The primary topic of contention was a damaged pole sign for Dunkin Donuts, currently owned by RHC. The sign had been damaged for over 190 days, prompting a review under city code section 34-450, which mandates that non-conforming signs must be removed or rebuilt if repair costs exceed 50% of the replacement cost. Despite the ongoing operation of the Dunkin Donuts business, the sign’s non-compliance raised questions about cost-effectiveness and regulatory adherence.

During the meeting, representatives from RHC and a planning department official discussed the specifics of the sign’s compliance. A representative named Christian confirmed that non-conforming signs should not be reerected unless brought into compliance. Walter Ammeral from RHC testified that rebuilding the existing sign was more cost-effective than replacing it with a monument sign, which would incur costs ranging from $30,000 to $40,000, compared to $4,000 to $5,000 for merely replacing the sign face. Mr. Patel, another representative, reiterated the structural integrity of the current sign.

The magistrate emphasized the need for written estimates, as verbal figures were not sufficient to assess compliance. It was determined that the parties involved must return for a subsequent hearing scheduled for July 23rd with concrete estimates and a clear plan of action.

Another discussion centered around the Austin Surf Shop, where a non-conforming sign had been removed for over 180 days, necessitating its permanent removal under local regulations. The shop’s representatives, unaware of the requirement to remove the pole, expressed their willingness to comply but noted challenges due to the timing of notifications and the owner’s personal circumstances. The magistrate stressed the importance of adhering to the removal directive, given the sign’s discontinued status.

In a similar case, a local business owner faced issues with a sign damaged by a tornado years prior. The magistrate clarified that the sign structure, including the poles, was in violation due to the absence of the sign for over 180 days. Despite the owner’s argument that the pole had been compliant previously, the city’s current code no longer allowed for new pole signs, and the grandfathering provision was void due to the sign’s absence.

The magistrate and the business owner debated the feasibility of replacing the pole with a monument sign, given the space constraints between the sidewalk and the building. While the magistrate suggested adequate space existed, the owner contended that the photographs presented were misleading. Community members offered financial support to help the business comply, yet the magistrate maintained that the pole must be removed by July 23rd. The owner was granted an extension to gather evidence on the feasibility of a monument sign.