Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Hendersonville adopts broad zoning revisions that loosen pathways for larger commercial signage
Loading...
Summary
After hours of debate over new sign rules, the Hendersonville Board of Mayor and Aldermen approved a package of zoning ordinance revisions (ordinance 2025-19) that add new pathways for larger, artistic signage for certain retail developments, clarify multi-tenant sign rules and extend timelines for converting nonconforming signs.
The Hendersonville Board of Mayor and Aldermen voted unanimously Oct. 28 to adopt a package of zoning ordinance revisions that change how the city treats nonconforming signs and create a new pathway for larger, “artistic” signage for certain retail developments.
The revisions, approved as second reading of ordinance 2025-19, include a new “minor regional retail” category permitting developers to seek planning-commission approval for larger, design-forward signs (Section 13.5.0.1.0.7); clarified rules for multi-tenant commercial signage that avoid forcing owners to replace an entire sign when a single tenant changes; and time-limit changes that extend certain conversion triggers from 90 days to 365 days.
“Because our sign regulations leave no appeal path, this creates a pathway for larger developments to seek a planning-commission determination,” Planning Director Keith Free said during the meeting, describing the language the staff proposed. He said the minor regional retail category was intended primarily for concentrated retail areas along West Main Street and sites within a measured distance of SR‑386.
Aldermen debated several detailed changes. Alderman Sassy moved an amendment to align the new minor-regional-retail language with existing major-regional-retail language by requiring qualifying properties be within the same planned development; that amendment passed 10–1 (No: Alderman Collins). Another proposed change meant to clarify what repairs keep a multi-tenant sign grandfathered in led to extended debate about how to define “structural” repairs; the board withdrew that specific amendment for redrafting after members asked staff and the city attorney to produce clearer examples and enforcement guidance.
Other amendments passed largely without dissent: an amendment clarifying when a change of use requires replacement of a nonconforming sign, a set of definition/voluntary-placement edits, an extension of the inactivity trigger from 90 to 365 days, and a provision clarifying the relationship between loss of nonconforming use status and nonconforming sign status. The board also amended and approved a clarification of flag‑pole rules to limit total flags and avoid conflicting language.
During discussion Alderman Ward and others asked whether the rules would apply to existing shopping centers such as Streets of Indian Lake and Glenbrook Village. Free said the major-regional-retail pathway already covered those sites and that the minor pathway was intended to help smaller concentrations of retail along West Main Street. Enforcement of the sign ordinance rests with the planning department; Free said the office makes interpretation calls when cases are not clear.
The ordinance package includes several items intended to reduce abrupt enforcement burdens on existing businesses while giving the city a clearer, uniform process to require replacement of deeply altered signs. The board scheduled additional staff work on the withdrawn language; staff said any interpretive examples would be provided to the board for review.
The ordinance (2025‑19) passed on second reading with the package of amendments as amended.
