Do we want more signs in the county, more visible ones?
Next week, residents will have the chance to weigh in
W‘Controlling outdoor signs is probably the most important step a community can take’
e all know the spot. That first view of Rappahannock as you come over the hill at Massies Corner – majestic, serene, unspoiled by human clutter or endless signs competing for attention.
The same could be said for many spots in Rappahannock, and few of us want that to change.
Next week, county residents will have the opportunity to weigh in on that very question – whether we want updates to the county sign ordinance to mean more, or more visible, signs throughout our county.
On Wednesday, July 19, the Rappahannock Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on proposed changes to our county’s sign ordinance. Shortly thereafter, on Monday, Aug. 7, the Board of Supervisors will hold its public hearing to consider, and possibly vote on, the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Updates to our sign ordinance are made necessary by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, which held that the first amendment prohibits localities from regulating the “content” (message) of signs. Specifying the message a sign can display (advertising, upcoming events, directions, real estate, political campaign signs, etc.) has traditionally served as a major tool for localities to enable necessary and appropriate signage, while still controlling the negative visual and other impacts of too many signs. Our county staff is to be commended for its efforts to meet the court’s requirements while generally maintaining the signage currently allowed, a daunting task with such technical and complex regulations.
However, the proposed language also adds or changes several provisions, which could expand, possibly significantly, allowable signage in the county. Examples include:
► Increasing the duration of ‘temporary’ signs from the current 30 day maximum to up to 200 days;
► Effectively allowing up to two billboards per parcel, each 32 sq. ft. by 12 ft. high, by special exception from the BOS – currently billboards are prohibited;
► Adding a new category of “commercial zone animated signs” that would allow commercial properties to have up to five moving, fluttering, etc. signs, each up to 15 tall, and with an aggregate total of 50 sq. ft.;
► Creating a new category of “hay bale signs” which would allow signage on up to 25 hay bales on any parcel not used solely for residential purposes. Given that the face of a typical round hay bale roll can be 20 square feet (5 foot diameter), it would appear that 25 stacked and painted as a sign could be 25 X 20 = 500 square feet. Although it’s not clear that this maximum would be allowed on most parcels, it is notably larger than any other type of allowable signs;
► For the first time excluding from the entire sign ordinance any form of “art,” which is broadly defined as “any item expressing creative skill or imagination in a visual form…intended to beautify or provide an aesthetic influence…” Most would agree that allowing artistic expression is a vital community interest and should be protected. However, this language could easily encompass many things most of us would recognize as a “sign” but would exempt it from any restrictions as to size, where/how located, duration or design;
► For the first time entirely exempting from the ordinance, and therefore from any signage limits as to size, location, duration or number, “flags of any nation, state or geopolitical entity.”
Signs serve many important and appropriate functions, from sharing opinions, to providing critical safety and community information, to supporting the strength of our business establishments. At the same time, protecting our scenic resources is at the core of our county’s Comprehensive Plan. While the Gilbert decision requires us to remove content restrictions from our sign ordinance, it nonetheless allows us to protect the appearance and aesthetics of our community. Our new sign ordinance should be appropriately restructured so as to meet legal requirements, but we should carefully consider before using it as a vehicle for expanding signage beyond current levels.
As stated by Edward T. McMahon, a renowned community development expert, “controlling outdoor signs is probably the most important step a community can take to make an immediate visible improvement in its physical environment…. Almost all America’s premier tourist destinations have strong sign ordinances because they understand that attractive communities attract more business than ugly ones.”