|
The crackdown on bandit signs on county roadways is meeting with rave reviews from the public. More than 800 small signs were removed during the first week of enforcement of an updated ordinance.
Yet many more signs - including much larger signs - are in violation of the county code.
State regulations were recently updated to permit more modern signs. However, county officials continue to mull new regulations to bring them more in line with state law, and businesses are caught between two sets of regulations.
County Administrator David Baker said the county is responsible for enforcing its regulations and the state is responsible for enforcing state measures.
“Each is responsible for its own rules,” he said. “Businesses should go with the stricter interpretation to stay out of trouble.”
Currently, the county code prohibits most flashing signs, animated signs, signs with intermittent lights and those that blend in with traffic lights and possibly confuse motorists. Signs attached to parked vehicles are also prohibited.
But it’s not hard to find violations. More and more flashing and animated signs are appearing along Route 1 in the Cape Region.
The county has taken a hands-off approach to sign enforcement while the ordinance is updated - a process that has been going on for more than a year.
Lawrence Lank, director of planning and zoning, said all flashing and animated signs are in violation of county code, and most businesses displaying the signs have been cited.
Code
Continued from page 1
“Only signs displaying time and temperature are permitted,” he said.
Lank said some businesses that apply for sign permits end up putting up completely different signs than listed on the permit.
Lank said the county’s sign regulations, adopted in the 1970s, are antiquated and are being rewritten for perusal by planning and zoning and county council. Lank said the updated code would reflect the trend to more colorful, light-emitting-diode type signs. But public comment and elected officials’ input is needed before the code can be amended.
“Right now the county attorneys are looking at the draft and we are circulating it to get other opinions,” Lank said.
Chip Guy, county public information officer, said the new regulations would reflect today’s signs. “We recognize there has been an evolution in this technology,” he said.
Lank said the updated regulations should surface for debate within the next two months.
In the meantime, any crackdown or removal of signs in violation of the current code is unlikely.
“But once the updated code is passed, those in violation will have to comply with all of the regulations,” Lank said.
Until the new regulations are made public, it’s unclear if those in violation will still be outside the law once the debate starts on an updated ordinance.
Guy said those in violation have been put on notice. “This is a protection for the county so that these businesses can’t come back and say they didn’t know and appeal for grandfathering,” he said. “We want to establish a record instead of fining them.”
Councilman Lynn Rogers, who also owns Rogers Sign Co. in Milton, said the issue has been complicated by the passage of House Bill 115 last year. State law permits variable-message LED signs, similar to those along Route 1, but with several restrictions. Rogers said those in violation of the county code may not be in violation of state law.
Rogers said the new county regulations would be similar to the state regulations to avoid confusion. “We might even be a little stronger,” he said.
The state law has the following restrictions:
• No signs with animation, scrolling, flashing or changing of intensity
• Signs cannot be within 1,000 feet of an intersection or 2,500 feet of another variable-message sign
• A message must be displayed a minimum of 10 seconds. When the message is changed, the change must be accomplished in 1 second or less with all moving parts or illumination changing simultaneously
• Signs must adjust display brightness according to the ambient light.
Councilman George Cole has been the most outspoken member of council on the sign issue, bringing it up several times over the past two years. He said there are violations throughout the county.
“We are sworn to uphold the ordinances of the county and we are not doing it,” he said. “We have just turned the cheek on sign violations.”
Cole said part of the problem is the county policy of not taking action unless a complaint is registered. “I’ve been unable to change this, but the culture of complaint-driven enforcement is not fair,” he said.
Cole said he fears the updated ordinance will allow many of the current flashing and animated signs, which he feels are “tacky and dreadful.”
“The solution in the county is to approve whatever the big violation is,” he said.
Contact Ron MacArthur at ronm@capegazette.com
|
