BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
Monday, March 22, 2010
7:00 p.m.
Present: Chairman Lisa Beauvais, Secretary Christine Kumiega-Provost, and Chester Zymroz.
Absent: Alternate Jim Bodurtha
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:02p.m.
1. Acceptance of Minutes
Ms. Kumiega moved to approve the minutes of February 22, 2010, as presented; Mr. Zymroz second. UAV.
2. Public Hearings
7:00 p.m. (7:03 p.m.) – Pocket Communications (Special Permit) –Special Permit to amend existing special permit under Section 4.21 of the Zoning Ordinance for a change of one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use at the property located at 1362 Westfield Street in the Neighborhood Business (NB) zoning district. Continued from January 25, 2010.
Ms. Beauvais said due to the fact that Mr. Bodurtha was not in attendance the continuation of this hearing could not be held.
Ms. Beauvais moved to continue the public hearing to April 26, 2010, at 7:00 p.m.; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
7:05 p.m. (7:05 p.m.) – Fathers & Sons (Variance) – Amend existing variances for a façade extension at the property located at 989 Memorial Avenue in the Business A (BA) zoning district.
Attorney Tony DiSantos came forward and introduced Damon Cartelli of Father’s & Son’s. He explained they were before the Board about a year ago and were granted a variance amendment under the same terms, but the work was not complete within a year timeframe. Tonight they are asking for the same variance amendment.
Ms. Beauvais said the decision was granted November 4, 2008, when the Board voted unanimously to approve the amended variance, which expired October 2009. Ms. Beauvais asked if there were any changes to the application and Attorney DiSantos said it is the same application and plan. Ms. Beauvais asked if there was a date set for construction. Attorney DiSantos said construction should begin within the next year.
Ms. Kumiega noted comments from the Health Department regarding the water runoff and the impact on the pedestrians that use that sidewalk. Mr. Cartelli said the façade does not extend to the sidewalk and does not hang over the sidewalk at all.
Ms. Beauvais asked for comments from the audience. No comments followed.
Ms. Beavuais moved to close the public hearing; Mr. Zymroz second. UAV.
Ms. Beauvais said there are no changes to the plan or application and she has no problem in granting the request again. Ms. Kumiega said the Board would incorporate the past finding and maintain the same requirements.
Ms. Beauvais said based on the information presented, the Board would approve the conditional variance amendment as was granted in November 2008, by incorporating that decision and noting no changes have been bade and the same conditions of the variance will be in effect; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
7:10 p.m. (7:10 p.m.) – Sanjay Patel (Variance) – Variance from Section 1X, Table 9-4A for the installation of a new free-standing sign at the property located at 173 Elm Street in the Central Business District (CBD).
Attorney Paul Maleck of Doherty, Pillsbury, and Wallace, came before the Board representing the applicant and principle owner of the property, Sanjay Patel. Mr. Jeff Pechulis, traffic engineer, was also present.
Attorney Maleck said the applicant was granted a special permit for the operation of a convenience store and gas station. Mr. Patel has a problem which is the site is on the corner of Elm and Westfield Street and has a 40 foot framework in the ground with a small sign on it now, and there once was a sign on that pole for many years when the station was a Texaco station. The sign helped generate traffic safely as your approached the corner. This sign cannot exist under the current zoning and it does not make sense even when the Matta brothers were at the site. The traveler must look at the gas pumps to see the price and that could cause an accident. The purpose of the sign regulations is to protect private buildings. The owner needs to make a return on his
investment and the proper signage generates traffic at the site. There is an apartment building and a restaurant there that obstruct the view from west to east. Attorney Maleck cited Section 9.213, which states signage is used to promote visual identification and eliminate potential hazards to motorists and pedestrians.
Attorney Maleck said Texaco took down their sign when the Matta Brothers bought the station because they were not using their brand of gasoline. Attorney Maleck sited similar situations with Bertera on Riverdale Street which is on a curve and they were granted a variance to allow the sign to be closer to the street to allow proper identification of the business.
Jeff Pechulis of JSP Land Development Services said his primary clients are gas station owners. This is a main indentifying sign and a strength in the petroleum business is to present their product to the customer as quickly and efficiently as possible. Elm Street is a two lane road and the southbound side is obstructed to the left of the site except the top southeast corner (where the sign poles are located). The location of the sign would enable customers to identify the price and change lanes in time to pull into the driveway. This site had two driveways on Elm Street and the owner made a concession to close off the driveway closest to the signal. This further restricts any one to come in to the site, if the sign is not present. Heading east on Westfield Street
is a single lane and the sign would service both approaches. Gas stations are required to post signs with the price of the fuel and if there is no sign then he has to post it on the pump. It would be a safety hazard for people to drive around the site to read the pumps.
Attorney Maleck said his applicant would be willing to compromise and undertake a sign that is reasonable to the Board.
Ms. Beauvais said a free-standing sign would require multiple variances and the issue is if this sign could even be allowed in this zoning district. This would be the Board’s first hurdle. If the applicant can meet the requirements of the variance, then the Board could discuss the height, color, and size. The Board will need to hear discussion as to the requirements to meet the variance.
Ms. Beauvais reviewed some history of the sign. The Board had a hearing on October of 2003 for a sign. Mr. Matta came before the Board stating that Texaco removed the sign and left the poles, which are still standing. The Board denied the variance. The signs that say Sam’s Auto Repair were put up by Mr. Matta. Mr. Werbiskis noted those signs were not properly permitted by the town. Ms. Beauvais said so the fact that they exist are no consolation as no permit was granted. Ms. Beauvais said free-standing signs are not allowed in this zoning district. Attorney Maleck said it could be grandfathered like the other site on Central. It is an unusual parcel overall with driveway issues and the property itself is a straight line but the curbing is
rounded for the sidewalk. The logical place to put the sign is where it is and not on the pumps for safety issues.
Mr. Pechulis said the size of the parcel creates uniqueness. The site is small with adjacent structures and this site is used to attract the motoring public. A wall-mounted sign would be obstructed for oncoming motorists.
Attorney Maleck cited the Bertera lot on Rivedale as not being unique but the roadway circumference required moving the sign. Ms. Beauvais cited Clarks Gulf that was just before the Board and denied due to the same situation on a corner and they did not meet the requirements for a variance. This Board has taken a staunch position on sign variances for the fact of setting a precedent and they need to be very careful that all the requirements have been met. The hardship is that Mr. Patel could not operate his gas business. Attorney Maleck said he would have gas prices on the pumps. Ms. Beauvais asked if it were possible to place the price on the canopy. Mr. Patel said the law requires him to post two signs one for cash, one for credit and it would take three lines. A brand new sign and pumps would make the site look good, it would not look good with prices on the canopy and he would have to put prices on all sides. Attorney Maleck added it is impractical to change the signs on
the canopy and more detrimental to traffic flow. Having one sign on the corner would alleviate safety concerns and the impracticality of changing the price. This is a unique situation where because of the site lines on a corner lot, all things warrant a variance due to the uniquely situated property.
Ms. Kumiega said it is unique for the fact that three directions are accessing the gas station. Ms. Kumiega asked Mr. Pechulis if a clean slate and reviewing this from a safety perspective with three directions accessing the property, what is the best sign scenario and dimensions. Mr. Pechulis said a sign on the corner is the best location for the three approaches. Only two wall signs are allowed for all three approaches, wall signs are good for other services on this site. The minimum size is 2 feet high in a width that identifies price and grade, there is also a brand requirement on the sign. Three to four feet in size and five feet in width may be suitable for brand name and a single grade of gas. Ms. Kumiega said the sign on the corner should be angled for best
visibility. Ms. Beauvais said she was concerned if the sign is angled the people would still not see the pricing. Attorney Maleck said you can see the sign from the Curry Copy location on Elm Street. Ms. Beauvais said that would mean you are almost on top of the sign before you see it, so what would be the difference between that sign and having a sign on the façade. Attorney Maleck said you cannot see the price on the pumps from Curry Copy; the higher up the sign is the better.
Mr. Zymroz said referring back to the façade of the canopy, two face signs are planned? Since height is a concern what prohibits you from placing a sign on the canopy kitty-cornered to enable viewing from Westfield Street and coming on Westfield Street from Elm and southbound on Elm? Mr. Pechulis said the adjacent structure on Elm would prohibit a line of site for motorists on Elm until they are right in front of the driveway.
Ms. Beauvais asked for further comments from the Board. Mr. Zymroz asked if they plan on LED lighting? Mr. Patel said he did not need that. Ms. Kumiega asked the height of the sign off of the ground. Mr. Pechulis said what was presented to the Board was not officially the signage, and the line of sight has to be taken into account; ten feet would be suitable. Mr. Zymroz asked if they would be using the existing poles that are on the site now and Attorney Maleck said yes. Mr. Zymroz asked the height of the poles now? Mr. Pechulis said they are about 40 feet now and a concession would have to be to give up brand and identify the pricing. The Board discussed the color and illumination of the sign. Mr. Patel said he could be flexible with the color
and Mr. Pechulis said the sign would be illuminated internally or could have a gooseneck light. The main objective of the applicant is to identify the price and the brand to attract the customer.
Mr. Werbiskis said they have created a creative argument for variance for a sign in the Central Business District. The sign regulations have been in place since the 70’s when adopted and restricted free-standing signs. An argument could be made for every property in the Central Business District. There is a multi-tenant building across the street that could make the same argument. The existing sign on 3 Central Street is being removed. Mr. Werbiskis reminded the Board that a sign variance runs with the property and not the use. If the use is changed to a retail use, then they could enjoy the use of that free-standing sign. Mr. Werbiskis said if the Board’s opinion is to allow such a sign, it is recommended that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to
allow free-standing signs in the CBD, but not issue a variance on the property.
Ms. Beauvais asked for comments from the audience. No comments followed.
Attorney Maleck said the uniqueness is proven in terms of the shape, location, locus, and the economy creating a hardship for the applicant. There is also a grandfathering argument that prevails and the site worked for 40 years and there is no reason not to have it.
Ms. Kumiega asked if the Board could require the sign only used for the gas station and Mr. Werbiskis said no the variance runs with the property. Attorney Maleck said they would be willing to have a deed restriction that if the use changes they have to come back before the Board. Mr. Werbiskis said he would not be in favor of that.
Ms. Beauvais said the hurdle is to determine that the applicant has satisfied the requirements for a variance before the type of sign needed to be discussed. Ms. Beauvais said she was concerned that the sign was removed years ago, the current sign is not permitted, and two free standing poles were left by default since 2003. Ms. Beauvais said she is not convinced the sign enjoys grandfathering status. A creative argument was made, but this is a corner lot and there are many in town, including the Gulf station. The main issue is the opportunity to see it is a gas station and to advertise its goods. It may not be possible to advertise at every angle. This site has been a gas station for many years and everyone knows that, and the fact that it is on a corner lot with some
restrictions to visibility is not enough to create an unusual lot. It is in a good location and there may be some financial hardship that the business does not have the ability to advertise they way they want to, but there must be more than a financial hardship. The intent of the bylaw is to do away with free-standing signs in certain areas and this bylaw has been in effect for many years.
Ms. Kumiega said she agreed there is no grandfathering in this matter, but think it is different from the Gulf station or any other corner lot because traffic comes in three specific directions. The big concern is with safety in the Central Business District with the pedestrian traffic. This area was designed for pedestrians and it is a busy traffic location. If the site would benefit from a corner sign then could meet the criteria to grant because of a particular traffic pattern.
Ms. Beauvais said there are lights in all areas of the intersection. The sign could be seen, but not far away coming down Elm because of the other businesses unless it was high up. Ms. Kumiega said there is some uniqueness to the size of the lot. All directions of traffic are slowing for the lights. It is visible further out even if they use a facade sign. The visibility is there if people are looking to buy gas. Safety is a stretch to say this site would be more safe. They could have a smaller sign on the pumps or façade.
Mr. Zymroz said he agreed with Ms. Beauvais that it is just a corner lot and not so unique that it fits into a situation to grant a variance.
Ms. Kumiega said pedestrians walk to CVS and crossing the street there, it is very congested in this area and at this intersection, safety should be a concern.
Mr. Zymroz said he was not inferring safety was not a concern, but do not see how a high free-standing sign would help with safety in this area.
Ms. Beauvais asked if the Board was ready to render a decision. Ms. Kumiega said she would like to see how much visibility you can see with the sign. Ms. Beauvais said she did not have a problem waiting if Ms. Kumiega wanted to visit the site and view the sign.
Ms. Beauvais moved to continue the public hearing to April 26, 2010, at 7:10 p.m. to allow the Board the opportunity to view the site and the existing sign poles; Mr. Zymroz second. UAV.
3. New/Old Business
No new or old business was discussed.
4. Date of Next Meeting
The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on Monday, April 26, 2010, at 7:00 p.m.
5. Adjournment
Ms. Beauvais moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:18 p.m.; Mr. Zymroz second. The vote was unanimous.
__________________________________
Christine Kumiega Provost
Secretary, Board of Appeals
| 
