[Music] Good evening and welcome to the third meeting of fiscal year 2025 for the Milton Planning Board. At this time, I'd like to now call the meeting to order and begin with our administrative items.
Um, the first item is the approval of minutes. And Cheryl, thank you. You should introduce us. Oh, we should introduce ourselves first. Um, yeah, let's introduce the board and then we can introduce staff. So, um, Jim Jim Davis, member, mefield, member,
Sean Fehey, member, Cheryl, Cheryl Tay, secretary, and Meredith Hall serving as chair. And tonight we are fortunate enough to have um with us our assistant town administrator, Nick, if you'd like to introduce yourself.
Hi, Nick Conmer, assistant administrator. It's a pleasure to be here tonight. Great. Thank you for joining us. Um for the approval of minutes, we do have we actually have five sets of minutes. Um I have not had a chance to go through them all. I know some members have. Um
Cheryl, thank you for getting these in uh this afternoon. Um but if it's okay, I I would like to look them through. So um if we could defer them, uh we we are not going to be meeting again in August, but our next meeting date um scheduled
is September 11th. Um unless there's a need for us to meet sooner. Um how does the members feel about uh moving those minutes to September 11th? Yeah, that's fine. Is that okay? All right. Motion to move
the minutes. Is there a second? Second. Okay. All All in favor? We'll do roll call. I I John I. And Cheryl? Yes. Great. Thank you. Um
okay, perfect. Um so as we've just mentioned uh next meeting dates we have scheduled um will be September 11th and then we will have the 25th will be the
uh second meeting of September. Um 9:25 is the second 9:25. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Um and with that um do you have any update um Nick for us?
Anything from staff updates from Nick or anyone else? Um so the the only staff update we are in process uh with interviews um and looking to move forward with the planning director candidate. Uh from
there we would also be uh sooner after posting assistant director um rolled to fill as well but we of course would like to have our the leader of the office in place before we get into reviewing the candidates for for that as well. Um and
beyond that I am here to support as is Nick uh anyway needed about the committee and any questions that may come from the community. Terrific. Great. Thank you very much. Um, so now we can um open it up for citizens speak. Um, there's no one here
in the audience, so I don't know if there's any hands up on Zoom. Um, anyone who would like to speak, uh, you will have an opportunity if you would like to speak on the articles for fall uh, town meetings and upcoming town meetings. Um, tonight specifically, we'll be
discussing the signs and traffic mitigation. We do not have any answers online. I don't know if there's any else in the room to semester. Okay, great. Nope. Nope. Okay, thank you. Um, so now we can move into the
discussions of articles for fall and spring town meetings um and open it up. Um, just to update the um the committee, I did have a chance to speak with John Ziggowitz. Um, he John is the chair of the sign review committee. um he's been
in that position since the sign review committee was um was begun and he just he agreed with a lot of the things that we had amended um and we can go through those tonight um and then he just had a few um sort of overreaching just an
email um and I'll just share that with you um some initial comments the sign review committee currently meets once a month if a sign application gets filled it gets filed right after our meeting. There will not be another meeting within
14 days. Can this be changed to 30 days? We did meet in the past every two weeks, but there were not there were never enough sign applications that required a meeting this often. Internally lit illuminated signs. Yes, we typically do
not allow them, but we have allowed signs that are internally lit only through the letters/logo with the rest of the sign opaque. Some signs can only be lit this way. For example, gas station freestanding signs.
They cannot be lit from the ground. And sometimes s ground signs are better lit in this method than putting an external ground mounted spot on the sign. um externally illuminated signs. He um mentioned directed downward or upward
um if they're ground mounted signs. Um sometimes they do allow that solely at the sign. All lit signs um he wanted us to include um that should have dimming capabilities to adjust after the installation.
And then signs painted on windows should still be reviewed by the sign review committee. The entire storefront should work as a whole. And we have we have had many situations where applicants have gotten carried away with the amount of information that they want to put onto
the windows. Um and then just the last thing he mentioned was for process u following the receipt of the and this is part of what we have in here that he wanted to add to following the receipt by the building commissioner of a complete application the building
commissioner should review and approve that propos that that proposed sign meets the dimensional and square footage criteria of the total sign area. So, he wants to catch that at the building commissioner's um point of review. Um
this information should be included with the application to the sign review committee with review. And those were his comments. And then um there were a few little things that we added along the way. But um so how would everyone
like to walk through? I I know um we sort of went through like page by page on any you know the changes. Um, Nick, if it would be possible, would you be able to pull um the sign
article up and it's been reformatted by Nick, which is helpful. And I see Cheryl's hand is up, but before we get too deep into the particulars, I have an overarching
um concern with the whole uh bylaw. So I don't know what what Cheryl wanted to um speak about. Matthew, thanks. Um Mer I'm sorry you may have said this, but
did uh those comments come from John the chair or do you know if the committee would was provided with a copy and whether they spoke about it at one of their meetings? Um this was from the chair under review. Um John has been on the committee since
the very beginning so has a sort of an understanding of the context but I think we certainly should um provide a copy with with um we've also provided a copy with the new building commissioner. So I think we should have the whole get comments and we will have to hold a
public hearing but get comments from the entire committee. And I'm also wondering whether um we've spoken about this before, but whether the Chamber of Commerce uh should receive a copy um the businesses have an
opportunity to review it as well. Certainly. Yeah, I think we should on if we once if we can finalize a draft, we can we can share it with Yes. um especially for um public a public
hearing, but we could send it to you know definitely I think you know we've we know that um Kathleen has taken a look at it. Um I've spoken to Katie Conlin about it who has been involved with the different steps and the
different changes um as as it's as it was implemented and updated. So yeah, I think that's a great idea. So um lastly um we went through the bylaw in detail kind of line by line before uh I think it
would be helpful um to get the comments that were provided by the chair of the sign committee um in incorporated into the document and you know you just read them but not we have not received a copy of
those comments so I I think um it's going to be hard for us to do uh that on the fly tonight. I have I have sort of prepared just the the areas that based on what John's feedback. I was giving you his overall email, but we went through line by line
and I can we can touch on those um pretty quickly. Okay. All right. Thanks. And add those. Yeah. So, Maggie. Yeah. Go ahead. Um, so I, um, spent a little bit of time trying to walk through the whole
process. So, here I am. If I'm an applicant, um, I went on the Town of Milton's website. I put in the search bar signs and all sort of random information came up and it was a little bit confusing to
me to follow. And so um you know I I just I found the the 2003 where the sign was it 2003 the sign review committee was established
and there was they were primarily established to review um any signs that did not comply with our bylaw. So
if I'm a business and I am o opening a business, it would be nice to see online all the the rules the rules that I have to follow. And just like if you were
building an accessory um building like a shed, if you met all the setbacks and met all the requirements, you then did not have to go through the whole process, uh you were just able to put up a put up
a shed. So if your setback was 30 feet or 15 feet and you met the the setbacks do not exceed certain heights. So my problem with this is every single application has to go to the sign review
committee and the sign review committee is an appointed committee. It's not an elected committee. So, like as a business, I would like I went online to see what
the process was and I was expecting to see your sign cannot exceed a certain percentage of your, you know, your your um storefront and it can't be lit or it could be lit between these hours. And I didn't really find
all of that online. And I would think that if we're trying to be pro business in town, we wouldn't want to put additional hurdles for businesses. And if we meet all the requirements of
whatever the the conditions are that we as a town want to establish, you shouldn't have to go to the sign review committee. You should just be able to fill out an application, submit it to the building inspector. He checks off that you met all the
requirements just like you do with a building permit if you wanted to build a shed and then you the building inspector issues um a building permit. So, how come the sign um process is different than that?
And how come it changed? Um and how come we're giving a non-elected body um you know discretion to either appoint or
approve a sign application or not approve it. So that's is a different this is a whole this is the select board making that decision to to to make that change. Um you know that there is that committee. I think there were issues and you know
historically going back um just trying to be sort of like our site plan review in giving guidance and we include if you remember in our design guidelines for both the lower mills Andy Smilton we had signage as part of that trying to give
guidance to that. Um, I've sat in on a lot of the sign review committee. They're very good about listening to the businesses. Um, but they're also good about listening to the neighbors. Um, you know, some things come before when it comes before us with with site plan
review. The planning board does have a chance to give our input on it. Um, such as the memory care when we were talking about the signage that's in a residential area on Highland Street. So I think they they take into the consideration this where it's located
and this and the site. Um but giving guidance to give something that that does have certain restrictions and a certain process. So in here it gives the the applicant because right now all
signs do go through um the the sign review committee but it starts with the building inspector but the building inspector as you know is very busy. So he then goes through a checklist of certain um application uh the application requirements just as again a
developer would do that you know through the planning department but it's sort of a a vetting of where the signs are you know going to be placed where they're going to be the size of the signs and then these are technical um more
technical experts John Zikowitz who's an architect Cheryl you probably have you're and I'd love for you to weigh in on your experience, but people who understand lumens, understand the lighting, understand how it's going to be. You know, if you look at some of the historic buildings have the gooseeneck,
most have gooseeneck lighting in East Milton Square, for example. Um, residents really don't like the Santandere sign and some of the really large, you know, internally lit signs. So, I hear people complaining about
them. And so this is a way to which will help the sign review committee and this and the permitting process to say this is what's prohibited. These are exempt and these are and there's a lot of signs that things that are exempt that you don't have to go through. So there's a
whole category that you don't have to go through them. There's just a certain category that you also do. Yeah. So I brought up the Yeah. the the sign review committee charge. Yeah. Then it was in on 6163
and it said the sign review committee shall review each application for a signed permit regarding signs for which the building commissioner determines that the subject sign does not comply with the Milton zoning bylaw requirement
for signs. So was this charge changed? I don't know. I think I think the bylaw certain things have been updated in the handbook. I know that. So, this came right off the sign review committee uh web page. I don't know when that was updated the
charge. I that could be a question for John Zikowitz who can also come to our public hearing and help to shed light. But Cheryl, you've been on this committee also for on the planning board. So
yeah, I'll just um I'll just add that part of the impetus for this was to make it more predictable process. Um and similar to the site plan approval process where there had been um
less teeth if you will, less to um point to to support a decision. So this provides more teeth for the sign review committee and um I agree like if I if I
think about um you know Maggie you're comparing uh building permits to the signed permits but the signed permits um are different in that um you know the businesses are for the most part in Milton you know
in close proximity to residential properties and there there is a lot of interest in um what gets approved particularly I'm thinking like in East Milton near the gas station but in other places as well and so um you know having
an opportunity for uh residents to provide some input um through this process um I think is welcomed u and this would take care of some of um the problems I understand that existed when
signs were denied and then appealed. And when town council has said that there's discrepancies between the handbook and the zoning, the zoning doesn't provide us enough to um support this decision on appeal. So, this would provide that. So
um so I I think you know in terms of the uh what the business owner ex expectations are certainly there should be it should be clear on the website but I think most businesses would probably contact the building department to see
uh to clarify what the process is. So, I I think this is an improvement in process and an improvement um uh in expectations for not only uh applicants but for residents. Yeah. And I totally understand when
you're looking at um lighted signs or lit signs. So, I think that is the biggest problem. But what if a business doesn't want a lit sign? is your you don't have to you don't have to be you don't have to but you still have to
then go through this whole process when you know if if you're a business in East Milton Square just on um Adam Street like Mr. chance and if he you know it's he just has I think goose neck lighting
but his sign is just a simple sign. If he wants to change that sign then he has to come through this whole entire process. you know, I I um I hear your your question and um I think there might be
an opportunity if we're going to if we're going to have a representative of the the sign committee meet with us, maybe a question for them could be, are there signs that they would feel could just
require the approval of the building inspector? And and there probably are plenty of signs that the building inspector would fill. Certainly signs that are not illuminated. An illuminated sign probably should go. You're right. Always. But a non-eluminated sign that meets the
parameters of the of the bylaw, the building inspector should have, you know, within his um permitting authority the ability to permit. Um, I've permitted signs for a long time in my career and in many many many towns and although I don't
work as much as a project manager any longer, um, the permitting authority is generally the building inspector and most of the towns that have permitted signs in. And um, I don't remember too many times that I had a a sign, you
know, uh, review committee that um, that towns had. Um, I understand the reason for it, but there's probably there's probably um signs that could be approved by the building inspector that don't require the process. And I think
and I'm sorry, I'm sorry I interrupted you. And I think throughout our entire town, if we cannot put somebody through a process unnecessarily, we should, no matter what it is. We're talking about signs right now, but I feel that way about just about everything. Um, so if there's an
opportunity to have a category of signs that the building inspector could permit, um, you know, I think we should look to see if we can do that. Yeah. Like if there's just a checklist. So when you when I went on the search
bar and typed in signs um, under sign applications and instructions, I'm like, "Oh, this is going to lead me to the process." But actually what the document is is rules and regulations for nonprofit event
signage banner display and the application for that. So in the search bar, the title of the document doesn't actually match the document, which is a different problem than what we're talking about, right? Which is something that the codification
is going to help us with getting that those will be easy to to locate and do search bars. And I've been talking to Nick a little bit about that and how like because part of this will be definitions, the definitions will go with a general bylaw with all the general definitions. So he wants to
check with town council is how does does it go within the bylaw or does it go in a a separate location. So that need that we do need to we do need to clarify. But um one thing so what I'm thinking is if we if we keep move if we move through
this we have an exempt we have signs that are exempt. Maybe we find language through the building commissioner and John Zikowitz on where we could what what signs would be exempt and that would not have to go through that
process to your to your point and there may be a simple they might say okay this kind of sign doesn't but they might say that's complicated to to not have that you know to have a separate process but but I think if we can find a way to put it into the exempt
I would support that doing that. Yeah. So, so that it's just a complicated process and if we are going through the process of updating something, our goal should be to make things less complicated and I
and I do think we should take some again to your point uh some things show up on the website that shouldn't be there. For instance, um the proposed signed bylaw draft one last updated on in 2015. So
that really shouldn't be on our website either. No, that is that that's the old copy. It's been reformatted by Nick. So it just is again that goes to the recotification. And I did um I was talking to the building inspector um
today about another matter and I asked if they um had if either either Walter or Michael, the new building inspector, had an opportunity to weigh in and they haven't had an opportunity yet. Um and
um so they would like an opportunity to because they are um the ones who are dealing I think Nick has sent um the new building commissioner a draft so he has received it. I think he's really busy right now so I don't know if he's had a chance to look at it but we certainly do
want for his input um to to look it over um most definitely. And the other thing that John said, they used to meet every two weeks, but they don't have enough they don't have enough people coming in to they only meet monthly because they
really, if you think about it, we don't we have very small business districts in Milton. We're mostly a, you know, bedroom community, so we have limited. So they really don't have and they they sometimes, you know, don't even meet if they don't have anything.
So, it's not like they have so many things that they're, you know, that they're um having to look at. So, there really aren't that many businesses redoing signs. Um, and also, if a business is going through the special permit or um site plan approval process
with the planning board, I'm not sure why we making them go through another process with the sign review committee. Couldn't they if they're going through the process with us, can't the planning board weigh in on
um the sign? I think the reason for the only reason for that is because we don't know the technical, you know, the lumens, the type of lighting. Cheryl's very good about identifying that. But this is more of it would be more of a dimensional.
it. They're more architects and and graphic artist, you know, they specialize in understanding the technical side of it where I think we get a general sense of the size aesthetic, but not the not anything on detail like in detail. But I think when
with our approval they come and they can they can go to the to the um to the sign review committee and say this is supported by the planning board and likely they're going to endorse that plan and not make any but they'll they'll want to ask certain
specifications and Cheryl again you feel free to jump in but and John um could give examples of things that they like to ask for. Yeah. And um I think also with the
and maybe I'm getting off track a little bit that the town is also looking at a new lighting bylaw. So I don't know how the residential lighting and the business lighting kind of match up. Shouldn't the lighting bylaw kind of
encompass both? So we only have one lighting bylaw, one for businesses and then one for residential. These are just signs. It's only signs. Business signs. Business signs. It's only signs. Yeah.
Um the other thing I just was thinking about which John mentioned is that um just from again from a technical review standpoint, he they like to have the
exact dimensions and specifications. So when Sean's building a building or Jim's doing a project, you have to have exact and the building department needs exact measurements from a sign company, whoever's producing the sign because that's what the building inspector has
to go by the exact sign. So you have to have exact drawings and exact specifications. And we do get that sometimes, but sometimes we don't get it to that level. So that's what that's what the sign review committee they make
sure that whatever they're approving can be handed to the building commission the building inspector and that's what's going to be what actually is built cuz rather than having something that comes out oh this is 2 ft larger than what we expected we're not the overseers of that
the building inspector is. So he needs exact specific drawings for those lights. And with a special permit, um the building inspector is overseeing um the special permit and all the conditions and mitigation efforts of
that special permit, but it might not need a special permit. It might just need the review. Yeah. For the sign. Yeah. Yeah. But I'm saying from our process, right? Um the if a a business was going through a
special permit process or a site plan review process within the application to the planning board, a business has to put in their signs and the dimensions are on the signs. And so then the planning board approves the signs within
the the um site plan approval. And then when the building inspector goes to make sure that all the conditions are met, he can measure the signs to make sure that it I think I think we'd have a real I think we'd have a challenge because most
applicants at the time they're before the planning board don't have definitive designed signs. You know, we've seen that a number of times, you know, where they they they have a rough idea of what they'll do for signage, but we're ready
to approve their project and they're not really, you know, they're not really far enough down the long far enough along down the line with a sign design that would fall, you know, that would meet all that we could even measure against our bylaw. You know, it just might be
too early in the process. Um, and that that's not unusual for a lot of businesses. You know, while they're they're trying to secure approval for the project, they're not really focused on their signage. They they they're focused on trying to get the approval for the project and they realize that signage should be later. So, it might be
hard to to even be in a position to have the level of detail that we would need to um, you know, measure someone who's before the planning for hand up. Yeah. Cheryl, did you welcome? I I um I agree with Sean on the timing
of uh how the signs are developed generally would be would come later and uh oftent times um the sign review committee I think receives a shop drawing which is a technical drawing that's provided by the sign maker. Um yeah, I would like to say, you know, you
can kind of liken it to um a a special level of review or a special expertise and their level of review. You can think of like storm water is special, um traffic is special and um and to some
extent like the utilities that the engineering department looks at. So I I do think that um you know a um there's a level of review of the composition of the sign the the architecture of the
building um and the guidelines and the guidelines I don't think we're trying to remove guidelines and remove a sign review committee. We're trying to clean up the process and make it better. But, you know, guidelines are something that can be interpreted. And a building
inspector is really not the kind of uh official that does that kind of, you know, uh, interpretation. They're the ones who look at code and say it meets it or doesn't meet it. They're not ones who says, "Well, this is appropriate for this kind of architecture and this is not appropriate for this kind of architecture." And so, it's where those
guidelines um and the and the zoning work together that the it can meet the zoning, but it might not meet the guidelines. And I I don't think we're proposing to remove u the guidelines and I certainly don't uh think that we started this process talking about
removing the sign review committee either. So I think what we're talking about is zoning that cleans up and and clears up some more expectations and aligns the guidelines with the zoning. I I I I I I don't think um there would be an
expectation to completely um flip the process or to eliminate the process. Yeah. No, and I'm not suggesting we get rid of the sign review committee. I'm just suggesting it goes back to what town meeting approved back in 03.
Um and if and if that was changed, then I I didn't find it. Um, so I'm kind of wonder and and I got it on their website. So I'm just trying to understand the when it changed
um from when it was established. So Maggie, in practice, it could be the building commissioner not being comfortable making a an opinion about how whether it meets the design guidelines or not. And so it might be that the building commissioner has in
practice in the past um passed them on um for review. And that just could be how it happened to change. And I understand having um an AR I understand having an architect on the design uh review committee because I
understand the technical part of it. Um but not all the members are um architects and some of them are business owners. And from a business owner perspective,
to be honest with you, I wouldn't want another business owner telling me as a business owner, oh, your logo or your font is not in keeping with whatever. So, you know, I so I think it's more
discretionary sometimes with the sign review committee. Well, the way I understand that group, it's the director of planning and community development. Um it is a person who has a background either as an architect or a planner and then there are three other representatives and they
can be they have to be Milton residents or Milton business owners. Um you know a Milton business owner probably would recognize the concerns of a business and maybe the the you know the concerns a business has. So, uh, there'll always be
someone who has experience, hopefully, uh, share type experience. Um, they'll always be the director of planning, community development, and then three residents, one of which could be a business owner, or maybe multiple could be business owners. Um, maybe it would
be good, and this is up to the select board, maybe it'd be good that they always make sure that they have one business owner of the three um, you know, of the three other members. Would you feel comfortable? Would you rather have see a business owner as uh,
and I'm not even sure we could do that because I think it's that that's ship has sailed. Yeah. But um, would you feel more comfortable if a business owner was part of the Yeah. So, I struggle with um you know having signs um being judged by other
business owners like and I understand if you meet the dimensional requirements and the lighting requirements um you know there might be a business whose font I personally might not like but if that's their business then who am I to
tell them to change their font right or their colors. Yeah. you know. Um, so I I don't know. I just am trying to make the process a little bit easier for um businesses in town and it it just wasn't easy for me um
navigating the process and I've been through the process. Yeah. And um and it just seems overly cumbersome. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think like other things that we talk about here on the planning board, some of the experiences
you've had, none of us have had. And it's it's it's helpful to understand it because um we should be considerate of how it feels to anybody that goes through the process, you or anybody else. But you know, I mean, just just to maybe move that conversation on meeting
along, we probably should see if we could have with us some night John. Yes. Yeah. And um you know, I definitely I had one comment. Um I I think especially during the public hearing it might be help for him to answer questions.
Yeah. Um one comment do you want to continue? No. Are you sure? But um I I don't think and this might be a a discussion with Nick Milano. Um and maybe Nick Nick can take it to him. I don't think the bylaw should make any
reference to insurance requirements and and we do. We talk about what what coverages we should have. I don't think that's our business. You know, my feeling is if something goes wrong on a sign install and there isn't enough coverage there for the event that takes
place, the last thing we want is Milton to be responsible. You know, the insurance coverages really should should be between whoever is the sign company and whomever um you know, whoever the applicant is in Milton that's trying to buy a sign or
have a sign installed. I just am a little uncomfortable that we we have that's something we would want town council to review. Yeah. whomever. But it's not we, you know, insuranceances are constantly changing and and you know, coverage and limits. There's no reference to workers compensation in
there. You know, it's a it can be a very dangerous area to um to to make, you know, um to to define parameters of insurance requirements. I just think we should stay away from that. Yeah. Nick, maybe you can just make a note so that we can cuz we um
we are on in the process of of interviewing town council. So, we've thought, you know, we might just wait till we know who we should be presenting this to to review. But I think that's just something that we could start thinking about um Nick with um
Yep. That was something that Nick Milano had also flagged that we're in the final stages of the appointment of town council and so this will be at or near the top of the list of things that we would like to get input on in a pretty short order. Okay. So, thanks for flagging that.
Yeah, my my comment no matter who the town council is, my comment would be that in our bylaws, we we should not uh be dictating insurance requirements. Um it's too risky. I already checked the note. But I'll make sure I report back to make as well
and when we transmit to town council. Thanks. Perfect. One other thing I noticed and I don't know if I'm reading this differently, but you know the way I read it and and I didn't note where I read it.
You often see people that might have a yard sale and and they post something on a utility pole. The way I read this, that's not allowed any longer. Correct. They're not supposed to do it. They're not supposed to post things on utility polls right now.
Maybe they never were, but it's a practice, but it's now it's starting to Yeah. I I I'm not sure I'm not sure how um you would ever police that. You know, it goes up on a Friday for a yard sale that's on Saturday. And you know, I I
just it's just a comment. I'm not saying we should get rid of it. I'm just saying that, you know, that's a you see that everywhere, all kinds of towns, you know, and and and maybe what we should say is if if any sign is posted like that for a very short term for 24 hours
or 48 hours, the person that posted is responsible to remove it, you know. Really, what's problematic is not that it goes up. I don't think it's that it stays there, you know. Yeah. That's under I think our temporary signs. I think there's a a um time limit. Yeah. But you have to take it down within
Yeah, I think it is in there after the event. However, you are right that I don't think that we should prohibit a resident from hosting a yard sale sign even if it's on a utility pole or on wherever.
I'm thinking more of like a lost dog or a lost cat. So true, Jim. I was just thinking about that. I mean, you'll see a lost cat sign up but it's a sign and then you find. Yeah. you know, it's again, but there's car detailing, you know, there's it starts to become
like but I but I totally agree. So, I think it in our temporary signs, you have to take it down within a certain amount of time. So, we'll let's look at that when we get to that temporary signs. Um, I had no other comments. Okay.
So, maybe we just um start with the the intent and purpose section. Um and we'll just go through it and people can just add in as as as we go through it. Um so that
are you able to share the screen or the document? So Meredith, just to be clear, this is different than what was in the folder that Nick shared with us what we're going to be looking at now. Or is this the same? It should be the same. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you.
Yep, it should be the same. And then I I haven't I didn't make any track changes any edits yet. So So yes, it is the one that was shared and I will track changes that are suggested tonight so that you all can take a look at the sort of global document when you're done with any
discussion. Thank you. But all the changes that we made last week are here are in there. Yes. So okay. Yep. Yep. It's just only the ones that John Zikowitz had just had a few suggestions. Um
so intent um the powers applicability um existing signs wait under um intent and purpose the third bullet what is what is what does that mean? So if you
read above that it says it is further recognized that because of their potential detrimental impact to the visual and perceptual environment science under I are you under I here oh yeah one a intent. Yep.
So and then has three bullets. Yeah. One a one and then three bullets below it. I see more bullets than that. Yeah I see more bullets. Oh sorry the third bullet. Sorry, what's on my um the third bullet provide
for easy recognition and legibility of all. Sorry, excuse me, Meredith. Can Nick enlarge the document? I'm on my laptop and it's small. Thank you. Great. So, what is what is that supposed to
mean? Provide for easy recognition. Yeah. And legibility that you can read it. So easy recognition. It is further recognized that because of their potential detrimental impact to
the visual and perceptual environment, science must be regulated in order to provide for easy recognition and legibility of all permanent signs and other uses in the immediate
vicinity. I think that might go to what John was saying about how he wants to regulate the window signs because homeowners are going wild and putting too much in. Maybe this is a way to keep the sign simple so you can read them without getting lost in 8,000 messages.
Okay. So, so the provide for easy recognition is like the message. Yeah, I think that's what that means. Okay. Okay. Okay. And then we corrected that last um
duplicate. Yeah. Um to be a just a bullet. Okay. So, and I think there weren't we didn't have anything else down through existing signs number four. Um but under under 4
a um I talked to John um then on on number four um Roman numeral 4. Oh yeah because it's existing signs. I don't think we need to say protected. I think we can just say non-conforming. And I
can't couldn't remember if we changed that. We John thought it was good just to take out protected signs because they're already existing signs that that complied before this bylaw. So it's just the type of sign.
I remember talking about that. We did. Yeah. I thought we took that out. It just seemed redundant. So we took Did we take out So could we take out the word protected there? Yeah. And just to go up to number two, should it say exempt and prohibited
signs are specified in subsection 8? 8. So if you go to subsection 8 says exempt signs and prohibited. A is exempt signs and B is prohibited signs. Hold on. Let me just
I thought eight was just prohibited. Sorry. It's both. Both. I think he's right. So, yes, we could um prohibited signs as specified in section 8B. Sorry.
Yeah, it would be section 8 section 8B. We just would need to add B to that. Prohibited signs as specified in section 8. And then can we add B onto that lowerase B? So, we're not adding exempt because
section 8 talks about exempt signs. Well, it's it's saying prohibited signs. So, we have conforming signs. It's under existing signs. So under existing, right? So it almost could be exempt could be
almost another separate. I mean you you would say exempt signs as specified in subsection 8A. Well, wouldn't exempt be moot because they are exempted from this piece of regulation,
right? I mean, prohibited are not allowed. Exempt is like they don't really this doesn't apply to them because they were exempt. So what we have to testing science mention that and are classified into one of
I think we could just add a number five and put exempt signs as just a different type of category. Okay, would that make sense? So add a Roman numeral five and just put
exempt signs. Does that sound okay, Cheryl? So we So we're recognizing you're right. There's a category of exempt signs because I was reading that. And then we should add but prohibited should as specified in subsection
the exempt signs and we could say as specified or why not just subsection since they're both in subsection 8 why not just say exempt and prohibited signs that doesn't because they're a different type of sign
I would think except I would say exempt signs as specified in subsection 8A. 8A. Okay. Yep. And then just change the word four to five in a existing.
Yeah, we add Yeah. Add the word five instead. All right. Does that sound good? So I I'm rereading three and four again. Yeah. And this I there all of these
categories are are pre-existing, right? Because they're all this is all under existing sign. So when we struck the word protected, so it seems like what's the difference now
between three and four? One complies and one does not comply. They both say non-conforming though, which do not comply with one or more provisions of this bylaw. Which fully complied with this bylaw. I think it's a timing thing.
Okay, that's the way I interpreted it. Okay. Um, and if we want to tweak this, you know, we we can. I you know, my goal is to get a draft over to the warrant committee,
but that does not mean that this can't be tweaks can't be made to this. Um, especially after town council reviews it and the building commissioner and the sign review and the sign review committee. it'll be good. Um and our residents and our public
hearing. Yes. Yeah. Um so under C John's suggestion was um because we don't want removal of just signs in general, but he said removal of
nonapproved signs because he said there are some signs in town that were not approved. Um but he wanted to allow for the process to be corrected and he also um he wanted
to change the the second sent where it says um 14 days notice he wanted to change that to 21 days notice. Those make sense those two changes. So it would be removal of nonapproved signs
as the heading for 21 days notice in writing and then at the end of the last sentence he wanted to add these words uh Nick applicant shall have the opportunity
to submit an application for sign review. So if they do that within that time period, he wants to allow um the applicant to have that opportunity. So if they already have a sign up that would that would be approve something
that that would be approved, he didn't want them to go to the cost of having to take the sign down, but if they submit that application, um they will have that opportunity to do so and just have that sign approved. That's great. First director
and should it be C removal of signs or should be removal of non-approved signs as the title? Yes. Sorry, that's what I did. You get that, Nick? Um C is removal of nonapproved signs
instead of just saying none of signs. Yeah. Okay. Five sign permits. Um this um John was good with all numbers. So hold on. Um, under D, any sign which shall have been abandoned
or which shall not have been repaired or properly maintained within 60 days after notice must be brought into compliance. So, if a business got notice that their
sign is in disrepair, you're saying that they have 60 days to make the repair. Is that correct? Which is 60 days to bring their sign into compliance with this bylaw. So, if it's a non-conforming sign, they'll have to
change it and get it into compliance. Not if it's an existing sign. This is Oh, you we're under D. So, it's D is abandonment of failure to maintain a sign. So, it's if a business has a sign and
it's in disrepair, they get a notice from the building commissioner saying, "Your sign's in disrepair." So, the business has only 60 days to make the repair.
So my question is 60 days enough for a business to go out and repair their sign through a sign company. John, I asked John about that because I thought that was a question that is that
enough time and he thought it was. I think it really depends. I was thinking about this earlier today because 60 days can be can be a really short period of time given how long it takes for some sign companies to react, you know. Yeah, it it I think we should consider making
that a little bit longer. I mean, I'm good with that. Even 90 days I think would be I think would be reasonable, you know, but I think 60 we're going to find is going to be tight. That's tight. You know, I mean 120 days I you know that gives
Yeah. Yeah, I mean 120 was four months. Probably very very fair to say that. Um, you know, it it it could take somebody a week to two weeks to get a signed company to even look at their issue. I agree. And to get a proposal and so the 60 is really tight.
I think a minimum of 90 and probably 120 is probably very fair. Um, otherwise we're going to have we're going to have, you know, the building commission is going to have a really tough time when we burden him with with a 60-day mandate and he's just not going to be able to hold people accountable. You know,
Cheryl, what are your thoughts in your experience? I agree that 60 days could be difficult depending upon what kind of condition, what kind of sign it is. Um but also having it be brought into compliance with the bylaw. Should there
be some kind of provision as there is on the abandonment um just to apply to have it repaired um in kind or as it is because uh you know there could be
I if it's just if if it's a painted sign for example um to have to now come up with a new design because they didn't get it painted and it was cited I I guess I'm wondering whether we
should give them an opportunity to repair in kind the sign that was already approved. Mhm. But I if not then I definitely agree that 90 to 120 days is probably more
realistic. Well, yeah. It's just hard when you're waiting on somebody else to um to do something. Why don't we change that to 120 days
and then that way because the goal is to have everything to eventually go be come into conformity. So, but being fair about the amount of time um I think that's good.
Um sign permits. [Applause] This um everything he thought was good for this um following attachments. Um he did have some comments down on the
um processing permit issuance and this is where I had asked um we were talking about the timing on this. So the first line says the town shall process sign permit applications within 30 days of receipt of the complete and accurate
application by the building commissioner. 30 days. If that's 30 days, the really the whole process he thinks we should give that 90 days because if the building commissioner has 30 days to process and
the sign review committee maybe needs 60 days, we should allow a total of 90 days. So changing that first 30 to 90 he suggested and then down where it says no sign
permit shall be issued by the building commissioner sooner than 30. He said to change that to 60 unless allowed unless the advisory review committee the sign committee has been received.
If the advisory recommendation of the sign review committee is not received within again he said 60 days again but then he also wanted to add one caveat after the second 60 days to say unless
there is a continuence by the sign review committee. And he said because sometimes they need to go back and they need to do a revision for some for some reason. Sometimes they have to go back and it just takes them a
little bit longer. It's sort of like when we have a site plan review and they need to go back they have a peer review and they have to go back and need to do some make some changes. So to he said so it would be 60 days unless there is a continuence by the sign
review committee. you know, I' I'd be comfortable with all those time frames. It doesn't mean it doesn't mean that it's going to take that long, but it means that we're affording, you know, the committee and also the building inspector that if they're if they're if they're overwhelmed, you know, they have a
little bit of time. The the other reason I don't have an issue with those time frames is the bylaw is going to exist. Everybody that needs a signed permit can look at the bylaw. They can recognize how long and they can plan appropriately, right? So, it's not going to be a surprise that it's 60 days or 90
days, right? It's going to be there for everybody to understand. Sorry, Nick. Um, you know what? I just I I meant to put that unless there is a continuence after the very the very end and the building commissioner shall act
on the sign permit, comma, unless I forgot there was that. So just moving that line. Yeah. To the end. So that just gives them So at the be beginning of that sentence,
it says no sign permit shall be issued by the building commissioner sooner than 30 days. And he said change that to 60. Yeah. So I thought 90. Yeah. So I'm mostly not concerned about that. So I'm concerned about no signed
permit shall be issued by the building commissioner. Um so that is just the building commissioner getting um implementing the approval from the sign review committee because we know that
the building commissioner does not issue sign permits. Who issues sign permits? Well, the sign review committee issues the sign give them an advisor. They give an advisory and then it goes back to the it goes
between Yeah. the application goes to the sign review committee. Then the sign review committee reviews it and notifies the building commissioner and then the building commissioner issues the permit. They they gave him one of four recommendations. Okay. I guess that's what my hang up
hangup was. What my previous um comments was we should allow the building commissioner to issue permits directly. I'm sorry for correcting. You were right in the 60. Not that I said 90. I was wrong.
But yeah, building commissioner has the final say and he can or cannot live. you know, he takes in a he takes the recommendation under advisor, but he doesn't have to listen to it as the way I understand this. Yeah. So, yeah. So, that's the thing. So, if it goes to sign review and the
sign review committee gives a recommendation, so the building commissioner doesn't have to follow it, right? Technically, he doesn't, which is okay. It's sort of the way the process has been. It's sort of a a a
working together of the director of planning who gets, you know, the building commissioner gets the original application, sends that app, make sure everything's in place, sends it to the director of planning who is who who attends the
meetings and is interacting and working with the sign review committee. they make that determination and that determination is the basis for the for the building permit being issued. So I think the building the
building commissioner would not approve something that had been rejected would either the bylaw didn't agree with because it would have to agree with the bylaw. The building commissioner wouldn't say yes you can have this type of sign if it didn't agree with the bylaw. So it it just sort of is the
process of how it So it's not an advisory. It's really not an advisory committee. Then it it really is a um the the it's advisory on the final product of
what what is going to be created and it's agreed upon. So it really isn't just just advisory. Um but then but it has to be the advisory what they're what they're asking them for and approving has to be based on the
bylaw. So they can't go off and approve something that's not in the bylaw. Yeah. But they do want it's sort of like they give the blessing and the blessing goes then they bless. Yeah. So that goes back to my point is if we have a a bylaw
um expo explicitly stated that the building commissioner can refer to I feel like we're adding an extra step if the side if the sign review committee is just advisory but these are it's the they specialize in design
and that's the building commissioner does not specialize in design and the aesthetics and that's the you know and I Guess my problem with that is you look at the Santander Bank sign, the sign bylaw review committee actually
approved it. Correct. Because they didn't have the teeth because Okay. They didn't have the teeth to it to to deny it. So that's why they've gotten stuck with some that's why we've gotten stuck with we're trying to fix those problems like
the size of the extra space storage sign you know just different things that we didn't we had a very yeah but I understand sign like size like it depends on where's location yeah I understand that okay
okay right all right so uh D application rejection ctions. Everything was a um resubmission. This was all good. Um under design review
going down to B, I think we had made this change that it's actually um the select board is the one who is appoints on NOA basis. Does that change that's in there?
Okay, great. Sorry, I couldn't. still can't read it. Um, and then under process, this is where John wanted to add this line. Hold on,
one second. Um, so it would read, um, Nick, following the receipt by the receipt by the building commissioner of a complete application, comma,
the building commissioner should review and approve that the proposed sign meets the dimension. Can you just read could you read through it fully once and then you can I'll copy
edit it just so I understand and follow. Sorry. Sure. Under the first line under um I B CI um process following the receipt of the building commissioner of a complete application. The building commissioner
should review and approve that the proposed sign meets the dimensional and square foot criteria of the total sign area capitalizing total sign area. This information should be included with the
application to the sign review committee for review. You repeat it one more time for me. I apologize. All right. No problem. Following the receipt of the building commissioner of a complete application, the building commissioner
should review and approve that the proposed sign meets the dimensional and square foot criteria of the total capitalizing total sign area.
This information period. This information should be included with the application to the sign review committee for review period.
So generally in the zoning when we want something we as a mandatory we don't use the word should we use the word shall. So I think it's best to put shall here
instead of should period. And so there's two places there that the shirt should be sh. Thanks Nick. We can't I can't hear Meredith right now. I can't hear Meredith either.
[Applause] Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. I'll just switch my mic. Um so then after so then we would where that there was a break um we would then start
a new the new sentence being the building commissioner commissioner will forward the appropriate number of copies of the application and then the rest of that sentence is as is.
Okay. All right. And then under number two under process, um he suggested changing from 14 days to 30 days because that's what's referenced in a different section that the building
commissioner has 30 days to process. Um so then that means that four under four um that first line where it says 30 days, that should be 90 days. and then the application materials to
the director of planning. He agreed with that cuz that's how it's been working. And then the first line first words in the next line would be director of planning shall forward such
recommendation in writing to the applicant. And but what happens if we don't have a director of planning? Or we could say the planning department. That's what's in the draft right now. The chairman has been removed. Should we
keep the planning department? All right. Just keep the planning department. Okay, then let's keep because the frustration I've been hearing from people around town is we haven't had a building inspector and all their applications are like so delayed. So
if we for some reason continued not to have a planning director, okay, it shouldn't hold up an application process. He was fine with that. He just thought it typically does go to the director of planning, but that's that's perfectly
fine. Um so then criteria for review. Um this um where it says the uh number two the sign guidelines handbook to be updated from time to time.
And this he thought by again the director of planning in consultation with the planning board and sign review committee and sign review committee. Do we want that to be planning department? Because it really is to make the change in the
it would be better for the director of planning to make sort of to work in consultation with the planning board and the sign review committee because he's whoever that person is is going to make sure the zoning aligns with that handbook. Remember though Meredith that Tim it was
Tim who drafted this when he was the assistant planning director. So I think planning department is still appropriate if the director wants to assign the task to the assistant. Okay. Why why limit him
to give flexibility with that? And I agree in consultation with the planning board not so he added that. So that's and also the sign review committee I thought was he added to do with both. Yeah.
I again I don't know, you know, I'm just I'm a little bit worried about, you know, um a lot of these boards are appointed and they're not elected and um that's just my concern about all boards,
not just this one board. I'm not picking on this one board, but all these boards generally are appointed and they're not elected. And a lot of times the average resident doesn't understand that these non-appointed boards are making um
changes to our bylaws because they don't Well, they're not making changes to the bylaws or they're making suggestions. They're not making suggestions to the bylaws. They're they're making sure that what is approved are consistent with the bylaws
that we as elected are drafting. The one thing I would say about that is when you have a committee that's appointed, you can target particular skill sets, which you can't do with an elected body. You know, um there's some discussion I've heard people say, um you
know, members of the planning board should have expertise in the topics that come before the planning board. Um and that's not something you can do in elected body, but it is something you can do in an appointed committee. So it is I do think um that idea that you have
to be elected in order to make advisory opinions or recommendations um I don't agree with that. Yeah. I think I think their committee has worked very well in um you know offering flexibility and working with the and
really supporting the the business owners in town. I've been very impressed when I've listened to the buildings. They really do listen. you know, it's really the what the what the owners want in and but just making sure it complies with with um you know, as best they can
given what the bylaws are. So um okay, so everything else um along here criteria for review recommendations, he was good with um the appeal and special permits of the changes that we
made. he supported um it going to the ZBA instead of the select board. Um I talked to Nick about this today. Um and I actually Katie Conlin said that this at one point it was supposed to go because really the ZBA is the special
permitting body to zoning. Um but at some point historically it just it never happened that it went to the ZBA. But um that was previously the intent that that's how it should go. I also talked to Nick and saying, you know, we want to
we want the select board to review this. So, we want to send a copy to them just making sure that that's um that they support that as well. Um, okay. So,
moving down to seven, the appeals to C. um special permit um when a special permit. So the so this is one thing that he wanted to just separate out and there is a section that highlights it but we
could add it in here just to make it clear. the signs. Um, special permits may be considered and issued for any request for relief from the requirements of this section. However, special permits may be issued
to allow s may not be issued um to allow those signs in section 8 and it should actually say 8B, but he wanted to add comma with exception
with the exception of internally illuminated signs. And there's a reference to that. There are instances where they typically pro prohibit them but there are some times that they think they should be allowed under special permit. H.
So in section 8B, comma with exception with the exception of internally illuminated signs. The rest of this um
going down exempt signs. Uh the only thing he wanted to add that um the exempt signs is um after flags uh works of art that do not include a commercial
message. They actually approved the Abbey Park mural that we were saying we were commenting that it it works. It's adds a lot of character, but he he said that he does want to have a review of that. So um sign shall be allowed by right but he
under works of art that do not include a commercial message subject to review by the sign review committee. So why don't you just take it out because this is under exempt signs. So works of art are no longer considered
exempt. So that would be sort of saying they still have the right to do it but it's subject to the review of the sign review committee. So they by right can do you can do a work of art that do not include a commercial message.
This is this is they don't want to prohibit it. This is in the prohibited category, right? Isn't that where this is exempt? Okay. So you're in what category are you now? You're in you're not in B. You're in this is a A. Okay. I'm sorry. I thought you were in B. Yeah, sorry that was
so they shall be allowed by right without the necessity of a signed permit. But now you're saying they don't need a signed permit. Well, except if they need review.
Yeah, maybe we should ask how. So that's like we're sending mixed messages in. Well, we want to be able to allow it. So maybe we put it in. We We don't He didn't want to prohibit it is what he's saying.
Yeah. But it's not exempt. You know, why don't we put a pin in that and I'll ask how um so maybe just leave it works of art are are exempt and then we can ask town council on how we might
if there's a I'm not saying that works of art should be exempt. exempt. You know, there are some works of art that should be exempt probably, but I mean, it should not be. So, maybe we should just take that line out completely so that they would have to go through. They would have to go through it, right?
I guess I guess that would make sense cuz it's not exempt. How does everybody else feel about that? Just take strike that line. I think you should because when you're dealing with something as big as a mural, I think it should get some kind of review.
I'm trying to think of a work of art that someone would do in the public. Like I guess Sidewalk Sam would do a mural on a sidewalk, but I can't think of a work of art that would go anywhere other than a mural that that would be on a building other than a mural. So if you have a problem with it because we're not prohibiting it
and we're not exempting it. It would go through. So I think that would satisfy what he was looking for. So we'll strike uh number six completely. Okay. And that'll resolve that.
Um and then under um B prohibited signs. This is where he asked that we write under 16 internally
illuminated signs, except through special permit process only and it does refer to that in the illuminated section as well. So it would be prohibited internally illuminated signs comma except through
special permit process only. Yeah. So why is that I guess the same rationale why is this even needed here? Because if it's a prohibited, we could we we could strike that because it does because I was looking um
another when we get to illuminated signs like this bylaw is 24 pages long. Yeah. But it's making it more clear, Maggie. It's it's going to be um I think it would be consistent. Let's
just leave it in for now and then because it references Meredith a little further. Yeah. Sorry, Meredith. May I jump in here? In in what you said earlier uh before we got we started going
through this um document, you you said that there were times when internally illuminated signs were they found to be appropriate. So I sounds like this should be struck from prohibited.
Okay, we we could and then when we get down to illuminated, maybe we figure out a different way to word um permitted and prohibited. Okay. All right. Let's strike this and not be confused. Let's be as least confusing as possible. I do
agree that. And then what about audible signs? Are we are we uh allowing those now? Do we I thought we added Did we add on? Didn't make it here in the edit. Just wondering. And that's just me driving that. I don't know how you guys feel about that. I think we discussed that.
Um so we can put in 16 instead of this internally illuminated signs. Could we add audible signs? Is that That's a good We can just put it in there. Audible signs. Meredith, did did John comment at all
about prohibiting openf face channel letters? Yeah, he thought we shouldn't That's when I was going to get over there. He thought um we should not allow openf face channel letters. And actually, so when we get
into this section illumination, we might just scrap this whole thing too. I don't know. But um because it also yeah because he doesn't think we should allow the you know the LLD the fluorescent LD you know the things that
we said are proh in the prohibited section. Okay. So scrolling down I think to the next page. and we'll get down. Um, yeah. So, prohibited signs, measurement, sign and sign, measurement of sign, area, and
height. Did So, Meredith, did you ask him about these sizes? Uh, because I had we had talked about whether anyone had really looked at these sizes compared to existing signs like will all the existing signs now be out of compliance
for size. He did. Did you ask him about that? Yeah. You know what? The only thing he commented on, he thought the gas station sign was too small. He gave new dimensions for that. Okay. And he also gave for setback. He said
it. He said keeping the the 15 ft but adding language unless otherwise determined in site plan review which gives discretion to the sign review committee when they are looking at the site location.
But otherwise he thought he thought the measurements of the other signs seemed appropriate. Okay. Thanks. So under I you know there's one word
here that I'm questioning uh where um so it's the measurement of the sign and it reads generally sign area shall be computed as the area within the smallest
single rectangle or square enclosing the extreme limits of the sign face. Why does it say smallest? Why wouldn't it say largest? We we we're trying to contain the size of the sign. I don't I'm trying
to follow smallest rather than largest. You know, we we want to make sure that we don't have a sign any bigger, right? So, wouldn't it be the largest rectangle or square enclosing the extreme limits?
If you have a building and you have windows and you have an area like below the wind, you know, above or above the doorway, let's just say I think that's what it's indicating that it would be like not on the side of
a window. It would be more of a narrow facing. I still think no matter where it is, you'd want to define the sign area as being computed as the largest single rectangle or
square enclosing the extreme limits of the sign face. So whatever the limits of the sign face is is what we're talking. I just don't I'm just not even sure. Maybe smallest doesn't even need to be there. S area shall be computed as the area within the
single rectangle or square enclosing the extreme limits maybe you don't even need smallest or largest you know yeah so that's again if here I am a regular person reading this it is very confusing
that is a bit confusing I mean I I've had plenty of clients that if they looked at Jim's that's Purdue isn't it your daughter's school they look at Purdue logo and they would try to define it as, you know, the the tightest of the parameters. Yeah. It's just the black. It's not the
gold. Right. So, it would be a way to cheat a bigger sign. Yeah. Maybe it's you know what it I what it maybe is referring to is if you have a sign but you have say you have inset pan like an inset panel
it would go within that inset panel. Gerald, what do you what are your what is your interpretation? I think it's difficult also. Um, this is where like a graphic is helpful. Um, and I don't know if the sign guidelines
have one and if this is consistent with what they've been doing, but I do think we should pin this and come back to it. Yeah, we should ask um John and we should ask the building commissioner. Yeah,
there'll be too much debate in the process the way it's written right now. We need something that's really definitive, right? Yeah. Because if you say you like on my self- storage facility, I've got a 4x8 sign. Then it's held up by two 4x4 posts. So, it's actually eight plus
another 8 in. So, it's it would easily be a way to cheat your sign and make it a lot bigger following this. If you take out the word smallest, I think it to John's point, I think it gets rid of that and it's just the limit of the sign. I'll ask John and we'll ask the building commissioner too to weigh in.
Okay. And then I couldn't remember, I caught this little typo. Um, under measurements of height, under number two, building signs, the height of a wall shall be determined. Did we add that B in before?
It's a good catch. And then under setback, this uh John suggested shall be set back at least 15 feet unless otherwise determined in sight plan review, comma
from the nearest property line. So just adding unless otherwise determined in site plan review. So that gives flexibility because in some cases there are signs that so Meredith one thing I wonder if there
will be confusion because the planning board does site plan review under site plan approval. So we should plan review by so by the sign committee or just say determined in I'm just wondering about the word site plan.
Otherwise determined by the site plan review committee. No, because this is talking about the their review, right? Not this not to our review, not our separate review process. This edit,
right? So determined in site plan review by the sign committee sign. I guess you could just say, well, do they have their own site plan review? Is that what this is referring to? Well, they do look at the they look at the context of the site where the
where the sign's going. So, this isn't referring to our site plan review. It's referring to Right. It's theirs. And I just don't want to make I just don't want to be confusing for someone who's under site plan review. So, I think it would be you could just say sign committee site
plan review and that way it's clear whose review it is. All right. Did you get that, Nick? Does that make Does that make that make sense? Wait, so before we move on, um, so this is 15 feet from
the nearest property line. So if I have a property line that abuts the public way, so I have to set it back 15 ft.
Is that what this is saying? Unless like he used the example like if you if sending it back 15 feet, you wouldn't be able to see it when you're you know if if it's a directional sign. Sometimes they need to be closer like
Elliot physical therapy is closer because otherwise you it's closer to the property line but if it was back down the drive you wouldn't see that there would be no singer sign. So it gives discretion that when it's appropriate you can do less than 15
feet. Okay. So it's a pro not um the nearest property line. It doesn't does that refer to a neighbor the neighbor's property line or the public the street property line. I think it's either or. The way I take it
is it's either or. Like if it's on a corner, you have to be 15 feet from either the front or the side or or both. Yeah, it seems like both because it it reads whether or not said line ab butts a public or private street
or way. So, so I think about all the signs up in my neck of the woods, my sign, Nukem Farm sign, Eagle Farm, Bunny Thomas sign. We're all within 15 ft.
So, we have our signs and now we have to go through this review process, which we never had to go through before. Now, we have to do this. They can tell us now it has to go back 15 ft.
You don't have to if you have an existing sign, you don't they don't have to do this. You don't have to change your sign. Yeah. And there's appropriate times when it because of the visibility and you can't set it back that physically you can't do
it. So, um that's why they wanted to make sure there was it wasn't always the standard. And then so right away moving down criteria. Um I think he agreed um
in C the second to last line or third to last line we changed select board to DPW. Right. Did we make that? Was that already track changed? And he he agreed with that.
We put building commissioner in here. Oh, we put building commissioner. But I remember we're talking about the DPW. I think it should be the DPW. That's what Yeah, I thought we Yeah, we said building commissioner then we changed to DPW and but and he agreed
with that if we did And this is also to Sean's point. It mentions the insurance. Yeah. So, we want to find out about that. Okay. Insurance. Um so then this is if we go down to the
illumin the illumination this is where Timid had the permitted external externally illuminated signs. Um, and then this is where he said, and this is interesting just to for
discussion, but stationary light shielded and directed downward or upward or maybe in quote or in parenthesy or upward if ground mounted solely at the sign. So it was interesting. I was
listening to another town um the Welssley Planning Board reviews their signs and they really try not to do upward lighting now because of dark sky compliance. They even on for ground mounted they try to do downward facing
signs. So makes sense. I don't but but John said there there are times that it just makes sense for there to be an upward signs. And I'm trying to think of any uplit signs that we have
that I can think of in Milton, they seem to have. So to me that if we're trying to pro if we're getting away from upward signs, shouldn't wewards only um allow them through a permit? So if we
say we don't allow them except if the the the the special permit granting authority allows it. He just he just felt there there's times that it makes sense to do an upward lit instead of a gooseeneck lighting like a
soft up lighting. I'm with you. I can't think of one, but I wouldn't want to close the door on it. Yeah. And he seemed to feel that it would that would be good. So maybe we just I've seen I've seen signs that are ground mounted directed solely at the sign that are angled to hit just the
sign. Yeah. Um, and the light the the lamp can be controlled as opposed to like direct to up light. So, is that what he's talking about? Yeah. Okay. Exactly. It can be a really attractive way to
light a sign. You think people light their houses from and their trees? I mean, people up their trees. So, and flag poles. Okay. So, so, so light shield and directed downward.
or upward if ground mounted at the sign. Okay. Is this where though we need to add the internally illuminated sign by special permit or whatever that language was that he would
had suggested putting previously? Yeah. Number two, actually list it as prohibited. Um, right. But he had said that in some circumstances that that was something that they found acceptable. Right.
Yes. And so I think that's confusing to say it's prohibited because the other signs. So I I I think you're right about that, Cheryl. We should add um we should move it up to permitted, but then there are limits to what's permitted with that, right?
Yeah. So we could make that C. I mean, that's why it's that the prohibited is just confusing because it's saying it's prohibited except if you get a special permit. Yeah. Yeah. So, so then it's permitted, right? Yeah, I agree with you, Maggie. I don't
think I think it should just be prohibited if it's in this section. Permitted. Permitted. Yeah. So, after So, the next one says a reverse lit sign. signs may be reverse lit illuminated by white light only. He also
said it could be because now they call it could be reverse lit or halo signs. So they're interchangeable somewhat or they different. Cheryl, do you think reverse reverse lit or halo signs?
Halo signs dash. Yeah. So we just want to add or halo signs. reverse light or halo signs. Signs may be reverse illuminated by white light only.
And then so we would then put C internally illuminated signs and then it would be internally illuminated signs dash Illuminated signs shall be
signs shall be permitted only with only permitted by the issuance of a special permit. toilet signs. You just say, "Well, aren't all these signs special permitted?"
Not for the peritted. The permitted signs. The permanent signs are different than a special permit sign. Signs. I don't know. I think it's fine like that. Does that prohibited and then you think prohibited or just say
prohibited? Taking out the word prohibited and just put internally illuminated signs. Well, we're saying they're prohibited except you can get a special permit possibly, you know, but we took it out of the prohibited section.
Oh, right. So this would not be permitted internally illuminated signs by special may be permitted may be permitted. So the question is do do we or the sign
review committee really want signs prohibited and if they do then it shouldn't be by special permit. I think it's the terminology is confusing because it you could say permitted and then permitted by special permit
instead of prohibited. So they wanted them pro they did want them to not be allowed. So they did want them to be prohibited. Okay. With the exception. And why don't we just say prohibited? Right. So then we get rid of the except
by as maybe by special then you have you never have an option to get that sign ever because part of the problem is if I applied for a sign and it was on the prohibited list and I was denied a
special permit but then someone else got that special permit for the then I get upset about stuff like that. I know, but circumstances could be different, Maggie. Things could be different. That's why I don't Not everything's equal. I'm kind of a black and white kind of
person. And when I read something, I want to know what I'm able to do and what I'm not able to do. No gray area, huh? And then there can be gray area, but then I'm choosing. So when I apply for a
per I want to know I can do X Y and Z but if I want to go beyond X Y and Z then I have to go through a process to get an exemption from it. That's exactly what this tells me as written originally. That's exactly what this says.
Read to prohibited and then it would be we would take out that following sentence to not be confusing and just say a internally illuminated signs and channel and openf face channel letters and then we would keep in
Meredith Meredith can we I do not follow what you're suggesting right now. So under prohibited, you all wanted to say the following types of illumination shall be prohibited and then strike where the way it was drafted where it says accept. Yes.
By special permit. Yeah. Yep. Let's see. So that's that completely changes what Yeah. the intent of this section. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. Yeah. So that's where we moved
internally illuminated signs to a kind of a separate category where they're permitted by special permit only. Are there any other signs that are like that by special permit only? Well, the way this is drafted, it says that an internally illuminated open face
and signance fabricated with letters. Right now it says all of those are allowed by special permit. And that's what we didn't want for for for C to be permitted that you could go get a special permit to have those type of signs.
So the thing here, Nick, is it sounds as if the chair of the sign review committee um advised that they would there are times when internally illuminated signs are appropriate. So they would pull that out of prohibited but they would
right right now it's saying they are allowed right but which is what you're saying he wants to communicate that's why that's what I'm missing right so the well I mean what we really would need is a third category so this category you would have permitted like
we have number one number two you would have permitted by special permit only and then number three you would have prohib prohibited and you would take out internally illuminated signs from prohibited, but you would also strike the words except as may be permitted by
the issuance of a special permit. So then truly you have something that's prohibited. That's what he that was his goal to do that. So he wants to keep prohibited what is listed as B and what is listed as C.
Yes. Okay. but not allowing them by special permit. So striking that option for a special permit. Is that correct? Correct. Yeah. Yeah. So the way that Cheryl, the way you described it, I think is the best way to convey this
three categories just as you described. Yeah, I think I have to fix the numbering. But Cheryl, could you say again? Yes. Second second group. This would be permitted by special permit. That's
and then the only one that we had in that was the internally illuminated signs for now. Yes, because that was the that was the one exception he had to that. And that makes it less confusing with
the prohibited language. So the way that's written with a prohibited language, LED price signs or any sign are prohibited are prohibited in me. So what if you have what about the gas stations in East Milton Square? What if those So they don't they would not have to
change. They're already one's already been and if they're change ownership or change name, they lose their price. If they build a new sign, they would have to do what and I've seen what other towns do. They don't allow those bright
neon signs. They have what is the internally illuminated which he referred to that he said sometimes like on a gas station you need. So you would be able to have the lit numbers. So I'll just use like at Derby Street in Hangingham like there's a gas station
right outside Derby Street. They don't have they have it's an it's lit internally with just the letters and numbers that are that are lit so you can see them at night. Okay. It gives that visibility. Um but it is um
and they also had an up like an arched light over it. So um what time are these lights getting shut off at close of business? Close of business. And each business is
a different hour, right? Which reminds me, we have to find a way to to put in um dimmer switches. I don't like all illuminated signs. We should put a note in. Um
All right. So, here the time he has unless a business establishment is open to the public, the sign shall be illuminated between the hours of No, it shall not. It should shall not be
the sign shall be eliminated. Yeah. So they shut off at 11:00 and open at 6:00 a.m. I have I have no problem with that. That's fine. And and that is that is unless the business is open to the public. So this this does also read that if a business is open to the public after 11, the sign could be
illuminated, right? Probably we don't probably have any that are open past 11. Well, good point. Yeah. Yep. And they their sign is on through the
night, right? It must be. It's got to be the hospital. But yeah, I mean, if my business were open, I would want my sign to be able to be on. So, I mean, I once again, I have no problem with the reading of that.
Me, too. So, where should we put um the line? Um, all lit signs should have dimming capabilities to adjust after installation. Probably in intensity. The next category number four, you add a D.
Read his read as uh please. Um all lit signs um should have we should say shall have dimming capabilities to adjust after installation. I think you create rather than intensity you might create another number five
call it controls you know that's probably a better thing to do than try to fit it into intensity. I like that lighting controls. Lighting controls. Yeah. Number five. Lighting controls. And we'll say
all illuminated signs should have dimming capabilities to adjust after installation. And what purpose does that serve? Because if it comes on and it's too
bright, they're looking at the number of lumens or if it seems too intense that somebody would have an o the capability to adjust it. So do they have to um when they apply
for a sign for it to be lit, they have to provide the number of candles or lumens. So do we have a max amount of number of lumens it should be or candle?
Um we don't but I did I know they mentioned one of their a recent sign review will be no more than 40 um was no more than 30. They proposed 40
and they uh ZBA reduced it to 30. So I'm wondering and I'm not overly familiar what 30 what 20 30 40 the differences. It says the intensity of such light
shall be deemed acceptable if it does not exceed a factor of three above the ambient light intensity at any point on the ground when measured with an incident light meter. In the following
procedure, the intensity of the light in foot candles with a sign turned off. The same measurement is replaced. The ratio measurement in A to that B shall not exceed three.
[Music] Nick, I think at number four, you could have the word um dimming and a dash and the dimming would be bold to be to match the formatting up above. And then you could say
all well you Yeah. So you would keep what you had just put it back, right? Okay. under five. [Music] I'm sorry. Can you say it again?
Um, all um exterior illumination shall have dimming capabilities. And you need that word shall. Thank you. Includes everything
that he wanted. Um, oh, he the one other the only other thing that he thought and I think we talked about is under 12 in business. Sorry. Did you finish with that, Nick? I didn't mean to rush. Yes, I was coughing. Sorry, I forgot to
mute myself in time. Oh, no. That's you. Is it all set? Yes. Okay. Sorry. Um, under 12 business districts, the under B, the third bullet,
he just thought this is confusing to say that some streets should have different um that we would allow different size signs. Cuz this is sort of what happened with when people thought the really large billboard was going to go up, you know, over the highway. He said he would just
take this out, this bullet, because how do you when you start picking different size signs. It's confusing for the building commissioner to not be consistent. Yeah, I agree.
And if you think about granite a those have some small signs on it. So, so we could just take this out this bullet completely. That was where Tim had had route two on there for I think he was looking at
another town. Um, signs painted on windows. G. So he had um, such signage shall not require a permit under this bylaw. He said it shall require a permit under
this bylaw or be in or be included in the calculation of the total permitted area for the lot. So meaning the signs painted on windows are not exempt. And then do you need the last part saying provision that provided that no
lettering or symbol is greater than 6 inches in height. Should we strike that? If it has to be permitted, do you have to specify the six inches? So, it doesn't have to be just six inches. I think what you say is such signage is subject to the requirements of this
section and then strike the rest of it. Yeah, that makes sense. Just keep such signage. shall be shall be subject to the requirements of this section. Period
of the section or of this bylaw. The section is business districts. Mhm. If if if that's if 12 is considered a section. That's my understanding, but we should confirm that. So, Nick, that you should this could say
such signage shall be subject where you started um the sentence to the So if you're in a residential district, you can have painted signs on windows. Well, I mean, you could think about the
dental office on the corner of Reed Zil and Randolph. Um, I don't know if they have painted signs in the windows, but that's a that's a residential district, right? So, this this is only under business districts.
I see. Yeah. I think of painted windows as just being business more business districts. Mhm. So if you're in a residential district, you can have painted windows without a permit. Without
Yeah. I just Well, I wonder then if you this just gets stricken all together. Is it signs painted on window? Yes. Yeah. Because it's prohibited, right? All right. Let's just strike this. I I
if that's too confusing. I mean, is that on our prohibited list? Painted windows. I don't remember that. I think you wanted it regulated, but I don't remember it being prohibited. Unless we want to keep it as it originally was and say shall not require
a permit as long as it's less than 6 in. But if you think if you look here the this is section 12 business districts and it does have this is what sets out the requirements in the business district. So I don't think we should strike it all together.
Um but if we leave it right but I think you said John said that should count towards the total sign area. I think that's what we should put in there. Or or to simplify it even more, um,
leave it g signs painted on signs painted on windows in a business district in a business district script describing a product or theme and not including the name of the business. Such signage shall require a permit under this bylaw. Period.
And just leave it at that. and get rid of the rest. But I do think it's the question is whether it is included in the total sign area that's allowed. And what this was saying basically was that it wasn't being included in that sign area. Is it
better to be explicit about that? I think that's what John was suggesting that it would be explicit that it was included in the total sign area. Yeah. Then then um if that being his point, such China shall require a permit under this bylaw and be included in the
calculation of the total permitted sign area that would do it. I think period and and end with lot. So we're not saying anything about that no lettering being
right than 6 in. Yep. Okay. Um, so I understand script describing a product like, you know, painted on sign saying milk $4.99. But what's a theme? Are we saying that a
business can't have um like snowflakes or Christmas painted on it? A a theme. Holiday signs are exempt. It's a holiday. decorate the
holiday. So, snowflakes would be um holiday. I'm just trying to think what do the holiday lighting holiday. What do the stores have? Well, I can think of some places where
they have graphic of fruits and vegetables, for example. That's a graphic, but in terms of words, they might have lottery tickets or they might have, you know, whatever other products
are sold there. And this is I think the reason you want to make it as part of the total sign area is to what I think John said before that having people come in and basically um fill the window space with signage
um which is a problem in many business districts or like signs with like power ball with the power ball right things all sorts of stuff like So those little LED that would prohibit
the and that used to be enforced in Milton and not lately. Well, these are signs painted on windows. I'm thinking more of like and I I don't want to misquote here, but I could have swore Maggie's Maggie's Barber Shop does a snow theme. Yes. Yeah.
Not necessarily Christmas. It's just it's winter and she just does that on her windows. Covers the windows almost. And I think it looks really nice. I mean, are we right? Yeah. Yeah, not allowing that with this. You know, it's paint it's painted on a window. It's bigger than 6 in and it's
um Yeah, it's a theme. But let's look at these. But it says script. Script is a is our words. Yeah. Okay. Script describing a product or script. So such signage shall not require a permit. But now we're saying that signage is required.
Shall require a permit under this bylaw or being included. So if there's no word, she's in the clear to do that. That's that that's good. I'm just trying to clarify this I think and be included in the calculation of the total permitted sign. Yeah. I mean this is Charles when Cheryl
calls out script means it's it's lettering. It's not it's not snowflakes. Good. Good. All right. I'm okay with that. That's that's how I read it. Yeah. Good. You know, script would be something that is a narrative.
Yeah. Good. or script describing a theme. Yeah, I overlook the word script. So, I think that's fine, honestly. Yeah. I mean, you know, you think about some some storefronts like that, though, and they'll be happy often whatever the
holiday is, you know, happy Hanukkah, happy 4th of July, merry Christmas, you know, whatever it might be. There's plenty of businesses that like to be able to express some type of a greeting like that. Then I guess we're not we're this isn't really allowing that, is it?
Yeah. At that point, it's script. It's probably a question for John. Mhm. Yeah. Let's have a take a look at this. All right. I'll ask him to You're muted. Sorry. Total sign area is to be
capitalized. Thank you. Um so I'll ask John about that. Um, and then for um the sidewalk signs, he thought these sounded good, but we should run it through um run it by the
DPW and the building commissioner to take a look at and the insurance clause at the end and the insurance clause. And I have a message to Yeah, we'll ask Nick about that. And then just on the last page,
um, bed and breakfast. He thought it was a good idea just to leave that in there because if it ever was if we ever the town decided to allow it, we wouldn't have to take this back to um town meeting. So, leave that in. And then gasoline
service uh stations, he thought it instead of it should not exceed 12, he thought that should be 20 ft in area. He said that's more of typically what would be allowed. Maybe just do And maybe just do service
stations. I don't know. They're diesel service stations. Yeah, just service stations. Automotive service station. Service stations. Yeah, automotive instead of gasoline. Because maybe at some point it could be um electric
service stations. Automotive. service stations. Yeah. Jim, what did you say? Eventually, they're going to be EV service stations. Yeah. Yeah. Gotcha. Hybrid. Hybrid. Would this would this also allow the the
stations that or the places that do automotive repair to have the this size sign? That's a good thing. Yeah, I think so. like like I'm thinking down um at the intersection of Blue Hills Parkway and Brook Road and down at
Central and Elliot. Mhm. Yeah, I think it would cuz he said roughly he said typical is 4x5 sign would be allowed there. So Cheryl, are you saying it shouldn't
be allowed down there? I just I'm just wanting to point it out to think about like do we want to that to be the same because by changing gasoline to to automotive I think it opens it up if that's okay with everyone that just want to point it out.
That's actually a good point. Maybe we don't want that. I'm trying to think of that's that you're talking about. Uh I'm trying to I'm trying to think about the sign they have there now, right? It's kind of big. It might already be. Yeah, by
I don't know. I don't think it's I don't think it's um 20 square feet is not a big sign, right? I mean, 12 is tiny. It depends again like if you're thinking about like Central and Elliot where it's
a kind of a smaller intersection, smaller scale versus the Parkway and Brookke where the vehicles are going by. But um maybe I mean you could call that a fuel service station
if you didn't want to Yeah. Fuel. I like capture everything else because it was intended really to be the gas stations. Yeah. So a fuel service station. Does that sound to keep that?
Okay. And that was the only the last thing that he had on that. So subject to review of those items. Um does the board feel comfortable
distributing this to the warrant committee for an initial I mean they'll they'll probably have their own comments too. Well, this would get submitted to the select board, right? And the select board for inclusion in the warrant. Yes. Because the warrant closes on uh
Thursday, correct? That's why we moved up our meeting to this week. So, I think what we would want to do is have a vote to submit it to the select board for inclusion in the warrant and then it would get submitted to the warrant committee
via the typical process. So, could I have a a motion to finish with the select board and the warrant committee for review? Sure. Select board. Sorry. Cheryl, why don't you make that motion? And well, I just wanted to be clear. We want
to submit it for the warrant, not just for review. So, I'll make a motion to submit the um the signed bylaw as uh amended tonight and perhaps um further amended in the coming meetings to the select board for
inclusion in the October 27th town meeting. I'll second that. Okay, we'll do a roll call since Cheryl's on. Um Sean, yes. Maggie, yes. Jim, yes. Cheryl, yes.
And myself, yes. Okay, thank you. And we'll follow up with those other questions, too. Um, now traffic mitigation. Cheryl, do you want to walk us through this and the um updates that you made? Sure. Um, do you want to have Nick also
share screen on that? That would be great. Okay, thank you U Nick. So primarily this um was intended to capture projects in the business districts um as I think we spoke about
where 440 Granite Avenue was not subject to the requirements of this bylaw which was adopted in 2018 or 2019 I believe. Um the idea behind this bylaw was um to
for smaller projects or projects that wouldn't trigger larger traffic studies that a contribution into a fund uh pulled together with other projects. uh would provide funds uh that would go
towards uh mitigation uh in the area in which those projects were um permitted. So that it might be um improvements to the public way such as infrastructure uh
for sidewalks or bike lanes or um signalization improvements or traffic studies or things of that nature. So the um there have been contributions to the fund uh by Walcott Woods and by 440
Granite a my understanding is and in a conversation with Nick Milano is that um that those funds um haven't been put to use yet. So there is one amendment in here um that relates to that um that I
can go uh over with you when we get there. But the primary reason I brought this up was this had been uh submitted and gone to town meeting in 2019 I believe and it was sent back for further study and it it didn't get picked back
up and so I went back and looked at um what was proposed then and also some comments that um we had received at that time from Alex Whiteside and there's a couple of those incorporated here too. So um here in the beginning it just
summarizes the actual changes. So um to the existing bylaw. So if you can just scroll down you can I have it in redline format so you can see what these changes are. So, uh, here this is, um,
a residence district would pick up some of those, um, businesses like in East Milton where the, um, they actually exist in a residential district like the fruit center, for example. So, that picks up. That's why the residence district and then the business district.
And this previously only applied for when special permits are required. But because the business district um is site plan approval needed to add site plan approval is required. Um
changing here from then that principal use being actually a structure which is more appropriate language. Then you'll see throughout where the special permit granting authority has to also now be or the site
plan approval granting authority because the special permit granting authority could be the planning board or the ZBA but in this case the site plan um approval granting authority is the planning board. So um then the next
change is the word inhabitants to residents. Uh that was one of Alex Whiteside's flags. Um the the next one was another one of his flags which is then the level of service. Um
the way he read this was that um there are already intersections that are below C and D. We have E and F. So um in any case then it this would u
eliminate some projects just by that last clause in this sentence. Uh and so at that time he had suggested eliminating that. So I thought that was a good point and picked it up here. Um the next parts are just adding again site plan approval and the special
permitting or the site plan approval granting authority uh for on the rest of this page. and some typos in that section.
Uh five, the traffic mitigation measures and then um again those are just picking up the authority again. Here there's one more that's not that I think I'm looking for. Hold on. Can you stop there for one second? Uh,
scroll back up one sec there. Okay. I'm sorry. You can keep going. No, there's one that we missed. So, look. I'm sorry. Let me just find it. Right at the bottom of the page here. Is that that was there? But there was one to um
also let's just scroll back up to the other page. Sorry. Okay. Right there under B. Um Nick pointed out that we hadn't actually
done this and the two develop or the two permits that were granted the 440 Grand Avenue and the Walutwoods that have paid into the fund. Uh we we didn't include conditions in the permit about how the funds would be
utilized. um and he thought it preferable to let it be uh determined um later and it it makes sense when you think about what I had mentioned about how these funds could be pulled together from different projects and some of it
might be um determined after the project's actually built and impacts are seen. So um so that's why those that was struck there at the end of paragraph B.
Okay, that's that should be everything. That's great. So, so you did say Nick has had a chance to sort of look through this and work through this with and he did say again um he would want this to be reviewed by town council of course. Yeah,
but he did review it. I think this looks great. Any questions or comments? Obviously, we'll have a public hearing on this as well. I guess my question is really the dollar
amount, you know. Um, yeah, I didn't change that part of it. Um, when let's see what section is that. Yeah, right there. Okay. Yeah, I just wasn't sure. Is that legal to do like a dollar amount and should we
be limiting ourselves to a certain dollar amount? I mean, I know this is only shall have the discretion. So my whole I had a problem really with the whole section until I really focused. It said it she'll have the discretion to strongly
encourage. So that doesn't mean require um so you know if I was an applicant and I was being strongly encouraged what would happen if the applicant said no thank you. But what are you talking about? because it says it may require the applicant to
make this contribution. If you read a above a like where it says um the SBGA or the site plan approval granting authority as applicable shall have the discretion to strongly encourage at
least one or more transportation demand management program you're talking about different not the payments. Um remember the things that are in black and white here are already on the books. This they've been on the book since 2018 and it was approved by the attorney general. So the
only thing that's being proposed to change are is what's in red. What book, Cheryl? Our our bylaws when you say this is in our bylaws. Yeah. Yeah. In our bylaws. All right. Yeah. It's just an update. But it it's an update to capture more
projects. Yeah. um you know 440 grand a wasn't subject to this but we asked for them to contribute to it as part of one of the conditions of their um permit. The only one that was really truly subject to it
that's paid in is Walcott Woods, but you may recall that um the memory care facility is subject to it as well and they will be paying into it when at the I think the trigger is at their building permit stage which they haven't I don't think they're at yet but um
yeah so back to my point it still says the discretion to strongly encourage we can't the things up above or the payments are m can be are mandatory. Sorry. Well, can you tell me what section you're in, Maggie, so I can pull it up on the
screen? Um, right there. Right there. Right there. No, right there. Where it says section 275-20.5, establishment of TDM goals and requirements. Thank you.
So it says the SPGA or the strongly encourage at least one or more of the transportation demand management to reduce peak hour volumes as listed below colon and then it has the um you know
dollar amounts or staggered work hours. So no but then it's a totally separate section in terms is the payment if you so this was u mitigation payments is a totally separate section not part of
that section. Okay. So, if these are just strong just this section, if we just look at this section, um this is just suggestions, right? We're just suggesting and and the applicant doesn't have to do any of this.
Well, so you know, it's part of the the permit. So, um it can be made a condition just like other conditions have been made for other special permits or site plan approvals. Yeah. I mean what's not at discretion is the payment
because it says required. Oh does it say required Charl or when I read that section it say may require the applicant to make a contribution. Yeah. So sorry I'm just not seeing that on the screen right now. Okay. I'll pop it back. So you scroll down
further Nick. Yeah. may require the applicant contribution. Yes, you're right. It says may require, but it it gives us the option to Yeah, it does. Sure. I mean, it's not a lot of money if you're
doing a small development. Well, you know, sometimes um projects people would want to have a traffic study or um some other mitigation measure in a small project is doesn't warrant the expense of that mitigation measure. The idea behind this when it
was first proposed was to pull small projects to into having to do some contribution so that those funds would eventually um add up to enough to look at the impacts of multiple projects. that people people were concerned with. Well, you do a traffic study for one project,
but what about the next project and the next project? And um so this u was a a means to address and provide some funding um to address um the cumulative effect of of projects. Yeah.
But that wouldn't be applied till after they're already done, right? Yes. But some you remember we talked about the signalization improvements at Cantav and Highland for example with the memory care facility. Um and those weren't going to be done
before the project was completed. Yeah. And I'm not saying that I don't support this bylaw. I'm just questioning. And also the other thing I'm questioning is um in section B
the cost the of land takings necessary to accomplish any of the purposes listed herein like shall we be encouraging land takings? Well, this I think the language you're talking about already exists.
Yeah. Okay. Yes. So, it exists, but if we're going to be editing it, should we should shouldn't we be improving it? I'm trying to think of a case where we would want the money to go towards a land.
Well, I just wouldn't want my land to be taken. No. Well, it would have to be uh approved by both the planning board and the select board in order to even contemplate that. It's just saying that the funds could be used for that. So, you know, for example, um I'm not
sure if it would be considered a taking, but projects that my office has worked on in Boston where the sidewalks are narrow and the city's interested in a wider sidewalk, they uh require projects to widen the sidewalks into their own
property and then they have an easement with the city for use of that land for the sidewalk. Um so it's a way to address um you know safety concerns about the having uh proper bicycle and
pedestrian as well as vehicle uh infrastructure when there's limited uh public rideway. So that's yeah that's the opposite of a taking. And to that point, if a project contributed
to this fund and then down the road, that money that they contributed was then applied to taking their land to extend. I don't think so. Like when you go down further, it says it reads funds potential use of funds. Funds may only
be used if the expenditure directly relates to the impact created by the development to which it applies. Funds may not be used to pay for existing deficiencies unless the deficiency are deficiencies are increased by the new development.
And there's some guidelines here. The SPGA must establish a clear approximate link between the impact of a development on the transportation network and how the mitigation funding will be used to remedy that impact. So establish a clear and well defined process to monitor progress and compliance. So it seems
like there's some some there's a process here how the how the funds would be used. I think you have to scroll down to see that Nick. Yeah, it's um what are you thinking? Here we go.
State law requires that it has to these funds would have to be spent in the area where the impact of the project is. I I hear your concern, Maggie, and I I think when this was written, it probably
recognized it also. you know, then there's some parameters here that restrict how the funds can be used. And I and I agree with the overall intent of it. I'm not um saying it's just when I see terms like that, it makes me
a little nervous. Mhm. But I would say overall this is definitely an improvement on what we currently have. Well, it captures I think really what was intended initially because the
revision came out pretty quickly after the bylaw was passed. Um, as seeing as having missed that, um, I honestly didn't, other than the the point made by Nick Milano and the
email from Alex Whiteside, I did not review the entire article for other amendments. I was trying to limit it pretty much to what was done back then with with those couple of exceptions. Anything else?
No, I'm good with it. All right. I would entertain a motion that we send this to the select board to include in the warrant the updates um to include in the warrant and for review by town council and the warrant
committee. I'll make a motion that we send the traffic impact mitigation article to the warrant committee and town council for review and the select board. I'm sorry and select board for inclusion warrant. For inclusion in the warrant. Thank you. Is there a second?
Second. All in favor? Jim? Yes. Maggie? Yes. Sean? Yes. Cheryl? Yes. And myself? Yes. Great. So that concludes our business for this
evening. Um and unless we the warrant committee needs for us to come and you know present anything to them um sooner than we need to um September 11th, but I'm sure they're going to have to you know get their committee together and um
do some review of this. But we'll circulate these. And um and I think at this time, Nick, we should probably think about um dates for public hearings in September. Um but I can connect with you and Nick
on Yeah. how soon we want to because it takes a couple weeks to get those posted. So just thinking if we could have those in September uh do or have a public hearing at some point in September.
Should the public hearing be prior to the warrant committee discussion on it meeting with them? It would be yeah it would be nice depending on how the warrant committee they're not sure exactly how they may be doing some subcommittees and re those subcommittees
would review articles rather than meeting with the whole committee. So once I know better on that but um yeah we can look at the calendar this week and start thinking about you know September 11th um
sorry can I jump in here? Yeah. Um given that the warrant I goes to press I think usually about a month before town meeting. Um if we had the public hearing at our first meeting in September it I think that would allow time for any
edits that might come out of that process u before the warrant goes to print. And so backing that out, um because Nick, you would have to publish it publish it two um twice.
Yes, it's just two consecutive weeks. Just two consecutive weeks. So we should be able to we that we can handle as I mean as long as it's a date that works for you all, we can make that happen. Okay. Don't let that be a an impediment. and
we will execute as quickly as you all can date. All right. So, why don't we then um if we're in agreement, the September 11th could be our a public hearing for these two articles. Makes sense. All right, let's let's shoot for that
first so we can um just have that any changes as as quickly as possible for the warrant committee because we don't have any. What's scheduled on the 11th? Anything else? No, we don't. Nothing. Yeah, it's a good time to to do this. So, Meredith,
I I I assume since citizen speak is complete, um there's a president, I think it's Thomas D already has his hand raised. Oh, great. Um do you all entertain comment outside of citizen speak or Yeah, if it's Yes, if it's pertaining to
these. Yes. Welcome, Tom. Yes. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. It's not a criticism, but I had my hand raised 20 minutes ago, and I listened from the beginning when uh it was stated that there could be public
speak uh later on uh on the topic. And uh I appreciate uh you're letting me do so. My name is Thomas Dardy. I live on Adam Street in Milton. I want to raise with you the need to reassess the Massachusetts uh Department of
Transportation uh Squantum Street Adam Street uh right away revision plan and its problems for Milton residents. Uh as it relates to some of the very subjects you've been talking about tonight in terms of traffic, I asked to be provided with the
text that you would be reviewing tonight. It wasn't provided. Uh, I uh can go through some of that, but I don't want to do that right now. Uh, my point is this. Um, we need to have a public hearing and we need to have a town
meeting vote on whether there residents of Milton will agree or or will want to revise or keep as now the mass department of transportation squad street intersection plan. I raised that in the
spring. I'm raising it now. um that can happen sometime I hope before April and it'll only take me a few more seconds to say look this quantum street and street music section plan um is predominantly financed by the state okay and consequently the state has its own
mandated processes that have some implications that are problematical for our residents and for school uh buses and for uh citizens of of Milton and others that are trying to go from Adam Street to the expressway or the
expressway to Adam Street or uh uh you know on on to lower mills from Adam Street or Squanam Street to lower mills and for the public schools and the private schools in the area. Uh I won't go through any of that now. I'm a concerned that uh you ought to look at
what you've just looked at in terms of bylaws in situations in which there's also a state imposed mandate and how that um can affect the way in which the the town really has to decide whether or not they're going to accept some funds
that have some consequences. Two of which are for example and you mentioned frontage. uh there is frontage to be taken under the by the state's mandate under the uh intersection situation which actually um impedes on some of the
historic uh frontage of some of the town members and there's some I I I believe questionably problematical and risky aspects of the bike path which begins and ends in a very short way and
therefore has some confusion elements to it. I'll stop there, but um what I really want to have um two things. Number one, please uh publish as you before you're going to have a meeting
like tonight the material you're going to review so that um I could have incorporated in what I'm saying. But secondly, more importantly, because you do a wonderful job. Look at what you did in the first part of this with all the work you did with respect to the prior
matter and this one as well. I'm not criticizing that. But but secondly, this mandate here is going to affect folks that I don't think many folks in Milton, whether they're near or not near that intersection, but go through it and have
to deal with it um yet have contemplated. And there was a town bang vote without a lot of detail and I think therefore I'll stop here. There needs to be further consideration as to how that
could be reconsidered. Thank you. Great. Thank you. We can um consider putting that on the agenda too to address and find out. I do know that um a letter was drafted from the historical commission to Mass Historical with
concerns on the design plan of that. They've um DOT has made some changes and made revisions, but I think there's still a lot of concerns that the residents don't know about. Um the way it will be marked, the number of lights,
the number of um the issues and the fact that the fire station is under construction and we don't know where their lights are going to go. So, we should really have the fire station built before any anything I think u goes on in that intersection. But um thank
you. That's something that we can discuss and um hopefully I'm not even sure if the select board members know um what's happening with that plan. But um at least maybe um we can invite Marina to to come and um from engineering and
and maybe update our our board. So I think that would be great. I I do think that many residents follow the planning board meetings and if Marina does present during the planning board meeting, we're going to create a platform for informing the residents, a better one than exists. I what to what
Tom D already just mentioned. I I agree with them. I'm not familiar with it and I'm sure there are many residents that aren't familiar with it and and if there's a choice here, everybody should be aware of the choice especially since there is land taking of of um some properties who don't have a lot
of land and it's a very historic um intersection and you know it does have some busier times but during the daytime it just flows very quietly. It's not a busy intersection for most. Now where can we get the information on
that? Marina had through um the engineering it was really Chase Perkeley that was working on it. So I don't know how much um Marina has really intersected. Nick I don't want to put you on the spot but um and we can put it on our agenda but it's something we
should just Marina should maybe know about um what's happening with that. Is it is it possible uh I'm not sure where someone would go to be able to see what what Tom just described, but is it possible that the planning board might be able to get that information from
Marina and put it on the planning board website for the planning board so people could find it maybe a link, but it's really DPW um Chase Berkeley was one. Yeah, it was really the detail or put it on the u main page of the
town's website so people can find it and um my concern is um that it gets mass goes down a path that then they say it's too far down the path to change and make
changes. So like the roundabout up on Route 28, you know, all of a sudden there were there were 1,800 residents who signed a petition not to have the roundabout and then it went, you know, kept going forward and now it's kind of the difference is this is not a it's not
a state-owned road. So Milton, the select board makes the decision. So the residents of Milton, we have the say if we don't and I think it is like a they're close to a 50% design. um they they've been revising it, but the
residents have the dis can determine and and make that determination. It's not a state road. It's a so it's primarily the neighborhood should be involved in that discussion first and foremost. However, the way Mr. Doy describes it,
if you accept the funding from the state for the work, you have to accept the conditions. Yeah. Yeah. So that's if they're going to pay for the light and who makes the determination if um the town accepts the funding.
Well, from the way I understood Mr. Dherty, I think he's suggesting town meeting should make that decision. I believe that was that's how I interpreted what he said or the Yeah. And if I missed, we'll have to Yeah, we'll put it on the
agenda and and maybe Nick, um if you could, you know, find out what what you might know um an update on that, that would be helpful for the September meeting you can put on. I will I will see if there's more information that is more recent that can
be updated. The town already has a project information web page and Mascot does as well. Okay. Um I think on things like the presentation and the um handout and the flyer and that type of thing, we're pointing to their data or their information rather or we've uh download
actually we've downloaded the PDF and uploaded it directly to the Tom Milton website. So okay, I'll make sure that's up to date, but I'll share with Nick um your interest and make sure it's on the agenda so that it's complying with open meeting and not just a topic that someone complains uh in the
future that we didn't let everyone know uh beyond Mr. party others might be interested in speaking as you all have noted and I believe DPW has a Facebook page so maybe you should put it on that Facebook page too because they're very it has plastic
ballards running from Pland Road all the way up to Brook Road that oh my god how ugly it's very unattractive that's a land taking so it the public should know thank you Mr. DHY. Okay. Um,
with that I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. Make a motion to adjurnn. Is there a second? Second. Anything else from anybody before we Okay. Roll call. Uh, Cheryl, yes. Jim,
yes. Maggie, yes. Sean, yes. Yes. Good night all. Thank you for joining us. [Music]