Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs And Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs larger electronic sign for Westmoreland Players, will recommend board modify 1996 condition
Summary
At its Jan. 16 meeting the Northumberland County Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors modify a 1996 condition limiting the size and illumination of a sign at the Westmoreland Players assembly hall, after applicant representatives described an electronic replacement sign and staff reviewed current zoning limits.
The Northumberland County Planning Commission voted Jan. 16 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors modify a 1996 condition that limits the size and illumination of a roadside sign at the Westmoreland Players assembly hall on Richmond Road.
The recommendation follows a public hearing at which Bill Armstrong, speaking for the theatre’s board of governors, said the group seeks to replace an aging 28-square-foot red-dot sign with a modern, two-sided electronic sign “similar to that used by the rescue squad, church, boys club.” Armstrong said the sign keeps volunteers and patrons informed of shows, auditions and schedules and that the closest occupied residence is “approximately 500 feet away” and largely screened by evergreen trees.
Stewart, county planning staff, and Philip Morrison, county staff planner, told commissioners the county’s zoning ordinance for the A-1 Agriculture district allows up to 64 square feet for a sign and permits illuminating up to 50 percent of that area. Morrison told the commission the existing sign measures 28 square feet and that a 64-square-foot allowance would permit 32 square feet to be illuminated.
Commissioners discussed neighbor concerns and possible mitigation measures, such as timing or dimming the electronic display. Commissioner Allen Garland asked whether the sign could be timed or dimmed; Armstrong said the new sign can be dimmed and scheduled, and said the theatre would consider accommodations. Commissioners noted the Board of Supervisors — which imposed the 1996 condition when granting the original permit — will have final authority and may add conditions such as time-of-night dimming.
Commissioners made a motion to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to modify the 1996 conditional-use permit condition as requested; the motion was seconded and approved (recorded as “all in favor;” the transcript does not name the mover or provide a roll-call tally). The board of supervisors will consider the change and may attach additional conditions.
The planning commission’s decision was advisory: any final change to the conditional-use permit must be acted on by the Board of Supervisors.
