Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-04 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes--Tou)~ col~ Town of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of January 4, 2007 CD :;0 r~ Members present: Robert Redfern ' Susan Miller 1 John Jarema c. Paul Dustin U1 Peter Tedesco cn Members absent: Clark Petschek Michael Conway 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 present was Glen Redmond,. Commissioner of Buildings. Case # 06-30 A Public Hearing on the petition of Exxon Mobile Corporation who seeks a Variance from front yard setback and signage under Sections 5.1.2/6.2 of the Zoning By-laws in order to alter the existing overhead canopy on the property located at 178 Main Street in Reading, MA. Proposed alterations will include a "Mobil" canopy logo and the installation of a three-dimensional internally illuminated blue graphics band. Joshua Swerling, Bohler Engineering, spoke for the Applicants. He said there is currently an `On the Run' Convenience Mart at the location that had been recently updated. As part of their re- imaging the Applicant wants to add their; corporate branding. There is anew sign over the door and a new free-standing sign. They want to place a Mobil legend on the front right corner of the canopy and install a three-dimensional, illuminated band that protrudes 6" from the face of the canopy. It is thick and translucent and has an accent light that shows through. The relief for the 6" band is needed because the face of the canopy is almost on the front setback line. The Applicant expects they only need relief for 4" but they want to ask for 6" just in case they exceed the 4". A logo used to exist on the front left portion of the canopy but it was removed to meet the non-conforming sign requirements. The Applicant is asking for what was there previously and they do not think what they are asking for is excessive and it will not clutter the site with excess signage. The Building Inspector said the existing canopy seems to comply with the 50' setback but an additional 6" would violate the setback. The number of signs allowed is one on the principal ZBA Minutes, January 4, 2007 building. The proposed illuminated band is considered a sign because it is not normal lighting for illumination. The Building Inspector believes the Applicant is asking for four additional signs. The square footage allowed for signage is based on the size of the building, and 2 square feet per linear feet of building front is allowed. If the building is 100' back from the center of the road, then they are allowed 4 square feet per linear feet of building front. No signage allowed on the canopy. Mr. Swerling said perhaps the unique uses of a gas station such as this are not well captured in the zoning bylaws. He said there is a section that talks about multiple uses on a single lot and he thinks there may be two separate business aspects at this site with the gas and the convenience store as separate components. There is a second sign allowed for a separate business in the bylaws. He thought this could be a consideration in this situation. The Chairman said he felt the property is not a unique situation in this community. He asked Mr. Swerling if he was prepared to review the four requirements necessary for a variance. Mr. Swerling said literal interpretation would result in a hardship based on the need for this type of facility to identify its brand to the customer who is traveling down Route 28. The Applicant needs visibility to distinguish themselves from their competitors. There are two sides facing residential zones so that makes it unique as well as a steep slope to the northeast. The bylaw relief requested would not violate the sign bylaws and would not clutter the site with excess signs. The Chairman said he did not see any topographical uniqueness to this property that would cause obstructed views. Ms. Miller wanted to know how the fact that this property is steep in the rear and abuts residences would affect the signage in the front of the building. Mr. Swerling said because of the uniqueness of the lot they could not push the building back or enlarge in order to obtain additional signage. Mr. Jarema said trying to obtain a variance would be difficult on this particular lot in light of a previous decision on a similar request. He said the `On the Run' sign is 18.8 square feet and the proposed Mobil sign on the canopy is 13.2 square feet. He explained the Board had already heard a case regarding an illuminated band on a canopy and the Board considered an illuminated band to be a sign. Mr. Swerling said the north, south and east sides of the canopy would be two-dimensional and have the Mobil legend on it as well. He said if the band is included then the signage would be excessive. The Building Inspector said he thought the total would be about 180 square feet. A freestanding sign is allowed and can be up to 50 square feet in area. The freestanding sign on the property meets the requirement but this is separate from signage that is allowed on the building. Ms. Miller asked why the sign on the canopy is required when the free-standing sign seems sufficient. Mr. Swerling said the free-standing sign is perpendicular and smaller than what was there previously. The Applicant hopes the sign on the canopy will be more visible and give brand recognition. Mr. Swerling said the massing of signage is what is noticed and they want to get people's attention that this is a Mobil station. 2 ZBA Minutes, January 4, 2007 Mr. Dustin said there are two other gas stations on south Main Street that have bands on the canopy and if the Applicant's band is not illuminated and is flush-mounted like these other gas stations then it would not be considered a sign. He said the band is not an issue as long as it is not illuminated. The Building Inspector said the Exxon station on south Main Street had asked for additional signage which was not allowed. He also said this site is considered to be one business and not two even though it sells gas and has a convenience store. Kathleen Tibbets, 512 Summer Avenue, said the issue of the illuminated blue band came up at a CPDC meeting last summer and at that time one of the neighbors objected to the illumination. The Applicant said they would be a good neighbor and eliminate the illuminated band. Now they are asking for significant additional illumination as opposed to what was there. None of the other gas stations within a quarter mile have an illuminated canopy and they also appear to meet the bylaw requirements. Ms. Tibbets also thought the proposed requests would be excessive. Ken Wood, 526 Summer Avenue, said product identification should not be an issue because there is a traffic light right located right there next to the station so cars would be stopped there all the time. Jan Feagley, 483 Summer Avenue, said her bay window faces Main Street and at night the traffic light is 95% on red. The light shines right in her kitchen window and bounces off her refrigerator and dishwasher. She said the blue illumination would drastically affect the neighborhood. Kathleen McDonald, 190 Main Street, said what is there is now is so bright already she can not imagine it being any more so. Terry McDonald, 190 Main Street, said he liked the renovation the Applicant did but he was surprised that the illumination issue was still being considered. Tony Darezzo, 130 John Street, said the illuminated blue band would be in violation of the zoning bylaws. He also questioned the free-standing sign and if the background is opaque. He also wanted to point out to the Board that this station has audio speakers on the gas pumps in violation of the general bylaws. The Building Inspector said the Assistant Building Inspector had already gone to the station and informed the manager that the speakers cannot be used except to speak with a customer if a problem arose. Mr. Swerling said he was not at the CPDC hearing and he was not aware that Mobil had said they would not request the illuminated band. He requested that the three dimensional illuminated band part of the canopy be removed from the request. The Applicant will instead make it a two- dimensional painted band. Mr. Swerling also said they might be able to get a narrower logo legend that might only protrude slightly out from the canopy. Another option might be a sign that has halo illumination which is a silhouette that is not very intense. The northerly side of the east elevation of the canopy is where they would like to put the logo. The Chairman suggested Mr. Swerling might want to talk to the Applicants regarding illumination and come back before the Board at another meeting. Mr. Jarema said if the sign was ZBA Minutes, January 4, 2007 on the southerly side and was backlit it would not be so intrusive into the neighborhood and maybe this should be considered by the Applicants. Mr. Swerling said if they adjusted the location to the southerly side and go with a halo lighting scenario then he would ask that they be granted relief for a few inches into the setback and he would find a sign that fits and not have to modify the canopy in a way not usually done. Mr. Jarema said then the Applicant would be asking for two variances. If they eliminated one of the variance requests by pushing back the sign then they would only be asking for one variance. The Chairman said the Applicant might need to do some research and talk to their sign designers. The Building Inspector said almost every canopy in Town has received some type of variance for setbacks and he did not see why this. would be an issue in this case because the Applicant was only talking a few inches. Mr. Swerling requested to be allowed to modify the application by removing from the application the request for the three dimensional illuminated blue band on the canopy. He would also propose that the canopy logo legend be located on the southerly corner, dimensions as shown on the plan, with halo illumination, i.e. a translucent white perimeter with an opaque blue or red letter in the same size as presented on the plan. He also asked to allow an encroachment of 0.3 feet into the setback. On a motion by Ms. Miller, seconded by Mr. Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept that the Applicant's application be modified as follows: 1. To eliminate the request for the three dimensional illuminated blue band on the canopy. 2. The logo legend on the canopy will be on the southerly side of the eastern elevation as opposed to the northerly side. The motion was approved on a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Tedesco). Relative to the remaining request by the Applicant, the Board heard additional testimony from the abutters. Ms. Feagley said she did not think the change in the logo would make any difference and it would anyway be blocked by Doyan's Appliances. She questioned the amount of setback being allowed and said the Board should be consistent in their rulings. Mr. Wood said the Doyan's side would probably be best. He thought the owners were being pressured by corporate but he would be happy to have the canopy not illuminated. Bruce Martin, 521 Summer Avenue, said he had a problem with the illumination and the halo lighting. He would want specifics on how the sign is being manufactured because this light will shine right into his house. 4 ZBA Minutes, January 4, 2007 Mr. Darezzo said the issue is not the encroachment but the illumination on the canopy and he said the halo lighting would now be requested by other gas stations. He also wondered why the Board would allow an additional sign that can be illuminated because it would set a precedent for other requests. Mr. Redfern explained that an illuminated sign on the canopy is allowed in this area. Mr. Jarema said the Board tries to make rulings that are consistently fair with the neighbors and the applicants. On a motion by Ms. Miller, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicant a Variance under Section 6.2.3.2.1 of the Zoning By-laws to allow a sign to be installed on the southerly corner of the eastern elevation of said canopy, said sign not to exceed 13.2 square feet in size, and to have a translucent white perimeter with opaque blue or red letters with halo illumination affect, provided there is no additional increase in signage on the property. The motion was approved on a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Tedesco). On a motion by Ms. Miller, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicant a Variance under Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning By-laws to allow a 0.3 (three tenths) foot encroachment into the front setback for the purpose of installing a `Mobil' legend sign on the southerly corner of the eastern elevation of the canopy as referenced on the Image Upgrade Plan, prepared by Bohler Engineering, P.C., dated 05/25/05, on the condition that said plan is updated and modified to reflect the design detail and location of the sign and that said plan is submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a sign permit. The motion was approved on a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Tedesco). Minutes: On a motion by Mr. Dustin, seconded by Ms. Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the minutes of November 2, 2006. The motion was approved on a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Tedesco). On a motion by Mr. Jarema, seconded by Ms. Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved on a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Tedesco). l pectfully a n M. Recording Si 5 ZBA Minutes, January 4, 2007