Inkster planners back updating billboard definition but oppose increasing cap

The Inkster Planning Commission on July 14 conducted a public hearing on a two‑part zoning text amendment that would modernize the city’s definition of “billboard” and raise the permitted number of sign faces from 12 to 16. After testimony from city staff and the applicant, the commission voted to recommend revising the definition but to oppose increasing the permitted number of billboards.

City planning staff introduced the proposal as a modernization effort. “The proposed new definition is a little bit more comprehensive,” the staff presenter said, explaining the draft would explicitly cover off‑site advertising and digital display technology as well as static signs. Staff said the change was largely housekeeping to reflect current advertising technologies.

Representatives for International Outdoor — attorney Ben Herrick and real‑estate associate Greg Miller — told the commission they had counted fewer active sign faces than the ordinance records and asked the commission to exclude certain on‑site or inactive signs from the billboard tally. “When we approached Mr. Dowdell about a new billboard, we had counted the billboards, and the ordinance has a limit of 12 sign faces. And we counted 8,” Herrick said, explaining that some existing structures are used by adjacent businesses while others are effectively abandoned.

Commissioners pressed for concrete fiscal and physical details, including the parcel addresses and tax assessments for two existing signs cited by the applicant. Staff and the applicant looked up parcel records during the hearing and discussed addresses on Michigan Avenue identified as 29416 and 29455 Michigan Avenue; the commission noted one parcel’s summer taxes at roughly $1,717 and another around $5,000 and requested formal verification from county records after the meeting.

Members also raised concerns about visual blight, light and glare from digital displays, and the potential for driver distraction. One commissioner said, “I haven’t heard anything compelling to modify the number of billboards...I don’t have an issue revising the definition because it’s a little vague and old, but I wouldn’t want to add to the number of 12.” Staff and applicants noted state spacing rules for digital signs — discussed in the hearing as a Michigan requirement of about 1,750 feet between digital signs facing the same direction — which would constrain where new digital boards could be installed.

The commission debated enforcement and decommissioning of abandoned or unused signs. Applicant representatives said some sign owners had indicated a willingness to remove unused structures; staff suggested the commission or council could require surety or removal bonds as a condition of future approvals. “A removal bond — those are quite common. Cell towers have those all the time,” a staff speaker said.

After deliberation the commission approved a single motion recommending that the City Council: (1) revise and clarify the municipal definition of “billboard” to address off‑site advertising and modern display technologies; and (2) not modify the current cap on billboard sign faces (do not increase from 12 to 16). The motion passed by voice vote.

Next steps: the commission’s recommendation and the public hearing record will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. The council will ultimately decide whether to adopt any ordinance changes and whether to add permit conditions such as surety for removal or other safeguards.

Votes at a glance: Planning Commission recommendation to council — revise billboard definition: approved; recommendation to council — do not increase permitted billboard faces from 12 to 16: approved.