Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA Minutes 6-24-2025BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The New Hanover County Board of Adjustment held a regular and duly advertised meeting at 5:30 PM at the New Hanover County Government Center Complex, 230 Government Center Drive, in Conference Room 139, in Wilmington, NC on Tuesday June 24, 2025.    Members Present    Caleb Rash, Vice-Chair   Greg Uhl    Will Daube Laura King    Michael Sanclimenti (Alternate)   Present, not serving Ed Trice (Alternate) Members Absent      Michael Keenan, Sr., Chair    Jonathan Bridges (Alternate) Ex Officio Members Present Ken Vafler, Planning Operations Supervisor    Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney Lisa Maes, Administrative Supervisor Shauna Bradley, Administrative Specialist The meeting called to order by Vice-Chair Caleb Rash at 5:30pm. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Vice-Chair Rash explained that the Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial Board appointed by the Board of Commissioners to consider ordinance variances from residents in New Hanover County where special conditions would create unnecessary hardships. He said the Board also hears appeals of the County’s interpretation in enforcement of the Unifled Development Ordinance. The appellants have thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court.  With no corrections to the last meeting’s minutes, Vice-Chair Rash called for a motion to accept and approve meeting minutes from May 27, 2025. The board unanimously approved and adopted the minutes but who motioned was inaudible. CASE BOA-997 Mr. Vafler began a presentation for a variance request from the current sign height and illumination restrictions outlined in Section 5.6.2.J.3 of the New Hanover County Community Development Ordinance. The sign in question is located at 3425 Castle Hayne Rd., on a 1.3- acre parcel zoned R-20 residential and currently exceeds ordinance requirements. The freestanding sign, constructed in early 2025, stands at 10 feet tall—4 feet above the ordinance’s 6-foot maximum—and includes a 32-square-foot internally illuminated digital message board, which is not permitted under current residential area regulations. Although the church originally received a permit based on a misapplication of North Carolina General Statutes regarding on-premises sign replacements, staff later determined that the sign did not conform with the proper interpretation of the ordinance. Due to this reassessment, the church is now formally requesting a variance to maintain the existing sign as constructed, citing unique communication and visibility needs due to its location on a busy arterial road. The variance is sought not only for the additional height but also for the internal illumination, which supports the church’s need to effectively communicate messages and enhance safety for passing motorists. The case refiects broader issues with outdated sign ordinances that do not account for current technology, leading staff to begin exploring potential text amendments to modernize these regulations. Until such amendments are enacted, the church must secure a variance to retain the sign in its current form. During the discussion, the Board sought clariflcation on the actual height of the constructed sign and whether it exceeded the six-foot limit set by ordinance. Staff explained that while the sign is reported to be ten feet tall, the measurement appears to have been taken from grade level at the base of the sign, which sits approximately two feet below the crown of the adjacent roadway. This raised questions about whether the true height, when measured by the ordinance’s vertical distance deflnition, may be slightly less than ten feet. However, lacking a deflnitive measurement from the road elevation, staff stated they are operating under the assumption that the sign exceeds the height limit and requires a variance. The Board also discussed surrounding land use, with questions about whether nearby parcels included residential homes. Staff conflrmed that while the area includes some R-20 zoned properties and at least one single-family residence, proper notiflcation procedures were followed—including mailed notices to all parcels within 500 feet, on-site signage, and publication of the hearing notice. Regarding the digital sign component, staff conflrmed that the sign uses internal illumination and displays static messages. While current ordinances prohibit internal lighting in residential zoning districts, the ordinance does not explicitly address digital signs. Nevertheless, staff interprets the code to prohibit internally illuminated digital displays in residential zones. There are no time-of-day limits on digital signage within the ordinance, but content must remain static and cannot fiash, rotate, or animated, consistent with distraction- related regulations. A question raised was whether the applicant had a vested right to retain the sign based on the previously issued permit. Staff acknowledged that the permit had been issued in error, as the internal illumination component had not been considered when applying the general statute. While the permit graphic presented to staff did show a digital display, internal discussion at the time focused only on height and did not recognize or address the digital or illuminated nature of the display. As a result, the church was given the option to either seek a variance or pursue temporary compliance pending a potential ordinance amendment. The applicant chose to move forward with the variance process. Staff also clarifled that the previous sign was not a known non-conforming use, and that the cross element was not included in height measurements, as it is considered a religious symbol protected under First Amendment speech provisions. The UDO’s deflnition of sign height excludes any symbolic element not considered part of the structural support, which staff explained prevents them from regulating such symbols even if attached to a sign. Finally, the Board conflrmed that they are only reviewing the speciflc variance request for height and internal illumination and not being asked to interpret or challenge staff's reading of the ordinance itself. Any request to formally review or appeal an interpretation would follow a separate process. Reverend Pugh, pastor of St. James AME Church, addressed the Board to share the church’s experience throughout the sign approval and variance process. She acknowledged that it had been a lengthy but expressed appreciation for the support and guidance provided by Mr. Vafler staff. She noted that the church property sits on a lower grade than the adjacent roadway, which contributes to the visibility challenges and the perception of the sign’s height. Reverend Pugh also commented that the cross element on the sign, in her view, conveys a meaningful message. Reverend Pugh recounted the timeline of events, stating that the church began this process in December. After initially applying for a variance, the church was informed by that a variance would not be necessary, leading them to withdraw the application. However, following further review, staff contacted the church and explained that a variance would, in fact, be required. She shared that the church met again with staff to discuss how to resolve the situation and ultimately decided to move forward with the variance request to bring closure to the matter. Reverend Pugh emphasized that staff was apologetic about the permitting error, and the church accepted the apology in good faith. In closing, she respectfully asked the Board to consider the request, noting that the sign is now permanently installed and fully constructed. She was asked about the illumination and how it would affect the drivers at night. Reverend Pugh said that the background is dark, and the lettering is white. She was also asked if there are any homes in the area. It was conflrmed that there are. Mr. Rash closed the public hearing, and the board entered deliberation. The Board engaged in a thorough discussion regarding the variance request for the freestanding sign at St. James AME Church. Several members initially expressed concern about adhering to the sign ordinance but acknowledged the unique site conditions, including the grade difference between the sign location and the adjacent roadway. It was noted that the sign appears to sit approximately 2 to 2.5 feet below road level, and that the actual variance from the ordinance's six-foot height limit might be less than the full four feet requested. Board members also discussed the issue of internal illumination, with some stating a preference for internally illuminated signs over externally lit ones, citing safety and maintenance advantages. It was recognized that most surrounding commercial and city signs already allow internal illumination, and that this sign is likely to refiect the direction future ordinance updates will take. The Board acknowledged that the current ordinance lacks clarity on digital signage, which prompted a discussion on the importance of establishing conditions to avoid granting a variance that could result in a perpetual non-conforming use without limitations. The Board also emphasized that the applicant had followed the county’s direction in good faith and had been patient and cooperative throughout a process that included permitting errors and changing interpretations. To ensure the variance did not extend beyond what was intended, Board members agreed that the approval should apply only to the sign as currently constructed and not to any future sign or replacement. They clarifled that the variance would not allow for taller signs in the future and would not grant broader sign rights beyond what is currently built. Ms. King motioned to approve the variance request for the sign as constructed and Mr. Sanclimenti seconded, with the condition that the variance only applies to the current sign structure and remains in effect for the life of that sign only. Any future signage on the property must comply with the ordinance in effect at that time. The motion to recommend approval of the variance passed 5-0 with the decision based on the following conclusions and flndings of fact: 1. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically the height and illumination requirements for a freestanding sign per Section 5.6.2.J.3 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result. (It shall be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • The ordinance restricts the height of signs to a level that does not account for the unique visibility needs of the property. • As a place of worship and community gathering, the church relies heavily on clear and visible signage to inform the community of events, services, and outreach programs. • The current height restriction impedes the applicant’s ability to effectively communicate with both our congregation and the broader community. • Specifically, the church is located on a road with a great volume of traffic. • A taller sign is necessary to ensure that the church’s messages are seen in a timely and safe manner by drivers and passersby, who may otherwise miss critical information due to the lower sign height. • The request does not harm the public welfare of alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Instead, it enhances community safety and engagement by improving the visibility of the signage. • The current sign is not visible due to height restrictions and lighting. 2. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains results from unique circumstances related to the subject property, such as location, size, or topography. (Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • The church is located on a busy road with a great volume of traffic, surrounded by commercial zones with numerous competing signs. • The current sign creates a signiflcant visibility challenge because of no lighting source and in low terrain. • Additionally, the size and topography of the property further compounds the issue. • The church is set back from the road, and not visible until one gets to Chair Road or passing the greenage on Castle Hayne Road. • The combination of these factors makes it difficult for drivers and pedestrians to notice and read the current signage in a timely manner. • This variance would allow the applicant to communicate important information effectively, such as service times and community events, which are crucial for the congregation and the broader community. 3. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. (The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • The hardship is not a result of the applicant’s actions and instead stems from the Department of Transportation's easement zoning. When the DOT established the easement, it created an environment where the standard sign height, as dictated by the current ordinance, is inadequate for the applicant’s needs. This left the property with low elevation and visibility of current sign is not visible until one is closer. • The easement zoning makes it challenging for the signs to be seen by passing traffic until they are up on it and at night it is not visible at all. 4. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if granted, the variance will be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • Public safety is enhanced by the increased visibility of the sign. • Given the high-speed traffic and visual distractions in our area, a taller sign allows for better recognition and timely response from drivers, thereby reducing the risk of sudden stops or accidents caused by missed information. • The improved visibility ensures that important announcements, service times, and community events are seen from a safe distance, allowing for smooth traffic fiow and preventing potential hazards. • The ordinance's height restriction does not account for the unique challenges posed by the property's speciflc conditions, such as the Department of Transportation easement and the volume of traffic on the road. • The taller sign maintains the aesthetic character of the area. • The design is intended to be respectful of the surrounding environment, blending with the community's look and feel while enhancing the overall communication landscape. • It ensures that the church can fulflll its role as a vital part of the community, effectively reaching out to individuals who rely on messaging for important updates and support. (i.e., food pantry etc.) • The requested variance supports the ordinance's objectives by securing public safety, achieving substantial justice, and maintaining community aesthetics, thereby enhancing the overall well being of our church and the surrounding area. • St. James AME new sign, if a variance is granted to the provisions for lighting illumination and digital board will be comparable with the existing commercial signs in the area. Meeting Adjourned There being no further business before the Board Motion to adjourn was made by Vice-Chair Rash and seconded by Michael Sanclimenti. The motion to adjourn the meeting passed 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:27 PM.