Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board forwards sign‑bylaw edits to planning board; tables broader multifamily bylaw authorizations
Summary
Board approved forwarding clarified sign‑bylaw language (size, height, calculation of sign area and treatment of support structures) to the planning board and town meeting; a separate proposal to authorize zoning enforcement and ZBA officers to draft multifamily housing clarifications was tabled after concerns about overlap with planning-board work.
The Select Board on Nov. 3 voted to forward proposed clarifying edits to the town’s sign regulations to the planning board and to the next town meeting, and it tabled a separate request that would have authorized the zoning enforcement officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals chair to prepare multifamily and dimensional‑standards recommendations.
Under the sign‑bylaw changes the board reviewed, the rules would explicitly limit primary and secondary sign sizes in different districts, set a 10‑foot maximum height for freestanding signs measured from grade to the top of the sign face, clarify that clearance airspace from grade to the bottom of the sign face is excluded from area calculations, and exclude small support structures (maximum 6 in x 6 in or round wood/metal not exceeding 8 in diameter) from sign-area calculations provided they are visually subordinate and structurally necessary.
Board members said the new wording makes the regulation easier to read and less ambiguous. The select board agreed the language should proceed to the planning board, where a public hearing will be held before the article is placed on the warrant for town meeting.
A separate item in the meeting asked the board to authorize Ken Smith, Sheffield’s zoning enforcement officer, and Renee Wood, chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals, to work with BRPC to draft clarifications on multifamily and multi‑unit housing and related dimensional standards. Several board members and a resident raised concerns that work was already underway with planning‑board staff and BRPC and that parallel efforts could duplicate or conflict. The board rescinded its earlier vote on that letter and tabled the request pending further coordination with planning‑board staff and BRPC.
No changes to the town’s regulatory authority were made at the meeting; the sign language will undergo the planning‑board review and public‑hearing process required for bylaw amendments.
