Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shelton commission adopts comprehensive sign‑code updates, clarifies enforcement and fee language
Summary
The Shelton Planning and Zoning Commission adopted broad text amendments to Section 44 (signs) to modernize definitions, enforcement procedures, illumination limits and fee handling for after‑the‑fact sign applications; commissioners and counsel discussed limits on regulating message content and delegated administrative fee language.
The Shelton Planning and Zoning Commission on April 27 adopted comprehensive amendments to Section 44 of the zoning regulations governing signs, updating definitions, application and review procedures, enforcement authority, illumination and brightness standards, prohibited sign types, temporary and portable signs, window signage and multi‑tenant building signage.
Staff and the assigned subcommittee explained three major drivers behind the rewrite: a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting regulation of message content; identified gaps in the existing regulations (for example, digital signs and feather signs) that left staff without clear authority to act; and a need for a clearer enforcement process so field staff are not unduly exposed to confrontations. The chair summarized the legal limit: "We cannot restrict content," a point counsel confirmed during discussion.
The draft replaces prior fee language with a provision tying an additional 25% administrative processing fee to the commission's fee schedule for applications filed after a sign has been installed without prior approval. Commissioners debated whether the commission or the Board of Aldermen should formally adopt the fee schedule by ordinance; counsel advised that the regulation can reference the commission's adopted fee schedule and that an ordinance could be pursued later if desired.
The amendments also add clarifications on electronic message centers (EMC) and remove provisions that would require staff to review or judge message content; the focus is on size, location, brightness and safety. The commission acknowledged the need to avoid content‑based regulation while preserving tools that address clutter, safety and maintenance.
After discussion and a set of targeted edits, the commission moved and adopted the comprehensive sign amendments as amended by the subcommittee; the motion passed 6 to 0. Staff will update the regulatory text and the fee schedule references as directed.
