Commissioner Smith also calls for Code to be modified to allow for immediate discarding of such signs
With Sarasota County Commissioner Mark Smith taking the lead, the board members have agreed unanimously that the County Code of Ordinances should be amended to allow for signs posted in the public right of way to be designated as litter.
On Nov. 18, Smith made a motion to direct county staff to draft an amendment to the County Code to make that clear.
His motion also called for a Code amendment that would allow any such signs to be discarded immediately.
“This isn’t about freedom of speech,” Smith pointed out. “We don’t really care what’s on the signs. They just don’t need to be in the right of way.”
Even campaign or other political signs legally are not allowed in rights of way, he told his fellow commissioners.
In seconding the motion, Commissioner Tom Knight stressed, “This is about the appearance of a beautiful community. It’s a very simple thing.”
Smith initially raised the issue during his report to his colleagues as part of their regular meeting on Sept. 24. As a result of that discussion, the commissioners agreed to direct staff to review the county’s ordinances related to signs in the public rights of way and “bring back recommendations for a new or modified ordinance to prohibit [such signs], establish fines (potentially as littering), and place responsibility on those who post them,” as the Oct. 20 staff report explained the Sept. 24 motion.
The report suggested that the board could direct staff to amend the County Code “to create a specific definition of ‘littering’ that includes the placement of illegal signs within the public Right-of-Way, inclusive of the imposition of certain fines on violators to encourage the removal of such signs.”
However, the report did note, “Any proposed amendments must be content-neutral and must serve an important governmental interest to address issues relating to Freedom of Speech. The regulations must be substantially related to that interest to withstand legal scrutiny.”
Additionally, the report pointed out, “Instructing private individuals to remove signs believed to be in the right-of-way could lead to potential liability. If a sign is mistakenly removed from private property, [that] could be considered theft.”
‘Fair game’
As Smith discussed the topic again on Nov. 18, he noted that he was hoping for his colleagues’ support for a proposal to amend the Code.
“I like where you’re going with it,” said Commissioner Knight, who was the first to respond. “I think [the signs] are fair game,” he added, if people put them in the public right of way.
Then Knight noted that he recently had seen a segment on a network TV news show about a community where, twice a year, the Code Enforcement staff and other employees of the local government spend four or five hours removing signs in rights of way and throwing away the signs.
Prompting laughter, Commissioner Ron Cutsinger said, “I can support Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Knight going out a couple of times a year,” removing signs from rights of way.
Knight joked, “Mark and I can get a Code Enforcement pickup truck.”
During the discussion, Knight also talked about the fact that right of way signs often “end up on the road and in the bushes.” In his opinion, he said, county Code Enforcement officers should just be able to pick up any signs they see in the rights of way “and throw ’em in a dumpster.”
Chair Joe Neunder added, “There’s also a component of public safety that happens when some of these signs inadvertently get stuck in the road …” A driver who hits one can end up with it in a wheel well, he pointed out.
With Knight having seconded Smith’s motion, and no one offering further comments, when Neunder called for the vote, the motion passed 5-0.
Language in the Code
The Oct. 20 report that the county’s Planning and Development Services Department staff provided to the board members in response to the Sept. 24 direction said that signs in the right of way are regulated by Section 98-9 of the Code of Ordinances and Section 124-211 of the Unified Development Code, which contains all of the county’s land-use and zoning regulations.
This is the language in Section 98-9:
Noting the provision for impounding illegal signs for 10 days, Smith said on Nov. 18, “I would propose that we discard them immediately. … I don’t think there’s any reason for us to hold onto ’em.”
As for the section about a person’s being able to pay $10 to recover a sign, Smith told his colleagues, “To me, that’s just a waste of time of staff and a waste of money.”
In regard to the section of the report that said a Code Enforcement officer must see a person placing a sign in the right of way to be able to enforce the county ordinance, Smith pointed out, “The folks that place the sign may not be the folks that bought the sign.”
No matter who was responsible for the sign, he continued, “It’s littering.”
The relevant portion of the Oct. 20 report explained, “It cannot be assumed that the phone number on the sign is automatically [that of] the violator. Typically, Code Enforcement [staff] would have to observe the entity placing the sign on the pole. Determining the responsible party for illegal signs can be difficult. Without clear evidence linking a person or entity to the placement of the sign, enforcement actions (such as fines or notices of violation) may be legally challenged and potentially unenforceable.”
The report added, “Significant time and resources are required to identify and track down violators and follow up with the procedural aspects of [Notices of Violations and/or Citations]. This additional time results in reduced time for Code Enforcement staff conducting other investigations.”
The report did explain that Code Enforcement staff is able to use standard procedures contained in Chapter 2, Article VIII, of the County Code to issue Notices of Violations and use the Special Magistrate process, “if the responsible violator can be identified,” and the officers can issue citations.
Special Magistrates preside over Code Enforcement hearings, during which they review evidence and hear testimony. They can give offenders time to correct issues, and they can impose fines.
Nonetheless, the report noted, if a citation is issued, the offender is provided a reasonable amount of time to remove the sign before a Code Enforcement officer could follow up with issuing a Notice of Violation. That results in the illegal signs remaining in the rights of way for longer periods, the report pointed out.
The following is the language in Section 124-211 of the UDC in regard to signs in public rights of way:
One other part of that section prohibits signs “on or attached to utility poles or trees, shrubs, or plants.”
The report further noted that Section 403.413 of the Florida Statutes, known as the “Florida Litter Law,” regulates signs in the public right of way, as well. It prohibits the dumping of litter in the following areas: “[a]ny public highway, road, street, alley, or thoroughfare, including any portion of the right-of-way thereof, or any other public lands, except in containers or areas lawfully provided therefor. When any litter is thrown or discarded from a motor vehicle, the operator or owner of the motor vehicle, or both, are in violation of this section.”
Moreover, the Planning and Development Services report said, “The Florida Litter Law specifically allows Sarasota County to ‘enforce other laws, rules, or ordinances relating to litter or solid waste management.’ ”
The also report pointed out, if a “sign is placed in a very high location on a pole in the rights-of-way, Code Enforcement attempts to remove the sign with a hand-crafted sign puller. If the sign is still not reachable or unable to be detached from the pole, Code Enforcement contacts [the county’s Transportation Department, whose staff] then removes the sign with a bucket truck. Code Enforcement will remove these signs known as ‘street spam’ in-between case workload,” the report said.
Siesta Key, which comprises Zone 5, has seen the fewest sign removals, the report noted, “whereas Zone 7 [has] experienced the highest number. This discrepancy may be attributed to differences in roadway infrastructure and population density within each zone.”
The report explained that Zone 5 serves a population of 20,222, and it has only one arterial road and one minor collector. “In contrast,” the report continued, “Zone 7 includes a greater number of arterial roadways and a significantly larger population of 58,228.”
The report also contained information about how other jurisdictions handle signs in rights of way:
The report did point out that Code Enforcement staff encourages members of the public to report illegal signs by calling the county Contact Center at 941-861-5000 or by calling Code Enforcement directly at 941-861-3275.
Additionally, the report said, staff has updated the county’s webpage to provide more “information on the code requirements, the removal procedures, reporting mechanisms, etc. Staff will be sharing this information with community members,” including homeowners’ associations.