Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board recommends larger sign-size limits, adds appeal path for variances
Summary
The Highland Beach Planning Board recommended that the town commission pursue changes to Chapter 23 to raise several sign-size limits (proposed 32 sq ft for ingress/egress and permanent signs), add an appeal/variance process capped at 72 sq ft, and consider appeal review by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
The Town of Highland Beach Planning Board voted May 14 to recommend that the town commission consider amendments to Chapter 23 of the town code that would increase several maximum sign sizes and create a formal appeal/variance path.
Town planner Ingrid Allen told the board the proposal grew from a public comment and a request by the condominium association that asked to enlarge its monument and ingress signage. Allen summarized staff’s draft ordinance and the commission’s direction to increase ingress/egress signs from 3 square feet to 32 square feet and to move the permanent sign maximum from 10 square feet to 32 square feet. She said the commission also requested a process for appeals, with a possible appeal ceiling of 72 square feet for permanent signs.
“On March 3, the commission’s recommendation was to take the ingress and egress signs, which are currently at a max of 3 square feet, to move those to 32 square feet,” Allen said. She added that staff used neighboring municipal codes for comparison and drew some language from Deerfield Beach’s variance approach.
Board members pressed staff on lighting and aesthetic standards. One member asked whether any illumination would be required to comply with the town’s turtle lighting standards; Allen replied that any lighting visible from the beach must comply with those provisions. A committee member raised concerns that the appeal criteria were “a little loose” and could invite litigation; another member said the draft includes aesthetic, public-safety and material criteria and is intentionally less stringent than a typical variance standard so the commission retains discretion.
A public commenter, Gerald Binzen, identified himself as assistant manager at Build Magna and said the association’s request is driven largely by safety: larger signs can reduce traffic maneuvers and unsafe U‑turns. “Part of the signage... the reason why we wanted to do, was for safety,” Binzen said. “So more of the main points for doing the signage is for safety, not just….”
The board discussed whether the Board of Adjustment and Appeals or the planning board should hear appeals; staff suggested the Board of Adjustment and Appeals because it regularly considers variances and appeals. After discussion, the board moved to recommend approval of the draft ordinance to the town commission. During a roll-call vote the members present recorded yes votes from Member David, Member Powell, Member Bobby, Member Axelrod and Vice Chairperson Rosen; the motion carried.
Next steps: the board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Town Commission for first reading and public comment at a future commission meeting.
