Planning board narrows electronic-sign proposal, caps illuminated faces at 32 square feet and limits new signs to downtown commercial

At a meeting of the planning board, members advanced a revised sign ordinance that would limit internally illuminated signs and electronic message centers (EMCs) to an aggregate of no more than 32 square feet and confine new illuminated signs to downtown commercial zoning.

Board discussion centered on safety, enforceability and preserving existing conditional-use approvals. One participant opposed to electronic signs said, "I personally think that there shouldn't be any movement on any electronic sign myself," arguing moving messages can distract drivers and pedestrians. An ordinance committee member urged the board to adopt the committee's multi-month work, saying the point of an electronic sign "is to be able to change from one thing to another" so businesses need not climb ladders to update messages.

Members debated technical limits and hours. The draft would allow signs to change no more frequently than every five minutes; a staff speaker described using nits as the measurement and noted that "100 nits actually is compliant [with] dark skies," though members pressed for clarity on how nits would be calibrated and enforced. The board also discussed that businesses staying open past 10 p.m. could legally keep signs illuminated until closing under the proposed language.

A recurring concern was how to treat existing signs that exceed the 32-square-foot standard under prior conditional-use approvals. Several members said owners who replace a traditional sign with an illuminated face should return to the planning board for review; one argued such a change should "bring them back to 32 square feet." The board discussed treating illuminated faces as part of an aggregate sign area and using permit triggers to require review when a sign is changed.

The board voted on an amendment to restrict internally illuminated signs to downtown commercial zoning — a change members framed as a temporary geographic limit while a broader zoning update proceeds. The amendment was adopted and the ordinance draft will go to legal review, then to the selectmen, and — if advanced — to town voters in June.

Board members also addressed placement and form: several said freestanding or wheeled electronic signs should be disfavored and favored building-mounted installations only, and they discussed language to define permanence and anchoring. Members raised enforcement concerns and the likely need for higher permit or inspection fees to cover complaint investigations and calibration checks.

Next procedural steps are legal review and selectmen consideration; the board asked staff to return a redlined draft reflecting the board's direction. The board did not record a roll-call vote tally in the transcript; the amendment and motion were captured in the meeting record as adopted or seconded as noted.