TO: Zoning Commission
THRU: Planning and Zoning Division
FROM: Craig Harmon, CZO - Senior Planner
DATE: April 14, 2026
RE:Title
A26-12:Order of Approval - Findings of Fact: Walmart Real Estate Business Trust (Shay Stripling, Applicant) at 7701 S Raeford Rd (9486349062000) for a variance to the maximum height of exterior lights (UDO Section 30-5.E.5) to achieve desired illumination.Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
City Council District 7 - Brenda McNair
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
This request directly supports the City’s FY2025 Strategic Plan mission to provide “quality and sustainable public services” that support communities and businesses.
Most Direct Alignment
• Goal I - Safety & Security (Objective 1.3): The applicant states that the existing fence height and location deter unauthorized access and illegal dumping on an active industrial site. This intent supports the City’s goal to maintain a safe and secure community, including the objective to ensure a low incidence of property and violent crime.
Secondary Alignment
• Goal II - Diverse & Viable Economy (Objective 2.4): The request enables the established industrial business to continue operating by maintaining site security and limiting operational disruption related to relocating or downsizing the fence. This approach helps the City sustain a favorable development climate that encourages business growth.
• Goal III - City Investment Planning (Objectives 3.2 and 3.4): The City applies land use regulations (strategic land use) in this case and addresses recurring dumping and trespass, described by the applicant as a quality-of-place and compliance issue. These actions help the City manage growth, strategic land use, and neighborhood revitalization through effective code enforcement and violations abatement.
Executive Summary:
Walmart Real Estate Business Trust has submitted a variance request from Section 30-5.E.5 of the Fayetteville Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), which establishes design standards for exterior lighting. Under the current ordinance, outdoor lighting fixtures-whether mounted on poles, walls, or other structures-are limited to a maximum height of 20 feet in residential, OI, NC, MU, and DT districts, and 30 feet in LC, CC, BP, and industrial districts, except in the case of athletic fields or performance areas.
As part of the proposed development, the applicant is requesting approval to install lighting poles that exceed the 30-foot height limitation applicable to the site’s zoning district. The applicant indicates that taller lighting poles are necessary to achieve the desired illumination levels for the site, maintain appropriate visibility and safety conditions for customers and employees, and accommodate the overall design and operational needs of the development. According to the applicant, these objectives cannot be fully achieved while remaining within the current height restriction established by the ordinance.
The variance request will be considered to determine whether the applicant has demonstrated the necessary conditions required under the UDO to justify relief from the lighting height standard.
The Zoning Commission held an Evidentiary Hearing on this case, March 10, 2026. The Commission approved this variance 5-0.
Background:
Zoning Permit Request and Staff Determination
On February 5, 2026, the applicant submitted a Variance request to allow light poles over the 30 foot maximum in the CC - Community Commercial Zoning District.
Issues/Analysis:
What Standards Apply to This Request?
30-5.E.5. Design Standards for Exterior Lighting
All exterior lighting shall meet the following standards:
Maximum Lighting Height
Except for athletic fields or performance areas, the height of outdoor lighting, whether mounted on poles, walls, or by other means, shall be no greater than 20 feet in residential districts and OI, NC, MU, and DT districts, and no greater than 30 feet in LC, CC, BP and industrial districts.
Wherever possible, illumination of outdoor seating areas, building entrances, and walkways shall be accomplished by use of ground mounted fixtures not more than eight feet in height.
Shielding
Exterior
Light fixtures in excess of 40 watts or 600 lumens shall use full cut-off lenses or hoods to prevent glare or spillover from the project site onto adjacent lands and streets.
Canopies
No light source in a canopy structure shall extend downward further than the lowest edge of the canopy ceiling.
Awnings
Awnings or canopies used for building accents over doors, windows, etc., shall not be internally illuminated (i.e., from underneath or behind the awning) unless the awning material is entirely opaque (see Figure 30-5.E.5.b, Awning Illumination).
Figure 30-5.E.5.b.3: Awning Illumination
Awnings may not be internally illuminated, unless the awning material is entirely opaque.
Maximum Illumination Levels
All outdoor lighting and indoor lighting visible from outside shall be designed and located so that the maximum illumination measured in foot-candles at ground level at a property line shall not exceed the standards in Table 30-5.E.5, Maximum Illumination Levels. Cut-off lighting shall be designed to direct light downward (e.g., shoe box style).
Coordination with Tree Locations
Site lighting must be designed to consider proposed tree locations. The location and size of parking lot islands is based on requirements in Section 30-5.B.4.c, Vehicular Use Area Landscaping. Site lighting must be located no closer than 15 feet from the trunk of a canopy tree and five feet from the trunk of an understory tree.
What the Applicant Requests (Height)
The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 30-5.E.5 of the Fayetteville Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), which establishes design standards for exterior lighting. Specifically, the ordinance limits the maximum height of new outdoor lighting poles to 30 feet within the applicable zoning districts.
Through this request, the applicant seeks approval to install lighting poles that exceed the 30-foot height limitation in order to achieve appropriate illumination levels for the site. According to the applicant, the increased pole height is necessary to meet operational lighting requirements, maintain appropriate safety and visibility standards, and accommodate the specific layout and design of the property. The applicant indicates that these objectives cannot be effectively achieved while remaining within the existing 30-foot height restriction established by the UDO.
What Decision Standards Govern a Variance?
Decision makers may approve a variance only if all listed standards are met, including:
1. Strict application causes practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships (without requiring a reasonable use),
2. Unique circumstances related to the land (such as location, size, or topography) cause hardships that are not common to the neighborhood or general public.
3. The variance allows reasonable use with the least deviation from the ordinance,
4. The variance aligns with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, and
5. The variance assures public safety and welfare and achieves substantial justice.
What Evidence Did the Applicant Provide in the Record?
The applicant provides the following statements to support the variance standards:
1. Please describe how strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property.: The property includes large open areas that require uniform and adequate illumination for safety and functionality. Due to the size and configuration of the site, achieving recommended lighting levels with 30-foot poles would require a significantly higher number of fixtures, resulting in inefficient spacing and increased glare. The hardship arises from the unique dimensions and operational requirements of the property, not from actions taken by the applicant. The need for taller poles is a direct result of site conditions and safety considerations.
2. Please describe how any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land, such as location, size, or topography, and are not the result of the actions of the landowner, nor may hardships resulting from personal circumstances as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public be the basis for granting a variance.: Strict application of the 30-foot pole height limit under UDO Section 30-5.E.5 creates unnecessary hardship due to unique conditions of the property, including its large size and open layout, which require taller poles to achieve safe, uniform lighting consistent with industry standards. Limiting poles to 30 feet would necessitate an excessive number of fixtures, increasing cost and clutter while compromising illumination quality. These difficulties are not self-created, nor common to neighboring properties, but stem from the sites specific dimensions and design requirements. Granting the variance aligns with the ordinances intent by ensuring safety and functionality without imposing disproportionate burdens.
3. Please describe how the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures.: The requested variance to allow lighting poles taller than 30 feet is the minimum action necessary to make reasonable use of the property. Without this adjustment, achieving safe and uniform illumination would require an excessive number of shorter poles, creating unnecessary cost, clutter, and operational inefficiencies. Allowing slightly taller poles resolves these issues while preserving the ordinances intent, ensuring the property can function as designed without imposing disproportionate burdens.
4. Please describe how the Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit.: The requested variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Unified Development Ordinance and preserves its spirit by ensuring safe, effective, and aesthetically appropriate lighting for the property. The ordinance seeks to balance functionality with community standards, and allowing slightly taller poles achieves this goal without undermining its objectives. The variance supports public safety, minimizes visual clutter compared to numerous shorter poles, and maintains compliance with the overall design principles intended by the ordinance.
Budget Impact:
This variance request does not directly change City expenditures or revenues. Staff expect any fiscal effects to stay limited to normal administrative costs for application intake, noticing, staff review, and the quasi-judicial hearing process. If the fence stays nonconforming without approval, the City may incur routine compliance and enforcement workload as part of standard code administration.
Options:
1. Approve Order of Approval as submitted.
2. Approve Order of approval with specific changes.
Recommended Action::Recommended Action
Staff recommends option 1 above.
end
Attachments:
1. Order of Approval - Findings of Fact