ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
January 28, 2010
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m.
Roll Call: Present were: Julie Matthews, Vice-Chairman; Robert Loeffler; Peter Bealo; Daniel Lloyd, Alternate and Paul Boniface, Alternate. Larry Ordway Chairman and Roderic Cole were excused.
D. Lloyd and P. Boniface where appointed as voting members for this meeting.
Minutes of December 3, 2009, and January 7, 2010
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Loeffler, to approve the minutes of the December 3, 2009, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Matthews abstaining).
R. Loeffler moved, second by D. Lloyd, to approve the minutes of the January 7, 2010, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Boniface abstaining).
#10-01: A request from Pro Bark, Inc. for a variance from Article IX, Table 220-58.1 to permit a 4.9 sq ft sign where a 3 sq ft size is the maximum allowed. The property is located at 51 Kingston Rd, Tax Map 43, Lot 19, in the LDR District. The property owner of record is JPPN Properties, LLC.
Jeff Brown and Peter Brown, Pro-Bark, Inc. where present for the application.
J. Brown reminded that Board that he had been at a previous meeting applying for a variance for a 9.4 sq. ft. sign, which was denied. He explained that he had since then gone back and revised the sign to a 4.9 sq. ft. sign.
J. Brown showed a piece of cardboard that was cut to the same size as the sign he was applying for a variance for. He offered that he still believed that a three (3) sq. ft. sign was not adequate for trucks to be able to find their location. Mr. Brown noted that the reader board, which was on the previous sign and of concern to the Board and the abutters, had been removed.
J. Brown noted that in the Board’s deliberations of his previous application they suggested that trucks would be able to find their location by using GPS devices. He offered that such devices put in commercial vehicles did not work all that well as they do not provide exact enough directions for the commercial vehicles. J. Brown added that the personal GPS devices could not be used in commercial vehicles as they would frequently direct trucks down weight-restricted roads and devices designed specifically for commercial vehicles were very expensive.
J. Matthews asked if the sign would be lighted.
P. Brown replied that it would not.
R. Loeffler asked approximately how many trucks come to the site.
P. Brown replied that about 100 over the course of a year’s time.
J. Matthews asked if the Board had any additional questions, there were none. She asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of or in opposition to the Pro Bark application.
Denise Huber, 48 Kingston Road, offered that she has lived at her current home, directly across from this driveway, for forty (40) plus years and she said that she was not opposed to a sign, just one that is larger than what is permitted under the ordinances. Ms. Huber offered that Pro Bark cited safety concerns and questioned if that was true why they have not put up a three (3) sq. ft. sign, in the time that they have been at this location, to know whether or not it wouldn’t work. She also questioned why Pro Bark did not provide the Board with accident statistics that would confirm their claim that they needed a larger than permitted sign for safety purposes. Ms. Huber questioned whether or not the retail part of this business could be allowed in the Industrial District.
Note for the record: The property in question fronts in the Low Density Residential (LDR), which is the reason for the variance request, but the business buildings are located in the Industrial District.
D. Huber reiterated her request that the Board deny the request for a larger than permitted sign.
A letter from Paul and Thelma Holmes, 55 Kingston Road, was read into the record. They objecting to the application on grounds that it was a residential area and a larger sign would adversely affect the character and property values in the neighborhood.
There was no additional discussion and the hearing was closed.
DELIBERATION
#10-01: A request from Pro Bark, Inc. for a variance from Article IX, Table 220-58.1 to permit a 4.9 sq ft sign where a 3 sq ft size is the maximum allowed. The property is located at 51 Kingston Rd, Tax Map 43, Lot 19, in the LDR District. The property owner of record is JPPN Properties, LLC.
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Loeffler, to grant Pro Bark’s request for a variance to allow at 4.9 sq. ft. sign at 51 Kingston Road.
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance noting the following:
- The surrounding property values will not be diminished as the business is long existing and whether or not there is a sign for it is irrelevant
- There is a benefit to the public interest as the sign would make the site more readily recognizable and allow trucks to turn before going past the entrance and then have to turn around
P. Bealo offered that public interest could go either way and that it may not be in the public’s interest to have greater recognition of the site and perhaps an increase in the traffic.
R. Loeffler suggested that they should have a sign either way; adding the ordinance doesn’t directly address this unique situation.
P. Bealo reminded that they were entitled to have a sign.
J. Matthews added that either way they can and will have a sign.
R. Loeffler noted that there were not here for the right to have a sign, but to have a larger sized sign.
P. Bealo offered that a three (3) sq. ft. sign is all that is allowed in the residential district and is relatively small when you are unfamiliar with the area and trying to find something.
- The desired outcome cannot be achieved with out a variance
D. Lloyd offered that this was a unique situation and there was nothing else to compare it to. He suggested that while there may be alternatives they just would not be as effective.
- There was be substantial justice as the tractor trailers would have an easier time locating the site
R. Loeffler questioned how a bigger sign made it easier for tractor trailers to locate the site.
J. Matthews replied the letters on the sign could be larger.
R. Loeffler suggested that if the vehicle is traveling at the speed limit it shouldn’t matter as it would have the same visibility to all traffic. He added that he didn’t see that this sign would be a loss to the general public
J. Matthews asked if the application violated the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
P. Bealo offered that it clearly violated the letter of the ordinance or they would not have to come before the Board for a variance. He added that sign as shown was not going to be lighted and the style would blend well with the environment. P. Bealo stated that he didn’t think it was contrary to the ordinance.
J. Matthews added that they (Pro Bark) listened to the Board’s and abutters’ concern stated at their first application and came back with a smaller sign.
D. Lloyd said the only question he had was with the height of the sign.
There was a discussion of the drawing of the sign that was submitted with the application. It was roughly scaled out and surmised that the height of the sign as depicted was approximately six (6) feet; but members wanted to insure that the sign would not be higher.
P. Bealo amended his motion, which was second by R. Loeffler, to include a condition that the height of the sign shall not exceed six (6) feet. There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A to grant the variance application and permit a 4.9 sq. ft. sign, no higher than six (6) feet, for Pro Bark at 51 Kingston Road .
There was no further business before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Administrative Assistant
| 
