A sandwich board outside Wild Roots on Main Street in Greenfield. One of the proposed zoning amendments pertaining to sign regulations involves removing the need for the Board of Licensing Commissioners to approve sandwich boards. Staff Photo/Paul Franz

One of Greenfield’s proposed zoning amendments pertaining to sign regulations involves allowing signs for both sides of businesses with frontage on two streets. An example is shown at Wild Roots on Main Street. Staff Photo/Paul Franz

GREENFIELD — The Planning Board has opted to withdraw its proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance pertaining to sign regulations, in favor of allowing time to more closely consider a section relating to electronic messaging centers.

“I would rather slow and steady, and maybe the town be a wee bit inconvenienced, as opposed to rushing this through now because we want to be done with it,” said Planning Board member Mark Maloni. “I do think there’s something to be said for considering as many limits on these signs as possible.”

The proposed changes include removing the need for the Board of Licensing Commissioners to approve sandwich boards, allowing signs for both sides of businesses with frontage on two streets, and making the language in the bylaws clearer to allow signs for businesses on the second floor of a building.

The majority of the discussion at the Planning Board most recent meeting, however, pertained to a new section, which aims to provide regulations on illuminated signs. Those regulations include: a minimum display time between display changes of 30 seconds; no sound emission; display signs should be turned off by 11 p.m. or at the close of business, whichever is later; and signs must have photocells that automatically dim in dark conditions in correlation to natural ambient light conditions. Additionally, at no time shall the sign lights be greater than 0.3 foot-candle (a measurement of light intensity) above ambient light conditions.

The amendments are the result of consulting advice offered to the city by FinePoint Associates, the consulting firm provided to Greenfield through a $90,000 Local Rapid Recovery Plan Program grant. Greenfield was one of six Franklin County communities to receive one of the state-issued recovery grants, the result of which was 12 recommendations aimed at revitalizing downtown.

One of the recommendations was to revise and implement bylaw regulations that would encourage a variety of downtown signs.

Planning Board member George Touloumtzis asked if the language should specify zones for illuminated signs, and whether the signs described were freestanding or wall-mounted.

“There’s something about the aesthetic about an analog sign versus a digital, illuminated sign,” added Chair Charles Roberts. “They’re not the same thing. They appear differently; they emit a different kind of light.”

Members debated whether reconsidering some elements of the ordinance should mean restarting the process in its entirety, or if the committee could forward the rest of the changes, while working separately on Section C18. Ultimately, members agreed it made the most sense to keep everything in one package, so the proposed ordinance changes only have to be reviewed and considered once by City Council.

“I think George is bringing up some interesting points,” said Maloni. “As somebody who drives by that (Greenfield Community College) sign daily — and thinks I’m being pulled over by the police when I see the bright blue flash in my rearview mirror — I am starting to think that some of these signs … I do wonder about the impact of them proliferating through the community.”

Roberts noted GCC’s sign in particular was exempt from local permitting rules, due to the fact it was on state land.

The board’s most recent discussion followed a Feb. 17 hearing, during which resident Julie Page expressed her own questions and concerns for the amendments, particularly with regard to the section on electronic messaging centers.

“The part about lights being no greater than 0.3 foot-candle above ambient light conditions … how is that going to be measured?” she asked.

Page acknowledged that the changes would be applied to new signs, but asked how the new regulations would be applied to existing signs, like the one at Greenfield High School.

“If a complaint comes up, how will this work?” she asked.

The Planning Board expects to meet and discuss the sign zoning ordinance at its March 17 meeting.

Reporter Mary Byrne can be reached at mbyrne@recorder.com or 413-930-4429. Twitter: @MaryEByrne

NORTHAMPTON — Local veterans and elected officials are reacting to the news that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs could include Northampton...

GREENFIELD — With contract negotiations underway, registered nurses at Baystate Franklin Medical Center are asking Baystate Health for better wages...

ASHFIELD — The Conservation Commission’s public hearing regarding the proposed “memorial forest reserve” for cremated human remains, which was...

ORANGE — In the wake of uncertainty over the Orange Armory’s future, the Selectboard voted overwhelmingly Wednesday against a motion to apply for a...