Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board continues sign-permit hearings for multi-tenant signs on Route 9 and Milk Street
Summary
The board continued public hearings for two multi-tenant signs — for properties on Route 9/Turnpike Road and Milk Street — after discussing required relief for multi-tenant signage and a potential variance from the 35-foot Route 9 setback; staff will prepare a draft decision for the Aug. 4 meeting.
Get email alerts on the Sign Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Westborough Planning Board on July 7 opened public hearings for two sign permit applications that would allow multi-tenant identification on signs at 220 Turnpike Road (Route 9) and 159/161 Milk Street and then continued those hearings to Aug. 4 so staff can prepare a draft decision.
Wesley Fliss of McCarthy Engineering said the larger Route 9 sign and the smaller Milk Street sign would list multiple tenants (EverRise Financial, Ball Financial Services, Mass Restoration and a future tenant) and that the building inspector had determined dimensional sign regulations were met but that relief was needed because the signs would serve multiple users across subdivided properties.
Community Development Director Fred Lennard told the board that lots fronting Route 9 require a 35-foot setback from property lines and that the Turnpike/Route 9 sign as proposed would be about 11 feet from a newly drawn lot line, meaning the board may need to grant dimensional relief as part of a special permit. Lennard recommended the applicants submit a recorded agreement spelling out what percentage of the sign each property owner controls so future disputes over sign area are minimized; the board discussed making submission of that agreement a condition to be provided to the building inspector prior to sign permit issuance or certificate of occupancy.
Mark Johnson, owner of 159 and 161 Milk Street, told the board a maintenance agreement already exists among the property owners and that adding signage-percentage language should be straightforward.
Because Kristen (planning staff) was absent, the board agreed not to decide on the permits that night and to have a draft decision ready at the Aug. 4 meeting. The board moved, seconded and voted to continue the hearings to that date.

