again, needs to be at least 700 feet away. These two signs, both V-shaped, are only 700 feet apart. This is our client's sign, where his is at right now. The nearest sign to that is 700 feet. which is substantially similar to the other pictures that we have shown and in some cases those signs are even closer than our clients. The effect of this is that if we allow this rule to be read in this way is that my client is being treated materially different than everyone else who's placing up billboards in the city of Bossier. Additionally, I want to point out And I want to point out that when you look online there and you go on Muni code and you pull this up, there seems to be some confusion about what the code is. I've been told that apparently this was only supposed to apply to residential locations. When you go and you look for the rules around electronic signs and LED signs, You find this. It says section 9.10 electronic message center. And if you go down to the bottom paragraph, it says, for the purpose of upgrading to LED or other electronic technology, each sign face shall be treated separately. And that's really what I'm getting at when I go back and when I read 9.5.6 is it seems that somebody already considered this. And even if this wasn't passed, this is floating around in the ether out there that This has been considered. And 9.5.6, what's really going on is this is a codification in better detail of that because somebody already realized, okay, when we're calculating this, we can't just calculate them and then add them together because none of our billboards would be in compliance. So I understand the inclination when you're reading 9.5.6 to read it and say, okay, well, it's one sign. We've got to add it together. But you can't read that into the code. It's not there. The plain language on its face actually acts as more of a protection for my client in that it says it's considered one sign. So if you considered it one sign, you would look at one side of the sign and you would calculate what that square footage was. And that's our big argument and the issue that we have with what's going on is those two issues is not being interpreted correctly. And it's not being interpreted correctly. Our client has suffered substantial material loss because he has obtained three separate billboards at his own cost in order to comply with the requirements of him taking down a certain square footage of billboards as part of the beautification laws. He's willing to do that. He's willing to comply with all of those parameters. And so he's gone at his own cost to do that. and he's still being jammed up he's still being told that he can't do this even though lamar is allowed to do this morrison dewitt are allowed to do this everybody else is allowed to put this up but because my client goes and he goes through the application process and does things the right way they're saying oh sorry your your sign is it's not far enough away or or it doesn't meet the requirements it doesn't conform That's not fair treatment. And that's really what we're talking about here is that there's a material difference in the way that Mr. Bass is being treated versus the way that Lamar is being treated. And we've got to find some type of way to rectify that. And I think the easiest way to rectify that is simply for this board to say, We disagree with what the other board said. That reading actually doesn't allow you to add both of those numbers together and come up with that. It's not the sum total. That reading requires you to look at one side of the sign and calculate the square footage from there. And that would be my argument. I'm happy to answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you.

Any questions from the board? The picture that you showed, the existing billboard, do you have the dates when they were installed? How long they've been there?

So I do not have the I don't have the date that this exact billboard was installed, but I can assert to you and I think that that everyone can that we all know that Morrison DeWitt started a new ad campaign recently within the last 18 months. They popped up all over the state of Louisiana and that's a new sign for them.

No, my question was, do you know when the actual structure was erected? Was it 10 years ago, 20 years ago? Can you show that? Because it may be grandfathered in. If you could just give me one second, I apologize.

That's right. I've spoken with my client. He's indicated, actually, if you look at this billboard right there, that's a 10 by 36. That is a that is a digital billboard. And that billboard went up in just the last few months. What are you trying to say to me?

This is the email from Lamar on that specific board, and this board just went in, says, and it tells you on here, this is their email to me.

So this is at the Zaxby's by Benton Road in East Texas, and my client is indicating me this is an email that he received from Lamar. That's an on-site sign.

That's not an off-site sign. It's off-premise. It's an off-premise? It's off-premise. Okay.

And so, you know, it seems that, again, you know, Lamar is allowed to do this. They're allowed to put them up and they're allowed to send out, you know, information to my client about this. But, you know, again, this is a digital billboard. There's a 10 by 36 around it, 10 by 36 around it. So within 600 feet. And so I just think that there's a, my client is just not being treated the same way that everybody else is being treated. And that's why we're here to get some relief for my client.

Hello. My name's Edward Bass. I'm the owner of Bass's Fine Jewelry in Bossier. So, our billboard, just a little background information, our billboard was installed in 2001. The billboard across the street from me was erected after my billboard. Ours was erected in January of 2001. The billboard right across the street from me that is digital, that belongs to Lamar, was erected in June of 2001. So their face right across the street from me is digital. Our face is static. So I have a digital to one side of me that's 700 square feet. I'm in the middle with the static sign. And then the sign right across the street from me is digital. So I'm obviously being treated completely different than the boards that are right beside me. Whether they were put up a year ago, three years ago, or five years ago, this unified code has been the same in the distance.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Yes. And if you call it, have we measured those, those we know pretty much are

I mean, they've presented several boards. Okay. No, we have not measured all of those.

To know exactly how far?

No. I mean, they've presented several boards. We have not physically gone out and measured each one that they've presented today. I mean, we didn't have knowledge to do that. Okay.

Yeah, just to add the boards they presented, they weren't submitted for the case analysis.

It didn't come before? No.

Just one question that I have, Carlotta Askey-Brown here, is that you stated that your client obtained the additional boards even though he didn't have approval? So, the boards that he plans to take down?

Well, he obtained them beforehand in anticipation of compliance with the requirements of the board, which is that you take down three times, I believe, the amount of square footage that you're going to place up. So, he's always attempted to be within the rules. And so he went out on his own on his own dime to obtain those with the intention of taking them down, but did not anticipate that there would be this type of issue with placing that board up because of the boards that other people were placing up.

Okay. And he purchased those signs within the last year or during the time we've had the conversation about the nonconformity.

My client is indicating to me that he purchased those boards prior to applying for an application. For submitting an application, I should say.

guess my concern is of course that this we didn't have this information beforehand and you know it would have to verify that this was this occurred this is the exact yes and we just need to make sure we're using the same terminology because surfaces and sign faces and devices and structures tend to mean different things for different individuals some of the boards or that that they've presented could possibly undergo a different ordinance or statute, so I'd have to see when it was actually installed and against what ordinance to determine, you know, what's happening there. And if some faces have been updated, you know, billboards are allowed to update their faces under a nonconformance status.

if i may if the concern is that there's not a sufficient evidentiary record before the board in terms of what the actual distance between these signs is we could obtain potentially from an expert somebody to come up here and measure the boards and present that to you if you would like if there was another date that we could get before that if that is what it's going to require in order to make sure that we have a sufficient evidentiary record

I think that evidence would be better suited for the MPC board. This hearing is substantially for the interpretation of the code, so that evidence would be helpful at the MPC level.

Once again, I sent over a list of three of these specific billboards in question to Carlotta, the exact addresses, specifically asked for that and I got stonewalled. I got back an email back from her that basically said they didn't have the information and that I needed to provide more information to get the information on these specific signs. So this seems to be the same route that I keep going every time I go to the city to try to get information. I keep getting Stonewall. So that's why we're here today. And I find it quite odd that I'm here today and none of these other billboard sign companies have been here today. Y'all haven't seen them before. They haven't had this same issue, yet they have brand new signs. So obviously there's somebody being treated different here. I'm not going to say who it is, but there's somebody being treated different.

So just to clarify, he did submit a public information request for three billboards with addresses and he stated that they are Lamar signs. The applications that we have are not addressed the way that he has submitted them. So I have also asked for him to clarify so that we could see the cross streets just to have a reference because all the applications aren't identified by address nor are they identified by the owner of the board. In addition, he also He asked for that information, and that means we would have to go back to 1955 to look at all the information that he's requested. So I just asked him to clarify and narrow his request so that we can do the due diligence and go and find the information that he's looking for. So we've gone all the way back to 2000 and 2001 and forward and did not find the addresses that he requested. So we asked for additional information so that we could help get him the information that he's requesting. We don't stonewall anybody. Everybody's obligated to have public information. It's theirs.

And I appreciate that, but what I would say to this is, I understand that we're here on the language issue, and I can concede to that, but I think that we would hopefully all agree that if I was able to present you with evidence that says that, undisputably, that these are within that range, then obviously that language is being applied to my client differently than it's being applied to everyone else. So the fact of where the boards actually are and the distance between them are actually relevant to the inquiry that's going on here. We can't have laws and rules for one set of people rules for a separate set of people. They've got to be consistent because again as I said we start falling into issues of whether or not it's content discrimination and what I mean by that is that is there something objectionable about that the city has an objection to about the content that my client wants to put on a billboard. At a certain point when he's being treated differently than everyone else and everyone else is allowed to place up their billboards, you have to start asking, okay, is what we're objecting to the actual content, which would be unconstitutional, right? I mean, he's got a First Amendment right. He has a right to place these billboards up to To be able to put that out into the public now Obviously the this board in the city of Bossier has a right to certain reasonable time place and manner restrictions Which is what this is but that has to be applied Uniformly you can't have a time place and manner restriction as to one party and then not have it as to the other party because that place is a substantially different burden on two people when these rules are supposed to be content neutral and

just just to make a statement and there has been no issue with the content that he intends to advertise that's never been an issue with us it's specifically been location size setbacks and in relation to other billboards so content and neutrality it's not an issue with us here if I may

Charles Jacobs, I'm the city attorney, but I'm filling in for the MPC attorney today, Mr. Neil Irwin, who I believe is in another hearing. I think we've gotten just a little far afield talking about measurements and content. That's, with all due respect, is outside of the purview and the authority of the Board of Adjustments. The Board of Adjustments is simply to make an interpretation, basically acting as the jury. It's 9.5.6. If you're talking about other people that are, you know, some signs might be too close, some signs might, you know, far away, that's not your purpose. You're supposed to look at 9.5.6, V-type or back-to-back sign surfaces on the same device shall be considered one sign. and come up with a common sense interpretation of that language. All the other issues that have been brought up here today are in the purview of the MPC. Good.

Yes.

Thank you. And depending on the interpretation of the Board of Adjustments, then it's going to go back to the MPC. And if the board interprets it in favor of Mr. Bass and Mr. Kinley's argument that that means that you're only looking at the square footage individually of one sign, then the MPC can issue, you know, they can apply for a conditional use. But as far as measurements between signs, when signs were erected, things of that nature, that's outside the purview of the Board of Adjustment. It's the interpretation of 9.5. Okay, perfect.

Thank you. If I could make just one closing remark on that, and then we can go ahead and turn it over to the Board. I agree with what Mr. Jacobs is saying, especially when it comes to the common sense interpretation of what 9.5.6 is supposed to be. Common sense, when you're looking at this, means you read the words that are written down. You don't add additional information there when it's not called for. So if we've got two interpretations, one that is on its face reasonable, which is the interpretation that my client puts forward, which is it says you consider it as one sign. You read it as one sign. You take square footage from one sign and and you put that forward, versus what the MPC's interpretation is, which is, okay, well, it says read it as one sign, so what we're gonna do is we're gonna go in, we're gonna measure, we're gonna get what the square footage is, and we're gonna add both of those numbers together, and that's what the actual square footage is. If 9.5.6 was supposed to say that, it would say that, but it doesn't. and again as i pointed out as well there's obviously been some back and forth about this related to led signs if you go look up on municode you'll find that 9.10 section that specifically says count it as separate each one of them individually faces as separate and so i feel like the uh with respect to the npc i understand how they could come to that conclusion, but I don't feel that that is the most reasonable interpretation of that code because it's not in there. They're adding additional steps that don't exist, and they're essentially trying to read that into the law when it's not there. And that's where we'll leave it. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

I would just say, as it relates to 9.5.6, We've reviewed that and it also doesn't state what the applicant is stating either. It doesn't say to go in and measure the surfaces separately. However, whenever we evaluate 9.5.6, when it says that the back-to-back signed surfaces on the same device shall be considered as one sign, as you go into the table for 9.5.6, it talks about the measurement for the device which was defined in 9.5.6 as one sign. So that's how we interpret it. That's how we've evaluated it. When they redid the code a couple of years ago or over a decade ago, that was the consideration given for VBAC signs or back-to-back signs.

Well, as my own personal common sense, what I see is I can only see one side of the sign. other side does not take up any of my view because it's on the opposite side of the sign that I see so I'm gonna have to say that this thing needs to be rewritten revisited or whatever and make it kind of simple common sense to where

don't see how you can see both sides of the sign at the same time there's I don't think the ordinance makes sense myself well just just to break that down a little bit no you're right you can't see both sides at the same time you would see one going northbound and one going southbound so we would take the area of those surfaces and measure a radiance all the way around in a straight line so you're right it doesn't you can't you can only see one at a time but it's north and southbound in this case but we will take the area of the surfaces to calculate the distance measurement so I agree and I also agree that it should be more clear I don't disagree with that so I don't believe that it can be

Well, I mean, until it's corrected, you know, I think it, I'm just going to go with the common sense, what I see as far as how I feel.

Any other questions? Anything from anybody in the room? Anything else?

And I also would like to say, just for the record, I mean, we, Our job is to interpret the code, and we don't go around picking and choosing who we enforce or place restrictions on. That is not the intent of the MPC. That has never been the intent. And we move on a case-by-case basis on all applications, so there's never any intent to give favor to one entity versus the other. Okay. Never.

Thank the board for its time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. And another comment from... Thank you. State your name and write your name. Sure.

Hi. I'm Tommy Roberts. I live at 501 Linden Circle in Benton. I'm the general manager for Lamar Advertising. So Lamar Advertising got thrown around a lot in here. I figured I'd get up here and clarify a few things. That location that was most recently projected, we did recently build that structure. However, the spacing between the sign across the street is radial and the ordinance accounts for linear spacing on the same side of the road. And so I can assure you that all the ordinances were met when we constructed that sign completely. The other structure that was shown, which is a grandfather structure, that structure's been there for decades. And so what I will say, I'm not in favor or against Mr. Bass. Matter of fact, I hope he's successful here today. What I can tell you, I've been in the billboard business for 24 years. And there was mention that maybe Lamar gets it easy here, and he's being unjustly prosecuted. But I can assure you that is not the case. We have multiple instances of applications where we've hoped to build and where we've been denied. And I've not been before you in the past, because I've always been under the interpretation that the Board of Adjustments, you had to prove a hardship from the ordinance. And now that we know that we can come before you for interpretations, because I assure you that I feel like a lot of the ordinances are interpreted to the harshest extreme when we apply, I will be back. But what I, and I will tell you in this instance, I've been with Billboard Business for 24 years and that the way, and I'm intimately familiar with this structure that Mr. Bass owns. The person that sold it to him has been trying to sell it to me for four years. And so I've looked at this structure multiple times from every angle that you can look at it from. It is under my opinion that what he is trying to do should be allowed because the ordinance states, the way we interpret it, and in 24 years of experience that That structure, the square footage should be counted as one square footage from one side of the sign, not combined together. But what I will say, and what I would like to hear today, is whatever decision is made, either approve or against, that there's a rational explanation that is put on the record. Because if it is approved that is a one-sided face, that we calculate one square footage, that needs to be applied to me as well. And if we're going to take them together and add the square footage together, that's fine too. I'm okay with that as well. I'll play with whatever rules are put in front of us. I just need to know what the rules are because I feel like the rules constantly get moved. So that is my request here, strictly procedural, that even though every decision that you make, there's no precedent to it. But I do feel, in this case, it's hard to deny a billboard from a billboard, as opposed to a parcel of property to a parcel of property that are very unique. His billboard is no different from my billboards. And so I do think it makes a very persuasive precedent, whatever you decide today. But I would say, in my maybe unexpert opinion, that his application should be allowed, based on our interpretation of the ordinance, is what I would say. Thank you.

OK. Thank you so much, sir. Just one question, if I might ask. Was there any particular reason why you did not purchase the board after it was offered to you?

I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.

I'm sorry. Any particular reason that you did not purchase the board after it was offered to you?

Well, I have a digital that's 500 feet to the south. That's probably the one. It's close. And one, if I purchased it, I knew I was going to have to probably move it to make it conforming, probably 15 to 20 feet to the north. In addition, that's purely economics. I mean, I already had a sign there. I knew if somebody had to build a sign there, they had to purchase other signs, do a capping conversion request. You know for what the party was trying to sell it for didn't make economic sense for me And that's that's strictly the reason why I did not buy it Thank you.

Thank you Any other comments or anything else?

Well, I think if the discussion is finished, all comments have been taken, then we need to make some type of a motion in a second from the board as to the interpretation of 9.5.6. I would respectfully suggest You know, I think Mr. Davis had stated that he was in favor of measuring each sign, each surface separately, something to the effect of, I make the motion to interpret the language of 9.5.6 to require the MPC to tabulate and or calculate the square footage of back-to-back V-type signs by measuring each surface Side individually and separately, you know something to that effect if somebody wants to make a counter motion Then you would say you'd have the same language instead of each side separate Individually and separately you say by combining the total square footage of both sides So discussion's finished. In order for the board to vote on the interpretation of the language, then you would, somebody needs to make a motion.

Okay.

And then that motion needs to have a second, and that would open it up for any type of further discussion if you, I mean, even though you've had a public hearing concerning that. Okay, perfect.

Carlotta, anything else?

I have nothing else.

Okay. Let me make a motion, please. If anybody make a motion.

I move, make a motion that we up, that this board uphold the interpretation of 9.5.6, which is a V-type or back-to-back sign surface on the same device shall be considered one sign. Okay.

And to clarify that, Mr. Verter, that would be that combining the total?

We would uphold the interpretation of the order.

Of the MPC?

Yes.

Okay.

And refer it back to the MPC. I think that's what they're asking us. Yeah, it would go back either way, yes.

And that motion is going to need a second to get to a vote.

Can I get a second for that? I'll make a second for that.

Okay. And at this time, because the electronic voting system is not up and running in the new city council chambers, you would go ahead and just voice vote. Okay. One at a time, so there's no confusion.

Okay. So, I'd like to, the first, Adam, second, let's call for a voting. Katie, if you would. Yes. And go for voice, please. Yes.

Okay. Charles Davis?

No.

Megan Davis is absent. Suzanne Hadden? Yes. Kerry Landry?

Yes.

Tim Willihan?

Yes.

And Michael Varcher? Yes. So we have four yeas and one nay. So that does pass.

So the motion passes. So the next step

So the next step is that we actually have you scheduled for the MPC meeting on June 8th. So we'll be back before the MPC that day. Okay.

Is there? What time do you mean? 2 p.m. Any old or new business?

Just glad to be back in our home.

And it looks like my home with the construction back there.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. If there's nothing else, I'd like to adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Thank you. I like the new system too, Kate. Thank you.