Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage And Commercial Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board objects to Beehive signs, continues contractor‑yard review
Summary
At 250 Turnpike Road the Planning Board flagged unauthorized, oversized and illuminated signs installed by Beehive and supplied a critical report to the Zoning Board of Appeals while continuing contractor‑yard site plan review to address landscaping, buffering, and technical comments.
The Town of Southborough Planning Board on May 12 moved to send a critical, revised report to the Zoning Board of Appeals about large, illuminated signs installed at Beehive, 250 Turnpike Road, and continued review of a related contractor’s yard building and site modifications.
Planning staff told the board that two signs — a wall sign on the building face and a free‑standing (pylon) sign at the site entrance — exceed the dimensional limits in the industrial district and require special permits from the ZBA. Board members noted both signs were installed before permits were sought; several members said the developer should have applied prior to installing signage. The free‑standing sign is internally illuminated and currently operates 24/7, which some board members said conflicts with the town’s illumination standards.
Board members split on parts of the signage findings when they tallied review criteria: some members said the scale and illumination create a public‑safety and aesthetic problem and urged the ZBA to deny relief for area and illumination; others judged the size reasonable relative to the road speed and surrounding development but asked the applicant to restrict illumination hours in conditions.
Attorney George Bonham, representing the applicant, said the original sign had been smaller and that earlier approval was verbal for a sign without lower lettering; he said the additional lettering later placed on the foundational portion of the standing sign changed the area calculation and thus triggered the need for a special permit. He also said the standing sign sits partly in state highway land and the applicant has been working with MassDOT on sign location and will move the sign if the state requires it.
On the contractor‑yard building and related major site plan the board reviewed peer‑review comments and asked for further clarifications and edits. Topics discussed included: the location of proposed sign(s) in relation to state highway land, hours and timing of illumination, landscape buffer plantings along the residential/industrial boundary, replacement of several trees that had been trimmed or removed, the proposed fence (privacy fence with slats), snow storage locations, and the projected construction and permit timeline. Staff advised the board that Fuss & O’Neil, the town’s peer reviewer, had provided comments that the applicant was in the process of addressing and that the submittal would be revised for a future hearing.
Action items the board requested for the upcoming ZBA packet and the next planning hearing included: a revised memo to the ZBA that documents the board’s concerns (illumination hours, sign area and height), corrected plan sheets that clearly show the parking and pedestrian/lighting details, documentation about any MassDOT permissions related to sign placement, and a more detailed landscaping plan that demonstrates compliance with the required 20‑foot zoning‑district buffer or seeks a waiver with justification.
Ending: The board agreed to provide a revised report to the ZBA and continued the major site plan hearing to allow Fuss & O’Neil and the applicant to close outstanding technical comments and to finalize the landscaping and illumination details.
