Summary
To: Planning and Zoning Board
From: JP Murphy
Date: 5/11/2017
Subject:
Title
Discussion of temporary off-site signsbo.dy
______________________________________________________________________
Summary:
Town staff received a request to place this item on the agenda for commission discussion. A number of realtors in town have requested that commission considers allowing offsite placement of directional signs during an open house. Subsequently, the Commission asked that the Planning and Zoning board consider the matter and advise. Chris Brimo and town staff will be on hand to discuss the item and provide a discussion on theoretical options and the legal constraints on sign regulations.
Body
Previous Commission Action: The Town Commission last considered this topic in August of 2013. The commission at that time chose to not make any changes to the code.
Background/Problem Discussion: The town's sign ordinance does not allow for non-town signs to be erected on public property (Ord. 74-545 (21)) and also prohibits the placement of off-premises temporary signs providing direction or advertising (Ord. 74-572 (b)).
Some realtors are concerned that the prohibition on directional sign placement in the right of way makes it difficult for potential buyers to find open houses. In the interest of not completely recreating the work from before, I have attached the summary sheets, study, and matrix of regulations from nearby cities that staff compiled in 2013.
To further complicate the matter, in June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on the issue of temporary signs. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ, stemmed from a dispute over temporary signage advertising a church's location; the church argued that its signs could not be held to a different standard than other types of temporary signs, including political signs. In siding with the church, the Supreme Court reinforced previous rulings that found that communities cannot regulate messages based on conte...
Click here for full text