Political Sign Regs — Or Lack Thereof — Topic of November Public Hearing

Woodbury residents will have another chance to share their thoughts on sign regulations in town at a November public hearing.


Woodbury residents will have another chance to weigh in on political sign regulations — or potentially the lack thereof — at the November Zoning Commission meeting.

The consensus of the Zoning Commission is that completely removing the section regulating political signs from the draft zoning regulations is a major change and therefore requires a public hearing, scheduled for the 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 13, meeting.

Zoning Commission Chairman Martin Overton told Patch the draft zoning regulations will go before the Planning Commission and the Council of Governments for review, then come back before the commission and the public.

"We can do this as many times as they want to but it's not my fault when Mr. Arras doesn't have an answer," he said, referring to an ongoing issue of a potential zoning violation on Tom Arras' property, regarding a sign that is larger than the present regulations allow.

Residents who spoke at the Tuesday, Sept. 11, Zoning Commission meeting at the largely had two opinions:

  1. Signage shouldn't be regulated in order to preserve free speech.
  2. The signs need to be regulated in order to preserve the character of the town.


Have you signed up for the Woodbury-Middlebury Patch daily newsletter, "liked" us on Facebook and followed us on Twitter yet?


Cliff Atkin said he supports removing the regulations of political signs in town.

Caroline Bossetti asked if it's ever illegal to put up a sign that attacks another person.

Overton said the Zoning Commission has no jurisdiction over content.

"What is on the sign is none of our business," he said.

Attorney Deborah Stevenson, speaking on behalf of Art McNally, said people may be offended by the content of a sign, but the law supports the right of someone to offend another person whether that person agrees with what was said.

Marilyn Aligata urged everyone to remember the character of the town.

"I moved here 25 years ago because it was a charming, beautiful town and I'm here tonight because I want it to stay that way," she said.

The Division Between Two Political Parties

Adele Taylor said she signed a complaint against a Martha Dean sign on the Crawford property years ago because she believes residents have the right to regulations that allow them to control the character of the town.

"I'd like to confess proudly that I signed a petition or a complaint against the Martha Dean sign on the Crawford lawn," she said. "At the time I was an unaffiliated voter. Before that, I was a Republican. I was not part of any Democrat conspiracy to take on anybody, Republican or Democrat. But the sign was larger than our regulations allowed."

Taylor said she does not like hate signs on Main Street.

"I find it very offensive and so do people from other towns," she said. "I think it presents our town in a poor light."

Bossetti said she sees a sad state in Woodbury.

"I believe the sadness of this wonderful village is the division between Republican and Democrat," she said.

How do you feel about political sign regulations? Should signs be regulated or should the regulations be removed?

Editor's Note: The article now reflects the correct date of the November Zoning Commission meeting. Patch regrets the error.

George September 12, 2012 at 04:05 PM
Uh, Jaimie: November 6 is the wrong date for the Hearing; it is election day. According to the Land Use office, the Hearing will be November 13, location TBD.
Jaimie Cura (Editor) September 12, 2012 at 05:59 PM
Thanks George - I'll change it in the article.
Sean M September 12, 2012 at 06:36 PM
How about some of the conduct of members of the public? This resident decided to abruptly scream at me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5e-SBYOGcE Where is all the Woodbury First crowd that demanded civility? How about Caroline Bossetti falsely accusing Tom Arras of writing anti-semitic comments on Wood-Beth?
Sean M September 12, 2012 at 06:43 PM
This was clearly set up by the Democrats and Martin Overton. Overton lobbied members before the meeting to have privilege of the floor moved. Overton again abused his position of chairman to unduly influence the meeting. He was testifying during privilege of the floor. He asked Atty Deb Stevenson a question in clear attempt to tie her up. Martin has once again made up rules and betrayed the town. Why is it that the 5 full members continue to let him be chairman? Overton should have been thrown out a long time ago.
Sean M September 12, 2012 at 11:23 PM
Jaimie forgot the highlight of the night. The Overturn Overton cake. As a courtesy, I posted a photo
Voice of Reason September 13, 2012 at 12:05 AM
@ Sean Murphy. Sheesh, I go away for a few days and come back to you being chastised by this individual. Perhaps his second meeting will go better. ???
Sean M September 13, 2012 at 01:55 AM
Everyone should remember that there were no restrictions on total square footage on political signs until 1996. All that is being proposed is to remove the restriction of 12 square feet. Issues of safety and illuminated signs are covered in other regulations.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »