Leonardtown, MD — A June 21 public hearing on proposed changes to St. Mary’s County sign regulations drew a small turnout. But of the four persons who spoke, two were the chairman and vice chairman of the planning commission. All speakers suggested changes to the proposal.

Before hearing testimony, County Attorney George Sparling said his proposal attempted to strike a balance between constitutional protections given to signs and property rights. “Every parcel (of land) is entitled to one sign by rights,” he explained.

The regulation proposal limits the size of signs to nine square feet on residential property and 32 square feet on non-residential properties. Commercial and digital signs are prohibited on residential properties but Sparling said they could have a sign noting a home-occupation.

Because of the size limitation, most billboards would be prohibited. That drew concern from Planning Commission Chairman Howard Thompson of Hollywood. He said signs promoting businesses along higher speed roads need to be large enough so they can be read when speeding by.

Thompson told the commissioners that he had convened a three-person subcommittee to review and make suggestions on the proposed sign regulation changes.

Planning Commission Vice Chairman Shelby Guazzo urged the commissioners to retain the existing regulations allowing directional signs for attractions and businesses that are off the main highway. She said she was a member of a St. Mary’s County Chamber of Commerce Tourism Advisory Committee that identified the signs as important for tourism.

Guazzo used as an example the need for a sign at the Route 235/245 intersection in Hollywood directing travelers to Sotterley. “Those (signs) we really need,” she insisted.

Walter Burch of California, a long-time advocate for sign controls, said of Sparling’s proposal, “There are a lot of problems with this one.” He added that allowing unregulated flashing, scrolling, strobing, full-motion video signs of up to 64 square-feet like they have in Las Vegas is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s policy of signs maintaining the “rural and agricultural character of the community.”

Burch also said that most lighted signs are lit internally and the regulations prohibit that in favor of external lighting. He said the change would be a burden on businesses.

St. Mary’s County Commissioner Mike Hewitt [R – 2nd District] did not participate in the hearing because as a businessman he has a sign that could be affected by the regulation proposal. He said earlier in the day that he turned off the lighting for his sign even though he thought it was legal under the current regulations.

The other speaker at the hearing was Scott Thornton, who represents a company that provides school bus shelters with advertising messages. Based on his discussion with Sparling it appears such shelters on residential properties would be prohibited. Commissioner Tom Jarboe [R – 1st District] told Thornton, “I do not believe that (to ban them) is the will of the board.”

Burch, in his presentation, charged that the school bus shelter companies are avoiding thousands of dollars in fees. He said he has seen shelters in front of vacant properties and alleged that their main purpose was advertising and not sheltering children.

The proposal does, however, contain a provision for existing non-conforming signs to be continued to some as yet to be determined date. The clock began ticking on April 5 (the date the proposal was introduced to the commissioners) for the expiration of that unspecified grace period for non-conforming signs.

The movement to change the sign regulations came after the Department of Land Use and Growth Management came under fire when it enforced the regulations on advertising signs on store facades in the case of the Chaptico Market. Those types of signs are banned in the current ordinance and would continue to be banned in the proposed change, as would real estate signs along the highway.

That enforcement led to the commissioners suggesting a review of the sign regulations. County staff had been meeting for about six months to draft the proposal that Sparling presented at the public hearing. The proposal calls for violations of the proposed regulations to be a civil infraction. But Sparling emphasized to the commissioners that the intent of the regulations was to stay away from any prohibitions on what individuals can do on their private residential property.

The commissioners presumably will wait for a recommendation from the planning commission before making a final decision.

Contact Dick Myers at dick.myers@thebaynet.com