Westford residents may want to start paying attention to a proposal that has been working its way through Town discussions this year: a new, large electronic billboard proposed for 5 Makepeace Road along Route 3, very close to the Tyngsborough line.
I started looking into the proposal because I had some fairly basic questions. The more I researched, the more I realized this is probably not simply a question of whether we like or dislike billboards. It is a longer-term question about land use, safety, community character, municipal revenue, and what Westford wants the Route 3 corridor to look like decades from now. That is what made me want to look more closely.
What is being proposed?
American Outdoor Advertising has proposed a double-sided, 14-by-48-foot digital billboard at 5 Makepeace Road, with faces intended to be visible to traffic traveling in both directions on Route 3. The current draft agreement calls for a total contribution of $1.5 million to Westford — beginning with $200,000 after a certificate of occupancy is issued and followed by $50,000 annual payments beginning in the fourth year — along with municipal advertising time and a portable electronic message sign for Town use. Those are meaningful benefits, and I understand why they have received attention.
From the beginning, the Makepeace Road site was presented as unusually well suited for a billboard because of
its geography. At the February 24 Select Board meeting, the petitioner’s attorney described the property as “an island really in Westford” and said one appealing aspect was that it was “really outside of Westford along Route 3.” She added that the billboard “really won’t have a lot of impact to abutters.”
That description caught my attention when I later researched Tyngsborough’s original Route 3 billboard. When that project was being discussed in 2009, its owner described the site in strikingly similar terms: industrially zoned land with difficult topography and wetlands that made other development challenging. In both cases, the unusual geography of the property has been presented as part of what makes a billboard an attractive use for the site.
The closest residence across Route 3 from the proposed Westford billboard has been described as about 660 feet away “through the trees” and “not close at all to the sign.” At the same February meeting, however, the petitioner’s attorney also acknowledged that the proposed LED sign would exceed Westford’s general lighting requirements for signage and would need closer examination during permitting. Both pieces of information seem important.
The early information was reassuring
Some of the statements made during Westford’s early discussions were reassuring. When Select Board member Tom Clay asked whether American Outdoor Advertising had received complaints in communities where it had installed digital billboards, company representative Steven Ross responded: “I’ve never had any complaints with any of the digital billboards I’ve built. I’ve built dozens of them in the state.” He concluded, “So no, I’ve never had any issues.”
While discussing a rendering, the proposed orientation of the sign was also offered as reassurance: “You can see that it’s really pointed towards the highway in both directions. That’s why it’s really not an impact to the abutters down Makepeace.”
Taken together, those statements describe a relatively isolated project with limited expected neighborhood impact and a technology the company says has operated successfully elsewhere. And that may ultimately prove to be the case. But my own thinking changed as I researched the site more closely.
From abutters to an impact zone
I started out thinking mostly about immediate abutters. That is often how land-use discussions are framed: Who lives next door? How close is the nearest home? Who receives formal notice?
But the more I looked at the geography and at the questions raised in other communities, the more useful it seemed to think instead about a broader impact zone. That could include homes across Route 3, nearby wetlands and conservation land, seasonal changes in tree cover, and MIT’s Wallace Astrophysical Observatory (MIT WAO) several miles away — for starters.
A highway billboard is designed to be seen from a distance. So the relevant question may not simply be who shares a property line with 5 Makepeace Road, but who and what may fall within its broader visual, lighting, structural or environmental reach. That does not mean those places will necessarily experience significant impacts. It means they are part of the landscape worth considering as the review becomes more site-specific.
Lighting is already an example of how that broader view can matter. The applicant has provided detailed lighting and night-sky information, and its materials describe directional LEDs, nighttime dimming and louvers intended to limit light outside the intended viewing area. A lighting study submitted by the applicant concludes that the billboard would have little effect on surrounding ambient light and would not affect MIT Wallace Astrophysical Observatory approximately four miles away.
Wallace, however, is already dealing with increasing ambient light pollution from development in the surrounding region. MIT reported in 2023 that Observatory Manager Tim Brothers estimated the skies over Wallace had been brightening by about 3 percent per year during his 14 years there. MIT said the brighter skies were making faint astronomical objects more difficult to observe and affecting some of the research the observatory can conduct.
That does not establish that the proposed billboard would materially affect Wallace. It does, however, help explain why the observatory’s technical input about additional light pollution is relevant to the review.
MIT Wallace Astrophysical Observatory Astrophysical Observatory has also become part of Westford’s review via the petitioner. The petitioner is now communicating directly with WAO regarding concerns about light pollution and will report back to Select Board on the findings. While the observatory does not control Westford’s billboard permitting, its scientists can provide technical information about how additional nighttime illumination could affect astronomical observations. The current draft agreement also provides for up to two consecutive hours of zero illumination each night at MIT WAO’s request.
I see that as part of the normal development of a complex proposal: questions are raised, additional expertise is brought into the discussion, and sometimes operating conditions or other details of a proposal change as a result.
Why Tyngsborough caught my attention
Tyngsborough has frequently been mentioned during discussions of the Westford proposal as a nearby example. In February, the petitioner’s attorney told the Select Board there was “a very similar sign” in Tyngsborough and suggested that anyone wanting to understand its size and scale could “just go one town over” and look at it.
That sounded reasonable to me, so I did look more closely. What I found was not a simple cautionary tale or a simple endorsement.
Tyngsborough’s billboard history unfolded over many years. Its first Route 3 billboard was approved in the late 2000s. More billboard locations followed, and digital technology became more common. Its original conventional billboard was only approved for conversion to digital this year. And Tyngsborough’s current zoning bylaw now prohibits new billboards.
That history deserves its own article, because it says something important about how one land-use decision can evolve over time. But for Westford, the most important point right now is that we are earlier in the process. Tyngsborough is largely dealing with billboard locations that already exist and how those locations may change. Westford is still considering whether to establish a new billboard location in the first place.
Why the process matters
The proposed donation agreement is another reason I think the timing matters. The petitioner’s attorney has emphasized that the Select Board is “not approving any sort of billboard” by considering the donation agreement. The draft itself says electronic billboards are not presently an allowed use in Westford, that further zoning and other approvals will be required, and that the agreement does not guarantee those approvals or provide the applicant preferential treatment. That is an important distinction.
The financial package, municipal advertising time and portable electronic sign are real benefits being offered to the Town. The mitigation proposal also anticipates funding for outside legal or technical review during the permitting process. But the larger land-use question still exists independently of those benefits.
It may be useful to think of the proposal as involving two related but distinct questions: Is a new digital billboard appropriate at this location? And, if it receives the necessary approvals, what compensation and mitigation would be appropriate for Westford? Keeping those questions distinct seems important.
Why Westford’s sometimes-slow process may have value
One thing this research has changed for me personally is my appreciation for why Westford sometimes studies things for what feels like a very long time. There have certainly been moments when I have wondered why we need another feasibility study, committee review or public process. Sometimes it can feel like we study things to death.
But land-use decisions last. The people sitting on boards change. Town employees change. Property owners change. Companies change. Technology changes. The things we permit can remain for generations.
Westford has experienced tremendous growth during my lifetime and yet has managed, imperfectly but intentionally, to retain much of its small-town character. I do not think that happened by accident. Part of it has probably come from generations of residents, volunteers and Town officials asking not only, “Can we do this?” but also, “Is this what we want Westford to become?”
The layers of review that sometimes feel slow can also provide opportunities to answer questions, compare information, hear from residents and understand long-term effects before decisions become permanent.
This does not have to be business versus residents
I do not think this discussion needs to become “business versus residents” or “growth versus preservation.” The property owner has legitimate economic interests. Westford needs commercial activity and revenue. An industrial parcel next to Route 3 is clearly different from a residential neighborhood. And the billboard company is proposing meaningful financial benefits for the Town. Those are legitimate considerations.
So are questions about lighting, safety, environmental conditions, nearby homes, conservation land, municipal responsibilities and long-term community character. The company proposing the billboard has every right to present the strongest case for its project, and it has supplied a substantial amount of information.
The permitting process gives Westford an opportunity to consider that information alongside technical, regulatory and site-specific review — and alongside a broader understanding of the impact zone than may have been apparent at the beginning. The goal does not have to be finding information that supports approval or information that supports rejection. It can simply be making sure that our boards, Town officials and residents understand what is being proposed before long-term decisions are made.
Why residents should pay attention now
The most useful time to understand a land-use proposal is while it is still moving through review. Westford is at that point now. There is already a great deal of information available, and there are still specific questions that the normal review process can answer.
For me, that is the reason to pay attention now.
This is the first in a three-part series. Part 2, What Tyngsborough’s Billboard History Can Teach Westford, will look at how one nearby community’s billboard story evolved over nearly two decades. Part 3, What Should Westford Understand Before Deciding?, will return to the Westford proposal and look more closely at lighting, safety, the broader impact zone, MIT Wallace Astrophysical Observatory, mitigation and the permitting process.
