City Council - Ordinance Committee

Joint Planning Committee and Ordinance Subcommittee 2/27/24 1. Meeting called to order. Attending: Koni Dedham, Salem Derby, Tamara Smith (Ordinance); Jesse Belcher-Timme, Chris Cockshaw, Harry Schuman, James Zarvis, Dan Hartman, Ken Iavecchia 2. We are meeting to continue what we were working on last term to allow for electronic messaging centers. Language that was initially approved is too restrictive- it states that if you have a building with over 100,000 square feet and you are located in the industrial business section of the city, then you are able to have an electronic messaging center. 3. At the time, though was to avoid looking like Las Vegas (remember this was historically when LED was first coming popular) 4. We do not feel that having a messaging board will detract from the character of this city. 5. We decided that having these downtown and highway business zones would be fine. Decided to change this in language. 6. We also felt that we should put in language that would allow partnership between the city and the people putting signs in place to create more opportunities for public messaging such as amber alerts, silver alerts, Mountain Road being closed, etc. This is a simple change. Original screen advice was based on highway signage standards. We were trying to minimize distractions and not to be an eye sore. Times: 7am to 11pm, and if the business is open after 11 they can petition to have it on until they close. We wanted input from the planning board for approval on this. Would this be approval by right, something that needs site approval? We don’t think it rises to the level of a special permit, but Planning Board issues these, not Ordinance, so we want to choose a path that also works for planning board. 7. JZ(Planning): So, you are not changing the dimensions of the signs or anything like that, only where they are allowed to be placed: I see that as by right. Can you speak to 1.3? a. 1.3 just speaks to the way signs are usually built- for example, there will be a permanent title of the place of business at the top of the sign, with an electronic messaging center underneath. Makes it more of a hybrid sign rather than a TV on legs. 25% of the sign would be a traditional sign. b. 6 speaks about the hours of the sign. Just want to be clear that it would be the building inspector that would be responsible for enforcing that code. 8. HS (Planning): Can you explain #3.174 on the bottom (was looking at wrong paper) 9. SD (Ordinance): We do not want to have cross-advertising allowed on signs, but we may be going into a first amendment right issue if we are trying to censor the type of wordage that can go onto signs. 10. JBT: EMC signs cannot advertise content for selling something not on your property. (Supreme Court precedent but not sure of date and details, maybe 2018: if you have to read the sign to know what category it falls into, it’s an uphill battle. 11. SD: That is the bulk of our thoughts bringing this here tonight, my fellow Councilors may have more to add, I’m sure. 12. KD: Lightness levels must be no more than highway standards. According to the requirements that talk about brightness, is this federal highway standards, or are federal highway standards brighter? 13. DH: States will not get brighter than federal highway standards. I can’t speak specifically on this but general they will be more restrictive at a state level, not less. 14. KD: This will be very bright on a highway. If it’s on the church, I don’t need it that bright. Do we want to tie this to state reg instead of federal highway? 15. DH: I can get you an answer for this. 16. SD: This is very specific and talks about size of signs and brightness (state) so go to CMR (state regs) section 3.17, have residents refer to the state regs if they have more questions. 17. HS: Do we have any way to measure brightness? 18. JBT: The building inspector has the tools to measure brightness. 19. KD: Message boards that are on buildings, do we have any regs for historical buildings? 20. JBT: The historical buildings have so many regulations that would be fine. 21. Don Jaurdain ,10 Sheldon Avenue, Chair of Trustees of ECC. We went to planning committee, everyone thought it was great, but it was against the current Ordinance in Easthampton. We want a message board to advertise our church activities and masses, and if the city wanted something on the board, we would do that as well. Were told that given our location close to the intersection, were told it’s too distracting. We have no problem complying with federal highway regulations. 22. JZ: Do you think that these modifications would allow for the signs he’s asking for? 23. SD: Yes, the main impediment is that the Ordinance states that it fits the mill industrial section. As you can see, we put up a sign that any signs owned by the municipality were exempt. The regulations are outdated because of where we were technologically. Now, we wanted to pass this by you to see if you wanted more specifics about regulating that we wanted to pass by you. 24. JZ: We can regulate shape and size but not content. 25. JBT: Right now, you need a building permit for ANY sign. I’m not sure that this is any different by that. There is always an ‘adult in the room’ making sure you’re following the rules. It shouldn’t be discretionary. We can change the laws but you can’t shut down signs that are already in existence. We extensively have signs under our jurisdiction, but we currently tell them to talk to the building inspector. We don’t need to have any additional movement from the planning board here, it’s ready to go to full council. 26. SD: We will take it to full council, make sure it includes the updated language. We will need your written recommendation before we can act on it 27. JZ: I make a motion to amend these changes to the existing ordinance laws to allow for public signs in the downtown business area and public messaging to occur on said signs. Motion passed). 28. SD: We can vote tonight, or wait for the written recommendation from Planning Board. 29. KD: We will wait for written recommendation from Planning Board. 30. Motion made for meeting close by Salem Derby, Seconded by Tamara S