Referendum Question 1:
Proposed Sign Regulations Posted 02/22/00

View Ballot         View Full Text of Amendment

History:

      In March of 1997, the voters of Limington adopted the current zoning ordinance which prohibits new free-standing signs in the Commercial District and requires that pre-existing signs be relocated so that they are placed upon the actual business buildings by March of 2002.  The rationale behind this regulation, recommended by the professional planning advisors hired by the town, was to discourage the ugly "strip sign clutter" which can be found in business strip development in towns such as South Portland or Windham.  Instead, the law was intended to create an attractive "village" environment for local business.

      However, a concern with these regulations was the lack of visibility for those businesses set back from the road.  Their only alternative is the official State of Maine directory signs.  A second concern was the expense of moving the signs for the current business owners.  Diane Hubbard, a member of the Planning Board, brought these issues to the Board and proposed that changes be adopted.  The Planning Board worked on the proposal, added the definitions, developed the final language, and gave the proposed new regulations to the Selectmen to be placed on the ballot.

      The new definitions will affect signs in all districts.  The proposed new definitions will treat all free-standing signs as structures and the minimum side-line setback requirements will apply.  Since the other districts are more spread out, free-standing signs had always been allowed in those districts but were and remain strictly limited in size (20 square feet maximum).  The proposed new regulations would permit free-standing signs for businesses or industry in the Commercial District.  In the proposed regulations, these signs can be larger than those allowed in the other districts (up to 180 square feet maximum).

Responses:

---

Dick Jarrett - Jarrett@Maine.com - posted 2/23/00

I feel that people should vote NO because:

1. Allowing two and half story tall signs to tower over the commercial district will irrevocably destroy the rural charm of Limington.  In the name of promoting business, this law could do far more harm to the local businesses.  Cornish promotes itself as a village worth visiting.  Why visit Limington if it looks just like every other strip?
2. Because the ballot is flawed (it does not refer to the Zoning Ordinance), the changes may be unenforceable and may result in legal fees which will have to be paid by the taxpayers.  If something is worth doing, it is worth doing right.
3. The problems could be addressed without such radical changes.  For example, smaller free-standing signs could be allowed for off-road businesses and existing signs could be grandfathered.
4. The law will make it illegal for off-road businesses on right-of-ways in the Rural District to have signs because they cannot meet the new side-line setbacks.  (Currently, these small signs are legal.)
5. These proposals have had no public exposure or comment.  Because the single public hearing was delayed, the one person who showed up to comment left before the hearing started.

---

Russell Peter Berg - captberg@topcops.com - posted 3/3/00

The existing signage specifications are quite adequate and serve our little town well, to amend them as suggested establishes the potential for a Honky Tonk Route 301 type strip on route 25.  Do we want huge signs erected, that could possibly be electrified and flashing, to further diminish the small town beauty of the highway?

This topic is now obsolete and is kept for archival and reference purposes.  If you would like to make a comment on this or any subject, please go to the Limington Public Forum and enter your message.