Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Land Bank’s Sconset park-rules sign applications held for revisions after board questions placement
Summary
The HTC Sign Advisory Council asked the Land Bank to revise its proposed Field of Dreams park-rules signs to reduce visual impact and favor fence- or post-mounted options over new 4-foot freestanding posts.
Get email alerts on the Parks Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chris Young, chair of the HTC Sign Advisory Council, said the board reviewed two sign applications from the Land Bank for the Field of Dreams park in Sconset and asked the applicant to submit less obtrusive placement options.
Claire O'Connor of the Land Bank described the proposals as small park-rules signs in the same style as existing trailhead signage. "We just want to have our rules for the park just to keep all the neighbors happy," O'Connor said, explaining the signs would mark public entry points on New Street and the West Sconset side.
Commissioners raised precedent and placement concerns. Ben Norman said approving two prominent freestanding signs at the same park could set an undesirable pattern. Kevin Koester questioned whether the signs needed to be freestanding at all and suggested attaching them to the fence or to an interior post. Koester noted the board's height guideline: "I would only vote in favor of this if the location is appropriate," reflecting the board's insistence that top-of-sign height not exceed the four-foot standard.
The applicant proposed alternatives — an adhesive vinyl sign on the split rails, a sign on the rear of the gate post, or a low-mounted plaque near the top rail — to balance visibility inside the park with reduced streetscape impact. The board moved to hold the New Street application for revisions showing a lower, less obtrusive placement and asked the applicant to resubmit. For the West Sconset entrance, the board took no motion and similarly directed the applicant to revise placement and attachment details for staff review.
The council characterized the actions as requests for design and placement revisions rather than denials; no fines or enforcement were applied. The applicant said she would prepare revised drawings for staff review and subsequent board consideration.

