HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-05 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Readies
ZONING BOARD OF APPFALs
Minutes of February 5, 2009 3 52
Members Present: Paul Dustin
Robert Redfern
Clark Petschek
John Miles
Peter Tedesco
John Jarema
Members Absent: Jeffrey Perkins
A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room of the
Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts, at 7:00 P.M. Also attending was Ellen
Doucette, Town Counsel. Also in attendance was Glen Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings.
Case # 09-01
A Public Hearing on the petition of Salem Five Cents Savings Bank who seeks a Variance /
Special Permit / and an appeal of a decision by the Building Inspector under Section(s) 6.2.3 (9) /
6.2.2.3 / 6.3.10.2 / 6.3.10.3 of the Zoning By-laws in order to install a free standing sign on the
non-conforming existing pylon posts and base on the property located at 8 Walkers Brook
Drive in Reading, MA. The existing posts and base do not meet the required setback of 20'. All
non-conforming signs shall be removed or shall be altered so as to conform with the provisions
of Section 6.2.2.3.
The case was continued to March 5, 2009 at the request of the Applicant. The Chairman read the
letter requesting a continuance submitted by Attorney Chris Latham.
On a motion by Clark Petschek, seconded by John Miles, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
continue the hearing to March 5, 2009.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Dustin, Miles, Petschek, Redfern, Tedesco).
Case # 08-32
A Public Hearing on the petition of Linear Retail Properties who seeks a Variance/and an appeal
of a decision by the Building Inspector under Section(s) 6.2.3/7.4.2.1 of the Zoning By-laws in
order to install a new free standing sign that exceeds 75 square feet on the property located at
345 Main Street in Reading, MA. The existing sign currently is non-conforming and also .
ZBA Meeting, February 5, 2009
exceeds the allowable 75 square feet. All non-conforming signs shall be removed or shall be
altered so as to confonn with the provisions of Section 6.2.2.3.
Attorney Chris Coleman said the Applicant has been working with CPDC to improve the
property. Attorney Coleman said the proposed sign requested exceeds the allowed area amount
and does not meet the 20' setback requirement. He presented what he thought was the criteria
needed for a variance. He said this was the only property that does not front on Main Street. It
causes a visibility problem for the tenants except for the one that is facing Main Street. The
Applicant said the tenants need more visibility to bring in customers. Attorney Coleman said the
property is unique because of its layout and will not set a precedent for other businesses on Main
Street.
Gordon Whitman from Linear Retail Property said his tenants require an impact-size visibility
sign in order to compete. He said they considered a 75 square foot sign to be insufficient. Bill
North from Point Signs said they would like to use a 6" minimum letter size. He said anything
smaller could not be clearly read while traveling by the shopping center.
Mr. Redfern questioned the completeness of the package that was submitted because he did not
receive a certified plot plan. Attorney Coleman said they did not submit one. Mr. Redfern said it
was required because the Board needed to see where the existing sign was located and where the
proposed sign would be located. Attorney Coleman used some drawings to try to explain to the
Board the sign locations. The Building Inspector said a certified plot plan is not required at this
time because the Applicant was not requesting a setback variance but he would need one if a
permit were to be issued.
The Chairman expressed concern that the Town Counsel had told him the Board could make no
demands as to what the Applicant submits in their package. However, he stated that without
complete supporting information before the meeting, the Board is limited in its ability to evaluate
the case and the requested action.
The Building Inspector explained to the Board the value of the sign will dictate if the sign needs
to meet the current conformity. Mr. North said the estimated cost for the sign is approximately
$12,000.
Mr. Petschek said he did not think this property was unique or that the Applicant had met the
four criteria required for a variance. He said the Town has been very specific as to when they
want the signs in this area to be brought into compliance.
Mr. Redfern questioned the disparity of the size of the tenant areas on the sign. He said if they
were equal, the size of the sign could be reduced. Mr. Whitman said the size of the tenant's space
on the sign has been dictated in the sales agreement with the previous owner.
Mr. Jarema said the Town has been very specific in the by-laws and what the signs can and
cannot be in the Town. The compliance must be completed by July 1, 2010.
ZBA Meeting, February 5, 2009 2
Attorney Coleman asked if the Board would like them to continue and come back with more
visual graphics to show what they have proposed more clearly.
The Building Inspector said a strip mall could only have a 75 square feet free-standing sign,
whether they have two tenants or six tenants. He thought the by-laws needed to be reviewed.
Mr. Redfern questioned the number of tenants on the new sign as opposed to the old sign.
Attorney Coleman said the space could accommodate seven tenants so they want this number of
spaces available on the sign.
Keith Rosen from Sherman Williams said the sign has been a problem for them. Their store
cannot be seen from Main Street and they receive calls from people all the time looking for the
store that is supposed to be located on Main Street in Reading.
Tony Darezzo of 130 John Street commented on his understanding of the sign regulations and
made his suggestions to the Board regarding this particular sign. He also wished to make
additional comments about the sign regulations in general. The Chairman suggested Mr. Darezzo
contact the EDC group working on the sign regulations because the Board had not been asked for
their suggestions so Mr. Darezzo's comments on sign regulations in general towards the Board
would be wasted.
The Chairman made reference to studies that indicated that signs with letters below a certain size
could cause safety factors as people slow down in order to read the sign. Attorney Coleman said
he could pursue this avenue and research these studies as this could complement his arguments
for the necessity for this sign.
Mr. Jarema said he could not understand why the businesses in Town have not gone to the EDC
to discuss the proposed changes to the sign zoning bylaws. He thought the Applicant was coming
before the wrong Board.
Attorney Coleman requested that the case be withdrawn without prejudice. He wrote up a request
for withdrawal without prejudice and submitted it to the Board.
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Clark Petschek, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to accept the Applicant's request that the case be withdrawn without prejudice.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Dustin, Redfern, Petschek, Miles, Jarema)
Minutes
On a motion by Clark Petschek, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to accept the minutes of November 6, 2008.
The vote was 5-0-0 (Dustin, Petschek, Jarema, Miles, Tedesco).
ZBA Meeting, February 5, 2009 3
On a motion by Clark Petschek, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to accept the minutes as amended for November 20, 2008.
The vote was 6-0-0 (Dustin, Petschek, Jarema, Miles, Tedesco, Redfern).
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Clark Petschek, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to accept the minutes as amended for December 4, 2008.
The vote was 5-0-0 (Dustin, Petschek, Miles, Redfern, Tedesco)
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Clark Petschek, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to accept the minutes as amended for December 18, 2008.
The vote was 6-0-0 (Dustin, Petschek, Miles, Jarema, Redfern, Tedesco).
Other Business
The Board is expecting Town Counsel to attend the next meeting on February 19. The Chairman
will contact the Community Services Director to confine this.
The Chairman wanted to 1aZow if the Board should urge the Community Services Director to
have the EDC understand a sense of urgency regarding the revisions to the sign bylaws. He will
contact the Community Services Director.
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Clark Petschek, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to adjourn the meeting.
The vote was 6-0-0 (Dustin, Petschek, Miles, Jarema, Redfern, Tedesco).
Respectfully su
Maureen M.
Recording S
ZBA Meeting, February 5, 2009 4