ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
March 29, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m.
Roll Call: Larry Ordway, Chairman; Peter Bealo, Vice Chairman; Robert Loeffler; Julie Matthews; and Clifford Clark.
Minutes
« P. Bealo moved, second by J. Matthews, to approve the minutes of the February 22, 2007, meeting. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
#07-06: A request from Aaron M. Singer for a variance from Article IX, §220-59A to permit a third attached sign where only two attached signs are allowed. The property is located at 77 Plaistow Rd, Tax Map 27, Lot 33 in the CI District. The property owner of record is Aaron M. Singer Realty Trust.
Aaron Singer and Michelle Singer were present for the application.
A. Singer showed pictures of what the finished design of the Subaru dealership was intended to look like, including an icon tower where the requested sign was proposed to be placed. He noted that were already two signs on the building, one that read “Singer” and one that read “Subaru” as well as a free standing pylon sign.
P. Bealo noted that the pylon sign was not shown in the pictures presented.
A. Singer added that the banner that was currently on the building would be coming down in favor of the two signs that he mentioned and the Subaru oval. He offered that it would be tasteful, classy and gives an impression of being a reputable dealership.
L. Ordway noted that the dealership agreement that was provided to the Board was expired (December 31, 2006).
A. Singer offered that the agreements with the dealer are renewed every three years.
L. Ordway stated that a copy of the current dealership agreement needed to be provided for the Board.
There was discussion regarding a number of points outlined in the current contract where Singer Subaru did not comply with the terms of Subaru’s dealership requirements.
R. Loeffler asked what would happen to Mr. Singer’s business if he didn’t get granted the variance, would he be forced (by Subaru) to move out of town.
A. Singer replied that he would not, but it could be grounds for termination of his contract with Subaru.
P. Bealo questioned, noting all the other areas of contractual non-compliance, if there was a guarantee that Mr. Singer’s contract would not be terminated for those reasons, even if the variance were to be granted.
A. Singer answered that there had been concessions made by corporate Subaru for the other areas of non-compliance with dealership rules in consideration of the market, which he noted to be shrinking in this area. He said that they were less likely to be as lenient with the signage requirements.
L. Ordway asked about a number of other signage, such as “used cars”, “parts” that was required as part of the expired dealership agreement.
A. Singer responded that the new agreement did not have the same requirements for those signs.
L. Ordway requested confirmation that the only signage would be the three signs on the building and the pylon sign.
A. Singer offered that there would also be a handicapped parking sign.
C. Clark noted that the dealership agreement did not call for an “icon” sign.
A. Singer replied that they used the term “logo” interchangeably for icon.
L. Ordway asked if the icon chimney would be any higher than the peak of the building.
A. Singer indicated that it would not.
L. Ordway asked if the Board had any additional questions, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of the application.
Ron Mills, owner of Window Within, 79 Plaistow Road, had submitted a letter in support of the application, which was read for the record.
L. Ordway asked if there was anyone speaking in opposition to the application. There was no one and the hearing was closed.
L. Ordway gave an explanation of the deliberation and decision process.
DELIBERATIONS
#07-06: A request from Aaron M. Singer for a variance from Article IX, §220-59A to permit a third attached sign where only two attached signs are allowed. The property is located at 77 Plaistow Rd, Tax Map 27, Lot 33 in the CI District. The property owner of record is Aaron M. Singer Realty Trust.
« R. Loeffler moved, second by C. Clark, to grant the request for a third sign at 77 Plaistow Road.
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance with the following findings:
There would be no diminishment to the surrounding property values as this was a commercial area where signage was common. It was also noted that there were not residential properties nearby whose values would be affected.
Whether or not there is a Subaru logo sign on the tower or not is of minimal interest to the public, the bigger issue is that it is prohibited by the ordinance
P. Bealo disagreed stating that he felt that part of the reason for the ordinance was to provide a balance of adequate signage for businesses but limit the distraction that too much signage can cause for drivers. He added that he felt this additional signage would be contrary to the ordinance for that reason.
L. Ordway agreed with P. Bealo’s interpretation, but offered that the distraction was very minor.
P. Bealo expressed concern that granting the variance would set a precedent that allowed the distraction.
C. Clark offered that the emblem set the building apart, distinguishing the building.
P. Bealo suggested that they could take down of the other signs and incorporate the logo into it.
There was discussion regarding other third sign applications that had been denied and the reasons that they had been denied. It was also discussed what would the precedent granting the application would set for future applications. It was noted that the viability of each application is determined on a case by case basis.
R. Loeffler offered that he felt the applicant answered with too many “I don’t knows” and there was missing information that he felt there may not be enough for a decision to be made.
P. Bealo asked if it was the business of the Board to get involved with the business of a business and how they dealt with their dealership agreement.
L. Ordway noted there was no hardship particular to the land itself.
J. Matthews said that Mr. Singer could lose his dealership.
P. Bealo reminded that he would still have commercial use of the property and a dealership would still be allowed by the Town.
C. Clark suggested that Mr. Singer should have the right to decide what type of dealership he wanted to run.
R. Loeffler agreed, adding that the Town also had the right to say no third sign.
C. Clark offered that the sign wouldn’t look like much more than a button on the tower.
There was discussion regarding the appearance of the proposed third sign and how it would appear. There was also discussion as to whether or not the logo could be incorporated with other signage on the property.
P. Bealo acknowledged that it was a small sign but expressed concern over the precedent that it would set for future requests. He added that there were other ways to get product recognition.
C. Clark reminded that it was a certain look that the business was trying to achieve.
P. Bealo said that he understood that, adding that it wasn’t up to a corporation to define the look for any town. He noted that in Freeport, Maine the McDonald’s had to design its storefront to fit in with what that town wanted, not the reverse.
C. Clark noted that was Maine, not Route 125 in Plaistow.
P. Bealo offered that the location was irrelevant it was still contrary to the Town’s ordinances.
There was a discussion of what other things were listed as being deficient in the dealership agreement.
C. Clark suggested that the third sign wasn’t a bad thing and would set the building apart and making it look classy.
P. Bealo questioned whether it was in the best interests of the Town to grant variances at the whim of a corporation.
C. Clark reminded that Subaru could pull its license with the Singers.
L. Ordway offered that the application did not pass the hardship in the land test.
J. Matthews said that it was an existing dealership and to not allow the sign at the potential of getting the dealership pulled was a hardship.
P. Bealo reiterated that it was a dealership that has never been in compliance with its corporate agreement.
J. Matthews added that it was corporate that was pushing him to get the third sign.
R. Loeffler suggested that his recourse would be to go back to the dealership and tell them that he could not get the variance and see what the alternatives are. He added that signage is a very hot button issue for Plaistow and another sign would be seen as adding to the clutter.
C. Clark said that he felt it would be taking away from the clutter and adding a tasteful business façade.
There would be no substantial justice in denying the owner a seven sq. ft. sign, noting there wasn’t enough of an offset loss to the public
R. Loeffler expressed concern over the next application and how that would affect the substantial justice. He added that up until this point the Board had remained consistent with their decisions.
P. Bealo agreed, adding there were other ways incorporate the emblem into their signage.
C. Clark said that it would take away from the corporate look that was trying to be achieved.
The question was asked that since this was a variance and would travel with the property what the consequences would be for future businesses at the site. It was noted that an enforcement argument could be made that would restrict the size of any third sign to the seven square feet of this application.
R. Loeffler suggested that where the logo was to be put wouldn’t have much visibility and that he didn’t see the advantage of the sign.
The intent of the ordinance is to prevent visual overload in the commercial district. It was noted that this would not be a “50 foot high cactus” but a seven foot logo sign.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-2-0 (Bealo and Loeffler dissenting).
The chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Administrative Assistant
| 
