TOPSHAM — In addition to approving an $8.07 million municipal budget to bring to the May 16 town meeting, selectmen at their April 19 meeting voted to send several ordinance amendments to the town meeting and to send draft ballot questions related to fireworks regulations to a referendum in June.

Two series of questions related to fireworks regulation in town will appear on the June 12 municipal ballot — one related to sale of consumer fireworks and the other related to use of consumer fireworks.

Voters will be asked to vote for one of the following three options listed as Question 1:

— Shall the town of Topsham neither limit nor prohibit the sale of consumer fireworks and therefore permit the sale of consumer fireworks in accordance with state law?

— Shall an ordinance titled “An Ordinance to Amend the Topsham Zoning Ordinance to Establish Limitations on the Sale of Consumer Fireworks” be enacted.

— Shall an ordinance titled “An Ordinance to Prohibit the Sale of Consumer Fireworks” be enacted.

Likewise, voters will be asked to vote for only one option for Question 2:

— Shall the town of Topsham neither limit nor prohibit the use of consumer fireworks and therefore permit the use of consumer fireworks in accordance with state law?

— Shall an ordinance titled “An Ordinance Establishing Limitations on the Use of Consumer Fireworks” be enacted?

— Shall an ordinance titled “An Ordinance to Prohibit the Use of Consumer Fireworks” be enacted?

A change to the proposed ordinance regulating the sale of fireworks, resulting from an April 17 Planning Board public hearing, reduces the zones fireworks sales would be allowed in from five to one — the mixed use commercial zone at Topsham Fair Mall.

Before selectmen voted 5-0 on April 19 to send the ballot questions to a June referendum vote, resident Jeff Deletetsky spoke in favor of tackling the matter at town meeting.

“Simply put … for a reasonable person, it makes a heck of a lot of sense to talk about this, debate this, discuss this, on the very lovely vehicle that we have, which is town meeting,” Deletetsky said. “It should not be on a ballot. It’s an item that has created a lot of anxiety, a lot of discussion. … It should be at town meeting so we can openly decide, ‘Well, do we want fireworks this way?’ They’re very lengthy questions; very detailed questions, and maybe to some people, they’re very confusing questions.”

Selectman Donald Russell said that selectmen decided to put the questions to a townwide referendum to encourage greater public participation in the vote.

“I realize what you said is 100 percent true,” he replied to Deletetsky. “There’s no room for discussion. They have to be somewhat educated before they get there, but then we always have the reverse argument,” that people couldn’t get to town meeting.

A public survey about fireworks split down the middle and gave no clear direction for how selectmen should proceed, he added.

Deletetsky also suggested that addressing the fireworks issue at the town meeting would motivate more people to attend.

Selectmen Andrew Mason said townspeople did not turn out for a number of public forums that selectmen scheduled to seek input on local fireworks regulation.

“Yes, we recognize the impossibility of more discussion,” as could happen if addressed at town meeting, Mason said, “but it’s also an opportunity that we felt was so important that it would allow everybody who’s going to come out to an election to have greater participation …”

Ed Caron, the town’s solid waste facility manager, said he’s heard people speak in favor of voting by referendum on the issue — and the only concern voiced by some was that they would prefer to vote in November instead of June.

Other ordinances

Selectmen on April 19 voted to send four ordinance amendments to the May 16 town meeting, starting with an amendment to town code regarding dog control.

The proposed revised language in Article 8 gives additional teeth for enforcement of the ordinance, particularly in response to repeat violators.

In Article 9, town meeting voters will consider proposed amendments to the Historic Overlay District. The proposed changes result from a recent survey of the town’s historic districts, according to Town Planner Rich Roedner.

The amendment aims to recognize the issue of contributing versus non-contributing structures; add language regarding demolition; and formalize the standards used by the Historic District Commission.

Article 10 proposes a comprehensive re-write of the sign ordinance as requested by voters at the May 2011 town meeting. Since then, the Planning Board held more than 20 meetings about the sign ordinance, Roedner said.

The proposed revisions are meant to improve definitions; clarify what is meant by different types of signs; improve language for sign review; and differentiate what kinds of signs will be allowed in the different zones in town.

Placement of electronic signs raised a lot of concern in the past. The Planning Board proposes that electronic message signs only be allowed in the mixed use commercial zone, which is in the Topsham Fair Mall.

Selectmen also voted to send Article 11 to the May 16 town meeting. It is a proposed amendment to the subdivision ordinance.

The amended language is intended to give property owners even more options they can use when they choose to subdivide their land, Roedner said.

[email protected]