Bel Air Planning Commission backs package of zoning-code cleanups, including signage and cannabis table corrections

The Bel Air Planning Commission on Monday voted unanimously to recommend the Town Board adopt a package of zoning-code amendments addressing freestanding signage, permitted-use tables and certain performance standards.

The commission’s first recommendation, Ordinance 854-26, clarifies that freestanding signs located inside a shopping center or mixed‑use center do not violate the town’s billboard prohibition so long as the signs are within the project area and covered by a development agreement. Staff explained that maintenance and responsibility for those signs are addressed in the development agreement and that signage allowances are typically tied to a project’s approved square footage.

The commission also recommended support for Ordinance 855-26, a cleanup that moves cannabis businesses from the town’s 'service' category into the 'retail' tables and retains the requirement that cannabis operations obtain a special exception in B‑3 and B‑3A districts. Presenters and commissioners emphasized this change is a consistency fix and does not relax special‑exception requirements.

Ordinance 856-26, which the commission also recommended, amends performance standards to prohibit Jersey barriers and barbed‑wire fencing across town zoning districts and adds a waiver pathway allowing the Planning Commission to relieve certain property‑line setbacks, landscape buffers, or building restrictions within shopping centers when appropriate. Commissioners referenced past issues with temporary Jersey barriers (noting a long‑standing barrier previously on Main/Bond Street) and clarified that temporary construction barriers will require a permit and staff approval under the amended code.

All of the above motions passed on unanimous roll call votes. The commission’s recommendations are advisory; the Town Board will make final decisions.

The meeting record shows the discussion was procedural and technical in nature: staff presented statutory cross‑references and examples, commissioners sought clarifications about maintenance responsibilities and how the code applies to subdivided parcels within a center, and no substantive public opposition was recorded.