Board denies request to replace off-premise billboard at South College Street

The City of Auburn Board of Zoning Adjustments on Oct. 1 denied a variance request that would have allowed the replacement of a nonconforming off-premise sign at 2416 South College Street, adjacent to the I‑85 north off-ramp.

Planning staff told the board the request sought relief from parts (b) and (c) of section 7.15 of the zoning ordinance, which limit structural alteration and prohibit changes that increase a sign’s degree of nonconformity. Staff said off-premise signs (billboards) are prohibited under section 6.04, making existing billboards nonconforming; when a nonconforming sign is removed, the code generally does not permit rebuilding.

John Benner, a representative for the landowner, told the board the landowner does not own the sign structure today and wants to replace and take ownership to allow maintenance and operation. Benner said the intent is not to expand the sign’s dimensions and that any rebuilt sign would go back through permitting. “The owner is simply wanting to be able to own that sign as it sits on the property,” Benner said.

Board members asked whether the proposal would effectively rebuild a nonconforming off-premise sign—something the zoning ordinance disfavors when the existing structure is removed. Staff clarified that if the sign were wholly removed (for example, by accident or deterioration) the current code generally prevents re‑establishment of an off‑premise sign unless a variance is granted. The board discussed the difference between maintenance and replacement, the 50% threshold used in valuing repairs or replacements, and the practical sequence of ownership and permitting if a variance were granted.

After public comment and staff discussion, a motion to approve the variance failed on a roll call vote: Will Faulkner, Mary Boyd, Leticia Smith, Marta Heffern and Elizabeth Strain all voted no, and the variance was denied.

The denial means that under current city code the landowner will not be authorized to remove and rebuild the off-premise sign on the property without further action; staff said any future work would be subject to applicable permitting rules and the city’s nonconforming-sign provisions.