Hillsborough County hears multiple large‑sign variance requests for shopping centers

Several developers and their representatives told the Hillsborough County Land Use Hearing Officer on Nov. 17 that the county’s sign rules do not scale to very large shopping‑center sites and asked for variances to allow larger identification and monument signs.

Sam Ball of Hillsborough County Development Services opened the series of sign cases by summarizing staff findings for Variance 25‑1369 in Seffner, saying the applicant requests increases to per‑face and aggregate ground‑sign area and a front‑setback reduction under the Land Development Code provisions that limit sign area and setbacks. Ball summarized the applicable LDC provisions and the relief requested.

Todd Pressman, representing the property owner for the Seffner site, said the center comprises roughly 31.3 acres and that wall signs are oriented to the interior, leaving exterior wayfinding inadequate from the arterial roads. "The sign code has a difficulty presenting itself on very large sites," Pressman said, arguing the long distance from roadway to building and the site’s multiple road frontages create a visibility hardship that justifies larger freestanding and monument signs.

For a Lowe’s proposal (Variance 25‑1422), Michelle Montalbano told the hearing the building elevation has about 500 linear feet of frontage but the code caps building aggregate signage at 200 square feet; the applicant requested an aggregate of about 432.6 square feet. Gina Penny of Atlas Signs, representing Lowe’s, said the store sits roughly 700 feet from the roadway and the current main ID sign is 349 square feet; Lowe’s proposes a 328.2 square‑foot ID sign. "A sign limited to [the code amount] would be disproportionately small and difficult to identify from the roadway," Penny said, framing the request as necessary for wayfinding and for maintaining Lowe’s national branding.

Sam Ball later returned to present a third large‑sign request (Variance 26‑0017) for a 26‑acre retail development near US‑41 in the Apollo Beach area, proposing up to 686.1 square feet of wall signage on a long storefront elevation. Pressman argued the site functions as a hybrid multi‑tenant property with many distinct services and that the code’s per‑tenant approach does not capture the practical way customers navigate such a large store.

Across the three items, applicants reported mailing dozens of notices (for example, Pressman said 51 notices for the Seffner case) and said they had not received written opposition. Hearing Officer Steve Luce asked clarifying questions about driveway access, orientation toward US‑41, and where signage would be visible; in each case there were no members of the public who rose to speak for or against the applications during the hearing.

Staff remained available to answer questions and noted the LDC sections that limit sign area and setbacks. No formal decision was made at the hearing; the officer will file written decisions within 15 working days.

The sign cases remain pending review and any written decision will state the officer’s findings on whether the hardship and variance criteria are met.