Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Sign Code Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

BZA denies permit request for unpermitted changeable‑copy sign at new Kia dealership

2530015 · March 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Monroe County BZA denied two variances requested by AutoVest/Community Kia to keep an unpermitted changeable‑copy ground sign and to permit a second ground sign on South Liberty Drive. Staff recommended denial, citing code prohibitions on animated or changeable copy signs; the board voted to deny.

The Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny two sign variances sought by AutoVest (Community Kia) for a dealership site at 701 South Liberty Drive. Staff recommended denial, and the board agreed.

Planning staff reported that the petitioner had applied for seven signs in June 2024 and that a permitted ground sign was already in the approved plan. During a routine site visit staff discovered an additional ground sign installed without a permit. The installed sign contains changeable or digital copy; county code (Chapter 8.17) expressly prohibits “animated or changeable copy signs” and defines digital formats within that prohibition.

Petitioner representative Daniel Butler (Bynum Faneuil) said the sign is a low‑light, matte style digital sign intended not to draw drivers’ eyes from Liberty Drive, and that the vendor installed it without realizing a permit was required. Butler offered to limit brightness and frequency of changes, and to cap the sign at its current 24 square feet per side if the board approved the variance.

Several board members noted the ordinance language is clear and that allowing an after‑the‑fact approval could set a precedent. One member also noted sign rules help define a community’s visual character and that digital/changeable signs present a driver‑distraction concern. The board voted to deny both variances. If the petitioner wishes to display the sign, the petitioner must remove the unpermitted changeable‑copy unit or seek alternate, code‑compliant signage.