Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee forwards sign‑code amendments to council with staff follow‑up on election windows and dimensions
Summary
A Town Council committee advanced sign-code priority amendments to make the town’s rules content neutral following Reed v. Town of Gilbert, but members asked staff to clarify definitions (what counts as a local election), sizes/dimensions and diagrams for enforcement; public commenters recounted sign‑related intimidation during recent campaigns.
The committee voted to forward proposed sign-code amendments to town council while asking staff to address several implementation questions before council review.
Missy Lueck, director of planning, said the priority amendments are intended to make the town’s sign rules content neutral in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Reed v. Town of Gilbert decision. The draft replaces several content‑based provisions with a noncommercial‑message substitution clause, updates flag rules (no more than two flags per parcel; 24‑square‑foot size limit unless approved), groups interior site signs as an exemptable category, and revises temporary yard‑sign rules for election windows with a permitting threshold tied to total sign area.
Committee members sought clarification about the definition and scope of “election” or “referendum” used to trigger the temporary‑sign window, and whether a 90‑day pre‑election period would create a de facto year‑round allowance if overlapping elections were cited. Staff said the LMO official issues written interpretations and would treat the window as tied to elections that affect Hilton Head’s electorate (Town, Beaufort County, state or federal ballot measures), and noted the town is also pursuing a comprehensive LMO overhaul that will revisit signage broadly.
Public comment included Katie Henderson of Hilton Head Plantation, who described aggressive pressure on property owners during a recent local campaign and urged rules that treat all campaigns equally; Linda Harrington called frequent ad hoc signs “visual pollution”; Alex Brown asked staff to confirm how recommendations from the Gullah Geechee task force would be addressed.
On procedure the committee considered a motion to send the draft back to staff for specific revisions and diagrams; that motion failed. The committee then amended the main motion to request that staff address points raised at the meeting (definitions of election, dimensional examples, driveway signage, off‑site sign language) prior to council action; the amended motion passed.
The record shows the committee forwarded the sign amendments to council with the staff‑follow‑up request. The transcript does not record a roll‑call tally in the provided text. Staff said additional diagrams and clarified language will be provided for council consideration.
