Planning board rejects application to convert I‑90 billboard to digital displays

The Belgrade City‑County Planning Board on May 27 declined to approve a variance that would allow Art Outdoor Advertising to convert two Interstate‑90 billboard faces to digital displays.

Emily Martinez, Planner 1, presented staff analysis and told the board the proposed conversion would create sign faces far larger than allowed in the zoning code (roughly 378 square feet per face versus a 40‑square‑foot limit for freestanding signs) and does not comply with current sign provisions. Martinez cited Montana Administrative Rule 18.6.237 on electronic billboard standards and noted that city‑applied zoning within county limits is scheduled to dissolve on 2026‑07‑01, which complicates future permitting for digital billboards in the area. "Based, on the submitted application, supporting documentation and compliance with the applicable zoning regulations, staff does not recommend approval of the sign variance for a digital billboard," Martinez said.

Applicant Matt Clyde (Art Outdoor) urged the board to allow the conversion without setting a precedent that would proliferate digital signs. Clyde said the company would not enlarge the sign face and argued that converting the existing structure to digital would create a 2,000‑foot protected spacing under state rules that, in his view, would prevent many more new billboards from being built after the city's zoning jurisdiction ends July 1. Clyde also offered community benefits: donated ad space for the Chamber of Commerce and local events, and the ability to display Amber Alerts and emergency notifications at the county dispatch center’s request.

Deputy Sheriff Dan Maland of the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office told the board that dispatch systems could notify the sign operator and designees to post Amber Alerts and other emergency messages quickly. "As long as Matt and or his designees of the company get that message they are able to put it out instantly on that board," Maland said, describing the potential public‑safety use.

Board members raised concerns about precedent, enforcement and whether the digital conversion constituted more than maintenance. The board debated proposed conditions requiring agreements with emergency services to ensure Amber‑alert capability; applicants signaled willingness to secure a 10‑year agreement if the board imposed such a condition. Several members and staff warned that the previous planning director’s earlier guidance—cited by the applicant—may have been incomplete and that the current staff recommendation was to deny the variance.

After motions, numerous attempted amendments and extended deliberation, the board voted on the motion to approve the variance (as amended) and the motion failed.

What happened next: Because the board did not approve the variance, the applicant may pursue other administrative or permitting routes (including seeking a new application or appeal), but no approval was granted at this meeting.