Highland Beach commissioners agree to study smaller temporary real‑estate signs, legal review to follow

The Town Commission of the Town of Highland Beach debated temporary signage rules on March 4 and directed staff to develop a more detailed proposal and legal analysis rather than adopt immediate rule changes.

The item grew out of resident complaints about large, stacked for‑sale signs and signage that remains in place for long periods. John Chapelleer, a Bel Air Drive resident, and volunteer Maggie Chapelleer urged smaller, more restrictive standards used by nearby municipalities. “If you simply change that one thing [sign size], I think you would accomplish 90% of what I’m trying to accomplish here,” John Chapelleer said, referring to adopting a roughly 5‑by‑8‑inch footprint used in other seaside towns.

Town Planner Ingrid Allen told commissioners that current code (chapter 23) defines temporary signs and allows up to four temporary signs per parcel and that no permit is required for such signs. Allen said the code is silent on many durations and that enforcement is difficult when signs are placed in the public right-of-way. The commission discussed legal limits on regulating sign content: town staff noted a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court precedent requires content-neutral treatment for many temporary signs, which constrains some types of differentiation (for example, having different sizes for political versus commercial signs).

Commissioners and residents raised several practical issues for a rewrite: whether to limit cumulative stacking (so a single parcel cannot present multiple stacked panels that together exceed the size limit), whether to set a duration limit (for example, a maximum consecutive time a temporary sign may remain), restrictions on placement in public rights-of-way and clearer parcel/side‑of‑street rules. Staff and the town attorney said size, height, setback from right-of-way and duration are generally content-neutral tools that cities can use, but that any ordinance must be drafted with attention to case law.

Rather than sponsoring an ordinance immediately, the commission asked staff to prepare a fuller package for a future meeting: comparative sign samples from other towns, explicit size and stacking alternatives, draft text that is content‑neutral, a preliminary enforcement approach, and an analysis of potential First Amendment constraints. The commission did not adopt any new rule tonight.

Town Manager Marshall said the process typically takes time and that staff would bring examples and legal guidance; commissioners suggested including mockups (actual sign samples) and a recommended timeline. Several residents said political signs are not the principal concern; the emphasis was on real‑estate signs that remain in place and large stacked displays on small residential streets.

Next steps: staff will assemble sample signage, legal analysis and draft ordinance language for the commission to review at a future meeting. Commissioners recommended the public be included in review and that any ordinance explicitly address stacking, duration and right‑of‑way placement.