Planners delay vote on county political sign rules after ACLU concerns and state regulations reviewed

St. Mary's County planning staff recommended updating sign regulations to allow political campaign signs in all zoning districts while respecting state regulations and prohibiting signs in public rights‑of‑way. Commissioners deferred a final decision on Oct. 26, 2009, and asked staff to arrange a work session with the county attorney and other stakeholders.

The matter matters because sign regulations touch First Amendment free‑speech protections as well as local traffic and safety rules along state roads.

Yvonne Chalet, planning staff, summarized outreach after a public hearing and follow‑up with neighboring jurisdictions and agencies. Chalet told the commission that the State Highway Administration maintains regulations that limit political signs in proximity to state roads — for example durational limits of 45 days before and 15 days after a primary, with a similar 15‑day removal requirement after the general election unless moving to the general. Chalet also said she had discussed recent Baltimore federal court litigation with Deborah Gian of the ACLU and provided the commission with the ACLU’s comments.

Chalet said staff’s draft keeps sign sizes and most dimensional rules but recommends removing internal time limits in county code to avoid possible First Amendment challenges while making clear signs may not be affixed to public structures or placed in public rights‑of‑way. She said the department has “not experienced any significant problem with campaign signs” but acknowledged occasional stray or damaged signs after elections.

Several commissioners voiced concerns about enforcement, durability of signs that appear permanent, and ensuring public‑safety authority if a sign becomes hazardous. Commissioner Shelby Guazzo said she preferred leaving the word “temporary” in the ordinance and opposed deleting the county prohibition on illuminated campaign signs; staff and county legal counsel noted signs may be illuminated under chapter 63 lighting standards and singled‑out prohibitions on one sign category could be legally vulnerable.

After discussion, Commissioner Shelby Guazzo moved to table the decision until the third meeting from now; Susan McNeil seconded the motion and commissioners voted in favor. Commissioners also requested a work session with the county attorney (Mr. Weiskopf) and staff to discuss legal constraints and alternatives before returning with a revised recommendation.

Staff had provided the commission with model language from Leonardtown and Calvert County as background and noted that Leonardtown technically requires permits and time limits but told staff it does not actively enforce those limits. Chalet cautioned that a county rule referencing state regulations could be problematic if those state rules face a constitutional challenge.

The commission did not adopt a new rule at the meeting; members directed staff to prepare options and to hold a legal work session so the body can review alternatives prior to voting.