Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chesapeake Beach reviews rewritten sign ordinance, adds EMC rules and after‑the‑fact permits
Summary
Council and planning staff reviewed a comprehensive rewrite of Chesapeake Beach’s sign code that adds electronic messaging center (EMC) standards, clarifies prohibited signs, and establishes a route for nonconforming signs to secure after‑the‑fact permits; staff will return with edits and legal review.
Chesapeake Beach councilors and planning staff on March 10 discussed a comprehensive rewrite of the town’s sign ordinance intended to modernize definitions, create clearer permitting paths for existing nonconforming signs and regulate electronic messaging centers (EMCs).
The staff presenter, Sarah, said the revision aims to make the ordinance more user-friendly and add a section specifically addressing EMCs so businesses that already have costly signs could obtain after‑the‑fact permits and then comply with new regulations. "We added a section about EMCs… and a way for non-conforming signs to receive permits," she said.
Why it matters: the draft tries to balance speech protections with public safety and visual order. The ordinance spells out prohibited sign types and exemptions, defines new formats such as feather flags and snipe signs, and introduces technical EMC rules intended to limit driver distraction.
Council discussion focused on a few specific implementation questions. Members pressed staff on whether the ordinance should include a numeric wind threshold for temporary banners and feather flags; staff suggested using 25 miles per hour as a practical threshold and to add size references so enforcement is proportional to sign area. A councilor asked why window signs appeared broadly prohibited in a draft provision; staff said the prohibition targets signs that literally obstruct egress (a fire‑safety issue) and proposed carving a separate window subsection that would allow ordinary residential window signs while restricting commercial storefronts that cover whole windows.
On EMCs, staff cited transportation-agency studies and recommended a three‑second minimum message dwell time to avoid potentially distracting signs that change too quickly. "Less than three seconds it can cause accidents…more than three seconds multiple transportation agencies found it did not actually impact drivers," the presenter summarized.
Enforcement and timelines were also clarified. Temporary signs placed in rights‑of‑way may be removed by public works at owner expense; if the public works director deems a sign structurally unsafe or immediately hazardous, it can be ordered removed immediately. For nonconforming signs that are not dangerous, staff described a notice-and-cure approach (typically a short cure window such as five days for some situations) and an after‑the‑fact permitting route for owners who seek to retain existing signs under conditions.
In public comment, Cindy Greenold of the Planning and Zoning Commission praised the drafter (Miss Franklin) for months of work to update definitions and for adding the EMC guidance and a grandfather clause to protect existing businesses. "We had to make it current…we added a lot of definitions," she told the council.
What’s next: staff acknowledged council received the packet that day and agreed to revisit flagged items after legal review and more time for councilors to digest the 20‑page draft. The ordinance will return to a future work session for additional review and specific refinements requested by councilors.
The session did not include a vote to adopt the ordinance; councilors asked staff to bring back clarified language on window provisions, wind/sizing thresholds and enforcement timelines.
