Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carroll County supervisors adopt policy restricting signs on county-owned property
Summary
The Carroll County Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a policy limiting signage on county-owned property to county-sponsored or county-approved events, with a narrow exception for election-day signage at polling places that complies with a 40-foot buffer.
Get email alerts on the Signage Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Carroll County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Sept. 30 to adopt a policy restricting signage on county-owned property, except for county-sponsored or county‑approved events and limited election‑day signs at polling places.
The policy, presented by Mr. Durbin, a Carroll County staff member, says it does not regulate signs on private property or on school property. Mr. Durbin told the board the measure is intended to avoid creating an open public forum on county land that would require content‑neutral regulation under the First Amendment.
"The First Amendment requires that if you open up a forum and allow signage on public property that you have to only regulate it if it is in a content neutral way," Mr. Durbin said. "So you can't regulate the content of the sign or the message of the sign, but you don't have to allow any signs. But once you open it up, you kind of open the floodgates." He said the policy limits signs to county activities and allows other signs only on election day at county polling places provided the 40‑foot rule is observed.
Supervisor Mr. Early moved to adopt the policy and added a requirement that any signs present be removed immediately after the meeting. The motion was seconded (second not specified in the record) and carried on a voice vote: Mr. Moore — yes; Mr. Collins — yes; Mr. Bryant — yes; Mr. Horton — yes; Mr. Early — yes; Mister Chairman — yes.
The adopted policy makes county property off-limits to third‑party signage outside the noted exceptions. The board did not discuss penalties or enforcement details during the meeting, and no ordinance number or further implementation schedule was provided.
The meeting then moved to adjournment.

