Maitland billboard change gets mixed signals

Initial signs point in favor of the city of Maitland amending its 75-year billboard ban ordinance to allow digital outdoor advertising signs, the City Council voting 3-2 to move the idea forward at its meeting on Monday.

But mixed signals from city staff and two dissenting Councilmembers, Joy Goff-Marcil and John Lowndes, still leaves the change in limbo as it continues to a public hearing next meeting, May 13. The Development Review Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission both recommended denial of the proposed amendment, which if approved would allow digital outdoor advertising signs to be built in the Interstate 4 corridor.

The change would leave the ban on regular vinyl-on-wood billboards in place, but amend the code allow V-shaped digital signs to be installed within 100 feet of the I-4 right-of-way in non-residential Future Land Use designated properties. Depending on landscape and beautification codes determined by the city and the Florida Department of Transportation for the new Maitland Boulevard interchange, this would allow anywhere from one to three signs to be constructed in the city.

“When you establish a public policy that has to go to these lengths, and make this many regulations to let one or two properties benefit, is that a good way to achieve a public policy, or is it just for one person’s benefit?” Community Development Director Dick Wells said. “I think that’s where DRC and P&Z finally arrived.”

Residents and Council members grappled over pros and cons of bringing these previously prohibited signs into the city. Local business owners and event organizers said they welcome the idea of a new media of affordable advertising to help keep them afloat, while other local residents worried about the eyesore quality and real resident benefit afforded by the signs.

The anticipated applicant to build the sign, Maitland resident Jere Pile, has also proposed to the city that it be allocated a certain number of flips in the advertisements to promote city events or make residents aware of emergencies. But, including this information in the consideration of the ordinance change, Wells said, is not allowed.

“Otherwise we’re simply selling city code at a price,” he said. Also, Wells said, this code is over-arching and not just in place for this particular sign. The only nominal benefit, he said, the city could directly expect from the sign is roughly $200 in taxes.

Concerns over content and potential neighborhood distractions were also bantered about by Council, but the sign’s potential for promoting and sustaining local business won out in the vote.

“You don’t not approve something based on history,” Mayor Howard Schieferdecker said.

“Our job isn’t to stop progress,” said Councilman Ivan Valdes, “it’s to enable progress.”

The amendment will be back in front of the Council on May 13, where more residents will be invited to air their thoughts in a public hearing.