It’s back! Sign controversy continues
BY JIM RIDOLPHI
Special Correspondent

Jul 24, 2008

Ordinance changes fail to gain Commission’s nod

Goochland County’s latest attempt to resolve a lingering sign controversy came up short at last week’s Planning Commission Meeting. The ordinance changes would have clearly defined and restricted political signs to a maximum size.

Officials drafted new language in the code to address the problem when Richmond attorney William Hefty recommended such a move in a report delivered the Board of Supervisors in February.

The study was prompted by incidents in last fall’s election when several landowners were notified by letter regarding the size of the political signs on their property. Director of Community Development Don Charles decided county code did prohibit signs more than 36 square feet. Upon inspection, several violations were noted and the letters were issued by Planning Director Bob Hammond.

Upon closer examination, the county’s position changed, and they rescinded the letters and sent additional correspondence explaining the situation. No signs were removed, and Hefty concluded the process had not affected the election.

Hammond presented and summarized the county’s suggested ordinance changes at last week’s meeting.

“What we’re saying is political campaign signs are permitted up to 32 square feet in area,” Hammond said. “The present ordinance has a limitation of six square feet so this is amending that,” he continued.

Planning Commission members wondered out loud why a change in the present ordinance is necessary. Many said they were willing to err on the side of fewer restrictions, especially in the area of protected political speech.

Commissioner Bill Neal asked why any size restriction was necessary. Hammond said the 32 square feet figure was modeled on Chesterfield guidelines, and the size is the same as a standard sheet of plywood.

Knight Bowes asked if 32 square foot signs were in keeping with the rural nature of Goochland County. “How does a 32-foot sign jive with keeping Goochland rural,” Bowles questioned.

He said residents in District 2 have made it clear to him they prefer no signs, but realizing that is not an option, Bowles said the current ordinance would be fine with the word should changed to shall.

Local attorney George Andrews said the current ordinance is legal. He said changing the ordinance before the political season would beg legal action. “The ordinance as written is legal,” Andrews said. “The way it was interpreted was illegal,” citing the suggestive rather than demanding language used in the current ordinance. The word should that appears in the current ordinance implies the county is suggesting that signs fall into certain categories.

“When this ordinance was written, Goochland, in its wisdom said such signs should not exceed and that is suggestive,” Andrews said. In his view, the county purposely used suggestive language, realizing citizens had certain protected rights.

State law requires counties and cities to permit temporary political signs at least as large as other non permanent signs in the zoning classifications. The United States Supreme Court has also ruled that political signs are protected as a form of political speech.

“We need to do something,” Hammond said. “The current ordinance is not in compliance with state code,” he added.

Chairman Lowe Lunsford also expressed concerns regarding the size of signs in residential neighborhoods. The current ordinance limits those signs to six square feet, but the full 32 square feet sign would be allowed under the proposed ordinance changes.

Several citizens expressed support for the current ordinance, some citing their first amendment rights to express their political opinions on their own property.

“There’s no need to fix what’s currently on the books, “said Maidens resident Douglas Kenney. “There’s no need for meddlesome government,” he added. “There’s no need to put an ordinance in place that is sure to be challenged in court.”

The commission was tasked with either recommending approval of the ordinance changes or denying recommendation.

Neal suggested the commission leave the current ordinance in place, effectively denying recommendation of the proposed ordinance changes.

Bob Rich also supported leaving the current ordinance in place. “I don’t think it’s our business to protect the board from themselves,” he said. “With November not too far away and the sign season upon us, I think the best we can do is not do anything,” he added.

In the end, Rich, in effect, said public outcry will force the Board of Supervisors to act when and if the sign problem gets out of hand.

The commission voted 8-0 to deny recommendation. effectively leaving the current ordinance in place, at least until the Board of Supervisors reconsiders the matter.

(1) Comments • Email This Article