LynnfieldLegalSeal_web

By MAUREEN DOHERTY

LYNNFIELD — After waiting more than 30 minutes for a quorum of 175 voters to show up at the second session of the annual Town Meeting Thursday night, the meeting was adjourned until next October.
Town Moderator Arthur Bourque announced just after 8 p.m. that the meeting was still 45 voters short of the quorum and there was no reasonable expectation that this requirement would be met.
He accepted a motion to adjourn from Selectmen Chairman Phil Crawford and those present voted to adjourn.
Only four warrant articles remained on the ballot, all of which were sponsored by the Planning Board. These warrant articles died due to the lack of action taken. If the board wants to bring them back in October, the public hearing process would resume prior to the next Town Meeting as well.
Articles 21, 22 and 23 were proposals to alter the town’s sign bylaw while Article 24 would have added a definition in the Groundwater Protection District to define the word “acre” as meaning 40,000 square feet.
Planning Board Chairman John Faria told the Villager that if the meeting had gone forward he would have submitted an amendment on the floor of Town Meeting on Article 21 to remove any confusion that the proposals being made would affect MarketStreet. National Development raised objections to the proposed zoning bylaw amendment in a letter to the board on that basis because it was approved as a Planned Village Development District (PVDD) and changes to the PVDD would have to be evaluated by the state. He said it was never the intention of the Planning Board to have these changes affect MarketStreet.
The amendment would change the heading of section 6.8 from being “applicable in all districts” to “applicable in all zones.”
The amendment further stated: “Except as may be otherwise allowed in the Planned Village Development District (PVDD) signs shall neither contain any changing graphic designs nor convey the appearance of movement, whether by changing pixelation or by any other physical, electronic or illuminating needs.”
The stricter standards were intended to protect all other sections of the town that currently do not have much protection against intrusive signage, in particular, areas along Salem Street and along Route 1 and to bring uniformity in the application of signage regulations throughout town, Faria said. The proposals were based on the standards previously approved for MarketStreet, which is more strict than standards in other sections of town.