[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6428723,"mediaKeyId","5893382-f7801777c240e7247871628753f29bf8","parentId",5893382,"title","Planning commission reviews Clear Channel proposal to consolidate billboards, keep digital-conversion rules","audioSeconds",1881,"startMs",547000,"endMs",2428000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5893382-f7801777c240e7247871628753f29bf8&start=547&end=2428","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5893382-f7801777c240e7247871628753f29bf8/thumbnail_547000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6428723/Carroll-County/Maryland/Planning-commission-reviews-Clear-Channel-proposal-to-consolidate-billboards-keep-digital-conversion-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6428723-02642754f31b67e871a157d11a04503d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143143&Signature=Kpl6zIepcdWHjnsB2vu17u4zo2ZjWR340Rho78Ni5G5eVcddoeOyhtFwTuT1nwiLcKfptBH1D3EhIJ9gLDHFe5a45-6KHESlnfuN~9fH34ueQZ4iNpakL-nacA8Sw~5c1fKmtoIbdFXDDpuzJa-MqhTil-XoLo65NO-ONufxTh-0fcv~cx3hdY8iGoHCWjOgulhlYOVCTvy2QxgdReCGzSKcHDcXRs33wmhq7ENBKvUCCbqOpnUfKuLt4ov32ejT3X4~P72kBB1mo1c081DKEKh-wxIN4zq9KWGMdm1FkzunqluZnWv90~qcmwHgzyGjOeePum1UdKywPEupanlRYg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Carroll County, MD","date","2025-10-02T12:16:37Z","article","Kelly Schafer Miller, representing Clear Channel Outdoor, presented a proposed text amendment to Carroll County’s zoning code on Oct. 1 that would create a pathway to consolidate multiple existing off‑premises signs (billboards) on the same or adjacent properties and allow consolidated signs to seek the county’s existing digital conversion process.

The proposed change would be added to Section 158.115 of the county zoning code, which governs “use off‑the‑premises signs,” Miller told the Planning and Zoning Commission. Miller said the amendment would permit consolidation only for signs on the same parcel or immediately adjacent parcels and would not allow a consolidated sign to exceed the total square footage already on the affected property or a fixed cap of 672 square feet (a double‑sided 14‑by‑48 panel). The proposal also sets a maximum height of 50 feet and would prevent a property that used the consolidation allowance from adding additional off‑premises signs, Miller said.

Why it matters: proponents said consolidation could reduce the number of billboards along county corridors while preserving the county’s existing controls on height, size and illumination, and it would allow consolidated signs that meet zoning conditions to apply for digital conversion under the same administrative process already used for conversions.

Miller told the commission the county created a registry of nonconforming billboards after the 2003 code changes; many billboards predate those changes and are treated as nonconforming uses. She said Clear Channel owns “over 140 panels in the Carroll County region” and that the company has identified at least two locations where consolidation could be applied. \"I am here tonight on behalf of Clear Channel Outdoor,\" she said. \"If the text amendment were to be adopted and utilized, the amendment could result in a reduction in the amount of panels billboards in the county.\" She also described the application process: a zoning‑administrator review akin to the existing digital conversion procedure, public advertisement of the application, and a public hearing if one is requested.

Key proposal details discussed at the meeting:
- Applicable signs: only signs on the same property or immediately adjacent properties would be eligible for consolidation; owners could not consolidate signs on widely separated parcels.
- Size cap and no net increase: consolidation could not create more total advertising square footage on the property than already exists; in any event a consolidated sign could not exceed 672 square feet (double‑sided 14x48). If the totaled existing signage was smaller than that cap, the consolidated sign could not exceed the smaller total.
- Height: proposed maximum height 50 feet.
- Lighting/operation: consolidated signs would be required to meet the county’s existing operational and illumination requirements for digital billboards, including transition timing requirements and light‑sensing equipment to reduce brightness at night. Miller said those operational controls are stricter than many on‑premises electronic signs and are enforced through the permitting process.
- Process and oversight: applications would be filed with the zoning administrator (administrative adjustment/administrative decision); applications would be publicly advertised and, if requested, a hearing would be held. The Maryland State Highway Administration reviews and issues separate permits for many of the county’s roadside billboards; Miller noted most billboards are along state highways and that applicants must comply with state as well as county requirements.
- Property owner consent and leases: Miller said sign owners typically must have a lease and the property owner must sign the zoning application; Clear Channel said it would normally apply where it holds the sign lease.

Commissioners asked for clarifications. Questions addressed how consolidated panels would be arranged (one larger double‑faced structure rather than multiple side‑by‑side panels), whether consolidated signs would necessarily convert to digital (Miller said conversion would remain an option only where eligible under existing code), how the county enforces brightness and transition timing (Miller cited required light sensors and transition standards), and whether consolidations would worsen sight‑distance or safety problems at known problem locations (Miller said the zoning administrator would consult the State Highway Administration and county engineering on sight‑distance and other safety considerations during review).

Several commissioners pressed for data the next time the issue returns: Mr. Smith asked for registry counts and for staff to identify which signs and properties could be consolidated; other commissioners asked staff to bring draft code language and to confirm how the proposal intersects with state highway requirements. Miller said staff had already discussed draft language with Clear Channel and that the company and staff had iterated the draft before the meeting.

Public comment: the commission opened a public‑comment period specifically on the text amendment; no members of the public testified on the proposal at the meeting.

Next steps: the applicant sought a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to forward the proposed text amendment to the Board of County Commissioners for a public hearing. The commission did not take a formal vote on a recommendation at the Oct. 1 meeting; the zoning administrator will present recommended draft language and any technical analyses at the next commission meeting, and the commission will consider a recommendation to the Board following that presentation.

Miller and company provided contact and background materials; several commissioners requested staff bring the nonconforming registry counts and the draft ordinance language to the next meeting so the commission can review the precise text before making a recommendation.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning & Zoning Commission Work Session October 1, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Kelly Schafer Miller, speaking for Clear Channel Outdoor, asked the Carroll County Planning and Zoning Commission on Oct. 1 to recommend a zoning text amendment that would allow consolidation of existing off‑premises signs on the same or adjacent properties, with a 672‑square‑foot cap and other operational limits.","taxTitle","Carroll County, Maryland","taxId",7748,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6428719,"Planning commission hears summaries from economy, housing and agriculture work groups as master‑plan update continues",5157,2492000,7649000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5893382-f7801777c240e7247871628753f29bf8&start=2492&end=7649","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5893382-f7801777c240e7247871628753f29bf8/thumbnail_2492000.jpg","/articles/6428719/Carroll-County/Maryland/Planning-commission-hears-summaries-from-economy-housing-and-agriculture-work-groups-as-masterplan-update-continues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6428719-4e676069b4a5122f9f54396b5eccbe05/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143143&Signature=SzlD30DCQhI3bp1gHtIwZFpot3dqcqcOPWjMeTFXJFDV1TTs43U-odf8GNF3YIBPNzfkbaszJJjiIHO6Dnyy4RSRd2fxtsHEVr37k6MHWm0oMt-np0HbbPtogjFBcU42E10h8MYs9hbgjKP5tSU2fQJsJDwmWj98vHNPFY4oLP1baTcBJlzyyb3gytEhk7NYDSzKpnchHnumJyulJdS21c-7Ngr23VVHLnWxw~CZcUKjr~A4Ce4klATYzvI8vv56-NDnYnJbuPUbTIjyUG~-l3Czs~76RZ1XQg11RmO9bWevHITpHi0SuSuIkjZOH7fZkKcwbnCiq6UPdqrFcH~7pw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Carroll County Planning and Zoning Commission on Oct. 1 heard summaries of three master‑plan work groups — economy, housing and agriculture — that met over the past months to develop recommendations for the county’s master plan update.

Planning staff member Daphne summarized the process used to form and run the work groups and described common threads across the economy, housing and agriculture groups: materials provided in advance, open meetings, subject‑matter experts and a mix of stakeholders including municipal representatives and citizens. Each group produced recommendations intended for inclusion, as appropriate, in the master plan update.

Why it matters: the work‑group reports will feed the county’s master‑plan update, which must incorporate state‑required elements such as the newer housing element and a sensitive‑areas review. Commissioners and staff said fitting the groups’ sometimes competing priorities (growth versus preservation, infrastructure constraints versus housing needs) into a single plan will require additional study, municipal coordination and public outreach.

Economy work group: staff said the economy group (26 members) reviewed a prior economic development and land‑use study and tested growth scenarios. The group met eight times and generally preferred a moderated growth scenario (identified in the prior study as “scenario B”) over a faster growth scenario labeled “scenario C.” Work‑group participants discussed vocational and site‑development strategies, regulatory changes and public investment priorities, and staff said the group largely reached consensus on its recommendations.

Housing work group: the housing group (29 members) worked from an existing housing study and discussed key needs including a broader mix of housing types, high home values and limited starter homes, affordability and disparities for protected classes, and infrastructure constraints (water, sewer, roads, school capacity). Staff said housing discussions repeatedly returned to infrastructure—work‑group members told staff that without water and sewer access, introducing lower‑cost housing types is difficult and municipal growth may be constrained by surrounding agricultural preservation.

Agriculture work group: the agriculture group (26 members) discussed trends in crop and livestock farming, secondary income strategies, changing farm sizes, and preservation strategies. Members reviewed preservation successes and constraints, evaluated where preservation might be limited (for example along some major transportation corridors), and discussed threats including extreme weather and state policies such as solar siting that members said complicate farmland preservation efforts. Staff reported average attendance of about 77 percent for the agriculture group.

Common challenges and process: staff and group facilitators said the groups struggled with time limits, the volume of material, group size (each work group had roughly 25–30 members), and complexity of issues. For the housing group, staff used backcasting, small‑group discussion and sticky‑note exercises to surface priorities; for agriculture the facilitator used breakout groups and report outs to gather perspectives. Several facilitators said the joint meeting that brought all three groups together was useful for cross‑topic understanding.

Next steps: staff proposed a multi‑stage path forward. Commissioners will receive full work‑group reports (the staff slide noted the economy report would be presented by the facilitator or substitute at the Nov. 5 meeting). Staff also proposed a planning summit with municipalities early in 2026 to address municipal‑county coordination and infrastructure (water and sewer) questions, to revise plan policies and to update maps as needed. Staff emphasized that the update must include state‑required plan elements (including the updated housing element and a sensitive‑areas review for wildlife connectivity) and that draft plan language and additional studies will be produced as necessary for informed decisions.

Public comment: several work‑group members in the audience spoke briefly. Pamela Malkin, a housing group participant, said the housing group repeatedly returned to the need for water and sewer as a precondition to deliver lower‑cost housing and municipal expansion. Agriculture members present thanked staff and said the process underlined the county’s long history of preservation and the challenge of reconciling state mandates with local farmland protection.

Staff asked commissioners how they wished to proceed; commissioners requested the work‑group reports and asked that staff craft recurring master‑plan work sessions at regular commission meetings so the commission can review sections of the draft plan, policy recommendations and maps over multiple sessions. Staff said it will also prepare draft language and bring specific studies or data where the commission requests further analysis.

The commission closed the discussion with plans to review the work‑group reports at the Nov. 5 meeting and to schedule a planning summit with municipalities early next year.","Commissioners received summaries of three master‑plan work groups (economy, housing, agriculture), including attendance, common themes and challenges; staff described next steps for the county master‑plan update, required state elements and plans to convene a municipal planning summit and to present draft language in coming months.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission reviews Clear Channel proposal to consolidate billboards, keep digital-conversion rules

Planning commission hears summaries from economy, housing and agriculture work groups as master‑plan update continues