Planning Board reviews proposed Mud District sign standards, asks staff to refine lighting and size limits

The Sunset Beach Planning Board on Oct. 2 reviewed an applicant-submitted request to amend the town—ode to allow updated signage in the MUD District and directed staff to return with a revised ordinance for final consideration.

Ron Saterfield introduced the application, submitted by Kelly Stewart on behalf of Carolina Dreams Golf LLC and the Village At Sunset Beach Property Owners Association, and described the draft language that would define monument, entrance, tenant-directory, wall and wayfinding signs specifically for the mixed-use district. Saterfield told the board the amendment aims to let the applicant "replace signage that they currently have and modernize it" while ensuring the town—ode remains content neutral under court precedent.

Board members pressed several practical and technical points. A member raised a concern that allowing logos on replaceable slats could make signs look like billboards; Saterfield responded that, because of Reed v. Gilbert, the town cannot regulate sign content in a way that singles out logos, and suggested logos could be addressed in a property owners ssociation—ylaw instead of the municipal code. Members also examined proposed size and placement standards: the draft included a primary 4-sided monument sign up to about 14 feet tall (roughly 35 sq ft per face) and entrance monument signs up to 16 feet tall and 64 square feet, with options discussed to limit or reduce heights in some locations.

Lighting was a central sticking point. One member said the draft—lause that allowed "internal or external illumination permitted, subject to an approved lighting plan" was too vague. The board asked to tie MUD District signage to the town—ode nd specifically to the illumination table used in the UDO (table 3.14), which staff said sets example limits such as about 5 foot-candles at the street and 0.5 foot-candles at a residential property line. Saterfield agreed to replace the vague "approved lighting plan" language with a direct reference to the maximum illumination levels outlined in table 3.14.

Members debated wall-sign sizing. The draft proposed 1.2 square feet per linear foot of façade with a proposed 200-square-foot cap; some members said a lower cap might be warranted but the board tentatively supported a 200-square-foot maximum while asking staff to verify the math against the applicant rawings.

The applicant and a representative of the Village At Sunset Beach Property Owners Association said the amendment primarily aims to allow existing monument signs that became nonconforming after the UDO rewrite to be refreshed or refaced rather than fully reconstructed. A board member raised pedestrian-safety concerns about missing sidewalks adjacent to the proposed hotel parcel; staff and the applicant's representative said ownership and parceling complicate an immediate commitment but acknowledged that walkability is a stated goal.

The board did not take a final vote on the amendment. Instead it asked staff to draft final ordinance language reflecting the board irection (incorporate table 3.14 illumination limits, set explicit wall-sign caps and clarify facade placement and internal/external lighting rules), share the draft with the applicant for review, and bring the item back for final action at the next meeting.

The planning staff will prepare the rewritten MUD District sign section and a side-by-side summary of the proposed changes for the board to review at a future meeting.