Board of Adjustment denies variance for Albany County electronic message sign at courthouse

The Albany County request to place an electronic message center (EMC) on the county courthouse lawn was denied by the Board of Adjustment in a 5‑0 vote with one recusal and one absence.

Staff summarized the application as a variance request because EMCs are not permitted by right in the downtown commercial (DC) zoning district. Staff also noted the board must secure a majority of the full body (four affirmative votes) to grant a variance. The applicant presented three sign options: the originally requested approximately 70‑square‑foot EMC and two smaller alternatives each roughly 65 square feet with proposed structure heights of about 7.5 feet and 6 feet 4 inches above the planter, respectively.

Jake, the county’s applicant representative and county engineer, said the county had submitted smaller alternatives after the commission’s earlier review but would maintain the original request absent direction. He also said the project was tied to an approved grant and that staff intended to use awarded funds before the grant deadline.

Several commissioners raised safety and precedent concerns. Commissioner Donald questioned how effective EMCs are compared with other outreach methods; Joseph and Chris expressed concern about setting a local precedent and whether the variance would be defensible if other downtown properties applied for similar signs. One commissioner explicitly raised public‑safety concerns about sightlines, noting mature cottonwood trees and the sign’s proximity to intersections could create visual distraction for westbound traffic. Staff responded that similar signs exist in tree‑lined locations elsewhere and that the county location borders a business zoning district where such signs would be allowed by right.

Commissioners also discussed historic‑character considerations. Staff said the sign would not be affixed to or alter the historic courthouse structure and that any required state historic preservation review (SHPO) would be addressed, but some commissioners said a modern EMC still altered the visual character of the courthouse lawn.

A motion to approve the variance as submitted was on the floor, was seconded, and was then put to roll call. The roll call recorded five “no” votes, one recusal (Schneider) and one absence (Pacino); the variance failed.

The applicant may choose to pursue a different site, submit a new application reflecting smaller scale or different siting, or explore non‑variance locations where EMCs are permitted. Staff noted that future applications will be evaluated on a site‑by‑site basis and that approval in one case would not automatically bind future decisions absent a judicial precedent established through the courts.