Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment denies Lamar Advertising variance for digital billboard at 2130 East Grand
Summary
After a contested hearing, the Laramie Board of Adjustment denied Feb. 10 Lamar Advertising’s variance request to convert a 40‑foot, ~243‑square‑foot billboard at 2130 East Grand to digital. Staff argued the sign is a nonconforming use and criteria for a variance were not met; the motion to deny passed 5‑1 with one absent.
The Laramie Board of Adjustment denied Feb. 10 a variance request from Lamar Advertising to install a digital billboard at 2130 East Grand Avenue. The motion to deny passed by a 5‑1 vote with one member absent.
Planning staff summarized the legal and policy framework the board must apply to grant a variance and recommended denial. Philip, planning division staff, emphasized the board must make affirmative findings on each required criterion; staff concluded the applicant had not demonstrated special circumstances unique to the site, that denial would deprive the applicant of reasonable use (staff said the static billboard remains a lawful nonconforming use), or that the requested change is the minimum adjustment necessary. Staff also flagged potential visual and lighting impacts for an elevated billboard close to residentially zoned parcels and said city plans encourage phasing out billboards in commercial corridors.
Lamar representatives disputed staff’s conclusions. Megan Goetz (applicant counsel) and company representatives argued the sign location and surrounding illuminated commercial signage created a practical context for conversion; industry speaker Eric Johnson of Daktronics described LED module design and ambient-light sensors intended to reduce upward light and glare. Lamar said the conversion would not increase the number of billboards and would include a community-dedicated slot. The applicant contended the courthouse EMC approval was comparable precedent.
Board members discussed the five variance criteria at length. Several members said the application did not show a unique hardship or site constraint and that the static billboard could continue to be used. Commissioner Tom noted public sentiment often opposes electronic message centers; other members questioned driver distraction and neighborhood character. After discussion, Commissioner Matamore moved to deny the variance based on staff findings. Roll-call votes recorded: Pacino — aye; Evans — aye; Matamore — aye; O’Toole — aye; Schneider — nay; Heiser White — absent; Moody — aye. The motion to deny passed (5 yes, 1 no, 1 absent).
The denial leaves the static billboard in place as a lawful nonconforming sign; any future request to change its use or structure would require new review under the municipal code.
