Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic preservation panel rejects 707 Main Street sign submission, asks for typo fix and fixture specs
Summary
The Boonton Historic Preservation Commission rejected the current 707 Main Street sign application and asked the applicant to resubmit corrected renderings that fix a spelling error, show lamp placement that won’t obscure text, supply exact fixture specifications and use non-reflective materials.
Boonton — The Historic Preservation Commission rejected the current submission for a new sign at 707 Main Street and directed that the applicant resubmit corrected materials that address several design and technical concerns.
Commission members agreed the application, which first appeared before the panel in November, failed to meet conditions set at that earlier meeting. Members said the previous conditional approval required the sign not be internally lit and required correction of a misspelling; the rendering in the current packet still showed the typo and fixtures positioned on the sign face rather than above it.
Without the applicant present, commissioners discussed specific deficiencies in the drawing and possible remedies. They noted the proposed overhead fixtures sit on the sign surface and could obstruct lettering; window locations and the building’s brick façade could make wiring or fixture routing difficult; and the rendering’s scale appeared inconsistent with measurements discussed in the packet. Commissioners urged the applicant to provide an accurate scale, a fixture model and color, and a non-reflective material for the sign face to limit glare.
The commission consolidated the requirements it will demand with any resubmission: lamps must not block visibility of text (as demonstrated in resubmitted renderings), the spelling error must be corrected, the applicant must supply exact fixture specifications (model and finish), and signage material should be non-reflective. As voluntary guidance, members recommended a serif or otherwise historically sympathetic font and a muted palette (white or cream lettering on black or dark background) rather than bright yellow or red.
After debate over whether to grant a conditional approval or require formal resubmission, the commission voted to reject the present application pending resubmission that addresses the written comments. The commission’s motion to reject and require corrective resubmission passed; no roll-call tally was recorded in the transcript.
Next steps: the applicant may resubmit revised drawings and fixture documentation and is encouraged to appear at the next meeting to answer questions. The commission indicated staff will circulate the annotated conditions and suggested guidance to the applicant.
