Prince Frederick, MD – Rumors of onerous sign regulations have been circulating throughout the Calvert County business community. After a two-and-a-half hour meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on Sign Regulations Monday, Feb. 23 it’s appears a comprehensive package of rules governing signage is not ready for a public hearing. The compilation is, in fact, in its first draft.
“We are taking this out to the community,” said Calvert County Department of Community Planning and Building Director Thomas Barnett. “It is meant to be a starting point. It’s not a final document.”
According to summary provided to attendees of the meeting, the current proposal is to rescind Calvert’s existing sign regulations and replace them with revised measures.
Some of the significant changes that are proposed include standardized window signage language, prohibition of the use of a “wrapped” empty vehicle parked in a prominent public location as a sign, standardization of monument or freestanding signs, direction signs, regulation of electronic messaging centers (EMCs), the permitting of temporary signs and regulations for nonconforming signs.
The draft version also includes measures regulating signs for home occupations, farm stands and agri-tourism, real estate, construction, political, subdivisions plus signage regulations specific to the county’s seven town centers.
According to the draft proposal, the purpose of the regulations is to “balance the need to protect the public safety and welfare,” to ensure “a well-maintained and attractive community” and “the need for adequate identification, communication and advertising.”
The regulations would not apply to the municipalities of Chesapeake Beach and North Beach, which have their own sign ordinances.
Principal planner Patricia Haddon stated that while county officials can regulate such things as size, style and placement of signs, any attempt to regulate the content of the sign could be construed as a violation of the sign-owner’s First Amendment rights.
During the Feb. 23 session, C.R. “Rick” Bailey Jr. of Marrick Properties raised an issue he had addressed in a Jan. 12 letter to the Department of Community Planning and Building—the proposed law regarding replacement of existing signs. The draft states that when an existing sign is replaced the new sign “shall comply with the standards of the ordinance.”
“This is a question of grandfathering,” Bailey stated. “Does the ‘refreshing’ of an existing sign where it is simply replaced with new and/or repainted signage but the size, message and wording all stay the same require compliance with the new ordinance? This would void and supersede any grandfathering provision and would actually be counterproductive since owners of signs would be discouraged to replace and/or refresh any old existing signs.”
“There are some communities that want to see those signs come into compliance,” said Barnett, who added the replacement of an existing sign gives the sign owner an opportunity to comply with regulations.
The proposed measure for storefront windows prohibits using the window “as a signboard. Some signage may be appropriate behind storefront glass. However, this signage shall be kept to no more than 25 percent of glass area and not obscure the view of merchandise, and shall comply with all other sign regulations.”
Committee member Jen Armstrong, who owns Heavenly Chicken and Ribs in Dunkirk, stated that what businesses can put in a storefront window can make a difference business-wise. She stated she does not believe there is a need for too much regulation.
Long-range planner Jenny Plummer-Welker stated that other jurisdictions have such limits on storefront window use.
There are also concerns about proposals for regulating noncommercial signs, specifically, the possible prohibition of including commercial products or services.
“This is going to create a lot of heartburn with many nonprofits as the only way they can get a sign produced sometimes is by the ‘sponsor’ and having the sponsor’s logo on it,” stated Calvert Marine Museum Director Doug Alves, a member of the committee.
“Whether you like it or not, your regs will probably result in proliferation of illegal signs posted here and there,” stated Annmarie Garden Director Stacey Hann-Ruff. “I predict your inspectors will not be able to keep up. How many more inspectors is the department hiring and what will be the cost to taxpayers?”
In her Jan. 22 missive to the Department of Community Planning and Building, Hann-Ruff also pointed out that the many public events venues like the marine museum and the sculpture garden sponsor could result in “a huge amount of administrative work.”
The Feb. 23 session was the ad hoc committee’s 12th meeting. “This is going to change,” Barnett said of the current ordinance draft.
“We will be holding a minimum of three public meetings and will also be conducting a joint planning commission/board of county commissioners public hearing, which will provide additional opportunity for individual as well as organizational comments,” Haddon stated in a memo to committee members.
A copy of the current sign ordinance draft can be found at http://www.co.cal.md.us/DocumentCenter/View/8056
Contact Marty Madden at marty.madden@thebaynet.com