Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Signs topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission denies 35-foot digital billboard variance after resident concerns about light and visibility

County of Lincoln Board of County Commissioners · March 17, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a quasi-judicial hearing with multiple residents testifying about light pollution and visibility impacts, the Commission voted 5–0 to deny a variance to raise a digital billboard to 35 feet near Highway 48 (case OAV-2026-01).

The Board of County Commissioners unanimously denied a request to raise a digital billboard to 35 feet near Highway 48 following a quasi-judicial hearing that drew multiple resident objections.

Stephanie Warren, the county planning technician, opened the hearing and presented the variance request. Residents testified they were concerned about increased brightness and light pollution affecting homes; Kevin Francis said he was "opposed to the billboard being raised" citing nighttime impacts, and Beth Badrak presented signatures from 38 Mountain Village homeowners opposing the proposal. Angie Duncan, vice president of Lindmark Billboards, said the company sought to raise the structure because a vehicle strike had damaged the pole and that raising the pole would protect the signage; she also noted the sign's utility as a rapid digital messaging platform. Commissioners explored alternatives such as bollards or other protective measures and questioned whether accident damage constituted a land-based hardship. After closing the hearing, the motion to grant the variance failed (Yes = 0, No = 5).

Chair Mark Fischer emphasized the county's scenic considerations and the intent of the ordinance: "the ordinance was put in place for a reason." Commissioners indicated willingness to consider mitigation (bollards, setback protection) but found the height increase unnecessary under current standards.