Fort Pierce Board of Adjustment debates variance for 25-foot digital billboard; record shows conflicting vote

A public hearing before the Fort Pierce Board of Adjustment considered a variance request to install a 25-foot digital billboard at 1710 North 20th Street, where the parcel size is 0.25 acres and the property is zoned C-3 (general commercial). The applicant, represented in part by attorney Ian Osking and applicant Scotty Shaver, asked the board to allow a ground-mounted digital billboard higher than the city code’s height limits for lots of that size.

The request sought to deviate from city sign regulations that limit ground-sign height based on parcel size. Staff said sites of 3 acres or less have a 10-foot maximum under current code and that the subject parcel is 0.25 acres. Staff’s presentation noted the permit history, said the use (an off-premise billboard) is allowed in C-3, and recommended that if the board approves the variance it include two conditions: (1) a full landscape plan that buffers and obscures direct sight of the installation from immediately adjacent residential properties to the east, and (2) a landscape maintenance agreement requiring installation, irrigation and perpetual maintenance of approved landscaping, with replacement of dead plantings.

The applicant argued the code contains an internal inconsistency that leaves room for a 25-foot off-premise sign and pointed to a recently permitted billboard on U.S. 1 that was approved by planning in 2022. Applicant representatives said they had a letter of support from a property owner who leases the subject parcel and that the proposed sign would be pedestal-mounted to allow sight lines under the display and to reduce vandalism risk. The applicant also told the board they mailed 48 notices within 500 feet; staff said two property owners responded (one with no objection and one expressing concern about visual impact and lighting).

Board members spent substantial time reviewing the variance criteria under section 125-100 of the code, repeatedly asking staff whether any of the five statutory criteria for a variance had been met. Staff answered that it did not appear the applicant had demonstrated any of the five criteria. Several board members expressed concern about placing a digital billboard adjacent to residential uses and about setting a precedent that would make future billboards easier to approve. Board members also expressed frustration about apparent inconsistencies in how the city had applied the sign code to other recent permits and asked staff to obtain a written interpretation or opinion from the city attorney.

After deliberation a board member moved to deny the variance; another member seconded the motion. The clerk called a roll call. The transcript records Mr. Chris: “Yes,” Mr. Drummond: “Yes,” and Chair Galinis: “Yes.” Immediately after the roll call the clerk announced, “Motion failed.” The transcript does not explain the contradiction between the recorded roll-call responses and the clerk’s announcement; the board did not state a corrected tally on the record at that time. The record also includes a staff clarification that an applicant who is denied may reapply after six months.

Board members asked staff to place the five variance criteria prominently in future staff reports and to follow up on past sign approvals for consistency. Staff said it would review the earlier U.S. 1 permit and consult city legal counsel on code interpretation. The board adjourned after brief additional administrative comments.

Votes at a glance - Motion: “That this application be denied” (mover not specified in transcript; second not specified). Roll call in transcript: Mr. Chris — Yes; Mr. Drummond — Yes; Chair Galinis — Yes. Clerk announced: “Motion failed.” Notes: transcript records an inconsistent outcome; no further clarification is included in the transcript excerpt provided.

Why this matters The board’s handling of the request highlighted two issues the city is weighing: where digital/outdoor advertising should be permitted and how consistently the city applies its sign code. Board members said their choices affect visual character along roadways, adjacent residential neighborhoods and whether future permit decisions will be easier or harder to challenge.

What’s next Staff will review the earlier U.S. 1 permit cited by the applicant, consult with the city attorney about the apparent code discrepancy, and report back to the board. The applicant may reapply after six months, per the clerk’s statement during the meeting.