Rocco (and others encountering 2014 NEC issues),
There is a commonly-encountered problem in how the provisions of 600.6 are interpreted by the AHJs. Much of that has occurred because of the specific language that appeared in the 2014 NEC. The 2014 code language isn't wrong, it just was written in a way that allows some inspectors to draw conclusions with which we strongly object. (BTW, I should note that most of the 2014 problems were addressed in the 2017 code language. But state adoption of the NEC varies, some states only update every other cycle, and so some communities will be stuck with the 2014 code for several years.)
Basically, you should take a look at 600.6 as it appears in several editions of the NEC. (BTW, disconnect language was the featured subject for ISA/IAEI/UL at the ISA Expo Electrical Codes Forum this past March.)
2011 version: 600.6 Disconnects has an introductory paragraph, followed by two exceptions. Then comes (A) Location (1) Within Sight of the Sign; and (2) Within Sight of the Controller
2014 version: 600.6 Disconnects has an identical introductory paragraph, followed by two exceptions and (A) Location. But new (1) At Point of Entry to a Sign Enclosure, followed by renumbered (2) Within Sight of the Sign; and (3) Within Sight of the Controller.
2017 version: 600.6 Disconnects has an (almost) identical introductory paragraph, followed by two exceptions and a new informational note. Then (A) Location with an added sentence "The disconnecting means shall be permitted to be located in accordance with 600.6(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3)". Followed by (1) At Point of Entry to a Sign Enclosure, (2) Within Sight of the Sign; and (3) Within Sight of the Controller--all of which have some added or modified language.
That new sentence (before discussing the three locations) steers AHJs away from concluding that "At Point of Entry to a Sign Enclosure" is the mandatory design.
It certainly appears that some AHJs didn't recognize in the 2014 NEC that (1), (2), & (3) were equally acceptable options. The first response to that problem is to correct or improve the code language, (which occurred in the 2017 code cycle. The second response is to educate AHJs as best we can. We have created handouts and other materials that ISA has used when we exhibit at IAEI section meetings. (I just attended the IAEI Southern Section meting 2-3 weeks ago.) The third response is to try to assist sign companies when they encounter challenges from the local inspector. That can be difficult due to the wide latitude given to the AHJs interpretation.
We have seen some success in convincing inspectors to look to the 2017 code for greater clarity. Or at the rationale statements submitted along with public input proposals during the 2017 NEC cycle.
But it is a struggle. And probably will be for awhile.