PANAMA CITY BEACH— Political signs on vehicles parked near the road would be banned under an ordinance modification endorsed by the Panama City Beach Planning Board on Monday.
The board voted to recommend to the City Council a proposal to amend its ordinance to add political signs to the list of vehicle signs outlawed near city streets.
The current city ordinance makes it illegal to essentially use vehicles with business signs as commercial advertising by parking them within 100 feet of a street. It states it is illegal for someone to park a vehicle with a sign promoting a commercial business, industry, educational organization, religious group, not-for-profit within 100 feet of any street when it is used for advertising instead of for transportation purposes.
The amendment endorsed Monday adds “political” to the list of banned vehicle signs.
Amy Myers, a city attorney, recommended the word be added due to court decisions that she said don’t allow discrimination when it comes to sign regulations.
The issue first surfaced during the last City Council election, when Councilman John Reichard displayed campaign signs for Skip Alford on a surplus fire truck he purchased and parked around town in different locations. Alford ran against Josie Strange, who won the seat.
In a 4-1 vote, with planning board member Clair Pease dissenting, the board voted to add the change to the ordinance, but to ask the City Council to look at the wording of the ordinance for “inconsistencies or undefined verbiage.” The board also agreed to ask the City Council to consider kicking back the vehicle sign ordinance for its review. The City Council had instructed the Planning Board not to review that ordinance.
Reichard vented his concerns with the vehicle sign ordinance and the provision to add political signs to the language.
He said the wording of the ordinance was vague, and didn’t say how long a vehicle had to be parked to be in violation of the ordinance. He also questioned how code enforcement would measure the 100 feet, whether it would be from the middle of the street or the property line.
Myers pointed out that the ordinance was particularly vague on these issues to give officials the flexibility to determine each incident on a case-by-case basis.
Reichard said he hasn’t noticed a continuing problem or controversy with vehicle signs.
“Since I have been on the council four and half years, one complaint has shown up in the press, and was not even a formal complaint about the fire truck with a non-commercial banner on it,” he said, referring to the incident where he was criticized by some for putting the political sign on the fire truck.
Reichard also said he had First Amendment concerns about the vehicle sign ordinance.
He said there could be real problems for the city if it tries to enforce the ordinance.
“It appears we have not enforced this,” he said.
Nonprofit organizations and educational organizations occasionally need vehicle signs to promote events, Reichard said.
“There is a barbecue for the Rotary Club in November at the college,” he said. “There is going to be a banner out front. They are going to be on vehicles all over town (promoting the event). Is that illegal?”
Planning Board Chairman Ed Benjamin said he didn’t see where adding political signs to the ordinance would hurt anything.
“If the whole sign code was bad, all we’re doing is making it slightly better by adding three words,” he said. “We’re not trying to fix (the vehicle sign ordinance). No one has asked us to.”
Pease said she simply felt uncomfortable adding language expanding the wording of an ordinance the Planning Board never got a chance to review.
“The fact that we are being asked to blindly sign off on something without giving our input (concerns me),” she said. “I just don’t see myself saying, ‘Yeah, I agree with all this when I don’t thoroughly understand it. I think it needs to be reviewed by us. If (City Council members) don’t want us to review it, maybe they would take the time to take another look at it.”
Planners deny setback request
In other business, the Planning Board on Monday voted to deny a request from real estate agent Jason Oakes to increase the required 14-foot front-yard setback by 60 feet to allow a 74-foot front yard setback on property at 15007 Front Beach Road
Land planner and engineer Robert Carroll, representing the applicant, said they want to build a 2,461-foot beach bar and restaurant, which should go over well in that area with hotels.
Land development regulations approved in 2012 push parking in the back of structures along Front Beach Road. But doing that on gulf-front property makes little sense, as it would put parking by the prime waterfront real estate, Carroll said.
“We’re just asking to be able to put our building on the gulf front like every other product up and down the beach,” he said.