A Woodbury Zoning Commission public hearing on revisions to zoning regulations and aquifer protection will take place at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, August 14, in the .
The full agenda is attached to this article as a PDF.
Also on the agenda is the tabled matter of Tom Arras' possible sign violation relating to the size of a sign on Arras' 76 Main St. South lawn.
The board has not make a decision on the possible sign violation, citing how the zoning regulations were undergoing revisions, according to an April 11 article in the Litchfield County Times.
At a Tuesday, July 31, special meeting and public workshop on the amendments to all proposed, non-aquifer-related regulations, commissioners spent time discussing signage in town.
Ultimately, the consensus of the Zoning Commission is to repeal the proposed section on political signs, in its entirety. A vote to that effect has not occurred.
Interested in Middlebury and Woodbury's news, events, community bulletins, blogs and businesses? Sign up for the free Woodbury-Middlebury Patch daily newsletter, "like" us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
The following excerpt is from Section 7.5.10. I of the draft zoning regulations, attached as a PDF to this article. The draft regulations can also be found on the town of Woodbury's land use department page.
"I. Political Signs: One or more signs, the total aggregate amount of signage per property not to exceed the greater of (i) 12 square feet, or (ii) the maximum aggregate amount of signage which would be allowed on the property under the regulations applicable to the district in which the property is located."
Here is a breakdown of commissioners' thoughts on the proposed political sign regulations, according to the July 31 special meeting minutes, attached as a PDF to this article.
John Chamberlain said he preferred to see the political sign regulation eliminated.
Bob Clarke supported leaving the language in the proposed regulations.
Chuck Cosgriff Jr. originally did not want to remove the political sign regulation language completely, as he said he did not want the town to be vulnerable to neon signs. He changed his opinion and supported removing the language.
Ron Judson supported taking the political sign language out of the proposed regulations completely.
Sean Murphy felt the language restricting political signs should be removed and said the neon sign issue is addressed elsewhere in the regulations.
Chairman Martin Overton said that in his opinion, some form of the section needs to remain in the regulations.
First Selectman Gerald Stomski, sitting at the table as an ex-officio member, supported eliminating the language.
Ted Tietz supported removing the political sign regulation language.