New Hanover County planning staff presented a maintenance update to the countys sign regulations that would add explicit rules for digital signs, clarify how the ordinance is applied and make the standards content-neutral.

The proposal, summarized by Rebecca (planning staff), would preserve current size and height limits while adding distinct illumination and operational rules for electronic changeable copy. "What we have prepared for your consideration on Monday is just a maintenance update to our current sign regulations," Rebecca said, explaining staff had reorganized and clarified language and added provisions specific to digital signs.

The change responds to repeated questions from businesses, residents and the sign industry about how current standards apply to newer technologies. Rebecca told the board staff had worked with the county attorney and had aligned the rewrite with state law and accepted legal principles about sign regulation: "One of the other major provisions... is making sure that our sign standards are considered to be content neutral. Basically, what that means is you shouldn't have to read what a sign says to understand what standards apply to that sign."

Board members and staff also discussed several specific enforcement and legacy issues. Commissioners asked whether the amendment would make particular existing signs conforming; Rebecca said staff had not proposed changes that would retroactively legalize signs that are out of compliance. The board heard the example of a Market Street property owned by Jeffrey Rothen: staff said his sign had received a permit in error, the board of adjustment denied a variance two years ago, and the county entered into a temporary contractual arrangement that expired this summer. Rebecca said: "We, as staff, have not proposed any changes to sign standards along Market Street that would make this sign conforming as part of this amendment." She added that if the board wanted to change standards for Market Street the planning office would research that option.

Commissioners pressed staff about prior permit mistakes and what remedies the county had used. Rebecca said staff had sometimes negotiated time-limited agreements to allow property owners to recoup investment and move toward compliance, and that in other cases the board of adjustment had approved variances. A commissioner noted the county had administratively given at least two property owners extended time after mistaken permits were issued.

The draft ordinance also addresses newer issues staff encountered in national and regional surveys. Rebecca said the draft would treat audio-equipped exterior signs as disallowed unless the audio was required for ADA accessibility: "For now, what staff have proposed is that an audio component, unless it is required for some sort of accessibility component to be compliant with ADA, we would not allow." The draft sets operational limits for electronic changeable copy; a commissioner referenced the drafts timing rules: "Yeah. 8 seconds. And I think the lag is 2 seconds."

Sign-industry feedback has begun to arrive. Rebecca said staff met with Mr. Gravick of the sign industry and had received additional suggestions and would share those with the board: "I think he had some ideas related to digital signs that he may be providing comments to you about."

Staff emphasized the amendment is intended to reduce ambiguity in future permitting rather than to automatically relitigate past permits. Rebecca told the board that, in places where the countys earlier amortization language had been removed, current statute gives certain protections to legally nonconforming signs and that the draft seeks to clarify how those protections are applied.

The board did not take a vote on changes at the meeting; staff said the full proposal will be presented at the upcoming meeting for consideration and that legal counsel will be consulted on enforcement options for individual violations.

If the board wants to alter corridor-specific limits (for example, Market Street) or adopt industry-provided modifications, Rebecca said staff can analyze and return with draft language.

The planning office recommended the board review the packet materials and stakeholder comments prior to the Monday hearing so staff can address questions then.