Planning board deadlocks on Market Street sign exception after neighbors object to lifting SHOD protections

The New Hanover County Planning Board on May 7 deadlocked on a conditional rezoning, Z2604, that would remove the State Highway Overlay District (SHOD) designation from a Market Street property while preserving most SHOD development standards but exempting the existing 25-foot freestanding sign from the overlay's 6-foot height limit.

Colin Tarrant, an attorney for the applicant, told the board the site already complies with SHOD standards except for the sign, which was built following a permit issued in error. "We've got a 25-foot sign here only 18 feet away from the right of way," Tarrant said, describing the permit mistake and his client's pursuit of a variance that was denied.

Staff recommended approval with two conditions: require SHOD development standards except the sign limits, and require any future replacement of the freestanding sign to meet SHOD standards if the sign were substantially destroyed. Staff noted an agreement allowing temporary relief had expired Feb. 2, 2026.

Neighbors opposed the proposal during public comment. Gail Vale, an adjacent resident, said lighting from the site had been a recurring problem and expressed distrust the owner would follow conditions: "Removal of the SHOD wording ... is totally disagreeable to me," she said, adding the neighborhood would prefer a narrow exemption limited to the sign rather than removal of the overlay language.

Board members debated precedent and fairness. Supporters said the conditional rezoning preserves most corridor protections while addressing a unique as‑built situation; opponents warned that allowing the sign by rezoning would reward a party that did not follow rules and could erode the SHOD's aims. After discussion the board moved the staff-recommended motion to recommend approval; the vote tied 3–3, which the county attorney said means the recommendation fails at the board level. The item will move to the Board of County Commissioners for a quasi-legislative hearing on June 1.

The action leaves key points for the commissioners: whether to accept the staff's conditions that keep most SHOD protections in place while effectively legalizing the existing nonconforming sign, and whether the expired agreement and neighborhood lighting concerns warrant a different outcome. If the commissioners approve the conditional rezoning, the sign would be compliant with the property's underlying B-2 standards; if not, the owner would need to remove or modify the sign to meet SHOD requirements.

Planning staff said they will include the expired agreement language and the staff conditions in the materials going to the commissioners; neighbors and the applicant were advised to bring expert testimony and any written agreements to the June 1 hearing.

The board's formal recommendation failed by tie; the commissioners will make the final decision.