Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Signs Market Street topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County manager recommends denying rezoning that would legalize oversized Market Street sign
Summary
At a May 27 agenda review, the county manager urged the board to deny a rezoning petition that would make an oversized convenience‑store sign on Market Street compliant, saying it risks setting a precedent after a staff permitting error; staff and the applicant previously negotiated a two‑year amortization agreement.
At the New Hanover County agenda review on May 27, the county manager recommended denying a rezoning petition that would allow an existing oversized sign at 7650 Market Street to remain legally in place.
The manager told commissioners, "I am recommending to the board to deny the request ... we made an error," and argued the rezoning looked like "an attempt to change the law so that they don't have to reach compliance." He noted the planning board’s 3–3 vote — effectively a denial — and warned the move could set a precedent for relief after administrative mistakes.
The dispute stems from a staff‑issued sign permit that county staff later characterized as an error. Staff worked with the property owner to negotiate an amortization agreement allowing the existing sign to remain for roughly two years while the owner pursued compliance or other remedies. Planning staff told commissioners the agreement was intended to offset an investment made in good faith by the applicant; planning staff noted the applicant had previously sought a variance and been denied by the board of adjustment.
Rebecca, a county staff member who reviewed the item, explained that the staff-approved sign permit "was approved in error" and that staff then assisted the owner with a path to compliance. Commissioners discussed options including enforcement (requiring the sign to be removed and rebuilt to current standards), allowing the sign to remain under the amortization schedule, or rezoning that would retroactively legalize the existing sign.
Commissioners pressed staff on alternatives. One asked whether the sign could be moved farther onto the property to meet the highway overlay setback standards; staff said meeting the SHOD setback likely would require moving the sign roughly 75 feet. Another commissioner asked whether the county had errors‑and‑omissions insurance that could be used to remedy the situation; the county attorney said the county carries public‑officials coverage, not a standard errors‑and‑omissions policy, and that staff would consult risk management about options.
The manager and several commissioners expressed concern that approving the rezoning would reward a post hoc attempt to change standards after the county and property owner had entered an agreement to bring the site into compliance. "We've got to live with it," one commissioner said about earlier administrative mistakes at other locations, but others urged the board to avoid creating broad relief for permit errors.
The planning staff also noted examples where conditional rezonings or board of adjustment variances had adjusted standards in limited circumstances, and several commissioners said the context — whether the owner is a small private business or a larger corporate operator — can affect expectations about negotiations and legal strategy.
The matter will be presented to the board at the upcoming public hearing; the county manager said he would present his recommendation formally at that hearing.
