50°
GRAFTON, Mass. - The Sign Bylaw Committee is no more.
The Board of Selectmen unanimously voted to dissolve the two-year-old board after a one hour debate with two members of the Planning Board and one from the now defunct bylaw committee. The Planning Board will assume future responsibilities.
Formed in 2010 to address the issue of electronic message boards that change every few seconds and can flash to draw attention to passing cars, it was hoped the bylaw committee would find the right words to appease two thirds of voters at Town Meeting while also supporting small business. But in the end, it created more confusion and no drafts that satisfied the Board of Selectmen.
Last night, Planning Board Chairman Stephen Qualey and member Robert Hassinger were joined by lone sign bylaw committee member Stephen Burke to regain the bylaws footing and determine where to head next.
Qualey recommended rewriting the entire bylaw so not to create more problems down the road, such how far apart business signs have to be spaced from one another. Hassinger and Burke recommended a partial rewrite that addressed the electronic signs and sandwich boards specifically, since they are hot topic items.
Hassinger also wants to form a Planning Sub-Committee that could include town residents who wish to have a voice in the matter.
“What is needed is to let the town speak,” he said.
The Board of Selectmen agreed that a partial rewrite would make more sense since creating a final result by an October meeting would be critical.
Existing businesses, including McKoul’s Cars in North Grafton who appealed to the Zoninbg Board for a variance June 1, are lining up to upgrade their outdated signs to the more attention getting message boards. The town began working on changing the bylaw in 2009 after the Grafton Suburban Credit Union first proposed their current sign. Since then, Koopman Lumber and Fitzy’s Car Wash have followed suit.
The Sign Bylaw Committee's latest rewrite was slated for a vote at the May Town Meeting but was passed over by the Board of Selectmen because of vague wording. It was the third time a sign bylaw has been passed over in the last four years.
Wording the new byline to satisfy residents might be tough. Comments posted yesterday on the Grafton Daily Voice expressed frustration that the town is focusing on this issue instead of more pressing needs like investing in new sidewalks and road improvements, while another worried that a too lax bylaw might create an eyesore similar to stretches of highway in Southern New Hampshire.
Comments (13)
I'd like to correct something written in this news article. Fitzy's and Koopman's signs predated this discussion of Electronic signs and the recent sign bylaw committee by many years.
In fact, Koopman recieved a variance from the ZBA for their sign - in other words the ZBA has made a ruling that inherently and implicitly states that Electronic signs are legal.
Did what the ZBA did include an explicit decision that overrode the language in the ZBL about changeable electronic signs, or did they address issues like location or dimensions?
If the ZBA decisions did speak to allowing the changeable electronic aspect for those particular signs, what was the authority? And if they did actually do that why are we not hearing about it as taking those signs out of the issue, and so presumably all the signs since it is an issue of definitions? I know that generally the ZBA has powers regarding non-conforming dimensions and the like, and in Grafton they do not have the ability to give "use" variances. Did they assert a power to override something like the prohibition in the bylaw regarding moving, flashing, etc.? I doubt it, and note it is a particularly relevant question because it could come up with respect to some current issues.
What brings us to this point is that the understanding of the legal aspects of this has been clarified in recent years. At one time in the early days of changeable electric signs it was argued locally by some that the bylaw provision regarding moving, flashing, etc. did not apply to changeable electronic signs, and decisions did not explicitly consider, or even note or recognize that special aspect of the sign in question. But now the question has become more visible everywhere, and two town councils and the Zoning Enforcement Officer have determined that it does in fact apply and that the changeable electric signs are not in fact allowed under the current law.
I should also note that I have recently seen news reports about other towns, and the State too, coming to the same conclusion about similar provisions in their laws and regulations, and the need to update their corresponding provisions to address changeable electronic signs in one way or another too.
That is what has brought us to the current need to give the Town a chance to address this new kind of sign and decide what it wants the rules to be for them. That has to be done by Town Meeting approving an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw.
Bob - the ZBA decisions did not address the "moving, flashing" (section 4.4.2.1) aspect of the signs. However, it was well documented exactly what those signs were going to be, and the ZBA can not (and would not) grant a variance for something that was allowed for under the bylaw (an exception is proposals which are subject to site plan review or other zoning review by another board, typically the PB in which case the ZBA notes that in the decisions or the proceedings).
As I said in another string, the "moving/flashing" aspect was discussed, it was well understood section 4.4.2.1 did apply and simply changing a static message was compliant with the bylaw, however the messages could not scroll, flash, animate, etc.
And a point of clarification, I am pretty sure that the ZBA could issue a variance regarding section 4.4.2.1, however I can not imagine anyone being able to come up with the required findings (hardship owing to the shape, topography, etc etc...).
What the ZBA definitely could do is make a decision to overturn the Zoning Enforcement Officer's decision that these signs are not compliant with a section of the by law.
I think we should update the entire sign by-law for October town meeting. We have two full time employee's in the planning office, plus a secretary. This is the same size office, as years back when the town was booming. There is ample town resources being spent within our planning dept. for this task to be completed before October's town meeting.
Personally, I'm a little disappointed with the time management of this office and a little more direction from the T.A., is in order.
AL - your ideas are interesting, but in my opinion this is a case of "it ain't broke so don't fix it". From my discussions with people who have to work with this by law (including our ZOE), I've been struggling to find out what is wrong with it - other than the fact that temporary signs and electronic signs are not addressed. But that is all that is wrong with the by law.
A couple years back there was a lot of work done to tweak the by law and fix up some of the issues that had been discovered. Since then, to the best of my knowledge there really haven't been problems with the by law.
Other than the two point issues - changable electronic signs and temporary signs- what do you think needs changing? Of course there is always someone who does not like some provision of a law, but actually the law has generally been working quite well - better than many others because ours does have flexibility to accommodate situations and needs that others don't always have.
The sign by-law should be progressive, in that front lit signs should receive the largest square footage rights, with back lit signs requiring a 15% smaller dimension and then again variable signs receiving a 30 - 35% sign area reduction over a front lit sign. This progression should also apply to height limits, but at half the above stipulations. In this way, the business owner can make a business decision as to how they want to sign their business. And the town gains less signage clutter as the signs become more technically intrusive.
AL - interesting proposals.
The problems with trying to make changes like that are first that all the (legal) existing signs are grandfathered which means the actual effect will be very slow and impose disadvantages on people who want to have new signs, and second that you need a strong concensous on the need and approprietmess in order to get Town Meeting approval.
Hi Bob H.,
Current signs are only grandfathered for their existing sign configuration. If a business wants to make technical changes, they need to abide by the new code.
I'm glad your thinking about this limited progression, because to me it is the best approach.
To your second point, about town meeting approval. To me, this limited progression represents a good faith compromise for both the town and the business owner. To me, this is fair, and empathetic to all concerns and will easily win support at town meeting.
Actually the subject of what is allowed under grandfathering is not that clean. The ZBA has considerable power to allow legal non-conforming situations to be changed and upgraded. For example a non-conforming use in the Water Supply Protection Overlay District may be increased by up to 50% from what it was before it became non-conforming, and I understand there is no limit on the amount of increase the ZBA can allow outside the WSPOD.
That increase of up to 50% can be extended even further provided there is mitigation with respect to the water supply protection (if it's even needed).
I am not sure how I see forming a sub-committee would "let the town speak". All it would do is let the people (and businesses?) who happen to be on the sub-committee speak. The only way the "town" will speak is at an election. The sub-committee just sounds like another attempt at a sign bylaw committee, which didn't seem to accomplish much.
The only way the town can "speak" is by a vote at Town Meeting. At least four proposals have been directed towards that and all of them have either been pulled back or passed over by request of those who submitted them.
At the next Town Meeting the intent now is that there will be an article to vote on and not passed over. It will be up to the sign proponents to balance what they will ask to be in it against the prospects for getting the two thirds vote they need. If it does not pass the issue will be settled and the current law will have to be enforced