"I don't want Stafford County to look like Myrtle Beach or Las Vegas."
That plea came from Planning Commissioner Archer Di Peppe, speaking last week to a subcommittee drawing up a new ordinance to control the spread of electronic billboards and other controversial advertising signs in Stafford County.
It is the county's second try in a year.
In June 2007, the Virginia Department of Transportation told Stafford that its first proposed ordinance to control billboards was unacceptable. The subcommittee's discussions a week ago are expected to lead to Planning Commission recommendations by September and Board of Supervisors action in the fall.
The Stafford effort was triggered by the appearance in 2006 on Stafford highways of three electronic billboards, on U.S. 1, U.S. 17 and State Route 610.
Although new billboards had been illegal since the 1980s, large-sign technology had since changed, leading to the installation of hundreds of digital billboards across the country. That led to Stafford's first attempt at a major makeover of its billboard ordinance.
But VDOT was not satisfied with the initial results. In its letter to the Zoning Commission a year ago, it said, "we are unable to certify" Stafford's proposed ordinance. The state transportation department suggested a number of changes, on such issues as zoning location, size, spacing and lighting of billboards.
After receiving the letter, the Board of Supervisors last September declined to act on Planning's proposed ordinance and sent it back to the commission. After that, nothing happened until three weeks ago.
At the end of June, Di Peppe and planner Jamie Stepowany were touring the county on a "moving billboard" hunt. They found a number of large advertisements that were mounted on the sides of trucks and parked in prominent places: mobile billboards that also represented a legal loophole.
During that drive, the failed billboard ordinance came up. Di Peppe, who represents Falmouth on the commission and is a strong advocate of billboard control, said he wanted to get the issue back on the agenda. A fortnight later, a high-powered subcommittee was convened.
Present in the Stafford administrator's conference room on July 15 were Di Peppe, Board of Supervisors Chairman George Schwartz, Supervisor Paul Milde, County Administrator Anthony Romanello, County Attorney Steven Judy, Director of Planning Jeffrey Harvey, and planner Stepowany.
"Whether it's an argument over aesthetics or over safety, billboards are not a good idea," Di Peppe told the subcommittee. Milde said, "I agree we don't want to look like downtown Hong Kong, but I don't mind a little tasteful technology."
"The main question," Di Peppe said, "is: 'What do we want to look like?' We should tell VDOT that we feel all billboards are non-conforming." Exceptions, he said, could be approved on a case-by-case basis. Grandfathered signs, those built before the 1980s ban, would not be allowed to be improved at a cost beyond 50 percent of their replacement cost.
That, at least, would control the spread of electronic billboards. A normal billboard costs $20,000, Di Peppe pointed out, and a digital billboard costs up to $500,000.
Hugh Muir: 540/734-1975
Email: hmuir@freelancestar.com
|
County Administrator Anthony Romanello said that he felt "inappropriate signs" could be brought under control in such communities as Falmouth and what he called "downtown Stafford," an area radiating from the intersection of U.S. 1 and Courthouse Road and which is dominated by the county's Administration Center.
Regarding Falmouth, it was pointed out that a request to convert the large regular billboard at U.S. 1's Rapphannock River bridge into a digital sign had been turned down by the board because of the historic nature of the Falmouth community. One of the existing digital billboards is on U.S. 1 less than half a mile north of the bridge. George Schwartz, who represents Falmouth on the Board of Supervisors, said he thought the advertisers using the electronic billboard in his area, at least, were not "getting their money's worth." He said there was so much information on the signs and the messages changed so frequently (every six to eight seconds) that passing drivers could not concentrate on them. --Hugh Muir |