Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate Highway 92 sign ordinance; board told ordinance update could take months
Summary
County planners told commissioners on Oct. 7 that an ALC Veterinary Properties appeal seeks a variance from the Highway 92 overlay requirement that freestanding signs be fully encased in masonry; commissioners debated whether to deny variances while the sign code is revised or to fast‑track a narrow change.
The Cherokee County Board of Commissioners discussed an appeal on Oct. 7 from ALC Veterinary Properties asking for a variance to the Highway 92 Village overlay sign rules so it could replace a nonconforming pylon sign with a freestanding sign that meets height and area limits but not the overlay’s masonry surround requirement.
County planning staff described the request as an appeal of a Zoning Board of Appeals denial of a variance to Article 16 of the Highway 92 overlay district. Staff said the proposed sign meets size and height constraints but would not have the required full masonry surround; the overlay is more restrictive than the countywide sign ordinance and requires the masonry wrap.
Commissioners debated whether to grant a variance while the county works on a broader unified development code (UDC) update. One commissioner said granting piecemeal variances while the ordinance is being updated would be “counterproductive” and expressed a preference to deny the variance until a code revision is complete. Another commissioner who said he works in masonry argued the ordinance should be changed and asked how fast staff could prepare a targeted amendment. Planning staff said a narrowly scoped amendment could be prepared and advertised in roughly one to two months, while a comprehensive rewrite could take longer (staff estimated several months to a year depending on scope and pace).
Several commissioners supported pursuing a narrowly targeted text amendment that would address the masonry surround requirement for monument/freestanding signs (for example requiring masonry on two sides or a masonry base rather than a full wrap), and staff said they could fast‑track a narrowly scoped change if that was the board’s direction. Commissioners also noted other sign issues in the overlay (height limits, wall signs, and nonconforming features such as inflatable advertising) and cautioned that changes could have a domino effect if not considered comprehensively.
At the work session the board did not take a final vote on the specific variance application; the discussion focused on how quickly the board wanted staff to prepare ordinance amendments and whether to continue to require monument‑style surrounds in the Highway 92 overlay while revisions are drafted.
Why it matters: The decision affects the design standards that apply to businesses along Highway 92 and could influence future sign permitting and appeals for other businesses in the overlay district.
