It’s Official—No New Billboards in Watauga

Board Adopts Proposed Amendments to County Sign Ordinance

Story by Sam Calhoun

Airing on the side of aesthetics rather than commerce, the Watauga County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday adopted amendments to the Watauga County Ordinance to Regulate Signs that prohibit new billboards in Watauga County. The vote comes just three days before a moratorium on all new billboards and all new off-premise electronic signs was set to expire, and effectively ends the more than 18-month debate concerning the future of billboards—electronic or otherwise—in Watauga County.

Before making its decision on Tuesday night, the commissioners heard from six citizens and two people associated with Lamar Outdoor Advertising—the Asheville-based company that owns 75 billboards in Watauga County—during a public hearing on the proposed amendments. After reviewing the comments and engaging in further discussion during closed session, the commissioners struck one line in the ordinance, added specific language to another section and unanimously adopted the changes.

The decision is clearly a win for the area’s scenic beauty, and it places the county into a small group of states and municipalities that have adopted similar restrictions on billboards. Four states currently ban billboards—Alaska, Hawaii, Maine and Vermont—and two states, Rhode Island and Oregon, recently prohibited the construction of new billboards, similar to Watauga County. Concerning the four states with billboard bans, “It is no accident that these four states are known for their scenic beauty. Businesspeople in these states recognize that an unmarred landscape promotes tourism and benefits them in the long run. Billboard bans also level the playing field between local businesses and national chains in at least one advertising medium,” according to New Rules Project, a program of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. The report goes on to explain that “a handful of communities” across the nation have chosen to ban new billboards altogether—this now includes Watauga County.

This summer, Los Angeles, Calif. enacted a similar ban on billboards, and last year, the popular tourism cities of São Paulo, Brazil and Xi’an, China adopted bans on new outdoor advertising signs.   


Public Hearing Comments
During Tuesday’s public hearing, four people spoke in support of the proposed amendments, two spoke against the amendments and two provided viewpoints without taking a side.

Brad Moretz, general manager of Appalachian Ski Mountain, was the first to speak and said that while his business supported limits on billboard advertising, further restrictions on existing billboards beyond what was proposed to the commissioners would hurt future recreational business in Watauga County. Moretz said that, of all his other advertising methods combined, billboards are the most effective for attracting customers. He said if billboards were to be taken away, the void would hurt Appalachian Ski Mountain’s bottom line, which in turn would affect the bottom line of other businesses that make money off skiers.

“We’re more concerned with the future than what is going on now,” added Moretz.

Susie Winters, the local resident who wrote one of the first letters to the editor concerning the electronic billboard on Highway 421 near Food Lion, said, “I’m worried that we could lose the scenic designation along [Highway 421 East] if we are not more vigil with how we treat signs.”

Winters added that she once drove on the wrong side of the road after gazing too long at the electronic billboard and said she would like to see the sign returned to a regular billboard or taken down altogether using county funds to prohibit future car wrecks. 

“As a community, we are more than just commerce,” said Winters. “The dollar doesn’t have to dictate how we live.”

County resident Susan Miller echoed Winters’ sentiments and asked the commissioners to ban billboards altogether.

“It is no accident that there are no billboards on the Blue Ridge Parkway,” Miller said. “The scenery should be the star attraction here, and all billboards do is dominate the scenery, daring us not to look.

“Billboards are bad for the business of tourism,” she added.

Miller’s husband Dwight added, “We have a great wealth available to everyone in this community and that’s natural beauty, and I think anything that restricts that wealth should be restricted.” 

Craig Justice, an Asheville-based attorney representing Lamar Outdoor Advertising, told the commissioners on Tuesday that he and his client do not have any problem with the ordinance’s proposed application to new signs but are concerned with any retroactive action the ordinance may call for.

“We take the position that the three electronic signs [owned by Lamar Outdoor Advertising] in Watauga County are protected by North Carolina law, and there can’t be any retroactive action [applied to those billboards],” said Justice, who thanked the commissioners for changing the time billboards can display a message from 15 seconds to eight seconds.

Jamie Machut, vice president and general manager of Lamar Outdoor Advertising, said, “I believe there is a place for us in Watauga County, and I believe all of our billboards were erected legally because we bent over backwards to adhere to state, federal and local regulations.”

Machut highlighted the importance of billboards to local small business and described the advertising method as “an affordable way to get your word out.” He also pointed out the long relationship Lamar Outdoor Advertising has had with businesses and landowners in the county. “I think these signs belong here; I think we help Watauga County,” he added.


Adopted Ordinance 
According to the adopted ordinance, “newly erected advertising signs shall not be permitted” in Watauga County. “Advertising” signs are “most typically billboards,” said Planning and Inspections Director Joe Furman, but also include all types of off-premise signs, or signs that advertise a business but are not located on property owned by the business.

On Tuesday, the commissioners added an additional provision to the ordinance: “No existing advertising signs may be converted to or replaced with a changeable electronic variable message sign.” 

A definition for what are called “changeable electronic variable message signs”—the LED billboards that originally caused the debate and moratorium—is included in the ordinance. Per the ordinance, a changeable electronic variable message sign is “a sign—other than a public variable message sign, which is erected by town, city, county, state or federal government or agency for traffic communication purposes—which results in illuminated display or messages or information by the use of a matrix of lamps, i.e., digital, LED or similar or refined display technology, movable discs, movable panels, light apertures or other methods, which allow the message change to be actuated by a control mechanism rather than manually changing of message.”

On Tuesday, the commissioners struck the definition’s last line, which originally ended with “…and which changes the message more often than twice daily.” 

The new ordinance also prohibits flashing and moving signs, but includes exemptions for signs that provide time and temperature readings and for existing changeable electronic variable message signs, assuming the signs meet the new provisions. According to Furman, existing changeable electronic variable message signs will be grandfathered-in under the proposed ordinance once they comply with the new guidelines. Under the ordinance, changeable electronic variable message signs are not considered flashing or moving provided the signs comply with the following provisions:

• The sign does not contain or display flashing, intermittent or moving lights, including animated or scrolling advertising;
  
• The sign facing remains in a fixed position for at least eight seconds for off-premise signs and one hour for on-premise signs;
  
• If a message is changed electronically, it must be accomplished within an interval of two seconds or less;
  
• The sign must contain a default design that will freeze the sign in one position if a malfunction occurs;
  
• The sign shall be equipped with a control system that automatically adjusts light emission level to ambient light conditions so as to not cause glare or excessive brightness. In no case shall the light level of any such sign exceed 300 nits between the time of sunset to sunrise, nor 5,000 nits at other times. No more that 25 percent of the sign may be white. Notwithstanding the acceptable light levels, internal illumination shall not be at an intensity that is distracting to vehicular traffic; and
  
• Subsequent to installation, Watauga County shall have the ongoing discretion to require that brightness, frequency, colors or other qualities be adjusted in order to address safety concerns.

On-premise signs, or signs located on a business’s property, must also comply with the provisions listed above—to the extent applicable—under the new ordinance.

In addition, the new ordinance stipulates that no source of illumination on a sign, such as floodlights, spotlights or unshielded bulbs, can shine directly into any public right-of-way. Per the ordinance, “internal illumination shall not be at an intensity that is distracting to vehicular traffic.”   

LOCAL WEATHER FORECAST

LATEST COMMENTS FROM OUR READERS

TOP NEWS ACROSS THE NATION

HIGH COUNTRY MAGAZINE