Loxahatchee Groves committee advances draft sign-code limits, asks staff to survey existing signs

The Town of Loxahatchee Groves Planning Advisory Committee on May 20 discussed a draft sign-code update that would require permits for every sign, set size and height limits for signs in the AR (Agricultural-Residential) district, and prohibit a range of animated and temporary sign types while allowing limited temporary banners and certain institutional exceptions.

The committee said the update matters because it would create a permit record for every sign, make enforcement clearer, and could require many existing signs to become conforming over time. Committee members asked staff to inventory current signs in the AR district so the town can calculate how many would become nonconforming and design an amortization schedule before sending formal recommendations to the Town Council.

Committee staff summarized the draft as a significant change from the town’s existing practice: every temporary or permanent sign would need a permit so the town maintains a record of sign type, size and location for enforcement. Permit fees would be scaled by review level, and most ordinary permanent signs would be a one-time permit rather than an annual fee. Staff emphasized the permit would require specification of size and location, not the sign’s message.

Under the draft, on a standard lot (defined in discussion as 5 acres or larger) property owners in the AR district could have up to three permanent signs: one primary sign limited to 9 square feet and up to two secondary signs at 4 square feet each; all permanent and temporary signs discussed would be limited to 6 feet in height. Each property could also have one temporary sign limited to 4 square feet. For nonconforming lots (those smaller than 5 acres), the draft would allow one permanent sign up to 9 square feet and one temporary sign up to 4 square feet, both subject to the same 6-foot height cap.

Committee members also discussed exceptions for ranch- or driveway-entry features. The group agreed an elevated entrance sign or archway could be permitted by size and character even though such an entrance might have a substantially larger sign face area (examples discussed included an entrance sign with roughly 40 square feet of sign face and lettering of roughly 2 feet high so it is visible from the roadway). Members suggested the town should consider minimum clearance (examples discussed ranged from 15 to 20 feet) so emergency and service vehicles can pass beneath an archway; staff said they would research typical fire-department clearance requirements.

On materials and message, committee members and staff said the town cannot regulate sign content but may define permitted or prohibited materials and maintenance standards. The committee generally favored restricting inexpensive, short-lived materials (for example, banning cloth banners as permanent signs) while avoiding overly prescriptive lists that would quickly become outdated. The committee agreed all permitted signs must be maintained in good condition; failure to maintain a sign would subject it to enforcement.

The committee reviewed a multi-page list of sign types and reached informal recommendations for many categories. Notable consensus positions and discussion outcomes (discussion, not a formal council adoption) included: - Animated signs, electronic changeable-copy signs and exposed neon/LED tubing: generally opposed for the town’s rural character; institutional uses were discussed as a possible exception but not decided. - Balloons and “wobble”/inflatable signs: committee expressed opposition to both permanent and temporary use; several members cited environmental and aesthetic concerns. - Banners and similar temporary cloth signs: the group favored permitting them only as temporary signs with time limits (examples discussed: a week for grand openings or multi-week rental windows for sales); they should remain subject to the permit requirement. - Billboards and off-premise advertising signs: committee members recommended keeping those prohibited; government notifications (town announcements) would remain exempt. - Snipe signs (small signs tacked to poles or placed in rights-of-way) and abandoned or degraded signs: recommended prohibited and subject to removal. - Pole vs. monument signs: members discussed allowing pole signs with conditions but emphasized lower-height monument signs would better fit rural character; examples and illustrations will be brought back. - Window signs visible to the public, projecting signs and awning signage with advertising: the committee recommended regulating window and projecting signs visible from the public right-of-way and generally opposed awning advertising that reads like commercial promotions. - Painted wall murals: committee members indicated support for allowing high-quality murals or painted wall features under architectural-design conditions rather than treating them the same as commercial copy. - Vehicle signs and portable signs: recommended regulated with conditions where vehicle signage is parked or used principally for advertising on-site; staff will draft language.

Throughout the meeting members repeatedly emphasized that the town should not impose rules that would force the wholesale replacement of many expensive, existing signs without a reasonable amortization schedule. Staff was directed to perform a visible-inventory survey of signs in the AR district to quantify nonconformity and help draft an appropriate amortization timetable (staff noted sample amortization periods in the discussion ranged from five to ten years as context, not a final proposal).

Committee members also discussed wayfinding for agritourism and small agricultural businesses. Some members opposed allowing property owners to place off-premise directional signs along Okeechobee Boulevard and Southern Boulevard; others suggested town-managed wayfinding kiosks or monuments that could host multiple, paid listings for local businesses. No formal decision was made—staff was asked to return examples and draft language.

Procedure and next steps: staff will collect the sign inventory and return to the committee with proposed language and examples (commercial/master sign plan details were flagged for the next meeting). The committee agreed to meet next on Monday, June 9 at 4:30 p.m. to continue the commercial and institutional sign discussions and to review draft regulatory language before forwarding recommendations to Town Council.

The meeting concluded without formal votes on the substantive code changes; the committee approved the meeting agenda at the start of the session and later approved adjournment by voice vote. The committee emphasized the update would require public-notice, a staff inventory to set realistic compliance timelines, and that any final sign-code ordinance would need to proceed to the Town Council for adoption.