SAUGUS — The Conservation Commission unanimously voted against the construction of a 20-foot high and 9-foot wide pylon sign at 655 Broadway on Wednesday night after hearing from frustrated neighbors and vocalizing their own disapproval.

Craig Marchionda of Marchionda & Associates came to the Commission to address the previously noted issues with the work that would have taken place adjacent to Lynn Fells Parkway.

Marchionda touched on: how the fire department signed off on the location not being in a fire lane; that he wished to circle back with the appropriate board about the town regulations regarding one sign per parcel; how the sign could be engineered to be resistant to falling over in the wind, and that he wouldn’t be opposed to adding more protections at the base of the sign; that there was “nothing we can do” about the sign being close to Bennetts Pond Brook since the point is for the sign to be seen by drivers; and flooding, which he didn’t see “any chance of… whatsoever.”

Committee Chair Paul Petkewich said his major concern was with the location of the sign.

“It’s in the river. That’s my biggest problem. It’s right on the water. Whether it falls over or not, it’s hard for me to agree to anything that’s on the river,” Petkewich said.

Associate Conservation Agent and Planning Coordinator Jenna Goodman noted that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) told her “it was a riverfront area, there was a bank, and it was also borderline subject to flooding, all of which would have needed to be addressed in that filing.”

Three Lynn Fells Parkway residents spoke during public comment to strongly oppose this signage project. They emphasized history, flooding, light pollution, and aesthetic concerns. One woman even mentioned how this would set a poor precedent for Saugus, as this could cause a frenzy of people to begin petitioning to have two signs for their one parcel.

“It’s a really serious issue, and I am going to ask this committee to put your whole heart into this and really think about what this really means as a precedent and to the residents,” the woman said.

The man who spoke after her said, “I would respectfully ask you to consider that, when we make wetland exemptions and do stuff like this, that there’s a benefit for it, there’s a good reason for it. And I just don’t see that now, and I think it’s very detrimental to the neighborhood.”

Ultimately, the Commission denied the project with a unanimous vote. 

“It’s a brook. It’s a flooding zone. There’s wildlife. There’s every reason for Conservation to say no to this,” Committee member Jennifer D’Eon said.