Lexington County Board of Zoning Appeals denies variance for 20-foot electronic sign at Gaston used-car lot

LEXINGTON COUNTY, S.C. — The Lexington County Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny a request for a 20-foot electronic sign with expanded changeable-copy area at 4953 Highway 321 in Gaston on Sept. 18, saying the applicant had not satisfied the four criteria required for a zoning variance.

Staff presented the request from applicant Isaac Edmonds of To Go Tees and Signs on behalf of 321 Auto Sales And Service. Cameron Golden, a zoning assistant with Lexington County, told the board the parcel (TMS 010100-03-007) is zoned Intensive Development, lies in Council District 1 and falls within Scenic Corridor 3 of the Lexington County landscape and open-space ordinance. The county’s sign code limits freestanding sign height to 10 feet and limits changeable copy to 60 square feet; the applicant sought to increase the height to 20 feet and the changeable-copy area to 96 square feet.

"The current sign was not permitted by our office and does not qualify as a legal nonconformity," Golden said during his presentation. Staff showed site photos, a site plan that complies with the 10-foot setback from the right of way, and said the existing sign face had been damaged and the owner wished to replace it with an LED display.

Applicant Isaac Edmonds said the sign structure and foundation are sound and that engineering drawings were provided to staff. "We just wanted to make sure we were complying," Edmonds said. He and the owner, Chad Argo, said the business has lacked a roadside presence for roughly six months and that visibility from U.S. 321 is poor because the lot sits close to the roadway and is crowded with vehicles.

"A 10-foot sign on that property . . . would not be visible from 321," owner Chad Argo said, adding that the pole and foundation have been in place for three decades. Argo and Edmonds noted neighboring businesses on the corridor have taller or larger signs and said they wanted consistent signage in the area.

County staff explained that some signs along the corridor may be older, permitted or otherwise nonconforming, and that the county does not maintain an amortization schedule requiring timed removal of nonconforming signs. Staff also emphasized that because the sign on the site was never permitted it could not be treated as a lawful nonconforming sign and that a variance would therefore be required to change the sign’s size or message technology.

Board members discussed the competing considerations: sympathy for the visibility problems of a roadside business and concern about applying a scenic-corridor ordinance that county council adopted to preserve corridor character. One board member said the fact the sign was never permitted "carry some weight" in the decision.

A motion to deny the variance — phrased "I would move to deny the variance because the applicant has not met each of the 4 criteria" — was seconded and approved by roll call. The recorded votes were in favor of the motion to deny by the five board members called: Timothy Brown Scott (in favor), Debbie Haim (in favor), Kevin Eubanks (in favor), Keith Moore (in favor), and Bruce Inocente (in favor). The motion carried, and the variance request was denied.

The record shows staff provided background on the scenic-corridor requirements and on nonconforming-sign provisions, and the applicant and owner presented engineering drawings and photographs. The transcript contains an inconsistency in the requested changeable-copy square footage (staff referenced both 96 and 98 square feet in different remarks); the application materials and applicant testimony consistently referenced 96 square feet. The transcript does not record any further formal directions to staff about next steps.

The board moved on to routine business after the vote; the transcript does not record any additional action on the 4953 Highway 321 sign request at that meeting.