HOLMES BEACH – Commissioners are skipping a vote on the city’s new sign ordinance, at least for the time being, while they make allowances for suggested changes by city staff and get legal advice on the settlement of a lawsuit.
During an April 13 meeting, Holmes Beach city commissioners were scheduled to take the first of two votes on an ordinance limiting the use of signs in the A1 and R4 residential districts. Under the proposed ordinance, the use of backlit illuminated signs in the districts would be prohibited with three existing signs required to be brought into compliance with new regulations within six months and another to have a five-year sunset period. The new regulations would allow for a sign with a single spotlight to light the sign from above or below, requiring a retrofit of the four backlit signs.
While a permit was given to the sign at the Anna Maria Beach Resort by a previous building official, it was given in error, resulting in the consideration of a five-year sunset clause for that sign. After that, the sign would have to be retrofitted to meet city regulations for the district. The reason for the sunset clause was to allow the resort’s owners to recoup some of the cost for the installation of the sign, about $40,000. Because the roadside sign, LED board and neon lettered sign on the portico were permitted by the city, though erroneously, they are the subject of an ongoing lawsuit between the resort’s ownership and the city.
Resort owners’ attorney, Aaron Thomas, said the proposed five-year sunset period was not enough time for his clients to recoup their investment in the sign. Rather than continue litigation, Thomas proposed a settlement agreement to commissioners.
In the settlement proposal, Thomas said that the sign on the portico would remain and remain in use. The LED board on the roadside sign would remain on the sign but not be used unless requested by the city for public address, such as an evacuation notice. The roadside sign itself would remain lit daily but be turned off at 11 p.m. and illuminated to only 25% of its maximum light output capacity.
Commissioners said they would need to review the proposed settlement agreement with their legal counsel handling the lawsuit before responding to Thomas’s offer. Thomas warned that if the settlement agreement is not accepted, his clients would continue with the litigation against the city.
City Planner Bill Brisson recommended several changes to the proposed ordinance, enough that it may have to be significantly modified and readvertised for a first reading and public hearing at a future meeting.
Upon further research into the issue, Brisson said there were several things he couldn’t identify, including if the three other backlit signs in the A-1 and R-4 district were ever permitted by the city, how long they’d been there, when the city had prohibited illuminated signs in a residential district and when the A-1 district was incorporated as a residential district.
Due to the confusing nature of the appearance of the other three signs, he suggested that if commissioners approve a five-year sunset period it should extend to the other three backlit signs while prohibiting any more from being constructed. He also suggested commissioners consider allowing signs to be double-sided and lit with a single spotlight on both sides.
Commissioners took a vote and agreed to incorporate both of those suggestions in the proposed ordinance. They also agreed on some wording changes to the ordinance to make the new regulations clearer.
Due to the pending ordinance changes and the proposed lawsuit settlement, City Attorney Patricia Petruff recommended commissioners delay the first vote on the sign ordinance until the document could be amended and commissioners receive appropriate legal advice.
Related coverage
Commissioners close in on illuminated sign regulations
Special magistrate rules on seven code issues
