Planning Commission OKs Billboard Ban Plan

The Washington County Planning Commission voted 7-0 on Monday to recommend approval of an ordinance that would effectively ban billboards in the county.

The resolution also included a recommendation that the county follow up by developing a comprehensive sign ordinance.

“I’m not in favor of eliminating billboards ... but I am in favor of controlling their location, their size and their character,” said commission member Mickey Tyler. “This change, if it goes all the way through the [Board of] Supervisors, will stop this, and then later on down the road hopefully we can craft a sign ordinance that can allow for the slow, careful location of bill-boards.”

A public hearing on the issue will be held at the April 8 meeting of the Board of Supervisors.

If approved, the ordinance would take effect on Jan. 23, when the supervisors directed county staff to suspend any applications until the issue was decided.

“They have the final say in this ordinance,” commission Chairman Stephen Fisher said of the Board of Supervisors. “They can choose to follow our recommendation or object.”

The proposed ordinance would ban the construction of any new general advertising and location signs, but would not impact on-property or temporary signs.

The issue surfaced last year when about two dozen new billboards were approved, and controversy erupted when entrepreneur Bill Roop began construction of some of the signs in December.

“It more than doubled the number of billboard structures that are in the county with those applications,” County Attorney Lucy Phillips told the commission.

In response, the county’s land use committee and the Board of Supervisors asked the Planning Commission to review the ordinance, she said.

The Planning Commission opposed the signs when they were proposed last fall, but with one member absent a divided Board of Supervisors approved the applications.

Four people spoke during Monday’s public hearing, three in favor of banning the signs and one opposed.

David Winship, Teresa Harless and Link Elmore spoke in favor of banning the signs, citing safety concerns and visual pollution.

“I find them visually offensive. I find them visually distracting to the point of even being dangerous,” Winship said. “I know there is talk about that they are for business here in Washington County, and I also know that they are causing people not to shop at the business that are advertising on them because they are so offensive.”

Harless said she drove around and counted the billboards, determining that 61 percent are empty and only 13 percent are generating income.

She said she has bought billboard advertising for major local advertisers, “but this is overkill. We’ve got too many, and I just ask that we put an end to it now.”

Roop, whose billboards touched off the controversy, said he doesn’t believe the proposed ordinance would be a good idea because economic growth in the county will require more signs.

“As of right now, I have ample signage, so the passage of no new billboards is not going to hurt me,” Roop said. “In fact, it’s going to create a monopoly of two outdoor [billboard] companies in the county.”

Roop said after the meeting that the proposed ordinance would not hold up in court.

A representative of Lamar Advertising Co., the county’s other billboard owner, was present at the public hearing but did not speak.

Cathie Freeman, the county zoning and subdivision official, said a third company, based in North Carolina, has seven billboard applications pending in the county.

She said she expects further growth of signs if no restrictions are put in place. More localities around the region are restricting billboards, she said.

“I think that signage has become an issue,” Freeman said. “Your viewshed is important and your different localities are trying to protect that.”

dmccown@bristolnews.com | (276) 791-0701