Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents say billboard agreement diverged from earlier public hearings; ask council to review Lamar deal
Summary
Multiple residents told council a Lamar Outdoor Advertising agreement and a Land Development Code amendment resulted in more digital sign faces than earlier materials indicated, and urged the council to clarify whether the final agreement matched what the public and planning commission reviewed.
During public comment Angela Leduc and a second speaker detailed concerns about a recent land‑development code amendment and a subsequent agreement with Lamar Outdoor Advertising. Leduc said the original planning material and staff reports showed the intent to reduce four US‑1 sign faces to one and to place digital faces on I‑95; the agreement she read, she said, allows two digital faces on US‑1 (north and south) plus one on I‑95.
"Why is the agreement different than what was discussed and voted on during the 1st and 2nd readings of the text amendment?" Leduc asked the council, urging officials to examine whether an applicant's last‑minute revisions or misstatements changed the effect of approvals.
Adam Dobie and others in the public‑comment period supported Leduc's concerns and told the council they had packets documenting their points. Council did not take immediate action but staff noted the matter had passed previously on consent and second‑reading items and said legal notice and formal motions could be revisited if the council desired further review.
