Ordinance committee agrees to draft electronic-sign rules, inserts nonconforming-sign clause from Laconia draft

The Ordinance Committee on March 5 voted unanimously to add a nonconforming-signs provision from a Laconia, New Hampshire draft into the town's sign ordinance and to direct staff to return with a draft section addressing electronic message centers and internally illuminated signs.

Committee members said they want clear definitions, consistent lighting standards and enforceable limits before formally adding internally illuminated signs to the code. The group approved importing section 235-62 (nonconforming signs) from Laconia's draft and asked staff to draft a new subsection based on Laconia's 235-60(c)-(d) language that would define EMCs, require automatic dimming and set other operational limits.

Why it matters: committee members said the changes aim to let local businesses use modern sign technology while preventing visual clutter or safety problems. Members raised questions about how new EMC rules would interact with existing town lighting rules, how to treat signs already in place, and whether the new language could create conflicts if parts are adopted piecemeal.

Most of the meeting was devoted to technical limits and enforcement. Members compared numbers in the town's lighting section (which currently lists 1,600 lumens) with recommendations that it be reduced to 1,000 lumens for night-time lighting. Participants favored regulating nighttime luminance (dusk to dawn) rather than daytime display levels. Linda, who worked with an outside contact, demonstrated a 100-nit display during the meeting and committee members said that visual demonstration was helpful when setting a practical brightness standard.

The committee discussed these specific items to include in the EMC/internal-illumination draft: a clear definition of "electronic message center," requirement for automatic dimming, limits on animation or motion (no phasing, rolling, scrolling or flashing), a maximum pixel size to make displays appear less like video billboards, and rules on whether graphics are allowed. Committee members debated a minimum display time between message changes; one draft item read "no less than five minutes," which generated pushback as too short for some users but too frequent for others. Members also cited a state statute referenced at the meeting (Title 23, subsection 114-11A) that appears to set a 20-minute change interval as a baseline, and noted municipalities may adopt more restrictive standards.

On grandfathering, staff and committee members clarified the usual land-use approach: signs installed before adoption of a new ordinance remain nonconforming (allowed to exist) but replacement or substantial alteration typically must comply with new standards. The committee asked staff to incorporate explicit nonconforming-sign language (the Laconia 235-62 text) that spells out maintenance-versus-replacement treatment and variance procedures.

Committee members also asked staff and legal counsel to check for internal conflicts between the proposed EMC subsection and other sign and lighting provisions (the committee discussed local references such as Section 38106/38107 and Chapter 38 language). Members said they want draft language that's consistent with the town's lighting ordinance and with any direction the Select Board provides on adjusting lumen limits.

The motion to add the nonconforming-signs language and the motion to draft EMC provisions both passed unanimously; the transcript records the committee's vote as unanimous but does not list a recorded roll-call tally for each member.

Next steps: staff will prepare a written draft that incorporates the Laconia 235-60(c)-(d) and 235-62 language as a starting point, add definitions (including a definition of "electronic message center"), and reconcile luminance and hours-of-operation standards with the lighting ordinance. The committee scheduled follow-up work and asked for a written draft and redline to review at the next meeting.