Council advances sign code with interior‑sign exemption but rejects binding bird‑safe lighting mandate
Loading...
Summary
The council advanced a major sign‑code overhaul (Bill 98‑25) and adopted an amendment exempting interior signage on campuses and business complexes; however, a proposed non‑binding illumination 'encouragement' to reduce light pollution was defeated amid enforcement and legal concerns.
The Anne Arundel County Council debated a sweeping rewrite of the county sign code on Feb. 17 and adopted targeted amendments that reflect competing priorities of aesthetics, traffic safety and environmental protection.
Bill 98‑25 updates outdoor signage rules and includes exemptions and permitting changes. During the hearing the council adopted Amendment 4, which exempts signs located interior to business complexes, industrial parks and campuses where the signage is not visible from the public right‑of‑way. Proponents said the change would reduce unnecessary permitting for interior campus directional signage; opponents and planning staff warned the exemption could create enforceability and constitutional concerns if applied narrowly.
Councilmembers also considered non‑binding language (Amendment 6) encouraging external illumination to be shielded, downward directed, warm‑colored and on timers to reduce light pollution and protect migrating birds. Administration and planning staff cautioned that the amendment as drafted used color (Kelvin) instead of brightness (nits), would be difficult to enforce without specialized equipment and could invite First Amendment challenges if applied inconsistently. Sponsor advocates insisted the language was non‑enforceable guidance and valuable as a durable statement of county values. By roll call the illumination encouragement (amendment 6) failed (3‑4).
Jessica Bell, consultant to the Office of Planning and Zoning, and Lynn Miller (planning and zoning) repeatedly described practical administration issues and recommended that any lighting code be pursued holistically and with technical research. The council agreed to continue work; Bill 98‑25 as amended will return to committee on March 2, 2026 for further refinement.
Quotes in the debate capture the split: "If you allow any signage without any control, it could undermine government interests in aesthetics and traffic safety," said Jessica Bell. Sponsor Councilmember Radbien argued the exemption protects interior campus signage while still allowing the council to refine the language.
Next steps: Bill 98‑25 will return March 2 for additional amendment votes and final consideration; staff were asked to continue research on a broader outdoor lighting policy and enforcement capacity.
