The Board of County Commissioners on May 26 postponed a decision on a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance that would allow electronic changeable-copy signs for on-premise advertising in certain growth areas.

Planning staff and the county attorney presented a narrowly drafted proposal that would permit digital, changeable-copy signs only in development districts, town centers and village centers and would explicitly prohibit them in the Rural Preservation District (RPD). The draft sets a maximum digital panel area of 32 square feet, allows messages to fade in or out but prohibits scrolling, flashing, animation or full-motion video, and requires message cycles of not less than 10 seconds.

Yvonne Chelet, Planning and Zoning staff, told the board the draft reflected the Planning Commission’s recommendation and legal guidance to keep the amendment content-neutral while allowing community and nonprofit messages in addition to commercial messaging. Chelet also noted the Planning Commission held a public hearing and a work session before forwarding its recommendation.

Why it matters

The question raises competing public-policy goals: supporting small-business marketing and non-profit messaging while protecting rural character, limiting visual clutter and preventing driver distraction. Commissioners emphasized enforceability, fairness between businesses in different zones, and the potential for a ‘‘sign arms race’’ if electronic signs proliferate.

Discussion and outcome

Commissioners debated whether to permit digital signs in nonconforming commercial uses inside the RPD, how long a message may remain visible, size limits on high-speed corridors and whether the county should undertake a comprehensive rewrite of all sign regulations before authorizing new technology.

Board members expressed mixed views. Some said limited allowance would help small businesses and nonprofit organizations that now manually change sign lettering; others worried about visual impact and comparability to large, high-intensity displays in neighboring counties.

Commissioner Jarboe moved to deny the proposed amendment outright. That motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Raley then moved to delay a final vote until the next regular meeting; the motion was seconded and carried with one commissioner recording a nay. The board instructed staff to provide any final edits and to prepare materials for a vote at the next meeting.

Ending

The board did not change zoning law at the May 26 meeting. Commissioners asked staff and the Planning Commission to prepare a final ordinance draft and supplemental analysis for the next meeting to allow a complete board vote on the narrowly drawn proposal.