The debate centered on the language of the ordinance, particularly concerning temporary signs, election signs, and free expression signs. Some members expressed concerns that the current text included references to outdated sections of the code and lacked clear definitions for various types of signs. These ambiguities prompted discussions on whether to adopt the ordinance as it stood or delay its approval to incorporate recommendations from the Joint Land Use Board. One member emphasized the importance of considering the board’s feedback, stating, “I appreciate the people on the board and when they make a recommendation like this I think we should take it into consideration.” In contrast, another member suggested that the ordinance was not ready for approval due to conflicts within the text, particularly regarding height requirements for different types of signs.

The discussion touched on the specifics of height requirements for perpendicular and attached signs, highlighting discrepancies between various sections. Members debated the practicality of enforcing these height requirements, especially for feather signs, which are temporary signs often used by businesses. The practicality of requiring businesses to remove these signs daily was a point of contention, with some arguing it would be unreasonable and others asserting it would maintain community aesthetics. Concerns about weathering and maintenance of the signs were raised, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to signage regulations.

The committee weighed the options of adopting the ordinance now and amending it later or taking more time to incorporate all desired changes upfront. It was clarified that any substantive changes would require a new consistency review, delaying the ordinance’s implementation.

Public safety concerns were also a focus of the meeting, particularly regarding recent changes made by the school district that would impact traffic patterns and student safety. A member of the public raised concerns about the need for additional crossing guards or crosswalks due to the merging of student populations at one school following the closure of a neighboring school. The lieutenant present acknowledged that while the police department had not been contacted by the school board regarding these changes, they had already made adjustments to the crossing guard placements to better serve the new student traffic patterns. He detailed these changes and reassured the audience that police officers would be present in the mornings to enforce traffic rules and ensure student safety.

Further concerns were raised about the adequacy of crossing guard placements and the potential hazards of increased traffic, particularly in areas lacking sidewalks and pedestrian pathways.

The council also addressed various community and recreational updates, including registration for youth sports activities and upcoming events such as a kickball fundraiser and a police community event featuring food trucks and a movie night in the park. The Shade Tree Commission reported progress on initiatives, including the approval of another resident to keep backyard hens, bringing the total to five participants in the initiative. Plans to enhance preparedness communication regarding natural disasters were discussed, emphasizing the benefits of sending out checklists and tips to residents.

Financial discussions included updates on the sewer authority’s trunk line project and an incident involving a dumpster fire at the sewer plant. Environmental initiatives were highlighted, including the installation of a bench on the connector path to the Pennington Trail and plans to add trees for shade.

The meeting also included a discussion regarding waterfront development and its implications for the community’s public access plans. Any permit related to waterfront development necessitates a review by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) concerning the community’s public access plan. The DEP may require communities to enhance access points, which could involve adding parking or restrooms. Concerns were raised about the bureaucratic implications of this requirement, referencing past challenges in obtaining permit approvals.

In the public comment section, concerns were raised regarding recent changes made by the school district, particularly the impact on traffic patterns and student safety with all K-8 students starting simultaneously. The idea of staggering start times was proposed but had been rejected by the teachers’ union. Public frustration was expressed over the lack of communication from the district regarding these changes.