Zoners Schedule Public Hearing on Political Sign Regulations, Again

Is the 30th month the charm? The public hearing is scheduled for March, making it the 30th month the Woodbury Zoning Commission has listened and engaged in discussions on political signs.


Woodbury residents will get yet another chance to weigh in on political sign regulations at a future public hearing.

Town Planner Brian Miller drafted language on zoning regulation revisions as they pertained to political signs. The consensus of the commission, at its Tuesday, Jan. 8, meeting, was that the revision represented a large enough change and therefore the public deserved another opportunity to weigh in at a public hearing.

The hearing is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 12, to allow for the draft revision to be brought before the Council of Governments and the Woodbury Planning Commission. The meeting will take place at the Senior Community Center.

The Revisions on the Table

Replace 7.5.10.I (political sign regulation) with the following:

"Non-commercial sign: (a) One sign with a maximum size of 24 square feet and an unlimited number of signs with a maximum size of three square feet or (b) signs as otherwise permitted in the zoning district, within which the property is located; whichever requirement permits larger or more signs."

Past Coverage

  • Zoners Lend Support to Political Sign Regulations
  • Woodbury Continues Hearing on Sign Regulations
  • Political Sign Regs — Or Lack Thereof — Topic of November Public Hearing
  • Political Sign Regulations: How Strict Should They Be? [POLL]
  • Zoning Commission Hosts Public Hearing on Zoning Regulation Revisions


Have you signed up for the Woodbury-Middlebury Patch daily newsletter, "liked" us on Facebook and followed us on Twitter yet?


putney swope January 30, 2013 at 05:15 PM
Thanks for illustrating my point in under 2 days and 10,000 words. Saul Alinsky?!? The only rule of Alinsky’s not in the postings here is: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag” Otherwise, all 12 rules, especially concerning personalizing and polarizing are alive and well in Patch-bury. First, to be clear, Mr. Stomski did what should have done resulting from the misunderstanding of the law versus custom. The comment on filing resignations with the clerk refers to the past practice to which everyone mostly adhered. (Irony alert!) The Selectman’s meeting Jan 24 revealed Mr Quint was not legally a WZC alternate at the meeting he left left or the public hearing previous, as a resignation of the seat he took over wasn’t filed with the clerk. Atty Roberts called Mr Overton’s actions, in assuming that Mr Murphy had resigned, reasonable and legal. In fact there is no requirement to seat an alternate at all. Not illegal, not overreach. So why all the "illegal" noise? That said, Mr Overton could have led the past two years of sign frenzy better and looked for a way not to have the community dragged around for 2 years. No “small supporter” here. But in true Caine Mutiny style, where was the attempt by anyone on WZC, or those opposing Mr. Overton personally, to constructively work to end this “drag”? Concerned only about being right? Accomplish nothing. It's not just Mr Overton. There’s enough responsibility to go around on this one, Saul.
Sean M January 30, 2013 at 07:36 PM
Dear putney When you put your real name to your comments, then you can be taken seriously. But we all know who you are anyways. Amazing how so many words can be used and I have no idea what you just said. Sounds just like the tone Overton used in your rude trashing of me in the Waterbury Republican American. Assuming procedure was not perfectly followed to the exact letter to the law, no where worth the outrage as Overton knowingly ignoring the Charter in January 2012 and stating the officer elections would not happen. Overton was read the Charter and ignored it anyways, a common practice for him. Overton only listens to what he wants to hear. The recent Council of Governments Report proves it. Zoning was notified 2 years ago about what to do with political signs. Overton has done everything in his power to steer it the way he wants the town to be, completely disregarding the law. Amazing how of all the comments I made, you focus on whether there was a perfect following of a resignation. Ron Judson resigned and did nothing to reverse it. His intent was clear. As was mine. If you are so outraged by the zoning resignation situation, then be consistent and show the same or appropriately more for Overton refusing to hold a vote on officers. And make sure you scold Overton's lackey Bob Clarke and the other 3 members who either did not know the charter or did not speak up.
Sean M January 30, 2013 at 07:36 PM
This is a perfect deflection of the issues. The issue is about how Overton has abused his position for years. Now that it is clear, if the full members allow Overton to continue to be chairman, they are just as guilty as Overton. It is time to defecate or get off the pot. As for the concerned about being right comment. My sole concern is to do the right thing. I will continue on that. My agenda is to fulfill the responsibilities I was given by being elected. The dispute between Overton and myself is mostly over procedure. I believe: Every commissioner should have input, even if I disagree with him. Overton has shown over and over again he will gavel me down to silence me. Every commissioner should have the same access to information and time to review it. Overton has shown that he finds it perfectly acceptable to hide information from commissioners. Every commissioner should spend some time preparing before a meeting. This includes reading relevant material. I insisted on the background that Atty Roberts used to formulate his legal opinions and read every page of it, took notes, and read them back to him in April 2012 to make sure I got it right. Some commissioners on zoning (more than one) miss meetings, do not review the minutes, do not listen to the audio, and come in unprepared.
Sean M January 30, 2013 at 07:44 PM
I have posted a copy of the Council of Government's report for everyone to review. This is a body that has the legal right to comment on the political sign regulations being proposed. This is not the first time they have commented on attempts to regulate political signs. Please draw your own conclusions. Feel free to also review the November 2010 and June 2011 legal opinions on political signs, the lengthy packet furnished by Atty Roberts in March/April 2012. There is plenty more on file. Feel free to come to the Feburary 2013 meeting and offer a proposal as to what zoning should do. Should Woodbury continue to regulate political signs? If so, how. What restrictions should be added. I will always listen. I will not be like Overton and Bob Clarke and read something else when a member of the public hands them copies of a letter they are reading.
Jon Quint January 30, 2013 at 08:19 PM
Sean, pay no attention to anyone who is such a coward, they won't even use their own name. Maybe it's Overton using a pen name.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »