Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Miami Lakes workshop signals code overhaul for signs, flags and electronic displays
Summary
Town attorneys and councilmembers reviewed First Amendment limits, park enforcement and gaps on electronic signage; staff were directed to draft tightened, clearer regulations and check recent Florida case law.
Town of Miami Lakes attorneys and councilmembers spent a workshop on Oct. 12 reviewing the town sign code, focusing on flags, political signage at parks and a gap in rules for electronic displays. The council instructed town attorneys and staff to rework the sign ordinance, tighten time‑place‑manner rules, and return with a draft for council consideration.
The discussion centered on constitutional limits from the U.S. Supreme Court and Florida case law and how those limits shape what municipal governments may regulate. Lawrence Okubiella, speaking for the town, cited Reed v. Town of Gilbert and summarized the constitutional risk in plain terms: “If you have to read it, you probably are,” referring to content‑based limits on regulating flags and signs. Okubiella said municipalities may regulate aesthetics and neutral rules about size, location and duration under a rational‑basis test, but content‑based restrictions on political or religious speech trigger strict scrutiny.
Council members and staff spent extended time on two enforcement examples: signs at Town parks during early voting and the absence of clear language on electronic signs. Town Manager (unnamed) said he personally ordered removal of ground‑mounted campaign signs at the Mary Collins park polling site during early voting, and explained the town allowed handheld signs and tent‑attached signs while removing those pushed into park grounds: “The one who made the determination was me,” he said. Council members urged a code carve‑out for temporary campaign activity at early‑voting and Election Day sites so enforcement is consistent and does not appear to single out campaigns.
Attorneys and council members discussed practical code elements that can survive legal scrutiny: uniform size limits, time windows for temporary signs (examples mentioned included 30–60 days pre‑ and post‑election), limits on number and placement, and neutral rules addressing flagpoles and illumination. The presentation pointed to local code references (cited in the workshop as section 13‑1903 and 13‑1903.1) and examples from other Florida municipalities (Miami Beach, Pembroke Pines, Coral Gables, City of Sunrise) and court decisions (Reed v. Town of Gilbert; Lamar Advertising v. City of Ormond Beach; other local cases cited during discussion).
Electronic signs drew separate concern. Staff noted the existing code effectively bans moving or flashing illumination and restricts hours — the ordinance language cited in the workshop prohibits “moving, flashing, intermittent, rotating, chasing” illumination and forbids illumination from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. unless the premises are open for business. Councilmembers said the town should add clearer brightness and change‑rate standards, limits on animation and rules addressing glare and driver distraction; councilmembers also asked for variance/conditional‑use guidance so Planning & Zoning can weigh requests (the Miami Lakes Auto Mall previously received a variance for signage).
Several councilmembers emphasized protecting private homeowner speech while preserving community aesthetics. Some favored limiting flags to those protected by federal or state law (U.S. flag, state flag, U.S. Armed Forces flags were discussed as protected categories), but attorneys warned that writing rules that require officials to read flag text or imagery risks content‑based restrictions. Council discussion repeatedly returned to a practical, uniform approach: regulate size, placement, illumination and duration rather than content.
Next steps identified in the workshop: town attorneys will work with town staff (Suzanna/Susanna referenced in the meeting) to redraft the sign code language; staff will research the local “Santa Rosa” litigation referenced during the discussion and any appellate developments; and the draft ordinance will return to council for consideration. Councilmembers asked that the draft clarify enforcement steps (courtesy notice → warning → further action) and include specific carve‑outs for early voting locations so temporary political signage can be displayed in a manner that does not violate park rules or create a perception of selective enforcement.
The council did not take a formal vote during the workshop. The body’s working direction to staff was procedural — to revise and return with a tightened, clearer draft — rather than to adopt immediate regulations.
