Loading...
Jedraszek - Special Permit Decision on Petition for a Special Permit and Variance Requested by Ronald Jedraszek A public meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeal was held on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at 191 Cabot Street, Beverly City Hall, Beverly, Massachusetts. The agenda included a petition by Ronald Jedraszek for a request for a Special Permit to allow a change from one non-conforming sign to another of the “same” size. Also, a Variance to allow 18-inch letters on canopy where 6-inch is allowed, regarding property located at 83 Bridge Street (the “Parcel”). The property is located in a CN Zoning District. The March 26, 2002 public meeting of the Board was called to order by the Chairman Scott D. Houseman. The following five members of the Board were present: full members Scott D. Houseman, Mark Schmidt, Margaret O’Brien, Scott Ferguson, and alternate member John Colucci. Member Andrea Fish was absent. The public hearing on this application started with the Zoning Clerk, Diane Rogers reading the application request to the public and the Board members reviewing the application materials. Mr. Ronald Jedraszek spoke on his own behalf. He introduced Mr. Patrick O’Connell of Energy North Citgo, 315 Main Street, North Reading, Massachusetts. Mr. O’Connell stated that he wanted to install a new image for the canopy sign. He added that there would be no structural change and no changes in the sign square footage, which would remain at 27 square feet. Mr. O’Connell stated that the existing illumination would be eliminated. He added that he believes that the request for 18-inch letters would not change the square footage and are consistent with other gas stations in the city. Chairman Houseman asked if there were any members of the public that wished to comment on this petition. Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street asked if these were awning signs. Building Commissioner Tim Brennan responded that this sign is considered an awning sign. Ms. Maglio stated that the ordinance requires for 6-inch letters and that the proposed size of 18-inch letters would be three times as large and she did not think that this was reasonable. The Board members then questioned the petitioner. They made observations and obtained answers regarding the criteria upon which findings must be made in order for the Board to grant a special permit. This discussion is summarized as follows: Ms. O’Brien commented that she did not understand the comment by Mr. O’Connell that stated there would be no change in square footage. Mr. O’Connell responded that the Citgo “sign” is 3 feet by 3 feet, and there would be three of them, which equals 27 square feet. Building Commissioner Brennan stated that there would be three signs but the zoning ordinance does not deal with logos. He added that the canopy sign lettering is in a single row and is 6 inches high, but there is an additional 2 ½ feet of pyramid logo “sign.” He stated that the proposed signage on the canopy will have the same amount of area (square feet) as the existing sign if you count the existing Citgo pyramids as signage. The new sign would replace the pyramid/logo area with text saying “Citgo” in 18 inch letters. Ms. O’Brien stated that she thought that not illuminating the sign is good and that she would like to see the Citgo lettering less than 18 inches high. Mr. Colucci asked where the other gas station signs with 24 inch lettering are located in the city. Mr. O’Connell responded that the Citgo station on Rantoul Street two years ago put up 24 inch lettering on three sides of its canopy. Mr. Houseman commented that he too liked the sign not illuminated but did have trouble with 18 inch lettering being too big and having a greater impact on the neighborhood. He suggested that the letters be 12 inches. Mr. Jedraszek stated that he is trying to bring in new business and added that other stations have signage with larger letters. He suggested an alternative of 2 signs with 18 inch letters, instead of 3 signs with 18 inch letters. He could drop all signage from the front of the canopy. Ms. O’Brien asked what would be illuminated. Mr. O’Connell responded that the freestanding sign would be illuminated. Mr. Houseman commented that he would rather have three signs, twelve inches high than two 18 inches high. Mr. Colucci commented that the size of the letters does not make a difference to him and that taking the illumination away would be better from the neighborhood. Mr. Ferguson commented that he was sure the neighborhood would be happy that the illumination is being eliminated but feels that 18 inch letters is simply too large. Mr. Schmidt stated that when the Gibbs Station changed to Hess, they erected 24-inch letters with the approval of the Board. He added that Mr. Jedraszek would confine the 18-inch lettering to the ends of the canopy only and not the front face. Mr. Houseman summarized the two choices: 18-inch letters on two sides or 12- inch letters on three sides, and no illumination in either case. Mr. Ferguson stated that 18 inch letters is comparable to other gas stations and he likes the compromise. Building Commissioner Tim Brennan made observations about the free standing sign request. Mr. O’Connell stated that there would be no changes to the pole sign. Mr. Brennan commented that the special permit request should be withdrawn. Mr. O’Connell said the Board should consider such a request as made. Mr. Houseman stated that there is a variance request before the Board and asked the members to make findings about hardship. Mr. O’Connell stated that as far as Citgo is concerned, their goal is to create an image and therefore the old signs need to be redone. Mr. Brennan commented that Ralph’s Market located in the area is constructed to the sidewalk and blocks visibility of the gas station. Mr. Colucci observed that poor visibility created by the local topography creates a hardship specific to the Parcel. He made a motion that this factor be found to the hardship applicable to the application, and accepted an amendment to his motion to the effect that the criteria of Section 29-27(C)(2) are satisfied. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ferguson. The Board incorporated its observations and conclusions as its general findings and also made the following specific findings: (1) that the request is the minimal one that, if allowed, will give the petitioner reasonable use of the Parcel and it is necessary for reasonable use of the land or building; (2) that the granting of this variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intend of the zoning bylaw; (3) that this proposal is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and (4) that there will be no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard resulting from the project. Following the questioning and discussion, the Board voted, on a motion made by Mr. Schmidt and seconded by Ms. O’Brien to GRANT the variance. Motion carries 4-1 (Houseman opposed). The Board finds that the applicant carried the burden of showing (1) that owing to conditions especially affecting the locus, but not affecting generally the Zoning District which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship to the application, and (2) that relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. A motion was made by Mr. Schmidt to grant the special permit, seconded by Ms. O’Brien. The motion does not carry 5-0. The special permit is DENIED. Appeals from the Board’s decision on this petition may be filed in accordance with the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 17, within twenty (20) days in filing of this decision with the City Clerk. This decision shall not be valid unless recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds in Salem, Massachusetts after the twenty-day appeal period has passed without an appeal being filed. Respectfully, Scott D. Houseman Zoning Board Chairman