Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs And Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rewrite of city sign regulations after public hearing
Summary
Council voted to adopt proposed amendments to the sign ordinance and consolidate scattered sign rules into a single chapter; consultants and planning staff said changes aim for content neutrality and clearer temporary/permanent sign categories.
Fayetteville City Council voted June 23 to approve proposed revisions to the city’s sign regulations, adopting a consolidated chapter intended to reduce redundancy, clarify classifications and preserve content neutrality.
Doctor Newton (development services) introduced Von Henson of the consultant team Benchmark, who told council the goal was to consolidate sign rules found across some 61 pages into a single, clearer chapter and to reclassify temporary signs into generic types (type 1–5) rather than by specific purpose. Henson said the rewrite is intended to maintain legal compliance with Supreme Court precedent on content neutrality (referencing Reed v. Gilbert) and to add design incentives that allow larger or higher-quality signs in exchange for enhanced design.
Henson explained changes affecting permanent wall signs—proposing a calculation method that allows either the existing 1 square foot per linear foot standard or up to 10% of wall area to accommodate taller, bulkier buildings—and proposed a minimum allowance for ground signs in nonresidential districts. On temporary signs, Henson said the regulations would not impose a fixed time limit for display on certain portable types such as feather flags (type 5) and yard signs, noting those signs are not permanently affixed to a structure.
Council members asked detailed questions about feather flags, signs in rights-of-way, protections for downtown sidewalk signs, and content limits. Henson and staff said signs placed in the NCDOT or city right-of-way remain prohibited and will continue to be removed by staff when encountered. Council member Hondros pressed for clarity on how the rewrite compares to peer cities and Chief Planning staff said the revised chapter would reduce the ordinance from the scattered 61 pages to about 45 pages and make it easier to find applicable rules.
After the public hearing—during which no outside speakers registered—council member Hondros moved to adopt the proposed amendments as recommended by staff; the motion was seconded and recorded as carried. Staff told council that nonconforming signs lawfully erected remain subject to the nonconformity provisions required by state statute and that the ordinance primarily applies to new signs and new development.
