Greater Fallston Association, Inc.

(This document was prepared to assist in the review of the Planning and Zoning Update on the topic below.

Interpretation was to the best of our abilities. We welcome comments, corrections and suggestions.)

Zoning Code Update: Signs

GENERAL COMMENTS:

1. The GFA anticipated that the new revised sign code would address the issues of preserving the appearance of the rural residential district and any adjacent villages. It is extremely disturbing that the workgroup and the new draft Zoning Code do not seem to address this issue at all. It should be clearly understood that non-vehicular signs are used primarily for either information or advertisement. Zoning Code restrictions should then look to requirements related to safety, aesthetics and necessity. The priority of these three variables changes depending upon zoning district. In the rural residential area, aesthetics and necessity should receive greater priority than in commercial areas. The decision to increase square footage of residential entrance signs from 32 sq feet to 48 square feet (and permit electronic message boards-see below) demonstrates lack of sensitivity to this issue. In is also recommended that the scope of illuminated signs in residential districts be limited (perhaps churches of a certain size and schools). 

2. The decision by the workgroup to allow nonconforming signs without a sunset provision is an extreme disappointment. While Planning and Zoning may feel that reducing maximal freestanding sign area from 200 square feet to 120 square feet is a significant change, it should be pointed out that many obnoxious signs rarely exceed 120 square feet. The reduction in height from 35 feet to 20 feet just puts these signs “more in your face”. Rather than use innovative zoning tools (e.g. Columbia, MD, where, for every square foot of freestanding sign area, the sign must be setback from the road right-of-way by one linear foot), Planning and Zoning has taken the simple solution of only refining dimensions. The net result is that there will be very little improvement in the appearance of our existing communities in the near or distant future.

3. The decision by the workgroup to permit electronic message boards in all zoning districts is equally appalling. There will be strong opposition to this measure by the community and the good work of the Zoning Code workgroup will lose credibility as a result of this recommendation. As one drives through the peaceful countryside of MD 152, the last thing the community wants to see every couple of blocks on church and village businesses properties is illuminated electronic message boards. Illuminated signs are appropriate in the general business districts but not village business.  The whole intent of village business is to keep the retail/business areas rural in nature.  Allowing illuminated signs beyond these limitations would change the tone of the zoning designation. 

4. The section on prohibited signs does not address a major concern by citizens, namely the posting of multiple advertisement signs on a property location (cigarette, liquor sales, development signs, in-store sales etc.). Although many of these signs pertain to the business location itself (outside sale signs), others refer to business locations elsewhere. These signs, attached to light poles, stakes and the like range from 2 square feet to sometimes 32 square feet and greater.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

1. The code is not clear with regard to multiple sign types, i.e. a combination of freestanding, wall projecting and roof signs allowed on a property and the overall combined size restrictions of these multiple signs.

2. The definition of the “base” of a sign is not clear. The base clearly is the ground elevation of the base of the supporting structure.

3. The code should use a consistent, uniform description for

a. Height criteria (e.g. above road, vs. above grade, vs. above base)

b. Set back (right of way, property line).

4. The are missing criteria (height and set back) for construction signs.

5. There are missing criteria (number, area, height) for directional signs.

6. There are missing criteria (number) for wall signs in ICSC.

7. These are missing illumination criteria not specifying external/internal in many descriptions.

8. Exempted agricultural signs are larger than agricultural commercial signs.

9. The new code implies but does not mandate that all flags be on flagpoles.

10 The number of 15-watt bulbs per square footage is not specified. The workgroup decision to specify direct or reflective lumens will correct this. (E.g., 1000 15 watt light bulbs = 15,000 watts)

11. The elimination of 267-33-E. (3) will allow signs greater than the 120 square foot restriction unless the default code is explicit.

12. The initial portion of the code should have clearly defined default regulations for each sign type.

13. It is not clear who is the responsible party for the illegal signs on county right-of way: the person installing, the company or name on the signs, the owner of the sign etc.

14. The quality of sign design needs to be specified for sections K1 and K2.