Members of the Town of Northborough Design Review Committee continued work on a re-draft of the town’s design guidelines during the Feb. 13 remote meeting, focusing on document layout, photo sizing and how to regulate window wraps and storefront graphics.

Laurie Connors (staff) and other committee members reviewed a version that had been imported into a new layout. Committee members said the document contained inconsistent fonts and picture sizing and asked staff and designer Michelle to produce a finished, uniform booklet as well as a tracked-changes version that shows edits compared with the 2012 guidelines. "I went through the original design guidelines from 02/2012 to make sure that nothing was lost during all of our various revisions," Laurie said while showing the edited text version.

A prominent topic of debate was window wraps — printed films or graphics applied to glass — and how they intersect with the town’s sign rules. The committee discussed keeping a window-wrap allowance for privacy or decoration but limiting how much of that wrap may include branding or advertising. The draft language reviewed at the meeting states that window wrap may cover a whole glazed surface but that only 10% of the wrap may incorporate signage. Committee members asked staff to confirm and align that language with the town sign bylaw so applicants would not be confused at permitting.

Committee members also raised editorial and layout items: consistent serif/sans-serif usage, eliminating visual arrows used in the draft, uniform image sizes for similar photo types, clearer labeling of "encouraged" and "discouraged" examples, and adding brief captions next to photos to indicate which graphic element (for example: "encouraged landscape") the photo illustrates. Members suggested the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) should receive both a finished booklet and a tracked-changes copy showing how the 2012 guidelines were changed.

On signage and window wraps, committee members asked staff to develop short, visual "encouraged" and "discouraged" examples the committee could review; they also asked staff to confirm, with town counsel or building-inspections staff, whether a decorative motif that resembles a product (for example, a bottle shape) should be treated as advertising (and therefore a sign) or as non-sign decorative wrap. The committee agreed to keep window-wrap language in the draft and to add clarifying images and captions in the final layout.

Michelle (layout designer) will be asked to standardize fonts and image sizes, and staff will supply a final, finished booklet to the Planning Board with a separate tracked-changes file that shows edits from the 2012 guidelines. The committee also requested that some specific guidance pages (for example, signage and window wraps, awnings and landscaping encouraged/discouraged examples) include small captioned photo pairs so applicants and permitting authorities can see clear examples of acceptable and unacceptable treatments.

The committee did not adopt final changes at the Feb. 13 meeting; members agreed to continue editorial and design work and to circulate updated documents for review before the next meeting.