The Planning and Zoning Commission opened a public hearing and discussed proposed amendments to the sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance on Sept. 26. However, the commission did not take action …
You must be a member to read this story.
Join our family of readers for as little as $5 per month and support local, unbiased journalism.
Current print subscribers can create a free account by clicking here
Otherwise, follow the link below to join.
To Our Valued Readers –
Visitors to our website will be limited to five stories per month unless they opt to subscribe. The five stories do not include our exclusive content written by our journalists.
For $6.99, less than 20 cents a day, digital subscribers will receive unlimited access to YourValley.net, including exclusive content from our newsroom and access to our Daily Independent e-edition.
Our commitment to balanced, fair reporting and local coverage provides insight and perspective not found anywhere else.
Your financial commitment will help to preserve the kind of honest journalism produced by our reporters and editors. We trust you agree that independent journalism is an essential component of our democracy. Please click here to subscribe.
Need to set up your free e-Newspaper all-access account? click here.
Non-subscribers
Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.
Register to comment
Click here create a free account for posting comments.
Note that free accounts do not include access to premium content on this site.
I am anchor
Local sign regulation discussed at P&Z
signs.jpg
Posted
The Planning and Zoning Commission opened a public hearing and discussed proposed amendments to the sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance on Sept. 26. However, the commission did not take action and continued the hearing until its next session on Thursday, Oct. 10.
There were no members of the public at the meeting to comment on the proposal.
Development Services Director John Wesley told the commission that staff is reviewing the sign ordinance in its entirety to assure that it is compliant with a 2015 Supreme Court decision related to a case out of Gilbert, Ariz.
In the case of Reed v. Town of Gilbert the court ruled that local sign regulations cannot be based on the content or message presented on the sign. Signs can only be regulated based on physical characteristics of the sign such as size, location or material, among others, Wesley said.
“There are several examples in the town’s sign ordinance where the regulations are based on the content of the sign,” Wesley said in his written report to the commission. “Therefore, the town has started a process to review and update the entire sign ordinance to be compliant with the Supreme Court ruling.”
He said the biggest challenge for the town is to update the code related to temporary signs including garage sale signs, for sale signs and open house signs.
State law has preempted most local regulation of political signs.
The current ordinance provides for separate categories for garage sale and open house signs. The amendment proposes to designate a single category for “residential directional signs.”
“The new regulations are a combination of the requirements in the code today for the two types of signs,” Wesley said.
Commission Vice Chairman Peter Gray asked Wesley whether the town is working on an “honor system” due to limited resources for enforcement.
Wesley said a second code enforcement officer has been added to staff and enforcement coverage is improved.
Commissioner Susan Dempster asked for clarification regarding placement in medians. She said there is some confusion regarding medians that separate major streets from business or residential access roads.
Wesley said he would address the concerns and have the ordinance ready for commission consideration at its Oct. 10 session. The public hearing will also continue.
