Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges stricter enforcement of ‘snipe’ signs; says city staff not responding to complaints
Summary
Effie Brock told the council she regularly removes illegal small advertisements in rights-of-way and said the Department of Planning and Zoning told her to file 311 complaints, but inspections and enforcement have lagged.
Effie Brock, an Eastport resident, told the City Council she regularly removes so-called “snipe” signs—small advertising signs placed in medians and attached to utility and traffic infrastructure—and urged the city to enforce existing sign code instead of creating new laws.
Brock said she filed reports through the city’s ANA311 system after discussions with Planning and Zoning enforcement staff, but weeks later many of the reported signs remained. “February fifth was 82 days ago, but we still had these signs up that I reported,” Brock told the council. She said she documented repeated follow-ups and eventually got an enforcement officer to re-open inspections and issue notices of violation, but compliance had not been achieved.
Brock contrasted Annapolis’ response with Worcester County, where she said officials both cite and remove snipe signs on site and can issue fines; she said that county staff told her fines there run $25 and that advertisers can be held liable under state law. Brock told the council that the principal problem in Annapolis is enforcement: “The issue is that we need our city government to enforce the sign laws that we have,” she said.
During follow-up comments Brock said the city’s fines for repeated sign violations can be substantial if enforced: “I brought in 11 signs—if we enforce that law and they were delayed in taking them down, that would be $1,100 a day right there in city revenue,” she said, urging the city to use existing enforcement mechanisms.
Councilors did not take immediate action at the meeting; the matter was raised during the public comment portion of the agenda. Brock recommended clearer workflows for tracking ANA311 reports, timely inspections and on-site removal authority or faster notice-and-remove procedures.
The council did not provide a timetable in the meeting for responding to Brock’s request, and city staff present did not provide additional enforcement commitments on the record during public comment.
