Laserfiche WebLink
was not prepared to go forward with the new By -Law and further <br />study was requested. The Selectmen however, wanted changes to <br />the existing Sign By -Law making it more enforceable to the <br />Building Inspector. The Selectmen did not want to wait another <br />year. What is being submitted is something for this Town Meeting <br />and something for the enforcement officer. Some Elements of the <br />Comprehensive Plan will address such issues as community <br />character and will make recommendations for future changes. <br />The Chairman stated his understanding that the Building <br />Inspector has advised the Board of Selectmen of aspects of the <br />current Sign By -Law which he feels cannot be properly enforced. <br />There has been ongoing discussion for quite some time regarding <br />those issues. The Building Inspector is at a point where <br />enforcement of the By -Laws are very difficult. The original <br />intent was to write an entirely new By -Law, to which task the <br />Committee devoted a tremendous amount of time. The outcome <br />was to evolve a new Sign By -Law for October Town Meeting. The <br />Board of Selectmen wanted something accomplished for Town <br />Meeting. There were discussions with the Building Inspector <br />inquiring of specific areas of enforcement difficulties within <br />the current Sign By -Law and suggested improvements to it. <br />Patrick Coffey asked about major variations in relation to <br />the existing Sign Code. <br />Eric Smith addressed the question stating the determination <br />of what would be submitted to Design Review and Board of Appeals. <br />All signs over six (6) square feet go to Design Review and all <br />signs exceeding twenty (20) square feet require a Special Permit <br />from Board of Appeals. 174-54B Churches and Institutions, are <br />not allowed to have more than six (6) square feet signboard area. <br />Signs are to be regulated based upon building size area. <br />Freestanding sign set backs at five (5) feet, or DPW Director <br />approval regarding traffic safety. <br />The Chairman commented this is an area of some confusion. <br />The sign set back is not from edge of paving, but rather from <br />the property line, requiring commercial -industrial type signs <br />to be held twelve (12) feet back from the property line. <br />Thomas Fudala questioned if it were legally defensible to <br />have a Zoning regulation contingent upon opinion from the DPW <br />Director, rather than a fixed standard. He suggested this point <br />be examined further. (There has been no comment from Town <br />Counsel at this point.) <br />The Chairman asked Eric Smith to inquire of Town Counsel. <br />Thomas Fudala asked, for clarification, how this would apply <br />and relate to the situation where signs are not on the lot, but <br />on the roadway, either illegally or through Board of Selectmen <br />approval. Should the Zoning By -Law apply to those signs as well. <br />-14- <br />