Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning and Zoning considers exempting existing billboards from property signage caps
Summary
Commissioners discussed drafting an ordinance to prevent existing off-premise billboards from counting against a property's signage allotment, examined enforcement issues tied to lease terms, and suggested a variance route for affected property owners.
At a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, commissioners discussed drafting an ordinance that would let preexisting commercial off-premise billboards remain on a property without counting against that property's allowance for freestanding signs.
The discussion focused on options for amending local sign regulations — including adding an exception in Chapter 15-17 (the town—s nonconforming uses language), using overlay districts, permitting larger signs by conditional use permit or by lot size, or leaving the existing rules unchanged. Patrick, a planning consultant to the city, described approaches and legal constraints, noting that recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent had affected how municipalities treat on-premise and off-premise commercial signage.
A planning commissioner summarized the emerging preference: do not allow new billboards, but write an exception so properties with existing off-premise billboards would not lose the ability to place business signage because of those preexisting signs. Commissioners discussed drafting language that would make the exemption specific to off-premise commercial freestanding signs that existed before the ordinance—s adoption so that nearby commercial properties (for example, with signs at a McDonald—s or Circle K) would not unintentionally become exempt.
Property owner Mr. Kane said he did not know the expiration date of the lease on the billboard on his land and indicated he probably would not renew the lease if it created problems for future development. "If it's gonna be a problem going forward, probably not," Mr. Kane said when asked whether he planned to renew the lease.
Commissioners raised enforcement and tracking questions: how staff would know when a sign lease expires, whether automatic lease renewals could defeat the ordinance, and whether the city would pursue fines. Staff noted that penalties would follow the ordinance—s enforcement provisions and suggested daily fines as an enforcement tool; one staff member said the fine in the ordinance could be about $500 per day. Commissioners also discussed nonconforming-use rules that often bar reconstruction if more than 51% of a structure is replaced and whether repairing a damaged billboard would be allowed while a lease remained in force.
Members and staff agreed to draft a specific ordinance rather than leave the item as a hypothetical. The commission—s stated schedule in the discussion anticipated a draft ordinance for planning and zoning review at the next meeting, followed by a public hearing and likely city council review in April and May if the process moved quickly. Commissioners and staff also told the applicant that seeking a variance remains an alternative: a variance application based on the existing signage lease as a hardship could be filed and might appear on the same April 17 planning and zoning agenda if submitted on a short timeline.
The commission did not take a final vote on an ordinance during the meeting; members directed staff to prepare draft language for further consideration.
