ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 31, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Larry Ordway, Chairman; Peter Bealo, Vice Chairman; Robert Loeffler; and Julie Matthews. Clifford Clark was excused.
Minutes
P. Bealo moved, second by L. Ordway, to approve the minutes of the April 26, 2007, meeting. The vote was 3-0-1 (Loeffler abstaining).
L. Ordway explained the significance of a four-member board and asked if anyone wish to request a continuance. There were no requests at that time.
#07-08: A request from Daniel Lloyd for a special exception under Article X, all sections, to permit a home occupation, namely a mobile pressuring washing company. The property is located at 25 Katherine Way, Tax Map 61, Lot 11, in the LDR District. The applicant is the owner of record.
Daniel Lloyd, 25 Katherine Way, was present for the application. He explained that he would like to operate a mobile pressure washing business. Mr. Lloyd continued that he maintains all his equipment on an 8’ X 10’ open trailer and was stored in his garage. He added that there would be no work done on the premises and he was operating on a part-time basis to get his business started.
P. Bealo asked what kinds of chemicals where used.
D. Lloyd replied that everything used was biodegradable.
The Board reviewed the requirements for a home occupation under Article X with the following evidence being offered:
- The applicant qualifies for a home occupation under §220-66C
- There was no activity conducted on the property therefore there was nothing that would be noxious or injurious by way of dust, fumes, noise, vibration or electrical fluctuation.
- The proposed office is +/- 4% of the residential living space
- There is nothing proposed that would change the residential character of the single-family dwelling
- There was no sign proposed
- The applicant uses a ½ ton pick-up truck to pull the trailer
- There are no restrictions or covenants in the deed to prevent a home occupation
- There is enough parking for the business since all work was done off-site and only a trailer was parked on the property at night
The applicant was reminded that the Code Enforcement Office could inspect the business at any time and that the home occupation needed to be renewed every three (3) years.
L. Ordway asked if the Board had any additional questions. There were none. L. Ordway asked if there was anyone speaking in favor or in opposition to the application. There was no one and the hearing was closed.
L. Ordway explained the Board’s hearing procedure, noting that all matters would be heard and then all would be decided after a short break. He noted that no additional input was allowed once a public hearing was closed.
#07-09: A request from Barlo Signs, agent for Baron’s, for a variance from Article IX, §220-59A to permit an 80 sq. ft. attached sign where 30 sq. ft is the maximum allowed. The property is located at 12 Plaistow Rd, Tax Map 24, Lot 31 in the CI District. The property owner of record is Raymond N. Baron.
Don Reed, Barlo Signs and Mike Baron, Baron’s Major Appliances, were present for the application.
D. Reed reminded that the Board had recently considered and denied an application for a larger sign and noted that they had take the Board’s input to heart in making this new application. He added that he felt the new sign would both be adequate for the Baron’s business as well as be aesthetically pleasing to the citizens of Plaistow.
D. Reed gave the Board members a computer photo that showed the sign that had been previously proposed (and denied) and what they were proposing under this application. He added that there was currently 80 sq. ft. of signage, between two (2) signs, on the building.
L. Ordway asked if that was just the signage for Baron’s.
D. Reed replied that it was, noting the two signs to be an awning and a wall mounted sign.
P. Bealo questioned if the awning would be going away.
D. Reed answered that the awning would be going away and that the whole building façade would be renovated.
P. Bealo offered that going from two signs at 50 sq. ft and 30 sq. ft. to one sign at 80 sq. ft. was a wash in his opinion.
L. Ordway asked what the other businesses would be doing for signage.
M. Baron noted that AutoZone, if they even replaced the sign, would be replacing it in kind with perhaps just a new face.
L. Ordway questioned what the new tenant would have for signage.
M. Baron replied that they did not yet have a tenant for the new space as they had just recently obtained a building permit, but the signage would comply with zoning.
L. Ordway inquired what signage there would be for the business on the side of the building.
M. Baron answered that the side unit was not in use at this time.
L. Ordway recalled that the side unit was to go away as part of the new construction.
M. Baron replied that was correct.
There was a brief discussion of what variances were previously granted to the site for signage.
L. Ordway asked if there were any changes proposed for the free-standing sign.
M. Baron offered that other than filling in the blank panels there was nothing proposed at this time. He added they made want to update with a changeable letter board on the sign, but they wanted to see how the new façade worked for the business.
L. Ordway asked if the Board had any additional questions. There were none. L. Ordway asked if there was anyone speaking in favor or in opposition to the application. There was no one and the hearing was closed.
D. Reed noted that he did not directly address the five points for a variance.
L. Ordway replied that the Board would go over what was written in the application as part of deliberations.
#07-10: A request from Emily Gelinas for a special exception under Article VIII, all sections, to permit an in-law apartment. The property is located at 1 Rustic Lane, Tax Map 52, Lot 90 in the MDR District. The applicant is the owner of record.
Chris Gelinas, 1 Rustic Lane, was present for the application. He explained that they would like to use part of the lower level of their split-entry single-family home for an in-law apartment. Mr. Gelinas noted that he had spoken with the Department of Building Safety (DBS) regarding egress and would take what ever actions they recommended. He added that they had done a test pit and there were no issues.
It was noted for the record that the Department of Building Safety had received the test pit data and confirmed that there was no issued with adding an in-law apartment.
The Board reviewed the requirements for an in-law under Article VIII with the following evidence being offered:
- There would be no changes to the exterior of the building and the existing access door for the basement would be the entrance to the in-law apartment.
- The in-law was proposed to be 578 sq. ft. in size
- The Gelinases have be long-term (more than one calendar year) of the property
- The in-law apartment would be one-bedroom
- There would be no more than two people living in the in-law. It was noted that Mrs. Gelinas’ mother would be the occupant
- The in-law apartment would never be under a separate ownership
- It was reported that the DBS was satisfied that the septic was adequate
- The property was on a private well and there were no water issues
- A proposed floor plan was submitted for review
- A sketch of the lot was submitted
- All utilities would remain on the same meter
L. Ordway noted for the applicant that the special exception for the in-law apartment would cease if the property were sold and a new owner would have to apply for their own special exception to continue the use of the in-law apartment.
L. Ordway asked if the Board had any additional questions. There were none. L. Ordway asked if there was anyone speaking in favor or in opposition to the application. There was no one and the hearing was closed.
#07-11: A request from Joseph Scott, Scott Building Twenty, LLC, for a variance from Article IX, §220-59C(1)(d) to expand an existing free standing sign, which will make it larger than the 150 sq. ft. maximum allowable. The property is located at 95A Plaistow Road, Tax Map 28, Lot 23 in the CI District. The owners of record are the applicant and Donald and Raymond Baron.
Ron Pica, RJ Pica Engineering, Inc. and Joseph Scott, property owner, were present for the application.
P. Bealo asked for clarification of who owned the sign.
L. Ordway noted that needed to be addressed.
R. Pica offered that the subject property was set back 700 feet from Route 125 and behind another building. He noted that the building was owned by Mr. Scott and the Barons. R. Pica added that Doug Abrams (97 Plaistow Road) and Mark Marino (95 Plaistow Road) have easements to access the driveway. He explained that the proposal was to expand the sign in a straight line and added that there would be a sign for Planet Fitness; one for Barons and two for future tenants. R. Pica noted there would be no signage for the auto parts store or the moving company. He explained that according to the easement the free-standing sign, while physically located on 95A Plaistow Road, was for the benefit of 97 Plaistow Road. R. Pica explained that at one point in the past all the affected parcels were owned by the same family
(Klements). He added that the sign was never deeded to 97 Plaistow Road, only and easement for the use of the sign.
There was discussion regarding the ownership of the existing sign. It was noted that ownership of the structure needed to be established to determine who had the right to request the expansion of that structure.
R. Pica explained that their proposal was to expand the sign by adding the same amount of signage space that would be dedicated to the businesses operating at 95A Plaistow Road. He noted that the existing square footage was 420.5 and the finished sign would be 841 sq. ft.
L. Ordway noted that the ordinance only allowed for 150 square feet and the existing sign already exceeded that restriction.
R. Loeffler asked what signage was currently on the pylon.
R. Pica answered that it was mostly for the furniture company and there was a sign for a business that had left (John Deere). He showed pictures that demonstrated the sight distance and noted that nothing would be blocked. R. Pica noted that the sign would match in height and width to the existing sign, suggesting the if they didn’t match the size and connect it together it wouldn’t look as good. He added that there wasn’t enough frontage to add another free standing sign next to this one, but it was important for the businesses in the back to get some exposure on Route 125; he reminded that the building was set back 700 feet from the road.
L. Ordway asked if the new sign end up being the largest sign in Plaistow.
R. Pica suggested that the Stateline Plaza sign might be as big.
It was offered that sign was in Haverhill.
R. Pica reiterated that this proposed sign would be for two retail addresses, which was a unique situation in Plaistow. He suggested that there was no other place on Mr. Abrams property to put another free standing sign because of the slopes.
There was a discussion of the layout of the buildings and the number of units in the buildings. It was noted that there were fourteen units that were retail/office/warehouse space approved.
L. Ordway asked why signage couldn’t be added to the existing pylon.
R. Pica reminded that the easement noted that it was for the benefit of 97 Plaistow Road and the agreement was that 97 Plaistow Road would be using that signage space, they would just like to create space for 95A Plaistow Road to use.
P. Bealo noted that the easement read that a “portion” of the sign. It suggested that it wasn’t a hardship in the land but a growth of the condos and the use of the buildings.
R. Pica disagreed noted that it was subdivided into fourteen (14) condos and there were currently only four users.
L. Ordway asked if the easement indicates that both 97 and 95A have rights to use the sign why couldn’t the nine units use the same sign.
R. Pica noted there was only 22 feet of usable space remaining on the sign.
L. Ordway suggested that there was approximately enough space for each business to have a two foot high sign that would be the width of the pylon structure.
R. Pica offered that wouldn’t be in keeping with the other signage along Route 125 which had larger signs.
There was a discussion of the proposed signage and how it could be broken up. A suggested was made that space be added to the top of the sign.
R. Pica noted that the existing pylon sign foundation would have to be reinforced for winds and could reach 39 feet in height. He discussed how different scenarios would affect the exposure of the sign. R. Pica noted that the sign would not be an eyesore and there would be plantings added to it.
There was further review of photos submitted by the applicant.
P. Bealo offered that he had a problem with granting a variance for a condition that was self-created by the previous owner. He added that Mr. Klements created the issue with the easement.
R. Pica replied that such things were typical in land use at the time, not much thought was given to how future things would be affected.
P. Bealo offered that he thought previous land owners were just as sharp as current ones.
R. Pica offered that he felt the request was reasonable given the configuration of the land and would give the opportunity for signage for 95A Plaistow Road, where there is no other way to provide it.
J. Scott gave a history of what he had done to improve the property in the two years that he has owned it. He noted that he had also updated the condo documents. Mr. Scott offered that the sign belonged to him, he paid the taxes on it and it wasn’t his fault that Mr. Klements didn’t want to pay for two signs. He expressed frustration that he was looking to upgrade the property and now had to argue with a neighbor over a sign. He said that he was trying to attract good tenants and signage for them would be important.
R. Loeffler asked how far off the road the existing sign was.
R. Pica noted that it was approximately 9½ feet from the property line to the proposed addition to the sign.
The applicant offered the following response to the five criteria for the granting of a variance:
- There would be no diminishment to the surrounding property values as there would be no views blocked and they would be landscaping the sign to make it attractive
- There would be benefit to the public interest in the identification of the businesses that are set 700 feet off Route 125
- There is a hardship in that the existing sign was primarily for the use of 97 Plaistow Road, by easement, and 95A Plaistow Road was only entitled to the use of a portion of the sign. It was suggested that it would be very difficult for the two property owners to come to an agreement as to who gets what portion of the sign
- There were also limits as to the amount of frontage on Route 125 to add any other signage
L. Ordway asked why there wasn’t a request for a second free-standing sign.
J. Scott offered that they could put up a second free standing sign if that was what the Board preferred.
There was discussion regarding whether or not there should be a new application for two free-standing signs instead of expanding the existing one.
R. Pica noted that it seemed to be the preference of the Board that there are two signs instead of one larger one.
R. Loeffler offered that it shouldn’t be assumed the whole board agreed with that.
It was noted for the record that the application that was before the Board was for the expansion of the existing sign and any discussion about alternative scenarios should not be seen as automatic commitment by the Board to the granting of alternative future applications.
L. Ordway asked if there were any further questions from the Board, there were none at this time.
L. Ordway asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of the application.
Mark Marino, property owner 95 Plaistow Road, offered support for the application, noting the efforts that Mr. Scott had made to clean up and improve the property.
L. Ordway asked if there was anyone speaking in opposition to the application.
Michelle Lacount , attorney for Douglas Abrams, 97 Plaistow Road, asked if there were restrictions on the set backs for signage.
It was noted for the record that current zoning required signage to be located on the property to which it related and was not to obstruct any lines of sight.
M. Lacount noted that her client had a number of concerns, the first of which was that he had been paying all the maintenance costs for the current sign. She asked who would be responsible for continued maintenance if the sign were expanded. Ms. Lacount noted there was currently a flood light affixed to the pylon that provided security lighting for Mr. Abrams property and she questioned what would happen with that light on an expanded sign. She noted other concerns to be whether or not all members of the condo association had given written permission for the application and whether or not they would have to be involved with the maintenance of the sign. Ms. Lacount suggested there was some ambiguity as to who has rights to the sign and how much of the sign.
P. Bealo offered that the easement provided for the use of the sign, not for a light.
L. Ordway noted that no buildings were mentioned on the deed transfer at all, adding that the deed appeared to be for a raw land transfer.
J. Scott stated that the buildings were erected in 1986-87.
R. Pica noted that he had written permission to represent all members of the condo association. He added that Mr. Scott was present; Raymond Baron gave his permission and that Donald Baron was retired from the business, allowing Raymond Baron to run things.
L. Ordway closed the hearing
#07-12: A request from Autopart International for special exception under Article IX §220-59A(1) to permit a 90 sq ft sign, which is said to not exceed 10% of the building façade. The property is located at 1 Hilldale Ave, Tax Map 11, Lot 4 in the I District. The property owner of record is Paley Irrevocable Trust.
Charlie Napoli, Autopart International, was present for the application.
It was noted that written permission for the application had not been received from the property owner and the Board could not hear the request without such permission.
C. Napoli requested a continuance so that the written permission could be obtained.
R. Loeffler moved, second by J. Matthews, to grant the request for a continuance in the matter #07-12. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
It was noted for the record that the matter was continued to June 28, 2007, and there would be no further notification that the vote to continue.
The chairman called for a break at 8:32 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:40 p.m.
DELIBERATIONS:
#07-08: A request from Daniel Lloyd for a special exception under Article X, all sections, to permit a home occupation, namely a mobile pressuring washing company. The property is located at 25 Katherine Way, Tax Map 61, Lot 11, in the LDR District. The applicant is the owner of record.
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Loeffler, to grant the request for a special exception for a home occupation at 25 Katherine Way.
L. Ordway recapped the evidence presented by the applicant, noting that all requirements appeared to be met.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A and the application was granted.
#07-09: A request from Barlo Signs, agent for Baron’s, for a variance from Article IX, §220-59A to permit an 80 sq. ft. attached sign where 30 sq. ft is the maximum allowed. The property is located at 12 Plaistow Rd, Tax Map 24, Lot 31 in the CI District. The property owner of record is Raymond N. Baron.
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Loeffler, to grant the request for a variance to permit a 80 sq. ft sign at 12 Plaistow Road.
P. Bealo amended his motion, second by R. Loeffler, to grant the request for a variance to permit a single 80 sq. ft sign at 12 Plaistow Road and that the granting of this variance supersedes any previous variances granted for signage at this business location.
The Board reviewed the evidence presented for the five criteria required for the granting of a variance with the following findings:
- There would be no diminishment to the surrounding property values. This is a commercial property in a commercial district and will continue to be as such
- The public interest is served by a reasonable sign that identifies the business. It was also noted that the 80 sq. ft. sign was more conforming than the current 82.1 sq. ft of signage that was to be removed.
- There would be a hardship in taking away from the amount of signage that the business already had
- There would be substantial justice in the granting of the variance as it would fit in with the other improvements the owner was seeking to make to the property to modernize the building.
- It was not contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance in that it was still a restricted sized sign but would adequately identify the business. It was reiterated that there was a slight decrease in the total amount of signage with this proposed sign.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A and the variance was granted as amended.
#07-10: A request from Emily Gelinas for a special exception under Article VIII, all sections, to permit an in-law apartment. The property is located at 1 Rustic Lane, Tax Map 52, Lot 90 in the MDR District. The applicant is the owner of record.
J. Matthews moved, second by L. Ordway, to grant the request for a special exception to permit and in-law apartment at 1 Rustic Lane.
The application was noted to be a “classic” and meeting all the criteria for an in-law apartment.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A and special exception for an in-law apartment was granted.
#07-11: A request from Joseph Scott, Scott Building Twenty, LLC, for a variance from Article IX, §220-59C(1)(d) to expand an existing free standing sign, which will make it larger than the 150 sq. ft. maximum allowable. The property is located at 95A Plaistow Road, Tax Map 28, Lot 23 in the CI District. The owners of record are the applicant and Donald and Raymond Baron.
L. Ordway moved, second by J. Matthews, to grant the request for a variance to expand the existing pylon sign at 95A Plaistow Road.
L. Ordway noted that this was a unique situation and there were some characteristics about 97 Plaistow Road that could been seen as a hardship for erecting signage.
There was discussion regarding the shape of the parcels in question and the fact that granting the variance request would double the size of the existing sign. Concern was expressed as to what kind of precedent would be sent for future applications. It was noted that the building next door had twenty-four (24) units and all businesses were listed on a single pylon sign and the two buildings that would have to share this sign (if a variance were not granted) had nine (9) businesses.
P. Bealo offered that he felt that the Board was being asked to expand on a sign that two property locations were entitled to use by easement and whose owners couldn’t decide on their own how much each should have.
J. Matthews reminded that the Board was being asked to decided the size of the sign, not how each tenant appeared on it.
R. Loeffler noted that the applicant would be agreeable to putting up a second sign.
J. Matthews offered that a second sign would have the same affect as the expanded existing sign.
There was a brief discussion regarding current issues with temporary signage.
P. Bealo suggested that under current zoning the property owner of 97 Plaistow Road would have the right to erect his own free-standing pylon sign.
J. Matthews noted that even with the easement both 97 and 95A Plaistow Road had the right to signage.
R. Loeffler added that if the Board were to grant a variance for a second free standing sign at 95A Plaistow Road (instead of expanding the existing) and the 97 Plaistow Road put up a free-standing sign there was the potential for 3 free-standing signs.
P. Bealo offered that there was not demonstrated hardship in that they were not trying to use the space that was available to them currently.
The Board reviewed the criteria required for the granting of a variance with the following findings:
- There would be no diminishment in the surrounding property values. It was suggested that additional signage would increase the value of the subject property
- The public interest would be served in that people looking for the businesses at 95A Plaistow Road would have signage
P. Bealo suggested that was a private interest serving the businesses located at 95A Plaistow Road.
R. Loeffler disagreed noting that it would be the public trying to find the business.
- There was no hardship in that the businesses at 95A Plaistow Road did have the legal right to place signage on the pylon as it is currently located. It was noted that the legal rights were outlined in the easement and the enforcement of those rights was a matter for the civil courts
P. Bealo added that there was no definition for “portion” and there was nothing in the easement that protected other functions, such as the flood light.
- It was noted that this was a unique situation, which was created by a previous owner, without consideration for the impact of two different owners for 95A and 97 Plaistow Road
R. Loeffler reminded that it was reported to be a family issue.
P. Bealo added that it may have been a financial decision at the time but was still done willingly.
- It was noted that there was no justice in allowing the expansion of the existing sign when that sign wasn’t being completely used.
R. Loeffler noted that there were vacancies in the buildings that could be filled tomorrow. He added that it wasn’t a valid reason to deny the application because the sign wasn’t filled.
P. Bealo offered that it clearly showed there was no hardship, adding that they currently have a right to use of a portion of the sign and they are using none. He added that forcing the people to get together may ultimately result in 97 Plaistow Road returning the rights to the use of the sign to 95 Plaistow Road and erecting their own sign.
- It is in direct violation of the spirit and intent of the ordinance as it would be out of proportion to other sings on Route 125 and was beyond the limits of a larger sign.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote on the motion to grant the variance was 0-4-0, defeating the motion.
The Board previewed an application from the Board of Selectmen for an appeal of the administrative decision of the Planning Board that would be heard at the next meeting.
There was no further business and the chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Administrative Assistant
| 
