Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff directed to study billboard consolidation; Clear Channel seeks code change to combine adjacent signs
Summary
Clear Channel Outdoor asked the Board of Carroll County Commissioners to introduce a text amendment allowing consolidation of multiple off-premise signs into a single panel; board voted to direct staff to work with Planning & Zoning on potential amendments to County Code Section 158.115.
The Board of Carroll County Commissioners voted Aug. 28 to direct county staff to work with the Planning and Zoning Commission on possible changes to County Code Section 158.115, the zoning section that governs off-premise signs (billboards). The action follows a presentation from Clear Channel Outdoor asking that adjacent panels be eligible for consolidation into a single sign.
Nut graf: Clear Channel asked the county to permit consolidation of two or more existing panels on the same or adjacent properties into a single consolidated board, subject to restrictions intended to limit size, height and location. The board directed staff to study the proposal with Planning & Zoning and to evaluate possible unintended consequences and state highway or other regulatory constraints.
Clear Channel representatives said the goal of the proposed amendment is to reduce the number of panels on properties that currently host multiple signs while allowing a single consolidated structure, and to clarify a process under which nonconforming existing signs could be consolidated and — where applicable — digitized under current commercial- and industrial-zone rules.
Under the company’s proposal, consolidation could not increase the county’s total square footage of signage for the parcels involved; a single consolidated panel would be capped at 672 square feet and 50 feet tall in the draft language presented. Consolidated signs would also have to meet operational and lighting standards already in the code, and property frontage setbacks could not be made worse than existing conditions.
County planning staff and commissioners discussed process issues. Commissioners asked staff to examine whether the amendment could create unintended benefits for a single firm or create conflicts with State Highway Administration rules. Staff said the item would move to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review, public comment and a recommendation before the board would schedule a public hearing.
Ending: The board recorded a motion, second and unanimous vote to direct staff to develop draft code language and seek the Planning & Zoning Commission’s review.
