Text · page 3 of 4
Page 3 October 8, 2026 helpful to get that. The code enforcement officers have had several questions lately about signs, so the Members want to go over that right now. One of the issues that the code enforcement office has been dealing with since summer is non-conforming signs(signs that were in place before the current code was created). If you drive down Route 240 there are several signs at different businesses. If there is going to be a non-conforming status of signs, then an inventory of pictures and addresses is needed, but that is a large task. G. Marlette feels that it may be a good idea for the businesses that already have signs up to get a special use permit for their signs, but waive the fee for that. They have already in essence been given permission to have the signs up, but now if those businesses sell their property the new owners will need to get their own permits for signs. Most of the issues with signs are on large parcels of property that have more than one business on it, like Waterman’s. CEO Wiedemann stated that under the existing code there is no definition for how many signs can go on a property for businesses. If a business is on a property that they do not own, the business would need to apply for the sign but the land owner needs to state that they are allowing the sign to be placed on the property. CEO Roberts wondered if there were any wording changes that need to be made in the code, and if a local law needs to be done to amend it, and G. Marlette feels that the Members should go through all of the changes that may need to be made to the code and amend everything at once. CEO Wiedemann asked if there is anything listed in the code in regards to temporary signs and what they can be made out of, and G. Marlette went over with him what he has found so far. CEO Roberts said that the changes that should be made in regards to the signs is not a pressing issue, so he thinks that all changes can be made at one time. G. Marlette showed the Members a table that the town of Amherst uses that included pictures, and the Members discussed using something similar to help the code enforcement officers with their permits. If the CEO’s have issues with certain sections of the code, they need to let the Planning Board members know. J. Zybert had questions with the building lot sizes. The RAG zones were increased from 1 ½ acres to 3 acres when the code was just updated, but commercial districts currently say 1 acre is needed. She wants to know if that should be increased also. The changes were made for RAG zones to make sure that there was enough room for the placement of septic tanks. J. Jozwiak thinks that a commercial lot may need more room than a residential lot. CEO Roberts talked about how businesses have been able to fit in everything they need on just a one acre lot. G. Marlette doesn’t feel that any changes should be made to the commercial lots at this time, since no issues have come up. J. Jozwiak wondered if cell tower reports are sent to the CEO, and the answer is yes. They are supposed to be sent every two years. G. Marlette asked if any cell towers are located on Town property-no, they are all on private property. M. Cochran made sure that the lot size correction was made online on the code website. He feels that there is a lot of verbiage in the code about peddling and solicitation, and he looked at other municipalities to see if they had anything different, but they also have a lot verbiage about those items. He has concerns about the information listed for junkyards. If there are two cars, or parts of two cars visible on your property, your