The meeting’s primary focus was on establishing a framework for enforcing compliance with historic district regulations. The Commission discussed categorizing violations based on severity and duration, referencing Massachusetts General Law, article 4C, section 13, which grants the Commission the authority to set its own enforcement fees. There was consensus on the importance of creating a financial deterrent to ensure adherence to the district’s regulations. A specific example highlighted was a business known for repeatedly violating signage rules, where the owner would remove non-compliant signs only to replace them later. This scenario underscored the need for a structured enforcement approach to deter such recurrent violations.

The Commission deliberated on imposing fines up to $500 per day, starting from the day a violation is recognized, to encourage prompt compliance. A grace period for correction was also considered. The discussion revealed that the Commission had not previously established a clear mechanism for handling violations, which made it challenging to address non-compliance effectively. The relationship between the Commission and the building inspector, Bob Garside, was also a point of concern. Members noted a deterioration in cooperation, with instances where the inspector disregarded the Commission’s jurisdiction, prompting a need for state clarification. The Commission expressed a desire for a more collaborative relationship with the building inspector, emphasizing the importance of working together to uphold the district’s standards.

In addition to enforcement challenges, the Commission addressed communication strategies to engage residents about the historic district’s regulations and their implications. A significant concern was that many property owners might be unaware of their district status, with estimates suggesting up to 75% of owners were uninformed. The Commission considered sending postcards as a cost-effective means of notifying residents, including information about potential fines. However, logistical issues, such as the $100 postage cost and disagreements over the communication’s language, delayed the initiative.

The effectiveness of current outreach methods was questioned, with concerns that younger families might not be reached through traditional channels. The Commission acknowledged the limitations of existing platforms like the town’s website and YouTube channel and discussed the potential of using social media to increase engagement, despite some members’ unfamiliarity with these platforms.

The meeting also highlighted the need for a dedicated secretary to manage administrative tasks, including recording and distributing meeting minutes. The absence of a secretary was noted as a hindrance to efficient operations, with members expressing urgency in appointing someone to fill the role. The Commission discussed potential candidates and the possibility of temporary appointments.

Finally, the Commission touched on an upcoming application for a bridal shop, which included a request for signage. However, the matter could not be addressed during the current meeting due to agenda constraints. This highlighted the importance of timely communication and decision-making, as previous instances of delayed responses led to unauthorized signage.