Some comments, of course. 

There is no such formal thing as a "first reading" for Guidelines. First and Second readings apply only to OPA Board Resolutions. Nitpicking, perhaps.

In terms of signs other than political, there do not look to be any substantial changes. Not specifically addressed - Signs that promote some social issue such as supporting public education, backing police, military, etc., civil or criminal trials related to things like the "Gavin" signs, etc.

The new guidelines don't seem to provide much guidance on those. My assumption is the intent is that all such signs are subject to permit requirement???? These signs place ARC members, and the Board perhaps, in a rather awkward position of granting or not granting sign permits more or less based on the opinions of individual ARC members about some social issue.

Beyond house numbers and some temporary signs, it seems the only signs not requiring a permit application by each lot owner are political candidates and Maryland Election Law referendum items signs. Such signs also do not need to adhere to the size or number requirements. They are limited however by the 30-day pre-election and 7-day post-election timeframes. So, for example, OPA can remove any U.S. presidential election signs, County Commissioner election signs, etc. remaining on lots 7 days after the election. 

Unless I missed the reference, the proposed new Guidelines will continue to require each lot owner to obtain a permit to place a sign on their property for any OPA Board Candidate or an OPA referendum. 

Assuming a lot owner requests a permit for a board candidate sign and it is granted, it begs the question of allowing only one permitted sign. 

So, is the intent to have ARC simply grant any permit applications for board candidate signs that meet size, etc. requirements? At what cost? And suppose an owner wants to place signs for more than one board candidate?

I now have a copy of the entire proposed Guidelines and the above are my observations after only a quick perusal.

I understand the board is proposing to vote on approving these Guidelines at their next meeting on Saturday, April 20.

The board certainly has the right to do so. However, given these Guidelines probably directly impact association members more than any other governing document, the board would be wise to instead place the finalized proposed document out for public review for perhaps two weeks with a news release, followed by a Town Hall meeting for association member input and questions and then followed by any board final revisions and a vote.

This may take a month longer but passing the Guidelines is not an emergency, and would be a good public relations move.