Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews draft sign code but counsel says state law blocks final action until 2027
Summary
Town attorney reviewed a draft sign code that would limit sign sizes in the AR district, require permits for signs, and use master sign plans for commercial areas, but said Senate Bill 180 and a related statute effectively bar adopting more restrictive regulations until Oct. 1, 2027 absent state changes.
Town attorney Jeff Kurtz (S11) gave the committee an overview of a draft sign code intended to bring town sign regulation in line with U.S. Supreme Court case law and state statutes. The draft would standardize sign dimensions in the AR zoning district (a 9-square-foot primary sign, up to three 4-square-foot secondary signs, maximum height six feet), eliminate content-based categories such as holiday/seasonal signage, and require permits for all signs.
Counsel warned the committee that state law (discussed as Senate Bill 180 and a related statutory provision) prevents municipalities from adopting more restrictive sign regulations in certain post-disaster time windows; absent legislative change or the lapse of the statute, that restriction keeps the town from presenting the ordinance to planning and zoning or the council for final adoption until Oct. 1, 2027. Kurtz said the document is "on the shelf" for committee review so the town can act if state restrictions ease.
Why it matters: The proposed code attempts to balance residents' desire to preserve rural character with the need to avoid content-based restrictions that could invite constitutional challenges. The draft also contemplates a master sign plan for commercial developments and limited council waivers for sign size trade-offs in multi-tenant projects.
Public and committee reaction: Several committee members, and two industry speakers, asked whether farm signs and real-estate signs would be exempt; counsel said farm signs are typically not subject to local zoning regulation and that real-estate sign exemptions were already in the current code but could be refined. Some members expressed concern that a permitting requirement for even temporary signs could be perceived as a revenue source; counsel and staff said permit fees could be set by council policy and could be nominal or zero to avoid that perception.
Direct quote: Counsel (S11) said, "You can't make more restrictive regulations within a certain time period ... up until October 1, 2027," noting the provision was intended to limit changes in the aftermath of state-declared disasters.
Next steps: The committee was asked to review the draft language and return comments; staff said the drafting work will remain on hold for final action until state limitations permit moving forward.
