Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brookfield board approves 10‑sq‑ft limit and hazard test for permanent signs after public concern
Summary
After extended public discussion about real-estate and temporary signs, the planning board approved a warrant article to limit permanent sign faces to 10 sq ft (excluding supports), cap height at 10 ft and require placement 'so as not to create a hazardous situation'; permanent signs in place before passage will be grandfathered.
The Brookfield Planning Board approved a warrant article Jan. 12 that would add size and placement restrictions for signs in the town’s general provisions (Article 3(e)). The board settled on limits of 10 square feet for the sign face (excluding supporting structures), a maximum height of 10 feet from grade, and text that signs "shall be placed so as not to create a hazardous situation." Previously enacted but existing permanent signs would be grandfathered.
Discussion at the public hearing focused on practical effects for common sign types — sandwich-board meeting signs, yard-arm real-estate signs and large temporary real-estate signs on sprawling parcels. Several commenters and board members said the town’s prior ordinance language on signs had been in the home-occupation section and became omitted in later drafts; the article seeks to restore clear, general provisions.
Members debated whether to treat temporary signs differently; the board retained separate language for temporary signs but clarified permanent-sign restrictions and added a grandfathering clause so pre-existing permanent signs are not automatically made nonconforming. The board also asked staff to clarify in the posted backup whether the 10‑ft setback from the right-of-way would be retained, removed or replaced by the "hazard" standard after practical concerns were raised about right-of-way widths.
Board and public discussed enforcement and permits for structures that are permanently affixed (which may be considered small structures under zoning) and whether signs attached to mailbox posts or short supports would be captured; the approved language explicitly excludes support structures from the square-foot calculation to address that concern.
The board approved the modified warrant language and voted 6–0–0 to recommend the article for the ballot. The board directed staff to post the final, lawyer-reviewed text and to include clarifying examples or diagrams on the town website prior to the vote.
The article now moves to the warrant and will appear on the town ballot; the board said it may revisit the details if voters or staff identify unintended effects.
