Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs And UDO topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Covenant Day School seeks rule change to allow sponsorship banners on playground fences; planning staff, board raise language questions
Summary
Covenant Day School asked the town to allow inward‑facing sponsorship banners on playground fencing that sits more than 300 feet from the public right of way; planning staff and the planning board raised ordinance ambiguities about number and size of banners and asked for clearer language; public hearing continued to Aug. 11.
Covenant Day School representatives returned to the board to seek a change to the Unified Development Ordinance that would permit sponsorship banners on playground fencing when the fenced area is more than 300 feet from the public right of way.
Planning director Jay Camp said staff identified roughly 15 town properties that might qualify under an allowance of this type — including churches, schools and large institutional sites — and that the town’s current UDO language limits banner size but contains ambiguities about the allowed number and orientation of banners.
Applicant presentation and intent A school representative told the board the request is narrowly focused and is intended to allow tasteful brand recognition banners for sponsors on fences that are not visible from the public right of way. “It’s really just brand recognition, not…advertising,” the applicant said, showing photos of existing banners at Covenant and examples at other schools. Staff measured Covenant’s playground fence at about 410 feet from the public right of way, placing it beyond the 300‑foot threshold the applicant is requesting.
Planning issues and board comments The planning board and commissioners raised several questions: the UDO currently states a 12‑square‑foot limit and that signs be inwardly oriented; board members noted the code can be read as allowing an unlimited number of 12‑square‑foot banners (plural) or, alternately, only a single 12‑square‑foot sign. Planning board member(s) recommended clarifying the ordinance to set a numeric limit and to avoid ambiguity.
Staff noted code enforcement sees violations only infrequently (fewer than a dozen in recent years), and commissioners said the town could consider narrowly tailored language to allow inward‑facing recognition banners on large institutional sites while limiting public‑facing advertising.
Outcome and next steps The public hearing on this UDO text amendment was continued; staff and the planning board recommended revising the ordinance language to remove ambiguity (for example by specifying sign count, placement and orientation) and to return with a clarified draft at the Aug. 11 meeting.
