Applicant seeks revisions to county sign rules to allow modern digital billboards with sight-line lighting; planning board review expected

An advertising company seeking looser rules for outdoor advertising presented a proposed text amendment to Lee County's Unified Development Ordinance on Dec. 16 that would change how billboard spacing and illumination are regulated.

Interstate Outdoor Incorporated (represented by Warren Stancil, with associate David Stuckey) asked the board to amend UDO Article 11 to: (1) adjust the way the required minimum distance between billboards is measured (from a radial 1,000-foot radius to a measurement along the same route), (2) allow changeable-copy (digital) signs that use sight-line directional lighting to limit illumination to the main travelway, and (3) require new billboards be constructed on steel monopoles rather than older multi-post or wood structures. The applicant said the proposal would add locations for modern, nonmoving digital faces while reducing visual clutter by standardizing structure type.

Why it matters: Changes to the UDO would alter where and how new outdoor advertising can be placed countywide. Staff noted neighboring counties generally have stricter or different controls; Chatham County is moving toward prohibiting new billboards in a draft UDO, and Wake and Moore counties have different spacing or permitting regimes. Any text amendment would also be reviewed by the planning board before a final decision by the commissioners.

Proponent presentation and demonstration: Warren Stancil and David Stuckey showed the board a video demonstration and explained sight-line lighting as a technology that uses louvers or directional LEDs to project the image primarily at road users along the intended travel path and to limit light spill to adjacent properties. Stancil said Interstate Outdoor operates six digital faces and six static faces in Lee County and would be open to donating a portion of digital space to local public messaging such as emergency management and county events.

Staff and board discussion: County staff (Thomas) presented the proposed changes and supplied a comparative summary of neighboring-county regulations. Commissioners asked whether the existing digital billboard on U.S. 1 had sight-line technology (staff deferred to the applicant), how the alternative spacing measurement would be interpreted and how many additional signs the company might seek. The applicant said there is no fixed number requested in the amendment; its immediate goal arose after a permit application on a site was found nonconforming under the current 100-foot-from-residential requirement.

Revenue and tax treatment: The county tax director explained how billboards are appraised and give an example of assessed value calculations using a North Carolina Department of Revenue's billboard valuation manual. Using the manual's examples, a digital-facing upgrade can be significant in cost and depreciated over a shorter useful life for appraisal purposes, with illustrative annual tax revenues (in the example presented) totaling less than $1,500 depending on taxing jurisdiction and year of improvement.

Public hearing and next steps: The board opened a public hearing on the text amendment and heard from the applicant; no oppositions registered at the meeting. Planning staff will forward the amendment for Planning Board review, and the commissioners will consider staff and Planning Board recommendations at a subsequent meeting before any ordinance change is adopted.