MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING
Public Hearing: Changes to Section 5.6 of the Zoning Bylaws: Signs and Billboards
MARCH 27, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Frieden, Patrick McKeon, Chris Olson, Karen Paré, Vincent Vignaly
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: David Femia, Nickolas Hackett, Becky Hackett, George Bernardin, Wayne Mogel, Andy Meindersma, Patrick Crowley, Michael Kane, Saavas Fotiades, John Hadley, Kevin McCormick, Chris Rucho
All documents referenced in these Minutes are stored and available for public inspection in the Planning Board office, 127 Hartwell Street.
The Chair opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. The Clerk, Mr. McKeon, read the Notice of Public Hearing that was published on March 13th and March 20th in the Worcester Telegram and Gazette. Mr. Frieden gave an introduction describing the intent of the Planning Board in revising certain sections of the Signs and Billboards Bylaw. He read in part a Summary of the changes and noted that requests for change were made by the Economic Development Task Force.
Mr. Wayne Mogel, 27 Sterling Street, owner of the Country Kettle Cafe, stated that customers don’t notice from the street whether his restaurant is open, so his “Open” flag is very important. He inquired whether he will still be able to fly his 5’x1-1/2’ flag along the street. Mr. Vignaly stated that the Board wants to allow people to conduct business in town but does not want large flags flying in front of every business. Mr. Mogel stated that you can still attract business to town if you put out nice, professional signs. Mr. John Hadley, Malden Street, asked for clarification on the “Open” signs and Ms. Paré read Section B.6)c., which states that an “Open” sign is allowed if less than one square foot in size. Mr. Mark Brodeur, Building Inspector and
Code Enforcement Officer, stated that a lit, “Open” sign of one square foot offends no one. Mr. Vignaly stated that the Board could make a change allowing these signs to be “lit”, but not flashing.
Minutes of the Planning Board Public Hearing 2.
March 27, 2013 – Signs and Billboards
Mr. George Bernardin, 78 Newton Street, stated that he wanted to commend the Board for trying to improve the bylaw. The town has been developing more clutter along Route 12 and there are many issues for the Code Enforcement Officer to deal with. The moveable signs bother me, he stated. They create more problems for Mr. Brodeur to monitor. They shouldn’t be allowed for any longer than they are now. Mr. Vignaly inquired whether Mr. Bernardin could suggest a “better number”. Mr. Frieden stated that the Board has limited the size and location of a temporary sign. Mr. Brodeur stated that he is OK with the 30 – 60 – 90 day schedule and added that he has new software that will make monitoring these signs easier, but he has to work out the price structure. The business
community wants this, he added. Ms. Paré stated that the current structure allows three sign permits per year for thirty days each. Now, the owners can choose best when it works for them. If all businesses decide to put these signs up at the same time, Mr. Bernardin stated, it will mean real clutter.
Mr. Vignaly stated that the Planning Board is maintaining the setback requirement. Now all signs must be 10’ back on the property. Mr. Moger stated that he hopes for exceptions to this rule. “There is no other place to put my sign but the parking lot”, he stated. Mr. Kevin McCormick, Wood Street, stated that 90% of the businesses along Route 12 have parking on the street or close to the setback. When he needed to put up signs to inform the public that his restaurant was now serving lunch, he had to put the sign in the setback in order for it to be seen. If he didn’t put it in the setback, it would have had to be behind the restaurant where no one would see it. Ms. Paré noted that this provision was always in the bylaws. Ten feet behind is too far back, Mr. McCormick
continued. A sign needs to be where you can see it. On his side of Route 12, he stated, most signs are in the right-of-way or in the setback. Ten feet back doesn’t work for me, he continued. Andrew Meindersma, a local Boy Scout observing the meeting as part of a merit badge requirement, suggested that the bylaw be reworded to allow the moveable signs to be on the property of the advertising business and not have any setback. The Board would consider the suggestion.
Mr. Savaas Fotiades, owner of the Manor on Route 12, stated that he understood that the Planning Board was trying to be friendly to business, but if he doesn’t tell the public about something new happening at his restaurant, no one will know about it. Why not look at each individual business, he asked? In this town, he stated, I don’t see business-friendly boards. He is splitting his business into two separate entities and he asked whether he can have two signs. He stated that he would be limited to 40 sf with one sign. Ms. Paré stated that he could have a wall sign on Franklin and one on Route 12. The sign goes on the building where the business is. Mr. Vignaly stated that a single business is allowed a sign of 40 sf while three or more business (i.e. a business center) is allowed a
sign of 64 sf. He queried whether the Board should increase the area to 50 sf for one sign for two businesses. He added that temporary signs must be on the property of the business that is advertising.
Mr. Chris Rucho, Colonial Hill Drive, asked about the difference between non-conforming and non-compliant signs. Ms. Paré stated that a non-conforming sign is one that was erected before the bylaws changed and is thus grandfathered from complying with the new
Minutes of the Planning Board Public Hearing 2.
March 27, 2013 – Signs and Billboards
bylaws. A non-compliant sign is one that is not grandfathered and must comply with the current bylaws. Mr. Hadley inquired about signs that are posted on the side of a truck and then permanently parked in front of a business. Ms. Paré directed him to page 14, F.1)k.,
which states that “signs attached to vehicles or movable storage containers that are parked or stored on property as a mechanism for displaying the message in the sign” are prohibited. Mr. Brodeur stated that there are two such signs in town and if the bylaw changes are passed, these signs will disappear. Mr. Bruce Peterson, Prospect Street, inquired whether, when replacing or repairing a non-conforming sign, you must use the same materials that were used when the sign was first constructed. He referenced page 1. Section A.5)a. where it defines the term “alter” of a sign to include “changing the construction material of a sign”. He stated that it is not within the town’s purview to tell someone what material to use for a sign. Mr. Frieden stated that this was not
the intention of the Board. A sign owner may use updated materials when repairing or redoing a non-conforming sign, without getting a permit.
Ms. Paré noted that the Planning Board gets constant complaints and comments from townspeople about the sign clutter on Route 12 and thanked Mr. Bernardin for coming to the meeting and representing that group of people. Mr. David Femia of Sterling Street asked whether signs were allowed within a condo complex and Mr. Vignaly stated that they are currently not allowed.
Ms. Paré stated that she will find out the standard size for “Open” flags. Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Mr. Olson, it was unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
Date Accepted:________________ By:_____________________________
Patrick McKeon, Clerk
Submitted By:_________________________
Susan Abramson
| 
