The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met in a special meeting on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 in the Mayor’s Conference Room, 4th Floor, City Hall, 140 Main Street Marlborough MA 01752. Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Clerk Colleen M. Hughes, Philip J. Hodge, and Sean N. Fay. Due to a scheduling issue, Board Secretary Lizotte was unable to attend. Pamela A. Wilderman filled in as Planning Board Secretary.
SIGNS
Chairperson Fenby opened the meeting at 7:00 P.M. and introduced the topic to be discussed for the special meeting. The Rotary Club of the City of Marlborough is holding a special event on Saturday, October 27, 2012 in conjunction with the City of Marlborough’s Household Hazardous Waste Collection day. The club is asking for permission to place two signs on public ways:
- Two A-frame signs placed on the corner of Route 85 (Bolton Street) and Union Street.
The denial letter was read into the record by Clerk Hughes.
Present on behalf of the Rotary Club was past President Elaine McDonald and current president Bonnie Doolin.
Ms. McDonald explained that it was not their intention to violate the ordinance and that there was a misunderstanding regarding the placement of signs on private property. The Rotary Club had previously used the entrance to Marlborough signs but found it inappropriate for a number of reasons:
- Signs are too small to be clearly seen by vehicle traffic.
- Vehicle traffic is usually progressing too fast as those points for signs to be effective
- The signs had to be custom made for each event and the cost was prohibitive.
For those reasons the Rotary chose to have signs made that could easily be re-used with just a change of date. The signs were made by students at Assabet and have been used twice before at similar events during the fall of 2011 and again in the spring of 2012 without any notifications that they were disallowed.
Mr. Fay expressed his continued concern that this is an on-going problem with civic and non-profit organizations that are placing signs in violation of the City’s ordinance, all for worthy events. The signs have proliferated and by asking for a variance when many of the signs are already up and in violation puts both the Board and the Code Enforcement Officer in an extremely difficult position. Mr. Fay believes strongly that business owners who run reputable businesses and organizations should know better than to simply place something such as these signs without first checking.
There was a discussion regarding the use of public space vs. private space. There is an often mistaken idea that as long as the property owner has granted permission for the placement of off premise signs there is no need for any further permission from the City. There is also the consideration of the freedom of speech in private spaces but the Board feels that there is certainly a difference between a sign on private property stating a belief or support of an ideal or individual versus a sign advertising an event.
Ms. Fenby suggested that under the circumstances perhaps the private locations where the signs are currently should be notified as well.
Mr. Hodge expressed his opinion that he did not feel that there had been any overt attempt to evade the rules. He stated that it may not be possible amend the existing application to include signs that are not listed on the original.
Ms. Hughes advised that they are not allowed to amend the application and explained to Ms. McDonald and Ms. Doolin that even the scheduling of a special meeting for any purpose is not usually done. A special meeting or granting a variance when they are already in violation would be setting a dangerous precedent. The issue surrounding the special meeting does not have anything to do with the fact that it’s an additional evening meeting but rather that the Board regular deals with individual who, for whatever reason, do not have documents ready in sufficient time for a regular meeting, or for people who have been cited for an issue and wish to have the Board validate them by granting variances. To do so at this point would give the appearance that the rules don’t matter.
A further discussion took place regarding the sorts of issues that the Board looks at when reviewing requested variances:
- Placement: are the signs located in a manner conducive for reading without creating traffic issues? Are they located so as not to interfere with free passage of either vehicle traffic or pedestrians?
- Security: Are they placed and secured in such a way as to eliminate issues during storm or high wind events (such as this weekend’s project tropical storm “Sandy”)?
- Effectiveness: Do they adequately project the information required for the event?
Both Ms. Hughes and Mr. Fay expressed concern that the signs currently in place could pose a serious danger to pedestrians if they were to topple during a high wind event thereby jeopardizing liability for not only the event sponsor but the also the private property owner allowing the sign and the City should any such variance be retroactively granted.
All of the Planning Board members in attendance expressed their sincere regret that the situation is such that a viable and important event such as the Rotary’s collection effort is being subjected to this scrutiny but unfortunately there are a large number of worthy civic and non-profit organizations and events that could easily claim the same status.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To deny the variance allowing two signs at the intersection of Route 85 (Bolton Street) and Union Street and to order that all such signs as may already be placed be removed no later than 3 P.M. on Saturday, October 27, 2012. Further it was voted to advise all of the owners of private properties who have hosted signs of the decision as well as the procedures for further signs.
As an alternative to the very large signs requested in the variance, Ms. McDonald asked about directional signs. The Board felt that small directional signs at the entrances would be warranted to alleviate traffic concerns. They further directed that any directional signs within the location itself, as long as not seen from the roadway, would be appropriate.
Both Ms. McDonald and Ms. Doolin expressed their sincere regret for putting the Board in a difficult position and assured the Board that every effort would be made in the future to insure that any sign requests would be done in a timely manner. A short discussion was held regarding the sign ordinance itself along with suggestions for future events.
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Fay, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 7:45 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Colleen M. Hughes, Clerk
| 