Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission reviews stakeholder feedback on sign ordinance, asks staff to draft clarifications
Summary
At a June 17 workshop, Lexington’s Planning Commission discussed stakeholder input on window clings, temporary banners, LED/seasonal lighting and electronic messaging signs; staff will draft ordinance language and return for public review. The commission also approved the May 20 minutes unanimously.
Frank Berry, chairman of the Town Election and Planning Commission, opened the June 17 workshop on proposed revisions to Lexington’s sign ordinance and turned the discussion to staff and a third‑party consultant to review stakeholder feedback.
Jessica (staff member) reviewed outreach and stakeholder engagement, saying, “On March 30th, 2026, the town of Lexington conducted stakeholder meetings regarding potential updates to the town sign ordinance.” Rebecca Vance, the town’s third‑party consultant, led a detailed discussion of definitions and edge cases raised by businesses, sign contractors and a small number of residents.
The central issues were how the ordinance should treat window signage, when temporary promotional material becomes a permanent wall sign, and whether certain new technologies should be allowed. Stakeholders reported confusion about window clings and full‑window coverings that effectively turn storefronts into billboards; commissioners asked staff to add a clear definition of “permanent window sign” and to consider a numeric limit (the small business advisory committee had suggested one‑third window coverage as a guideline).
Staff reiterated how total sign area is currently calculated: commercial sites have a combined display‑area cap (examples cited by staff included 150 square feet for a single road frontage and 225 square feet for two frontages) and wall signs are computed as a percentage of a building’s first‑story wall area. Commissioners discussed whether window clings that remain year‑round should count toward that allotment and suggested preserving variance and staff flexibility for unusual facade configurations.
The commission also debated temporary banners and clings. Jessica summarized current practice: a business may use temporary banners for up to 60 calendar days per year in minimum increments of 20 days, with new businesses allowed an additional 30 days in their first calendar year. Commissioners weighed alternatives — for example, moving to 15 days per quarter — but did not adopt a change at this meeting.
Lighting and illumination prompted sustained discussion. Commissioners and staff described complaints about bright or flashing LED halo lighting, rope/strip LED installations that change colors, and projecting images onto facades. Participants urged standards to limit brightness and prohibit flashing displays; staff agreed to research state and county illumination guidance (including SCDOT standards) and to report back.
Electronic messaging and digital signs were the most contested topic. Stakeholders generally supported allowing electronic messaging in certain contexts (notably schools, churches and community institutions) while seeking limits on animation, minimum message‑hold times and dimming standards. Several commissioners cautioned that treating institutional uses differently from businesses could create legal risks and equal‑treatment challenges. Staff also noted that permitting digital copy would raise review and enforcement workload, and commissioners discussed limiting digital sign area within a site’s existing signage allowance.
Staff presented permit and variance statistics for context: 103 sign permits issued in 2024 with five variance requests (none approved), 86 permits in 2025 with three variance requests (two approved), and two variances so far in 2026 (one of which was a sign denial). Commissioners said the low variance rate suggests the ordinance generally works but agreed to refine definitions and identify predictable cases for staff discretion or variance board review.
No ordinance amendment was adopted at the workshop. Commissioners asked staff and the consultant to draft clarified language reflecting the guidance given — including definitions for permanent window signs, temporary‑sign timing options, illumination limits and possible controls on digital messaging — and to return the draft for public comment. Procedural business concluded with a unanimous vote to approve the May 20 minutes.
The commission adjourned after thanking Rebecca Vance for her work; staff said the revised draft ordinance and any follow‑up materials will be posted for public review and comment and returned to the commission for further consideration.
