Town of Lenox
Planning Board
January 24, 2012
Land Use Meeting Room
Members present: Chair Joseph A. Kellogg, JK; Vice Chair Steve Sample, SS Kate McNulty-Vaughan, KMV; and Mark S. Smith, MS.
Members absent: Gary Schiff, GS
Staff present: Mary Albertson, Town Planner, MA
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. ~
Approval Not Required Plans: No plans were submitted.
Sign Bylaw Amendments: The Board discussed permanent signs and agreed that the preference is to develop an amount of sign area per businesses and to allow the business owner the flexibility to determine how the sign area is distributed. Projecting signs seem more appropriate in the village than freestanding signs. SS said sign location is important and KMV said she likes the provisions from Concord that allow for secondary signs and directory signs. The consensus of the Board is to encourage directory signs that are informational. JK suggested the sign area be based on building façade area; however SS said such a method applied to the Curtis could be problematic. The Board discussed the difference between assigning sign area per business versus per building. To assist
with future discussions, JK offered to photograph the buildings in the district and MA will use the photographs to prepare display boards.
Sign lighting was also discussed with a consensus that externally lit signs are preferable. However, JK and KMV do not favor a prohibition of internally lit signs. It was suggested that externally lit signs be allowed by-right and internally lit signs by permission from the Historic District Commission (HDC) on a case by case basis.
The Board discussed the proposed sign guidebook. Currently, the Historic District Guidelines contain an outline of standards for signs which are somewhat general. After much discussion, it became apparent that there is quite a bit of confusion over what is and isn’t contained in the Historic District bylaw. JK suggested that our proposal make it clear how the sign guidelines are applied in concert with the HDC and that any confusing sections in either the Zoning or Historic District bylaws be removed and/or changed. It was noted that the specific guidelines need the ability to be easily amended by the HDC to reflect changing conditions. MA said that guidelines can be amended by the HDC without action by Town Meeting but JK suggested a reference needs to be included in the Zoning
bylaw to assure compliance with the guidelines.
Other Zoning Amendment Projects: MA asked the Board if they have an interest in developing a solar bylaw. JK said that MGL Chapter 40A provides some protection in allowing the use of solar panels. The Board determined that our existing projects should be completed prior to reviewing the need to develop a solar bylaw.
Route 7/20 Corridor Project: The Board discussed the recent meeting with the Pittsfield Community Development Board. JK and MS volunteered to serve as liaisons for this project with Pittsfield. SS made a motion to appoint JK and MS to serve as the Route 7/20 project liaisons. KMV seconded the motion and the Board voted 4-0 to approve.
Economic Development Plan: There was no new information offered or discussed.
Recommendations to Town Boards & Commissions: No recommendations were requested. MA informed the Board that Shanlen Realty (Hoff’s Mobil) has filed a Special Permit application with the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Board members agreed not to request a presentation from Shanlen Realty and that no recommendation would be made to the ZBA.
Review Correspondence: Decisions and notices of public hearings from abutting communities were reviewed.
Minutes: KMV made a motion to approve the minutes of January 10, 2012. ~MS seconded the motion and the Board voted 3-0-1 to approve. SS abstained because he did not attend the meeting. KMV made a motion to approve the minutes of January 17, 2012. MS seconded the motion and the Board voted 4-0 to approve.
Other Business: MS offered on update on recent BRPC meetings and activities.
MS made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 pm. ~KMV seconded the motion and the Board voted 4-0 to approve. ~
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Albertson
| 
