2003-03-05 with City Council
City of Beverly, Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Joint Public Hearing - City Council and the
BOARD:
Planning Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: March 3, 2003
PLACE: Beverly City Hall
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Ellen Flannery,
Elizabeth McGlynn, Robert Rink
ABSENT: Joanne Dunn, John Thomson, Patricia Grimes
OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Director, Debra Hurlburt; Asst. Planning
Director Leah Zambernardi; Chairman of the Zoning
Board of Appeals, Scott Houseman
RECORDER: Jeannine Dion
Joint Public Hearing - Proposed Zoning Amendment - Sign Ordinance
City Clerk Fran MacDonald reads the legal notice.
City Council President. Paul Guanci introduces Debra Hurlburt, the Planning Director
to provide an overview of the proposed Zoning Amendment.
Hurlburt introduces the members of the Sign Ordinance Committee who worked on
revising the Sign Ordinance: Peggy O'Brien, Jennifer Palardy, Scott Houseman, Bill
Finch and Doug Haring (not present). '
Hurlburt states that she provided the Council and Board members with an Executive
Summary indicating the primary reason why the committee undertook this task. She
added that there were areas in the Sign Ordinance that were either lacking in language or
not clear enough and that the purpose of the amendment was more to provide clarity. The
Zoning Board of Appeals would occasionally see an applicant come before them for an
application when there didn't seem to be a reason to go before the board. Some areas
were too stringent and some areas needed to be tightened. The committee also considered
the zoning districts. The Committee took site visits looking at businesses and signs and
tried to make the interpretation as to what would be applicable to the area. Again,
Hurlburt states the proposed zoning amendment is not intended to be deemed a major
overhaul. The purpose of the amendment is simply to provide some more clarity.
Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and City Council
Proposed Zoning Amendment - Sign Ordinance March 3, 2003
Page 2
Hurlburt introduces Scott Houseman, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Houseman
states the impetus to look at the Sign Ordinance, in large measure, was because the ZBA found
that there were times when the applicants came before it and there was a lot of disagreement
about what some of the language meant. There were also times when applicants were coming
to ZBA meetings over and over again for the same kind of relief, which really was not very
controversial. One of the things that the ZBA comes across frequently is the notion of signage
and the applicant wanting to use the sign for advertising. In the ordinance, the general policy
for signage is for the purposes of identification not for purposes of advertising. The committee
took the language, and made it clearer.
Houseman states there is certain language that applicants have struggled with regarding wall
signs. There have been occasions where three lawyers have discussions regarding the specific
words.
Houseman states that the reason to rewrite the Sign Ordinance was to provide clarity. The
committee has not changed the application of the ordinance. It will be easier for
applicants to understand.
Houseman provides an example of the revision regarding gas station signs. The ordinance
states the letters are not to exceed 6 inches in height. The committee has changed the 6 inches
to 12 inches in recognition of the fact that 6 inch letters are not large enough to identify.
President Guanci asks if there are any questions from members of the City Council.
Councilor Costa asks about what the committee thinks about sidewalk signs. Houseman
responds that the committee did not address that issue.
Councilor Costa asks if the enforcement officer of the Sign Ordinance is the Building
Inspector. Houseman responds that the committee did not change the enforcement of the
ordinance. He states he would like to see better and stronger enforcement and he hopes in the
future the Comprehensive Rezoning Committee looks at it.
Councilor McGlynn asks a clarifying question regarding the use of signs for purposes of
advertising. She states that most signs are advertising. Houseman reads from the first section
of the ordinance "... The general policy of the City and primary purpose of the Sign
Ordinance is for the identification of a business and not for advertising. ...” The purpose of
the sign is to helping the consumer find the business as opposed to helping the consumer
identify a special sale, etc.
Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and City Council
Proposed Zoning Amendment - Sign Ordinance March 3, 2003
Page 3
Flaherty asks if most of the businesses will be grand fathered. Houseman responds that the
ordinance will address new signs and the ordinance will, over time, bring the signage in the
city more or less conforming.
Councilor Flaherty asks if businesses ignore the sign ordinance. Hurlburt responds that she
does see signs that have not been before the Design Review Board or approved by the
Building Inspector. She states when there is more comprehensive review, perhaps making the
Design Review Board more than an advisory board will be considered.
Flaherty asks if there are any "sticky points" proposed in the Sign Ordinance. Houseman
responds that he has had informal conversations with members of the business community
and Chamber of Commerce and the sense he has is that the citizens do want more strict
regulation. They do want smaller signs by in large. He states that he believes the business
community understands that a community that has a signage atmosphere like Route 114 is not
what the Chamber of Commerce is looking for.
Councilor Flaherty asks if the Zoning Board receives a lot of requests for variances for signs.
Houseman responds that the ZBA does get requests for variances and traditionally the ZBA
is fairly strict in trying to enforce it.
Councilor Morency states he would like to know what the opinion of the Chamber of
Commerce is.
Councilor Coughlin agrees that most people like the smaller signs.
Councilor Costa asks if the proposed amendment represents a 50% change. Houseman
responds that it is hard to quantify. The proposed amendment is an attempt to clarify the
ordinance and he would estimate that perhaps it affects 15% of the ordinance. It is not
intended to be a large revision. The changes were made in an effort to make it more
consistent. There is a real concern regarding improving the quality of the signs.
Councilor Costa asks if there is anything in the language that requires a business to take out
current signs if they go out of business. Houseman responds that the committee made some
change to the language to make that more clear. He also states that enforcement is a major
issue and the Comprehensive Rezoning Committee ought to look at the issue of enforcement.
Richard Dinkin, Chairman of the Planning Board asks if the current ordinance gives the
Building Inspector authority to levy fines. Hurlburt responds that the fines have been
increased from $25 to $100 each day.
Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and City Council
Proposed Zoning Amendment - Sign Ordinance March 3, 2003
Page 4
Peggy O'Brien states she would like to clarify that she is a member of the Chamber of
Commerce and the Chamber has not said `yes' or `no' to the proposed amendment but she
believes the members are generally in favor.
President Guanci asks if there are any questions from members of the public.
Tim Smith asks a clarifying question regarding the Freddie's sign. Hurlburt responded that
the Building Inspector had declared the sign grandfathered; therefore it was the Building
Inspector's determination. Houseman adds that State laws says that the Zoning Board cannot
regulate changes to a face of a sign if the structure that holds that face has not changed.
President Guanci asks if there are any more questions from members of the public. There are
none.
The public hearing is close and referred back to the Planning Board.
Special Meeting of the Planning Board
Members of the Planning Board reconvene.
Dinkin calls the Special Meeting of the Beverly Planning Board to order.
Dinkin states because there is no quorum, the meeting is adjourned.
The meeting is adjourned at 7:55 p.m.