66°
GRAFTON-- Grafton's annual Town Meeting is at 7:30 p.m. in the new Grafton High School auditorium. There are 30 articles on the agenda but just a handful will draw the most attention and, potentially, some controversy.
Perhaps the most contentious will be articles 13 and 14, which address the funding for facility upgrades in the municipal center and school buildings. Last week, the finance committee voted unanimously to not recommend its passage due to untested funding assumptions.
Article 27 will address whether Grafton should rejoin the Central Massachusetts Control project, a state supported agency that, if approved, will begin spraying neighborhoods next summer. This summer the number of people contracting West Nile Virus and EEE in Massachusetts had been the highest in record.
Article 28 will address, in detail, the newest electronic sign amendments. This might be hotly debated between the pro business advocates and a circle of residents who believe the signs will create suburban blight. Although the details said that electric signs are not permitted in residential neighborhoods, it does not address a buffer between industrial and retail zoned areas, and residential neighborhoods that abut each other.
Last, article 29 will address the proposed South Grafton Village mixed use zoning variance. This is a complex, 10-page warrant whose passage will dramatically reshape that neighborhood for perhaps generations.
A copy of the entire warrant is attached. Feel free to print it out and bring it to the meeting.
Attached: A PDF of the town warrant (graftontmwarrantoct12.pdf)
Comments (16)
Please vote no on the mosquito spraying issue! I realize that there is more involved than just spraying (monitoring, testing, etc.), but the spraying is the problem. First of all, there has been no conclusive proof that mosquito spraying actually works to control the spread of EEE and West Nile. Instead, what we ARE doing is infesting our yards, parks, whatever it may be with a neurotoxin that has been linked to thyroid tumors, breast cancer, and other neurotoxicity issues. If we are concerned with mosquitos there are MANY alternatives to spraying--wear long clothes, remove breeding areas in your yard such as stagnant water, stay indoors during peak hours, or use a non-toxin mosquito spray on your person. I realize mosquito spraying sounds like a great solution, but it does not come without a cost, and the cost outweighs the risk. Vote no on Article 27!
Do not pay attention to the man across the pond!!! Yes on mosquitos... Yes on the Municipal center!
Bob H.,
What type of sign will be allowed in the proposed South Grafton enterprise district? Do lighted signs have a curfew? Can a sign be internally displayed through a window? Can signs be posted on cars and parked in front of residences/businesses. Is a sign curfew hour earlier in the new enterprise district?
Is product storage an issue? Is fire safety an issue?
What's the appropriate level of noise, before police action? Can a residence sell merchandise through a back door? What is an appropriate level of activity? Does this complicate our town's policing efforts?
AL:
The proposed mixed use zone in South Grafton is largely in an area where we currently have local business zoning. Most of the provisions of the new zone are the same as for it. Without drilling down in detail I am pretty sure you will find the sign issues will be the same as they are under the present zone - basically little or no change.
Generally under the current ZBL lighted signs do have a curfew. That is a town-wide rule that applies everywhere in all zones which allow internally illuminated signs. But note that I do not know of a case where that provision has ever been enforced, and I do not know if anyone has ever made a complaint about it that would trigger enforcement. As your question reflects there seems to be hardly anyone who even knows it exists.
Generally the answers to all your questions is that the proposed zone is intended to be the same as what we have there now and just makes the changes needed to allow mixed uses like allowing living units above businesses, and to a degree adjusting the parking requirements to better fit the situations in area. So, the rules about most of your questions are that they are the same as what is there now.
The last time I looked into it the Town did not have a bylaw to regulate noise. I believe the police may have some ability to deal with noise, and there might be some sort of controls at the state level. But I don't think we have anything that is based on a specific provision in a Town bylaw, and that too is town-wide.
By the way, on the lighted sign curfew: the current law says something like they must be turned off no later than a half hour after the business closes. But it does not speak to when they can be turned on. The proposed warrant article for signs cleans up that detail as well as several others.
Bob H, Thank you for the response. It's very general, not directly absolving the issues I raised. Hopefully town meeting will be robust on this zoning change issue.
In my opinion, it should only apply to State controlled streets of 122 and 122A, and if it works out OK there, then at a later date, it could be considered for deeper penetration into the neighborhoods.
AL, the ZBL, its interpretation, application, and enforcement are not simple. What you or I may think is not necessarily the correct bottom line or what we get in the end. Some of it is complex interactions and provisions, and some of it is what the law says vs. how it is enforced in practice.
The best, and really the only way to get close to definitive answers on specific points is to direct specific questions to Town Council and the ZEO tonight at Town Meeting. They are the ones who can speak to the law, its interpretation, and its enforcement.
The best way for the voters to look at the proposals is in terms of what it would change from the current situation. That cuts through all those variables and complexities and gets to what people really want to know to decide how to vote. For example the rules about window signs will still be the same as they are now, and whatever is currently done with them will continue to be done. Likewise for each point.
Have you actually looked at the final map for the new zone? It was modified in response to the comments at public meetings and hearings and better reflects the area the folks down there would like to see changed. No one at the public hearing on the article objected to any aspect of the map as it is now drawn. Are there any changes you asked for at meetings or hearings or by written comments that are not reflected in the proposal as it is going before Town Meeting tonight?
A very important point about your desire to limit the zone to just properties on 122 and 122A. The Farnumsville Mill is on Depot Street and so would be excluded. It has been recognized during the development of this proposal that it opens up an important opportunity to rehabilitate the mill into a major positive for the area and the Town. The folks who came to the outreach meetings, and the input to the public hearing indicated that was a very beneficial and important consideration in favor of the article as the zone and the provisions are presently laid out.
On the signs and abutting districts - the idea is to make that type of sign similar in impact to other signs - tone them down so they don't flash and they are not excessively bright and so they can reasonably be allowed on the same rules as other signs - they can be in the same places as any other internally illuminated sign, and have comparable impact. As was noted earlier voting down the sign article will not get rid of them. It will only result in spending legal fees trying to keep them from being operated so they don't "flash". Adopting the article will provide more protection and control than what we have.
After reading the sign by-law, and not being a lawyer, I have several questions, that I think reflect poorly on how this law is written. I agree with several of the goals of the provisions but it is the enforcement of such that I have trouble understanding.
Temporary signs being up 30 days prior and 7 days after an event. I am thinking a sale of a house. How many days is the commercial sign up in front of a house waiting to be sold? This temporary sign is in a residential neighborhood, and the house could not sell for a long time, thereby exceeding the 30 day prior notice.
What about new developments that have many temporary signs and balloons. Their event is not a day but several years in length. Making the by-law as written seemly unenforceable.
What about the banners and flags on church property? As much as I want a high wall separating church and state, how long will St. James have a temporary sign on their lawn? What about their flags? It looks to be a more "permanent" display. Rather then a count down to a penny sale.
It would prohibit lights displayed to create the illusion of motion, so only static Christmas light displays are permitted in the residential neighborhood.
What about signs currently affixed to Telephone poles? Who shall pull them down? What will be the fine for keeping the sign up?
What about the "Lost Dog" signs placed on telephone poles?
JohnB - Your post has a lot of words that make the sign bylaw sound like it's really in trouble. But, after boiling it down, I'm not so sure I see what the problem is. Here are my thoughts, in response to your postL
House sale signs are addressed 4.4.3.1 – the temporary regulations do not apply.
New development temporary signs and balloons are not allowed and the ZEO will need to tell them to remove them. Enforcement should be easy because the ZEO and the BI are one and the same and I don’t think builders want to irritate the BI. I think there is a provision elsewhere that will allow the PB to grant a temporary construction sign which would be excepted.
Banners on Church property would be regulated via the new bylaw. If St. James is not in compliance, file a complaint.
Holiday displays are excepted – see section 4.4.3.1.
Telephone poll signs, including lost dog signs are illegal. If they bother you, file a complaint with the ZEO.
WBM is correct here.
The article on this Town Meeting warrant is about other issues. He pointed out where we have provisions in the Zoning Bylaw (ZBL) that allow permit and set limits on some of he uses you are concerned with. Of course those could be changed if there was a sufficient interest, and a legally allowable way to write a change (think First Amendment) available, and a two thirds vote could be accomplished at Town Meeting.
He has also pointed out some other provisions that are not allowed in the current ZBL. This part goes back to what it takes to enforce the law. First there needs to be a complaint. In some cases that would be enough - people would comply when cited. But when that does not succeed it gets to the real issue which is the the need to spend time and money in court. The solution to that part could be a change so the ZEO can issue what are essentially tickets like the police do for traffic violations. Those can be enforced without sizable legal implications. Town has been unwilling to adopt that so far however.
In any case, for the things you are concerned about submitting a complaint to the ZEO is the first step.
No to Mosquito spraying!! Too many toxins, plus we just had a frost.
The spraying would be for the future, not this season.
Who would get sprayed? How often? Who would decide? How would they decide? How much impact would the average person in Town actually see? Is that worth the cost?
When we had that program before those were the questions and issues that brought the Town to leave the program, and later to decline to rejoin it. It sounded good but in the end it was found by the voters to be an ineffective expenditure based on their actual experience.
Yes to the spraying.
Send the signs back to address abutment issues, and lighting issues.
Aladdin, if I'm not mistaken, you're not currently living in Grafton! I am, and I do not want the air in our town contaminated by toxic pesticides. Once sprayed, that stuff falls on our lawns and playgrounds and gardens. Yes, there are EEE outbreaks, but let's control our panic. Fewer people die from EEE than die from the common flu. In this cost-benefit analysis, I say NO to mosquito spraying.
Yes to mosquito spraying, No to everything else.