Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, 6.30, I'll call the meeting to order. And we'll take a roll call. Mr. Bailey? Here. Ralphine?

Here.

Mr. Finesh? Here. Chair is here. Mr. Wooten? Here. Ms. Kirkpatrick?

Here.

And Mr. Shetland? Here. Welcome aboard. All right. If everyone now, please stand for the pledge of allegiance.

Thanks be to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Okay, everybody have the opportunity to review last meeting's minutes? And were any revisions or changes that need to be made? Mr. O'Connor?

In item eight, the last sentence, staff recommended that a letter would be drafted. Am I supposed to draft it or are you supposed to draft it? Eight, yes, sir.

Okay, I thought you said A. I was like, okay, where are we at?

And I'm sorry, I don't remember where.

That was my understanding from what we had discussed was, I mean, this seemed like it was something that had personally been discussed with you to bring up to said board to, I mean, maybe not you conducting the study as a whole.

Do I draft the letter or does Cameron, I draft the letter?

That was the way I understood it.

I thought so too. Is that what it reads inside of here? I don't think so. I think I'm supposed to write a letter.

I think it should just be clarified that it was someone on the board should write a letter.

Staff recommended that a letter was drafted and have it signed by any members to the public concerned with flooding, including members of the planning board, in order to skip a step and go straight to city council.

That a letter was drafted by a member of the planning board?

By Mr. Huffine.

By Mr. Huffine of the planning board.

We will do that then. All right. Yeah, that's cool with me. We can get it updated down there. Okay. That's cool with me.

All right.

That's all I got.

Other than that correction...

Any other amendments or changes that need to be made? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

Move that the minutes be adopted as corrected.

I have a motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

May I ask who had the second?

Mr. Banesh.

Yes, ma'am. All right.

I'm going to give a brief overview of the planning boards general meeting rules. The city of Graham planning and zoning board is an advisory board to the Graham City Council. It considers and makes recommendations to the council regarding any request for changes to zoning assignments and as such city council is final arbitrator of the approval or disapproval. Meetings are conducted according to the written published agenda. Individuals who wish to speak Concerning any of the requests to be considered, we'll be given an opportunity during the public comment period for each item. Please signify by raising your hand your desire to speak in the meeting moderated. Typically, the board chair or vice chair in the chair's absence will recognize you. Please come to the podium, state your name and address, and voice your comment. The time limit for the comments is 3 minutes but may be extended by the moderate to allow questions from the board please maintain a respectful and civil demeanor with all comments and responses to questions. The meeting moderate will signal when individuals time has expired and will call for the next commentator if individual does not respect the time limit speaks out from the audience without being recognized by the moderator. or is disrespectful of the board, they will be subject to removal from the meeting. Once the public comment period has closed by the moderator, further comment from the audience will be deemed out of order and individuals not respecting this will be subject to removal.

One last thing that I would like to add is if you have a cell phone, please silence it. Mr. Bonney.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you read what was dutifully put in front of you, but I would just duly note that some of that is not accurate now, according to the latest in North Carolina law. There is no requirement, to be quite honest. I mean, I know that the board would like it, staff would like it, and prefer it to have respectful civil demeanor and not be disrespectful of the board. But those are not requirements of law, and they would not be subject to having people removed from the meeting. And so I think maybe the staff needs to update the narrative that's given to the chair to reflect more recent court decisions that influence those several factors.

you mr boney mr coleman uh if you get opportunity would you look into this thank you all right Cameron, let's go to number six, new business.

Yes, sir. Of course. As multiple of you, I think, have already looked at and pointed out, there's a little bit of a redundancy inside of here, but we'll go ahead and start off and kind of see on the title page what this is intended to be. But it's a request to rezone a .73-acre lot at 1528 East Hardin Street from R18, what currently is low-density residential, to B2, general commercial, for the purpose of utilizing the existing house and the lot for commercial use. And the land currently falls in the commercial border land use category, which supports the use of commercial growth of strategically located clusters within the NC54 and NC87 corridors. Uses surrounding the property are the wastewater treatment plant directly across the street, vacant land surrounding some single family and the church directly to the right of said property. And there's zoning maps over here associated with this inside of your packet as well, along with the future land use area as well. And that's essentially all I have. I do apologize for those miscommunications and that, but that is what we're requesting here. The applicant is requesting the R18 to be two. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Mr. Brown or representative of Mr. Brown here.

mr brown was duly noted when the application was submitted and did receive public notice as well um that the meeting was here and i also stress the fact of attending in person due to the fact that you all will not make a decision until they are here in person to have a discussion with you all essentially any discussion from the board um do we want to deviate from anything that we've done in the past or

In the past, we always carried over for 30 days and send notice again and hope he shows next month.

Yeah. I think in regards to, like, I don't think we have to resend notice out back to the public, but notice can be made to the property owner that this item was tabled and that we will reconvene at X month's day or X time.

Okay. Mr. Bonick?

Mr. Chairman, just a curiosity a little bit on this item. I do agree with the tack that you're taking, Mr. Chairman, and have often thought that the applicant needs to be present for his item. But I guess my underlying question is, is the applicant allowed to initiate and continue operating in as though he has received either the board or the city council's approval when in fact he has not? I happen to pass that location on the way home most days, and as best I can tell, it's open and operating, even though there's a sign in front of it saying that it's to have a public hearing or to be considered by the planning board. And it just seems to me somebody's kind of got the cart before the horse in this case. Cameron, you want to address that?

Yeah, certainly. The property has received the notice of violation for the existing property out there and in return was required to come and receive these applications for rezoning and are under the understanding if it is not approved, then it will need to meet the notice of violation letter and to do be shut down. In reality, they are kind of exceeding, I guess, that timeline. Of course, they're not supposed to be operating in the R18 area. But they are kind of in line with the requirements of the violation notice being that it needs to be worked towards getting that granted approval for said V2 zoning district. And if it doesn't get approved, then they have to cease operations immediately. And that is fully understand. And this is also tied with an annexation for the property as well to connect to City Sewer.

Thank you. All right. Any further discussion about the what our normal procedure is about carrying it over to next month and anybody like not to carry it over or do they have any thoughts that they would like to be considered.

Chairman how many times has this been table. This is the first time it's been.

If not then I'll make a motion that we move this to next month's agenda item and I ask staff to notify the petition. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you. All right. Let's go to number seven. Public comments on non-agenda items. Does anyone in the audience want to talk about a non-agenda item? If not, I'll go to the board members. Any board members got any non-agenda items? I got a couple that I just briefly would like to talk about. Last month's meeting is just some thoughts for the board to consider in the future. I did watch last month's agenda live when y'all had it and I wasn't here. And I don't know if any of

your decisions were made awful things that were outside of the preview of what a planning board members duty is. And that is to follow the 2035 comprehensive plan and also to follow our zoning ordinances. Not singling any specific person out, but there was three different comments there that I took maybe may have steered a person's vote a different way or may not have. But it's our duty as a planning board to consider the 2035 plan and our zoning ordinance to form our opinion whether it meets zoning or not. If there's a legal issue with a deed, a right-of-way easement, that's not our privy to deny someone approval if that was the case. That's something that's outside of our, that's not something that we would even consider because it's not in our zoning or is it in our 2035 plan. Now, if you did approve something and they don't obtain those easements or if there was a deed issue, title issue, then that's something that the courts would handle between the developer, the landowner, and the city. Um, and so in the future, if you, um, consider that, you know, if you're not sure, ask Brian or if he's here or ask Cameron and maybe they can send us in the right direction. Cause I don't know if it would have changed the boat that night or not. Probably wouldn't, but I just want that to be known that we, we need to consider the 2035 plan along with the zoning ordinances to make our decisions.

All right. Anybody else have any other comments?

Really noted, sir.

No staff comments.

I don't really have anything just to welcome again, Mr. Chevlin onto the planning board. Mr. Chevlin is also currently on our historic resource commission as well. So I would like to, unfortunately, Hey, this was had to be your first meeting with no real action outside of table and something, but you'll kind of, I guess, stick around and see what the board of adjustment is all about. Even as alternates is still good to kind of understand exactly how the board operates and everything along those lines. Outside of that, with this being tabled, until next month, you likely will not see me next month. So we are due in three weeks' time, August 10th. So Jonathan Buckley back here will be leading you all. He is the planner that was hired about close to a year or so ago. So you are in good hands with him. And he will be taking over the reins, at least for the August meeting. I should be back for... the September, October. You might not see me in November if we are to meet them. But I just want to give you a little bit of a heads up. You'll probably be seeing a different face, but Jonathan will take care of you all.

Thank you. If nothing further, I'll make a motion that we adjourn.

So we adjourn.

All in favor? Aye. All right. Thank you, everyone. All right, Cameron, let's get our next process ready for the Board of Adjustments. Is Mr. Shevlin actually going to be on the Board of Adjustments?

Of course, no confusion, though. I guess who is here is being busted. Absolutely. But more than welcome to stay in the crowd, because just in case there is a communication with some folks where somebody needs to come off, we can talk about it then and bring them.

We'll get that first, and then two people, we can bring you up, Mr. Shevlin. Yeah, I missed that step.

Yes, sir.

Okay, July 21st and it's 646. We'll be opening the meeting for the Board of Adjustments. Calling the meeting to order. been quite some time since we had a meeting since 23. So at this time, I'm going to ask anyone that was here in 23 that was on here if they have any changes to the minutes of the 23 meeting, August 15, 2023. If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve them.

So the minutes be approved as presented.

Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. All right, Cameron, let's go to number two, new business.

Yes, sir. So as you can see in front of you in the staff report, we have a request for a variance for the allowance of a larger sign than what is allowed inside of our development ordinance. Attached also in your agenda packet is the draft resolution for the board to consider when making its decision. This draft resolution should be modified as the board sees fit. The board sees fit and is only provided by staff as a template. And again, you'll have pretty much everything that you need to know. We can go into more detail of exactly what is provided to you all whenever we open everything up and get everybody's phone in.

Thank you. This time I want to pull each board member to see if they have any conflicts of interest or if they've any outside communications to anyone or about this particular item.

No, it's about it. Mister Huff. Mister Mister Manish chair Ward hasn't and we know conflicts, no communications. Thank you.

All right.

Let's call. Call the petitioner. And for anyone wanting to testify, you will need to be sworn in. So if we could get everybody sworn in at the same time, it would be great. If you would, come over, too.

Yeah, go ahead. I'm the attorney.

I was planning on writing a testimony.

I was going to say that I was going to start a brief opening and closing statement. Mr. Coleman, I'm on.

Do you swear by the testimony you're about to give today, is it true?

I will try to remember them. I do.

You, Mr. Keith?

No, sir. I'm Ellis Martin. I'm an attorney on behalf of Dollar Tree. And I have with me Mr. Robert Guyette, who's a representative for Dollar Tree as well.

What was his last name?

G-U-Y-E-T-T-E. Thank you. Okay. Okay.

What is your name again, sir?

Ellis Martin.

Thank you. Yes.

Okay. We're here to hear what you've got to present for us. Call your first witness and give us a brief opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like I said, my name is Ellis Martin. I'm an attorney at Fox Rothschild in Greensboro here on behalf of the Dollar Tree. We're here today requesting a variance application for the address 811 South Main Street. Effectively, we're seeking relief from signage limitations for Dollar Tree, and some Dollar Tree would like to be able to put up a sign where its letters are 42 inches tall to make it more visible from the street. Currently, the code permits about approximately 84 signs. square feet of wall signage on the storefront. And what the Dollar Tree proposes is about 131 feet of square feet on the storefront signage. So, you know, I'm not best at math, but about, you know, 50 square feet difference there. Again, those would be 42-inch letters. So, obviously, we acknowledge that exceeds the ordinance's limits. What we're here today about is because that creates a genuine hardship for In our position on Dollar Tree, mainly because Dollar Tree, as you'll hear, does not advertise. Its advertisement is its storefront signage. Just given the limitations of the site, there's very limited ability for consumers as they are passing by to be able to see the signage and then pull in to the Dollar Tree given the location of the signage. the storefront that's kind of wedged back in the center of the shopping center. So without that, those enlarged letters, the large sign, Dollar Tree is going to lose customers. It's going to have a negative impact on Dollar Tree, negative impact on potential revenues generated for the community. In addition, it will have, as you'll hear, their safety concerns also play into this hardship issue, where larger sign gives motorists and consumers more time to see it, more time to think and react before pulling into the Dollar Tree. And so with those in mind, we believe that we have established hardship, and based on the testimony you'll hear, would request that – the request that you uh find the variance criteria has been satisfied and so with that i would uh respectfully like to um have mr guyette testify present testimony thank you mr martin mr martin is that your only witness that you're calling yes sir all right thank you sir mr martin if you would please uh i mean i'm sorry mr guy would you please state your name and address for the record my name is robert guyette

I live at 301 Cape Fear Way, Woodset, North Carolina.

And you're presently on Darut?

Yes. Okay.

All right.

Thank you. quickly describe for us what your role is in this application and your assistance you provide to Dollar Tree?

Sure. I'm the, sorry, I'm the project manager that works for Allen Industries. We produce and install, we facilitate the installation of the signage. Just so they can hear me.

Are you personally familiar with this specific property? Yes, sir. Can you please describe the shopping center where the Dollar Tree is going to be located?

Sure. It's set back quite away from the main road, I believe close to 375 feet. There's also a side entrance, a drive aisle. coming off of West Crescent Square. That leads to the back area where a lot of the housing is, which is probably going to be a lot of customers coming that direction. That's set over 400 feet in that direction. And also the sign band, it's very unique, as you can kind of see up there. To the right, facing the store. That's where Carly C's is located. They have a much taller, wider store footprint. Their signage is well over 200 square feet. The sign bump on the left and right, the parapet walls extend quite a bit. So that sign band is almost recessed. So it makes it even more challenging to see the signage from certain angles. Limits exposure from roadside if you're driving, depending on the direction. So this has been a little bit challenging to find a sign that would fit the sign ban and at the same time provide the proper advertisement the Dollar Tree needs.

Thank you. And going back to the Carleys, I believe you just mentioned, so if this variance was allowed, would the proposed total square footage or the size of the sign the Dollar Tree is proposing, would it be larger than any other signs that are already in that shopping center?

No, based off the surveys that we did, it seems pretty proportionate when you're looking at the linear footprints of other tenants that are in that space. A lot of them have box signs. It seems very proportionate. It doesn't seem anything out of the ordinary. It's aesthetically pleasing.

In terms of the shopping center, can you describe how the shopping center is shaped?

It's shaped at a kind of an angle. So almost, I wouldn't say an L shape, but it's kind of more of a, like a V almost. So the Dollar Tree, unfortunately, it will sit towards the center of that area, which limits the exposure from the roadside.

And so just to clarify, so is it kind of like in the V of that area? Yeah. Okay. How's that going to affect consumers or motorists being able to see it from the adjoining roads.

In my opinion, it will have a pretty large impact, especially if you're driving from certain areas, especially with the way the parapet walls are onto the left and the right of that sign ban.

And would that impact be reduced if the signage were... Would that impact be amplified if the total square footage of the sign is reduced from the proposed application? Yes, absolutely. Can you describe... how that would happen?

Well, it would definitely appear almost, I mean, if it was within code, it's going to be within those architectural designs. They have the trim that's on the wall. It's going to compact it even smaller. which is definitely going to limit visibility, especially come from the roadside. And if people are driving, they're driving by the Carly C's, and that's overpowering. That sign's 200-plus square feet. Your eyes are going to be more going to that versus something that's been tucked away and then recessed.

And going back, just I want to make sure I'm understanding. So from 87, do you know how far set back off the road the signage would be from 87?

We calibrated at about 355 at minimum.

Okay. And about the West Crescent drive?

That would be closer to over 400.

Okay. And is it your understanding that the Dollar Tree does not advertise other than the signage it displays on its storefronts? No, they do not. So in terms of the the Dollar Tree drawing in customers, is the only way it does that by customers seeing the sign as they drive down the street and then turning to the Dollar Tree?

That's how I shop when I go to Dollar Trees.

Would your opinion change if the Dollar Tree was sitting closer to the road, as if it was on the perimeter of the shopping center as opposed to being in the center? in terms of the visibility of the sign?

Absolutely. They wouldn't be requesting, from my experience, anything larger. They always go, there is more of a design, an aesthetic look. They want it to be pleasing and identifiable when they're sitting back over 300 feet. But if they're close to the road sign, they pretty much go with something that's just more aesthetically pleasing.

Would it be fair to say because of the location of the physical property itself and kind of back in the center of the shopping center, that there's a need then for a larger sign than it would be if it was sitting on the perimeter of the shopping center?

Yeah, I have a lot of different projects going on with Dollar Tree, and the only time they ever request a 42-inch letter set is when they're set very far away and they're worried about their customers not being able to identify where they're located.

And just to confirm, can you tell us the total square footage that Dollar Tree is proposing for the sign to have in this variance application?

Yeah, it is overall 131.43. Okay.

And just to clarify, so the Graham's ordinance would be about 83.82 square feet would be the maximum under the ordinance of allowable signage or square footage and signage for the Dollar Tree store. Is that accurate? That's accurate. And is the variance that the Dollar Tree is seeking about 47 square feet?

I'm sorry.

Is the variance that the Dollar Tree is seeking about roughly a little under 50 square feet? Yeah. Can you explain, based on your understanding, the impact of if the Dollar Tree was not allowed to have a larger sign, what that impact would be on the Dollar Tree in terms of the consumers that would learn about the Dollar Tree and that would frequent the Dollar Tree and provide it business?

I mean, it would greatly impact us. Again, going back, looking at the site plan, That drive aisle is not very wide on West Crest Square, which leads to a lot of housing. And a lot of those people are their clientele, the customers that they're looking for. And it's going to be hard to see that with that tiny little gap just driving down towards the main street at 87. And even going down 87, it's impacted because depending on which direction you're coming from, it's going to be difficult to exactly see.

So would it be your opinion that there could be a pretty severe negative impact to the Dollar Tree for having signage that's not at least the 131 or roughly 131 square footage that we were proposing? Yes, greatly impacted. In comparison to other Dollar Trees I think you just mentioned that you have worked with, how does... this variance request compared to other storefront signage square foot.

I mean, usually with the setback, this is not out of the ordinary to propose such a sign at this size, especially the setback from the highway and then the side road going to more of the community. It's right in line with what they normally request and what they get.

And if the Dollar Tree can't attract sufficient customers based on due to a lack of signage, can you go into the impact that could potentially have on the Dollar Tree?

I mean, loss of sales, it impacts the community. Could it force it potentially to leave the space earlier? Possibly. I'm sure everything's calculated based off of how much sales they're getting. I'm sure they have projections that based off of the location and the demographic and the surrounding community, I would assume that they have a certain projection of sales that meet and it's going to be very difficult for them to meet those sales if people don't know that they're in that far corner of the center.

So in terms of the variance request for the hardship aspect for the Dollar Tree, is the hardship aspect, generally speaking, the fact that the current allowance of signing square footage is going to have dramatically severe negative impact on Dollar Tree's ability to advertise and generate consumers and revenue? And does that hardship result from the location where the store is currently located? Yes, given the setback in the location of the center. And did the Dollar Tree have anything to do with that current setback location or where that current, the portioning of the shopping center where the Dollar Tree building will be located? No, they didn't. Has Dollar Tree taken any actions that would result in this hardship being created on themselves? No, they have not. In terms of the current issue with the signs, are there any public safety concerns with having a smaller square footage for the Dollar Tree sign? No.

I would say for motorists, if they're driving down and they're trying to identify the signage and they can't totally see it and they're slowing, I mean, you know, as far as traffic goes, it definitely could be an issue.

So, in other words, if the letters are larger, you're driving down the road, you have more time to see, you have more time to react, not as great a risk of an accident. Is that a fair way to describe it? Yes. I'm going to hand to you this letter and Board members, this is the Clark, Leary, Latham, and your planning board agenda packet. You need to talk to us briefly about this letter that was submitted with the application. Just tell us what it is.

Sure. It was given to me from Tom Clark, one of the lawyers for Dollar Tree. and it was expressing more eloquently than I could issues with hardship that could potentially result in Dollar Tree not getting larger signs and having to abide by the 83 square foot allowance.

And does this letter, does it reflect the safety concerns that you were just discussing with the fact that a lesser square footage can have direct negative impacts on traffic safety? Yes. And specifically to me, I believe, did you say the current setback that the sign would be from the road is right now 280 feet or somewhere around there?

At minimum, yeah, it's going to be close to 300, depending on how you're measuring, because, I mean, the visibility with it at an angle coming out to the main roadway, at minimum, the smallest measure is 350 feet.

And if you'll flip to the second page in that letter, just real quick for me, and go down to the second paragraph, and it's about one, two, three, four lines down, and you see where it says, using these parameters, the decision site distance should be a minimum of 625 feet. Is that reflecting that the typical site distance for motorists, you know, to be able to safely react to something is about, in this kind of situation, is only about 625 feet? That's correct. So... We're given where the Dollar Tree's sign is currently at 280 feet off the road. We're already with, you know, in reduced space. That's correct. And so would that be amplified in terms of the potential danger? Is that going to be amplified then by having a sign that's not, you know, that would conform with the ordinance? In other words, it's not as large as 131 square feet. It would. And would, you know, would having the sign that we're proposing, the Dollar Tree is proposing a total of 131 square feet, would that reduce potential danger, you know, in your opinion, and based on this letter that was submitted with the application to potential motorists?

Sorry.

Yeah, so if the if Dollar Tree were allowed to have a sign based on the current proposal that's about 131 square feet, would that, based on your understanding and this letter that was submitted with the application, would that potentially reduce the potential danger to motorists on the road between seeing the sign and being able to react to it? No, absolutely.

I personally think setbacks should have something to do with square foot of signage. It could be right on the road and still be allowed a larger signage.

And just a thing you said this earlier, did the Dollar Tree have anything to do with creating the current setback 280 feet or roughly 280 feet from the road? Did the Dollar Tree have anything to do in creating how wide that current setback is? No, sir. Did Dollar Tree have anything to do with determining or impacting the shopping center and the building's current orientation? No, sir. Is there anything else we haven't discussed that you think would be relevant to this variance application request? No, sir.

I think we covered a big issue, which was safety and being able to service the community.

Thank you. No further questions at this time?

Mr. Guy. Sorry. Does anybody from the board here want to ask him any follow-up questions of his testimony?

I have a question there for you. Yes, sir. I know where the Charlie Seas is, and I think beside, is this where you're proposing this to go beside the Charlie Seas? There's a bin store there now, isn't it?

Yes, there was. Yeah.

So this is a location you're talking. Okay, sir. That's why I wanted to make sure.

Just a point of clarification as well. Just make sure your mics are on and you're talking into your mics as well.

Okay.

Sorry.

You're good.

Mr. Huffman? You're not ready. I got quite a few. Mr. Banesh?

Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, can you give me the approximate length of time that Dollar Tree has been at this location?

They haven't been there. That's a future tenant.

Do you possibly have a comparison of the amount of business sales compared to another location that Dollar Tree has similar in the same type situation?

Square footage. I did not have numbers on me. lot of the tenant spaces when they're going into shopping centers, they vary. That's not something I get to.

Just curious.

Sure.

That's it for now.

Mr. Wooden?

Yeah, just a comment of clarification. I noticed in the packet that the Address is listed as 811, which I believe is the correct address. But all the information that is in the packet related from Allen Industries shows 813.

That's a wrong packet. We had to submit several times and got rejected several times until we got the correct address.

So we just want to make sure that we're talking about the same place, make sure it is consistent. Absolutely. Also, you made a comment about The sign that you're requesting is similar in size to the other signage that's in the shopping center currently. And the question is this, the ordinance as I see it, it says 10% of the wall space. So I'm not sure. We may be talking apples to oranges here as far as size goes pertaining to the size of the wall that's available to the other businesses in Lear. So there's also a comment that you made about the... the loss of business that would accrue because of not having a larger sign. Do you have any factual data that would verify that from other stores or anything that would speak to that? I'm looking for something other than just opinion. I'm looking for hard data. Sure, look for evidence. Evidence, yes.

Mr. Wooten, we don't have any of that. We don't have specific data with us currently here, and I can certainly check on that. We'd be happy to, if we had that or if we could potentially procure that, I'm happy to look into that and get back to you.

No questions at the moment.

Mr. Guyatt, one of your testimony today that you gave, you said the impact greatly. I know Mr. Wooten asked you in... Are you an employee of Allen Industries, Dollar General? Who are you employed for? I work for Allen Industries. Okay. So do you have any evidence that you would like to share with us that would show us the impact? Because you testified it would impact greatly the sales, loss of sales, the safety. Do you have any evidence that you can show me or lead me to that would allow me to see that?

No, man. Yeah. Well, I'm speaking on just common sense. If I'm driving down a road, sign is set back 400 feet. The drive is very sign. I'm not going to be able to see that sign and be able to react accordingly. Just an observation of a motorist, somebody who drives.

And what evidence do you have that shows me that that sign is 400 feet off the road other than you? Testify into that.

I mean, we've done surveys at the shopping center. Do you have one available? I don't have the survey with me now. Even Google images, you can kind of calibrate from the start of where the sign band is and you can get a pretty accurate measurement from there to the curb or the right of way. And that's some of the different measurements that we were taking as well, calculating different angles because it's set back and then it's angled out. So you're not going to get an accurate angle from going straight on at a right angle. So we did it a little bit further off. And it was about 355, 360. The road sign on West Crescent Square, that's even further.

And Mr. Martin, was you proposing to introduce the letter from Mr. Clark as evidence?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. And I was actually getting ready to want to just say briefly in that letter that the letter does reflect On the back page, it does reflect that there's at least a 280-foot setback from the road, and we would request that all of the exhibits that were included in the agenda packet be admitted as exhibits into evidence.

But there's nobody here from Mr. Clark or from the engineering firm that can validate the validity of this letter?

Unfortunately, nobody from Mr. Clark. But Clark was able to attend today's hearing on this letter was used in the matter change the letter was used to to create this application has been reviewed believe Mister guy at you testify that he has seen the letter before he understand you know it is an accurate copy letter that was made along with the application.

Thank you. Mister. Guy had other than your testimony about the impact and loss of sales and and the safety. Are you testifying today that the unnecessary hardship would result in if we followed the ordinance to the strict application that it would hinder your representative though of Dollar Tree I guess you're representing Dollar Tree that it would hinder them from actually being able to conduct business.

You're saying conduct business. I mean, anybody can conduct business. I think they want to be profitable and they want to be able to service the community as best possible and service the most people that they can.

Mr. Chairman, if I could just add on to that. Our position is that, again, Dollar Tree only advertises. It's been their business model for a long time. There's no Google ads. There's no advertising on TV, magazines. It is just that sign is what you get on that storefront. That's all you see. You know, you're driving down the road, you see, typically it's kind of, you know, by chance shoppers that, you know, as I'm sure we've all been to a Dollar Tree or Dollar General, that you see that sign, realize, oh, I need a, you know, pack of toothpaste, you know, or something, some soap, and I whip in there, you know, and get that. So that's the only way they advertise. And so our position is that, particularly in this situation, when you have a location, you know, that is set back kind of in a V, very far away from the road, you know, close to, you know, football field length or more in some areas that you're not going to see, that's going to be very hard to see. So when you're passing that, that's going to obviously you're, because that you're not going to get that customer back. That customer doesn't see it. They're going on down the road and, you know, uh, there's no way that they're not going to, there's not going to be another sign. There's not going to be another type of advertisement, you know, in a paper or anything where they're going to see that Dollar Tree, know it's there and they can pull in. So our position is that yes, as you just indicated, it's going to have a tremendous, you know, it's going to have a significant impact on revenue because customers aren't going to be able to see that sign and are not going to know that, Hey, there's Dollar Tree there and I can pull into it.

Thank you.

Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, just a few questions, but I, I, would be specific to Dollar Tree personnel that I don't think is represented here. So, Mr. Gayette, in their absence, does Dollar Tree own the shopping center? No. Has Dollar Tree entered into a lease for this space?

I don't know if the lease has been signed. Usually, I get notified in a different

format i don't remember seeing do we know the actual basis for the wall frontage upon which the 10 calculation was attributed to let me say it a different way do we know the actual amount of wall frontage that dollar tree proposes to lease from the shopping center owner uh

It is measured at 47 feet. I received a rendering, and I don't know if it was originally measured from within the lease line, within the building, because it's hard to tell with the way those parapet walls kind of intrude a little bit on there. I mean, it is smooth. It's not coming in at like an angle necessarily. They're smooth and flat on both sides, but... We're operating under 47 feet, and I believe that is what the tenant space is.

Is that of the width of the bay you're leasing, 47 feet wide?

Not the width of the sign ban. It's the width of the tenant space is 47 feet.

Width of the tenant space is 47 feet. And so from that tenant space extended to the front facade, is that where the boundaries of the basis – or the denominator in this fraction is coming from, originating from. You may want to discuss that with your council, Mr. Chairman, just to determine if we do in fact have an accurate basis of wall frontage.

Wow. As far as the tenant space, the city planner, I believe, went to the site, and he was the one that caught a mismatch.

You're speaking to Mike McClure. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, sir. No. So the city planner, Cameron, he actually went to site and he measured and he actually let us know that the original measurements that we were provided was a little bit larger than what was being proposed or lesser than what was being proposed. So we fixed it and changed it to 47, which is an accurate measurement of the Lease line. And do we know how tall the building is? 17 feet from Dollar Tree's building. The parapet wall is going to be a lot higher on both sides, which kind of overtower the sign ban.

Do we know the square footage of those parapet walls from the lease lines?

I don't have those measurements on me, but I don't have that with me. I don't want to guess, but it was 25 to 27 feet, I believe, the height of the parapet wall is going for Charlie Seas.

I just have one more question, Mr. Chairman. Has Dollar General seen this location? I'm sorry, Dollar Tree seen this location and is aware of where the proposed lease space is located?

I believe so.

Okay. Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything to add further.

And Mr. Hoffman, if I could just touch on one of your questions earlier. My understanding there is, I don't have a copy of the lease with us, but my understanding there is a written lease or a lease agreement for this location.

Any further questions for the petitioner? Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

I need I want to ask legal counsel some questions if you would just give me just a second sure Mister Coleman.

If there's not a. I was going to say I don't know if Mister Coleman is not I guess representing on behalf of the board up here at some we didn't really discuss this but we did try and attempt to get legal counsel for you all we had a plan but they were not able to attend tonight so you all are kind of working under your own purview over here essentially some.

I just want to know if they have standing for a variance if you don't have a lease in front of us. If they have standing to ask for a variance.

That's the point I was saying. If you have a lease, do not ask me.

Okay. Cameron was the city got anything they would like to add to this.

Yeah, I mean, I think I can kind of go through similar to essentially what they did. I can go through kind of our finding of facts over here, kind of from start to finish listing out pretty much everything that was associated with said document. You know, the finding of facts that we had over here is, you know, the property is subject, that is subject to the various requests. As stated, it is 811 South Main Street, GPIN 888-319-5732. It's currently zoned B2 General Business and falls inside of the South Main Overlay District. I mean, you can find that, the first exhibit there. The building addressed, 811 South Main Street, is currently a vacant commercial space looking to be occupied by Dollar Tree. um the minimum wall side requirements um in the south main overlay district states that the maximum total uh area of allowable wall sign shall be equal to no more than ten percent of the area of the wall for which such sign is a part or to which each such sign is attached as shown in section 10.442 of the city gram development ordinance that can be another exhibit inside of there I'm free to see and the plan shows that 10% of the wall coverage as they say that is 83.82 square feet. The sign application is proposing 131.43 square feet, clearly stating that the proposed signage is greater than 10% of the wall coverage allowed required by the development ordinance. And I will hit back on what Mr. Guyette said. I did not personally go out and measure the building itself, but it was all essentially, I guess, discussed with the whoever submitted the plans over to me with an understanding of the length and width that's attached there. I don't know why it shows on here that they're just question marks, but city staff was content with the square footage that was proposed on here as shown was on the plans that it met the requirements of our ordinance or met the standards of what our ordinance was for the size requirement. So just touching on that. And then moving forward, the sign permit, of course, was submitted to the city based on the sign plans that were provided to you and required by the variance requirement for signage. It requires it to be denied before they can first submit an application. That is also inside of your packet as well, referencing that the surplus display does not meet the 10% requirement. And the application for variance was filed with me, the planner, on June 29, 2026. And the applicant, again, provided supporting documentation along with the application, including the legal letter that was provided, zoning information, and some other documentation. And leading on to, I guess, the draft conclusions of law that come through here, of course, it's just talking about the variance and everything. But I'd like to go through, I guess, staff's understanding of the current hardships associated with it. One of the hardships talks about unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that in the absence of the variance. No reasonable use can be made of the property. I mean, we are essentially arguing that under the strict application of the ordinance, the property owner would have to redraw the sign plans to meet the 10% coverage requirement. And a sign could still occupy this space and would not, I guess, leave no reasonable use that can be made of the property. A dollar tree could still occupy inside of that space with the reduced signage. That's meeting the 10% requirement of all the other areas inside of the shopping center as well. And then we got hardships result from the conditions are peculiar to the property such as location size topography hardships resulting from personal circumstances as well as hardships resulting from granting or from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or to the general public may not be the basis for granting a variance. Again in the size of the wall is currently large enough to allow for that 10% to be coverage and I mean it mentions you know, that are common to the neighborhood or general public, all the other facilities inside of there are required to meet that 10% requirement for it as well. And one could also make an argument, I guess, that they also in their sign plans that were provided to you all there is a... a sign that is being included. Sorry about this on the front side of the monument sign where there's going to be a dollar tree sign location located in place there as well. So again can took killer to the properties such as location size or topography. There's existing location for signage to be placed in the visible area along the along the strip of South Main Street. And another thing that I was going to bring up as well was I guess the validity of the the motorist kind of actions, but I believe they hit on that with the documentation that was provided in the legal letter of if anybody had, I guess, actual expertise in the topic. I know I do not. So I could not argue on or before or on or for that behalf. Next, moving forward, hardships do not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as self-created hardship. And again, the size requirement was kind of known ahead of time an application was submitted, knowing that the sign would not meet the ordinance requirements. Therefore, it could be argued that an unnecessary hardship was taken by the applicant because the knowledge, I guess, that there is nothing, I guess, that could justify granting of a variance upon purchasing the property. So I think that would not, that hardship would not result from or would result from actions taken by the applicant. And lastly, the request of variance is consistent with the purpose, spirit, and intent of the ordinance such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. And following up, the request will allow for a larger sign than what is allowed to be placed on the building inside of a shopping center. And this could set precedent for other businesses inside and out of the area to request increases that aren't in line with the intent of the development ordinance and also that South Main Street overlay district as well. And one thing I guess I will kind of, Question, I guess, is there's a lot of discussion about, I guess, having to look at the sign and not being able to turn into the area. Just as a thought during it, if you were to pull up, I guess, and look at the overview, there is a stop sign right there at the intersection of West Crescent, as they have described. where you can make a right-hand turn and then turn back into the shopping center, into the parking area, where then also could be access to that Dollar Tree. So when you see it on the front side signage there on the monument sign, and even if you do get a chance to glance to your right and see the Dollar Tree sign from the road, I would argue that there's still the ability to stop and turn at a further area, not exactly at that first turn way inside of there. And I think there is a zoning map you can kind of see inside of here um the highway 87 overlay district this is the area that i'm referencing right here at this turn lane i don't know if there's any overlay so yeah this is the visual i guess from here the two driveway entrances so there are multiple points to get in here um that can be viewed if it was that you're not having to make an abrupt stop you still have time to turn um and go inside of there and i think that would include unless other council has specific cross-examination questions for me.

You got any further?

Nothing this time, Your Honor. I keep saying Your Honor. Mr. Chairman, sorry.

Okay.

Questions from the board here to staff. Randy.

Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I have one. Okay. Cameron, does the eight square feet on the shopping center street sign deduct from the 10% rule? Or is that a completely separate and different item from this?

So that will be a completely separate sign. Currently, that sign is likely a non-conforming sign that is grandfathered in. And our ordinance states that the, what is it called, the routine maintenance and replacement of said signs is not required to even be permitted, I believe. So that one doesn't really take into consideration with their application. But I think the bigger picture is the large sign on the wall.

Okay, so I'm going to ask you a question regarding the street signs, just to be clear. So that is not an issue for Dollar Tree. They will have a presence on Highway 87. They can change the sign blank without losing the acceptability of the non-conforming sign.

That's correct, sir.

Okay, thank you. And then, Mr. Chairman, I was just doing some quick review myself. So if there is a time for comment among... For discussion amongst each other. I'll be glad to provide that.

Any further questions to staff?

Just a quick question. With regard to number seven that you just went through, speaking about precedent. Yes, sir. Do we have any variances for signage in that shopping center currently? No, sir. And if so, would they be relevant to this discussion?

There are none that I'm aware of. No, sir. No existing variant signs inside of there or applications or requests. I think if there were and they were approved, again, they could be used as a basis if the arguments were similar to what was provided before. That precedent, I guess, essentially was set that a previous board may have viewed this to be a, I guess, hardship due to the roadway area, but that does not mean that you all have to view it in the same manner. I think... It would not impact it, but it could validate it, I guess, if it were there and you had that thought process, per se.

No further questions and no other testimony that you guys would like to give. I'm going to ask you one more time. Do you have any other evidence that you want to present?

No, we have no further evidence.

Okay, I will entertain a motion to close the testimony.

So moved.

No arguments presented. I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Now we'll go to discussion.

Ready for your...

Okay, Mr. Chairman. So in the absence of any basis or frontage calculations, we have absolutely no way to determine what the actual permissible 10% amount is. All we have is a document submitted in evidence that has question marks for the bay width. We do believe from testimony it is 47 feet wide, and we do believe that it may be 18 feet, but it is clearly... articulating vertically. So we don't know what the actual dimension for basis of calculation is. Additionally, in just some quick rudimentary calculations, a sign that's 35 inches tall and 29 feet long, 35 inches tall by 29 feet long would fit within the 84 approximate square feet that is purported to be the basis or the 10% calculation. The presentation demonstrates a three foot six high lettering by 37 feet six and five eighths inches. So I do believe that if we have an exact Dollar Tree lettering, but the absence of the actual frontage of these areas, we cannot make a determination what to do. I will pause just for a minute.

Mr. Bailey, do you have any comment?

Well, my question or my position basically is enough legal documentation to show the evidence to establish a substantial hardship. We don't know As Mr. Huffine says, the correct or necessary dimensions that we're working with to see if there's a legal precedent to make the sign bigger, I guess you would put it that way. I just don't have enough in front of me to establish any kind of decision on it.

Now there's two kiosks there and two presses there. And there's two kiosks there. And so that won't take away from the, okay. Mr. Wooden?

Yeah. Let me ask you one other question. Mr. Chairman, did I hear correctly? There's also a, like a, another sign out front. On Main Street. On Main Street. I was aware of that. I saw that. So, okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Wooden?

Looking at the four requirements that we're supposed to consider, I'm not seeing that those are really being met. Yeah. There's still a lack of hard data. evidence for the hardship that would be created by having a smaller sign. I just, I don't see that. And then Dollar Tree was aware of the sign restrictions, the size restrictions. So I'm just not seeing these hardship requirements being met. What I'm hearing is mostly opinion. Hard fact. Very viable fact.

That's exactly where I was fixing to go with it, is that the Board of Adjustments can only consider evidence and not opinions. And we have a letter from an engineer who knew that this was on for tonight, but he's not here that we can cross-examine him. We've heard testimony that it impacts Ann greatly and the loss of sales, but there's no evidence that supports it other than an opinion. We've also had testimony about the safety. There's no traffic study that has been done and talked about the cars that go by and what the speeds are and How long that stoplight's there at Main Street and Crescent Drive is before it rotates from red to green, which could have been brought before us. It would have been evidence. And furthermore, I find it hard to believe that no reasonable use can be made of this property if we don't allow the variance for the sign. I don't see how we could approve that. Mr. Huffons, do you have anything further?

I think so. Just giving a little bit of light onto the peculiar geometric shape of the shopping center. It is common to all of us in Graham that pass by there every day that it is an odd shape if you're tucked down in the middle. And the topography is unique in that it is significantly higher than the street, so it's highly visible. I would just consider that there's certainly a viable option for a commensurate sign of appropriate dimension according to current city ordinances that is almost identical, approximately 80% scale, And in the absence of just some dimensional facts, it's really difficult to grant a variance without it.

I heard a comment.

I'd like to make a motion then. I'd like to make a motion that the variance

And you have a page number I get it.

But I'd like to make a motion now. But the variance of the R 26 of one dollar tree signage. They was presented before the board of adjustments today July 21st 2026 that it be denied based on the following facts. The property is the subject of a variance request of 8 11 South Main Street gpn number 8, 8, 8, 3, 1, 9, 5, 7, 3, 2 is own general business be too and falls inside the South main overlay district. The building addressed 8 11 South Main Street is vacant commercial space looking to be occupied by dollar tree. The minimum wall signage requirement in the South Main Street overlay district states the maximum total area area of allowable wall sign shall be equal to no more than 10% of the area of the wall of which such sign is part or to which each such sign is attacked as shown in section 10 point 4, 4, 2 of the city Graham development ordinance exhibit number 2. And before the plan now shows 10% of the wall coverage is 83.82 square feet. The sign the applicant is proposing is 131.43 square feet. Clearly stating that the proposed signage is greater than 10% of the wall coverage allowed required by the development ordinance in 3. Number five, a sign permit was submitted to the city based on the sign plans provided, Exhibit 3, and were denied by staff on 6-22-26, referencing that the surface display does not meet 10% requirement. Exhibit number four. Number six, the applicant for variance was filed with the planner on June the 29th, 2026. Exhibit number five, the applicant provided supporting documentation along with the application, which included a legal letter, zoning information, and other documentations. Exhibit number six. Conclusion of law. The applicant for variance in case number VR-1802

My apologies, 2601.

It's 2601 there. It's properly before the Board of Adjustments who has such jurisdiction to hear and determine this application. The Board of Adjustments as constituted at the hearing is fair and impartial board without conflicts or ex parte communications.

Number three.

variance from zoning requirements can be allowed by the board of adjustments for the reasons set out in section 10.97 2 of the city of graham's development ordinance number four unnecessary hardship will result from the strict application of the ordinance it shall not be necessary to demonstrate that the absence of the variance no reasonable use can be made of this property Under the strict application of this ordinance, the property owner would redraw the sign plans to meet the 10% coverage requirement for the sign. A sign could still occupy this space. The hardship resulted from conditions that are particular to the property as such size or topography hardships resulting from personal circumstances as well of hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or general public may not be the basis for granting a variance. The size of the wall is currently large enough to allow for a sign to meet the 10% coverage requirement. Number six. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as self-created hardship. The size requirement was known ahead of time and the application was submitted knowing that the sign would not meet the ordinance requirements, therefore creating unnecessary hardship taken by the applicant. The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance. Such public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. The request will allow for a larger sign That's what's allowed to be placed on the building inside of the shopping center. This could set a precedent for other businesses inside and out of the area to request increases that are in line with the intent of the development ordinance. Are not in line.

That are not in line. Excuse me for interrupting.

That are not in line with the intent of the development ordinance. So under the decision for the reasons above, stated above, the Board of Adjustments denies the variance that is subject of this application. And that was my motion. Do I hear a second?

I second. I believe everybody.

All right. All in favor? Aye. Does anyone oppose? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Butler. Thank you.

All right. Number three on our agenda item is any public comment on non-agenda items? I have none. And does the board members have any? I said public. You're right. Sorry. Anything from staff?

Nothing that I haven't already mentioned, so I appreciate y'all's time and patience tonight.

If not, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you.