The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-02-05 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading 0...w^" Meeting Minutes w�'IM Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2020-02-05 Building: Address: Purpose: Attendees: Members - Present: Robert Redfern Cy Caouette Erik Hagstrom Nick Pernice Hillary Mateev Members - Not Present: Others Present: Time: 7:00 PM Location: Session: Version: Final ,,,E(;EI'✓ii::✓ EFK 7 AM 10: 56 Andrew MacNichol - Staff Planner, Mark Dupell - Building Comissioner, Ed Spinney, Tony D'Arezzo, Robert Ferrari Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Amanda Beatrice Topics of Discussion: 379 Main Street— Case #19-27 Mr. Caouette read the legal notice and swore in members of the audience wishing to speak on the application. Mr. Ed Spinney, Sign Developer, stated the applicant is part of a rebranding program and would like to reface the existing sign. The applicant was looking to refurbish and rebrand the existing sign face and replace the existing message board with a LED electronic messaging sign that would not be moving, flashing or show any type of video. The sign would be opaque in background with only the letters being illuminated by interior lighting. He also stated that there are people who do not pay attention to the entrance/exit and they were looking to add a wall sign for clarification. Mr. Caouette asked Mr. Spinney to review the Variance criteria. Mr. Spinney explained that the road has high speed rates and that people do not know what is in the building. The proposed signs would help clarify the use. Another concern is employee safety/welfare while manually changing the existing sign lettering. Employees are using ladders which can present a safety issue in the winter months; the proposed sign change would help with this concern as well as the identity of the company. The upgrade to the existing signage would not be any more detrimental to the area as there are many other signs in the area and their electric sign would be opaque, the background would be lit and the lettering would be facing the street and not houses. The message board would not present any more distraction than what is already there and believe it would actually be less distracting. Page 1 1 Mr. Dupell stated the specific items which would require a Variance for the Board per Mr. Caouette's Request: a wall sign in conjunction with an existing freestanding sign, animated/illuminated sign for the message board and the total square footage of the freestanding sign. Mr. Pernice did not believe that the sign resurface would be a substantial change. He was still unsure that a wall sign is also needed. Mr. Redfern stated he felt a Variance for the freestanding electronic sign could be justified but had an issue with the wall sign being proposed as well. Mr. Hagstrom stated that he agreed with Mr. Redfern about the two signs. He also was questioning the need for the Variance regarding the electronic sign. Ms. Mateev agreed with the other members. Mr. Caouette asked about the sign lighting and the ability to change it. Mr. Spinney stated it was dimmable and could be adjusted/turned off. Mr. Caouette opened the meeting to public comment. Mr. Robert Ferrari from 20 Crosby Road introduced himself as a direct abutter and Town Meeting Member. Between the businesses and apartments in the area, he stated that there is already a lot of flood lighting in the area. The existing sign already exceeds the roofline, which was a concern for him considering the electronic portions proposed and if the application is approved he would like to see the sign turned off when the business is not operating. He also stated his concern about other businesses looking for electronic signs along Main Street. Mr. Spinney agreed that the sign can be turned off at the close of business hours. He also explained that the sign was over the roof for visibility and due to existing grades. The existing unit currently lights up with multiple colors but the new proposed unit's lighting will not light up during the night. The bottom lighting would light up with a black background. Mr. Spinney stated that with the new sign that they are actually cutting the lighting down. Mr. D'Arezzo from 130 John Street asked if the top half of the sign is illuminated or not. Mr. Spinney stated that it was not. Mr. D'Arezzo expressed his concern of the electronic sign turning into a moving sign from cooperate, similar to the movie theater. Mr. Spinney stated he was unsure if his company or the corporate company would be controlling the sign but it is important what conditions are put into the decision. Mr. Caouette closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Redfern stated that he did not believe that the proposed signage is a substantial change but he does not see it meeting the criteria for a Variance for either. Mr. Caouette stated that the applicant could move to a vote, continue or withdraw their application. Mr. Spinney, the Board and Mr. Dupell briefly discussed his options and how withdrawing/moving to a vote would affect this project. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Ms. Mateev, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing for Case #19-27 to March 4, 2020. Page 1 2 Vote was 5-0-0 (Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Hagstrom, Mateev) Minutes: 10/16/19 On amotion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Ms. Mateev, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the October 16, 2019 minutes as amended. Vote was 5-0-0 (Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Hagstrom, Mateev) 11/20/19 On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Ms. Mateev, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the November 20, 2019 minutes as amended. Vote was 5-0-0 (Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Hagstrom, Mateev) Other Business: Mr. Caouette read Mr. Jarema's resignation letter to the Board. He also mentioned to Ms. Mateev that she could start the process for her to convert from an associate to a member. He also mentioned that the Board has a new Associate Member in Jamie Maughan. Adjournment: On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Hagtsrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. Page 1 3 Town of Reading Zoning Board of Appeals T01WN CLERK REPDIMrI , MA. 0- 2020 MAR -5 AM 1: 50 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO G. L. c. 39, SECTION 23D OF PARTICIPATION IN A SESSION OF AN ADJUDICATORY HEARING WHERE THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBER MISSED A SINGLE HEARING SESSION [Note: Can only be used for missing one single hearing session; cannot be used for missing more than one hearing session. Inquiries concerning this form and your ability to participate in a matter where you missed a single hearing session should be addressed to Town Counsel.] I, (�2AL�i ((d"4 (name), hereby certify under the pains and penalties of perjury aifollows: 1. 1 am a member of said board. Z �/ f 2. 1 missed a hearing sess,�i tnon the mattor of 1 I(/(i t l �t�Iqwoe which was held on ,2O,%6 3. 1 reviewed all the evidence introduced at the hearing session I missed, which included a review of (initial which one(s) applicable): a.4iring of the missed hearing session; or b. video recording of the missed hearing session; or C. a transcript of the missed hearing session. This certification shall become a part of the record of the proceedings in the above matter. Signed under the pains and pens ies of perjury this I day of �. zee- AW. - as part of the record of the above matter: Date: _ By: Position: