Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTA25-04 Planning Board Staff Report TA25-03 Staff Report PB 2.6.2025 Page 1 of 6 STAFF REPORT OF TA25-04 TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION APPLICATION SUMMARY Case Number: TA25-04 Request: To amend Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, and 12 of the Unified Development Ordinance to modernize and clarify sign standards and ensure provisions are compliant with legal requirements Applicant: Subject Ordinance: New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Subject Article(s) and Section(s): • Article 2: Measurements and Definitions • Article 3: Zoning Districts • Article 4: Uses and Use Specific Standards • Article 5: General Development Standards o Section 5.6: Signs • Article 6: Subdivision Design and Improvements • Article 11: Nonconforming Situations • Article 12: Violations and Enforcement BACKGROUND & STAFF ANALYSIS New Hanover County first adopted sign-related standards in 1972, current provisions have largely been in place since 2001. Since that time, market conditions and legal provisions related to signage have changed, and this staff-proposed maintenance amendment is intended to modernize and clarify the County’s sign standards. The amendment is designed to incorporate new technologies, specifically digital signage; clarify current provisions so ordinance readers and administrators have a common understanding of how the code applies; ensure standards are content neutral and not based on the type of sign message; and update ordinance language to align with current statutory provisions and authorities. When current standards were largely adopted in 2001, efforts were in place to develop common standards that would apply both within the City of Wilmington and the unincorporated areas of the County, and amortization measures were a key component of the sign ordinances adopted at the time. These measures required that all nonconforming signs come into compliance with the new regulations within a specific timeframe, and the ordinance language was designed with the anticipation that after that amortization period all signs on the ground would be compliant with the new standards and no nonconforming signs would remain. Toward the end of the amortization period established in 2001, TA25-03 Staff Report PB 2.6.2025 Page 2 of 6 however, the Board of Commissioners decided to remove those requirements from the ordinance, and pre-2001 signs were not ultimately required to conform with the newer sign standards. In addition, in the decades since these provisions were originally adopted, the legal context around signs and sign regulations has changed. Sign regulations—because they can burden speech—are subject to constitutional review and a higher level of scrutiny than other types of development regulations. Many local governments, including the County, had historically included sign regulations that differentiated standards for signage based on how they were being used (i.e., the content of the sign) rather than the type of sign (e.g., freestanding, temporary, monument, etc.). However, this approach has been invalidated in court decisions, such as the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert. These court decisions have led to local governments across the county reviewing and revising sign regulations. Major modifications to these standards were not included in the Unified Development Ordinance Project, which included updates to many of the County’s development regulations and ended in 2020, due to court decisions taking place at the time that would impact the scope of modifications that would be necessary. Subsequent changes in state law related to local ability to regulate nonconforming signs have also continued to impact the County’s sign regulations. These have been incorporated into the UDO through our regular maintenance amendments, but older language that anticipated the 2000s era amortization of nonconforming signs sets expectations for local authority to remove nonconforming signs that no longer exists. Legal guidance, precedents, and changes in market practices and sign technologies now justify a maintenance amendment to standards. Key provisions and rationale are described below, and all proposed revisions are intended to be as policy neutral as possible since the Board of Commissioners has not provided specific policy direction on these topics. While not included in UDO Project amendments, the consulting firm engaged for that project had audited provisions and offered potential amendments in 2021 that have been incorporated into the proposed draft, and County Legal staff have been involved in reviewing the proposed amendment in light of evolving legal considerations. New Technologies The proposed amendment includes new provisions outlining potential standards for electronic changeable copy (digital) signs and audio components. - Currently, the ordinance does not directly address digital signs, and past interpretations of the regulations consider digital signs to be signs with internal illumination, which is regulated. The application of these illumination provisions for digital signs is not clear to code users, often requires sign companies to speak with staff to determine if the sign they are proposing would be allowed, and may lead to inadvertent violations of the ordinance. Creating clear definitions and standards for digital signs will reduce these issues. Proposed standards for digital signs do include provisions related to transitions between displays and luminance levels that are intended to be in line with those required within the City of Wilmington and industry standards. Additional provisions to reduce luminance in non-daylight hours to no more than 150 nits have also been proposed due to the different scale of development in parts of unincorporated New Hanover County as opposed to the City. - While not currently installed in New Hanover County, signage with audio components is now possible. Staff has not identified local government regulations pertaining to audio components to use as an example so has proposed limiting this technology to only what is necessary for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act or other state or federal requirements. This TA25-03 Staff Report PB 2.6.2025 Page 3 of 6 will impose limitations on this technology until such time that best practices are identified or specific policy guidance is provided by the Board of Commissioners. Clarification of Provisions Current code provisions are not always clear to code users due to the lack of definitions for some key terms, the current location of some code provisions, and older language that sets expectations that are not in keeping with current practices or local government authorities. The proposed amendment ensures clear definitions for key terms, reorganizes provisions so readers are able to find the information they need more easily, and removes or revises unclear language. - Language outlining how sight triangles, which are referred to in the sign standards, are measured has been added to the ordinance. - Definitions for sign types and terms required for those definitions have been updated and/or provided in Section 2.3: Definitions and Terms. This section has also been reorganized to reduce confusion as to where sign-related definitions are located. - All sign-related provisions specific to particular zoning districts have been incorporated into Section 5.6: Signs, except for those pertaining to the Riverfront Mixed Use (RFMU) and Special Highway Overlay (SHOD) districts. The RFMU sign standards are structured differently from those for other districts in the unincorporated County, and this district is rarely used, so sign standards specific to this district remain in the district standards. The sign-related SHOD standards are kept with other development standards specific to this overlay district. However, Section 5.6 clearly references those standards so readers of the Sign regulations are clearly directed to the appropriate place in the code. This will reduce the potential that those interested in sign standards would miss regulations that would apply when making decisions about making investments in signage. - Purpose statement language that reflects the intent of prior sign regulations has been removed in the proposed amendment. This type of language is not intended to be regulatory in nature, but this can confuse code readers. Policies and rationale behind the adoption of development standards are now intended to be outlined in text amendment staff reports and policy documents, such as the Comprehensive Plan. The UDO also includes a General Purpose and Intent section in Article 1: General Provisions that outlines the overall purpose of ordinance standards. - Section 5.6: Signs is restructured so it is more clear to code users how exemptions, permitting requirements, and standards apply. - Currently, the ordinance does not require sign permits for certain types of uses. While intended to reduce regulatory barriers, because the permit process is how compliance with the code is determined, it can create situations where property owners might make significant investments in signage that is not compliant, and current provisions do not exempt them from meeting all ordinance standards. In addition, it is not clear that building code permits may still be required, as not all code users are aware that multiple types of regulations may apply to a permit or project. The proposed amendment requires permits for all permanent signs to ensure compliance before property owners invest in them. The sign permitting process in the County’s software system is being updated in a parallel project, so property owners would be able to submit any request for signage placement or modification and be reviewed simultaneously for building code requirements (if applicable) and zoning requirements. The zoning component of this involves a relatively nominal expense ($45 on the FY26 fee schedule) and could save property owners in the long run. TA25-03 Staff Report PB 2.6.2025 Page 4 of 6 - The current sign standards require that all temporary signs, unless specifically exempted, also receive sign permits. There is a need for temporary signs to be compliant with standards, but the investment risk to property owners is less if permits were not required for these signs versus permanent signs. The proposed amendment outlines that temporary signs of a certain size could be displayed for a short duration without triggering the permit requirements. As it is rare that property owners apply for temporary sign permits, this exemption would reduce potential administrative responsibilities related to compliance, while reducing the regulatory burden on property owners. This also enables the removal of standards that previously exempted off- premises real estate signs from permit requirements, which became confusing when revised to be content-neutral. - Currently, the sign regulations refer to Building Code requirements and responsibilities of the Building Safety Director. These have been reviewed so language that may potentially conflict with the North Carolina Building Code and its revisions can be removed. - A chart included in the current sign standards that shows both prohibited and permitted signs has been removed. Prohibited signs are listed separately, and signs that are permitted in at least one zoning district have been moved to other charts. - Throughout the proposed amendment, standards have been revised to reduce potential confusion regarding how provisions will apply. Content Neutrality and Other Legal Considerations Due to the greater scrutiny of sign regulations due to their impact on protected speech, current provisions have been reviewed for content-neutrality (i.e., that they do not make distinctions based on the content of the sign) along with other constitutional provisions that apply particularly to sign standards. - Use-specific standards have been removed, and provisions for nonresidential uses in residential districts have been clarified so standards are based on property characteristics. - Language that applied to specific types of signs (real estate signs, etc.) have been revised so that they apply based on the property characteristics rather than the type of sign message. - Standards for flags that exempt certain types of flags from regulation have been removed. - Current standards related to vulgar language have been revised and are in line with City of Wilmington provisions. - A current permit exemption for political signs has been removed as staff would be required to examine the content in order to determine compliance. Instead, a provision has been added that would exempt signs of a certain size placed on residential lots from the provisions of the ordinance. Current Statutory Provisions and Authorities As noted previously, as state law around local government’s authority to regulate signs has changed, this has been incorporated into the current code. However, discrepancies between older language and new provisions still exist, so the proposed amendment cleans up provisions, so they are as clear as possible to ordinance users. - References to Outdoor Advertising Signs have been removed as the current term used in state legislation is Off-Premises Advertising Sign. TA25-03 Staff Report PB 2.6.2025 Page 5 of 6 - As state law now requires that legally permitted nonconforming signs be allowed to be replaced or moved on site, subject to certain requirements, current language that sets expectations that nonconforming signage cannot continue in these types of situations has been revised. - New language clarifies that the County can only remove signage for state right-of-way with the permission of NCDOT, the body statutorily authorized to regulate activities in the right-of-way. As a note, the County does not have authority to regulate signage in private or non-NCDOT publicly dedicated rights-of-way. PUBLIC COMMENT A draft of the proposed amendment was released on August 13, 2025 following a presentation to the Planning Board at their August 7, 2025 meeting. Public comments received during the period between the release and 5 PM on August 26, 2025 were considered for incorporation into the attached public hearing draft. Two comments were received during this time—a phone call question from an outdoor advertising company and an email submitted by an attorney who has been working with a property owner in the unincorporated county. - The question from the outdoor advertising company pertained to whether the proposed amendment would prohibit the conversion of existing billboards into digital billboards. The public comment draft did not specify this, and it is not specifically addressed in the current ordinance. The intent of the proposed amendment is that the standards for digital signs that apply to other types of signage would also apply to the conversation of nonconforming off-premises advertising signs unless otherwise desired by the Board of Commissioners. - The attorney’s email requested the County consider additional modifications to language in Article 11: Nonconforming Situations. The attorney's client had erroneously received approval a few years ago for a freestanding sign that did not comply with the ordinance requirements. While the County has procedures in place to address these situations and has been working with the affected property owner, current standards would ultimately require signs approved in error to come into compliance with ordinance provisions and would not consider these signs a legal nonconformity. While language the commenter has indicated is vague has been clarified in the public hearing draft, provisions have been reorganized so they are easier to find for all code users, and review processes are being updated to reduce the potential for staff mistakes, allowing non- compliant signs to remain as legal nonconformities would be inconsistent with efforts to consistently apply regulations and would require the community to bear the burden of administrative errors. County staff would recommend that current processes remain in place to deal with these situations. During the public comment period, staff has also continued to review the draft amendment and has proposed additional modifications to digital signage requirements to ensure consistency with the City of Wilmington and outlined permit exemptions for temporary signs of a certain size and duration to reduce administrative and regulatory burdens. TA25-03 Staff Report PB 2.6.2025 Page 6 of 6 PROPOSED AMENDMENT The proposed text amendment is attached, with red italics indicating the new language and strikethrough indicating provisions that were removed in the public comment draft. New language included in the public hearing draft in response to public comment and draft review is shown in bold, blue text, with double strikethrough indicating additional removal of provisions since the public comment draft was released. Staff comments explaining the rationale for proposed changes are included. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment and suggests the following motion: I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance to modernize and clarify sign standards and ensure provisions are compliant with legal requirements. I find it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it supports business success through its inclusion of provisions for modern technologies and clarified standards. I find RECOMMENDING APPROVAL to be reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed amendment supports a common understanding of sign requirements, retains existing sign-related policies, and aligns regulations with the current legal context.