Planning commission reviews Clear Channel proposal to consolidate billboards, keep digital-conversion rules

Kelly Schafer Miller, representing Clear Channel Outdoor, presented a proposed text amendment to Carroll County’s zoning code on Oct. 1 that would create a pathway to consolidate multiple existing off‑premises signs (billboards) on the same or adjacent properties and allow consolidated signs to seek the county’s existing digital conversion process.

The proposed change would be added to Section 158.115 of the county zoning code, which governs “use off‑the‑premises signs,” Miller told the Planning and Zoning Commission. Miller said the amendment would permit consolidation only for signs on the same parcel or immediately adjacent parcels and would not allow a consolidated sign to exceed the total square footage already on the affected property or a fixed cap of 672 square feet (a double‑sided 14‑by‑48 panel). The proposal also sets a maximum height of 50 feet and would prevent a property that used the consolidation allowance from adding additional off‑premises signs, Miller said.

Why it matters: proponents said consolidation could reduce the number of billboards along county corridors while preserving the county’s existing controls on height, size and illumination, and it would allow consolidated signs that meet zoning conditions to apply for digital conversion under the same administrative process already used for conversions.

Miller told the commission the county created a registry of nonconforming billboards after the 2003 code changes; many billboards predate those changes and are treated as nonconforming uses. She said Clear Channel owns “over 140 panels in the Carroll County region” and that the company has identified at least two locations where consolidation could be applied. "I am here tonight on behalf of Clear Channel Outdoor," she said. "If the text amendment were to be adopted and utilized, the amendment could result in a reduction in the amount of panels billboards in the county." She also described the application process: a zoning‑administrator review akin to the existing digital conversion procedure, public advertisement of the application, and a public hearing if one is requested.

Key proposal details discussed at the meeting: - Applicable signs: only signs on the same property or immediately adjacent properties would be eligible for consolidation; owners could not consolidate signs on widely separated parcels. - Size cap and no net increase: consolidation could not create more total advertising square footage on the property than already exists; in any event a consolidated sign could not exceed 672 square feet (double‑sided 14x48). If the totaled existing signage was smaller than that cap, the consolidated sign could not exceed the smaller total. - Height: proposed maximum height 50 feet. - Lighting/operation: consolidated signs would be required to meet the county’s existing operational and illumination requirements for digital billboards, including transition timing requirements and light‑sensing equipment to reduce brightness at night. Miller said those operational controls are stricter than many on‑premises electronic signs and are enforced through the permitting process. - Process and oversight: applications would be filed with the zoning administrator (administrative adjustment/administrative decision); applications would be publicly advertised and, if requested, a hearing would be held. The Maryland State Highway Administration reviews and issues separate permits for many of the county’s roadside billboards; Miller noted most billboards are along state highways and that applicants must comply with state as well as county requirements. - Property owner consent and leases: Miller said sign owners typically must have a lease and the property owner must sign the zoning application; Clear Channel said it would normally apply where it holds the sign lease.

Commissioners asked for clarifications. Questions addressed how consolidated panels would be arranged (one larger double‑faced structure rather than multiple side‑by‑side panels), whether consolidated signs would necessarily convert to digital (Miller said conversion would remain an option only where eligible under existing code), how the county enforces brightness and transition timing (Miller cited required light sensors and transition standards), and whether consolidations would worsen sight‑distance or safety problems at known problem locations (Miller said the zoning administrator would consult the State Highway Administration and county engineering on sight‑distance and other safety considerations during review).

Several commissioners pressed for data the next time the issue returns: Mr. Smith asked for registry counts and for staff to identify which signs and properties could be consolidated; other commissioners asked staff to bring draft code language and to confirm how the proposal intersects with state highway requirements. Miller said staff had already discussed draft language with Clear Channel and that the company and staff had iterated the draft before the meeting.

Public comment: the commission opened a public‑comment period specifically on the text amendment; no members of the public testified on the proposal at the meeting.

Next steps: the applicant sought a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to forward the proposed text amendment to the Board of County Commissioners for a public hearing. The commission did not take a formal vote on a recommendation at the Oct. 1 meeting; the zoning administrator will present recommended draft language and any technical analyses at the next commission meeting, and the commission will consider a recommendation to the Board following that presentation.

Miller and company provided contact and background materials; several commissioners requested staff bring the nonconforming registry counts and the draft ordinance language to the next meeting so the commission can review the precise text before making a recommendation.