0:00A primary focus of the meeting was on signage violations at two local businesses, the Brick Store and Honeyland. The Brick Store, which had recently reopened under the same ownership, was criticized for its excessive signage. Members described the situation as “sign crazy” and in violation of existing regulations. There was a consensus on the need for action, with proposals ranging from sending a letter to the owner to involving the building inspector due to zoning issues. Ultimately, the commission agreed to contact the building inspector with a formal letter, referencing previous correspondence to ensure consistency in enforcement.

Similarly, the Honeyland store was scrutinized for its signage violations, which raised concerns about the potential impact on neighboring properties. A member highlighted the importance of preserving the town’s historic character and suggested reviewing state guidelines on enforcement to better understand the commission’s authority. The commission discussed the possibility of representing themselves in legal matters if necessary, although there was a preference to avoid such confrontations. The discussion concluded with an emphasis on developing a cohesive strategy to address ongoing violations, including sending postcards to property owners as reminders of compliance with historic district guidelines.

18:09In a more positive light, the commission acknowledged recent renovations within the historic district, particularly the transformation of the Wood Farm and a Victorian house next to Forest Appliances. A member praised the efforts of the new owners, noting the significant improvements from a state of disrepair to a more appealing condition. The commission considered sending letters or cards of appreciation to the owners, recognizing their contributions to enhancing the town’s aesthetic.

The meeting also addressed the need for better public awareness of the historic district. A member expressed concern that property owners might not be aware of their obligations and benefits associated with being part of the district. The absence of a local newspaper was cited as a barrier to effective communication, with some members hesitant to rely on social media platforms like Facebook for outreach.

In addition, the commission explored the potential for municipal grant money to support renovations of historic buildings. A member pointed out that the last renovation of the town hall was over twenty years ago. The importance of securing available grants was emphasized as a means to fund necessary improvements.

New legislation regarding auxiliary dwelling units (ADUs) introduced by the governor of Massachusetts was also on the agenda. Members expressed concern about how this law might affect historic properties, particularly in terms of allowing alterations without the usual review process. The commission recognized the need to understand their responsibilities under this new law and prepare for potential applications related to ADUs. The prospect of increased housing density near the MBTA was discussed, with members noting the necessity of adequate water infrastructure to support any development.

Concerns about the consequences of violations within the historic district were raised, with questions regarding the commission’s authority to impose fees or penalties for non-compliance. The commission considered consulting with the state to clarify their enforcement powers and establish a clear framework for addressing violations.