Planning board recommends UDO sign maintenance amendment to clarify digital‑sign rules

The New Hanover County Planning Board voted unanimously Sept. 4 to recommend a maintenance amendment to the county’s Unified Development Ordinance that modernizes sign-related provisions and adds explicit rules for digital signage.

The amendment, presented by Planning Director Rebecca Rolfe, is intended to “clarify provisions related to digital signs” and to restructure sign regulations so they are easier to find and administer, Rolfe said. The board’s recommendation sends the amendment to the Board of Commissioners for final consideration at the county’s first October meeting.

The proposed changes arose from a staff audit of the UDO’s sign sections after the 2020 UDO adoption, Rolfe told the board. Staff cited three drivers for the update: advances in sign technology, changes in state law that limit local regulation of nonconforming signs, and federal court rulings that struck down sign standards based on content. Rolfe said the amendment is a maintenance update, not a change in underlying policy direction from the commissioners.

Key provisions in the draft, as described by Rolfe and shown in the staff report, include new definitions and measurement graphics, clarified illumination standards and maximum luminance levels for digital displays (with proposed limits more closely aligned to City of Wilmington practice), and a statement limiting flashing or moving illumination unless required for accessibility. The draft also restructures sign references across multiple ordinance sections so users can find standards and procedures in one place.

The draft makes explicit how legal nonconforming signs will be identified. As revised after public comment, the amendment would treat signs that were demonstrably compliant with standards in force at the time of construction as legal nonconformities even if a permit cannot be located; signs that rely on permits issued in error would not be considered legal nonconformities, Rolfe said.

Staff also proposed exempting small temporary residential signs (including many political signs) from permit requirements when displayed for short durations, clarifying how sign distance triangles are measured on private roads, and updating enforcement and permit references. During the August public comment window (Aug. 13–26), staff received one phone question and one emailed comment; staff revised language to address those concerns before tonight’s hearing.

Board members asked questions about how content neutrality is determined, how frequently sign permits are issued, and whether the amendment anticipates future technologies such as signs with audio. Rolfe said content neutrality typically means a standard that applies regardless of the sign’s message (for example, “no greater than 12 square feet” is content neutral, while a rule that applies only to “real estate” signs is not). She also said staff updated proposed maximum luminance to align with local standards and noted that technologies continue to evolve, which is the motive for a maintenance amendment rather than ad hoc interpretations.

Planning Board member Hippel moved to recommend approval of the draft amendment, finding it consistent with the 2016 comprehensive plan and reasonable in the public interest; a second was called and the motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

The planning board’s approval is advisory; the Board of Commissioners will review and make the final decision at its October meeting.