Hess/Gerome - Variance
Decision on Petition for a Variance
Requested by Gary R. Jerome c/o Bohler Engineering
A public meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals (the “Board”) was held on Tuesday
May 28, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly,
Massachusetts. The agenda included a petition by Gary R. Gerome c/o Bohler
Engineering in a request for a variance to amend an existing variance allowing the
petitioner to change the existing freestanding sign as shown and to add a wall sign to the
building façade for 295 Cabot Street, “Hess Gas Station” (the “Parcel”). The Parcel is
located in a CC Zoning District.
The May 28, 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, Scott Ferguson, Margaret O’Brien, Andrea Fish and Mark
Schmidt. Alternate members John Colucci, Jane Brusca and Joel Margolis were in
attendance but not voting.
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 material.
Mr. John Kusiak of Bohler Engineering spoke on behalf of the Hess Gas Station. He
stated that Hess would like to replace the existing sign that reads “Hess Express” with a
sign of the same dimensions that reads “ Blimpy Subs & Salads.” Second, he would like
to add an additional wall sign to the façade of the property. Currently they have one 18.5
square foot wall sign that reads “Hess Express.” Hess would like to add a 16 square foot
sign that reads “Blimpie Subs & Salads.” He stated that zoning allows one sign at 40
square feet and that the combined area of these signs would be less than that. He adds
that the hardship is economic and that it is difficult to compete with other similar known
uses. Hess wishes to get more market coverage for the “Blimpie” brand name.
When asked by Mr. Houseman, no member of the public present at the hearing wished to
comment on this petition.
The members then questioned the petitioner. They made the following observations
about the plans. Ms. O’Brien stated that “Hess Express” indicates a convenience store
and that if the “Blimpie” sign is put up, the “Hess” sign should come down. Ms. Fish
noted that in the past, the Board had turned down a request by this establishment for
signage advertising donuts. She concurred with Ms. O’Brien’s statements and states that
she prefers only one sign on the building.
Mr. Houseman asks Mr. Kusiak to clarify “Hess” and “Hess Express”. Mr.
Kusiak said that “Hess” indicates the gas service and that “Hess Express” indicates
convenience sales. Mr. Houseman stated that case law has spelled out the limits and
requirements for what constitutes economic hardship. A case for economic hardship is
not made out by simply showing a desire to compete better or make more money for a
Parcel. He stated also that the city’s sign ordinance allows identification but not
advertisements for its signs. He said “Hess Express” identifies the convenience
component of the business and “Blimpie” appears to constitute an advertisement.
Mr. Houseman added that the Parcel’s existing variance concerning signage is
quite specific relative to what is allowed for window signs. He referred to a photograph
taken that day of the service station and observed that the window signs on the building
are in violation of the variance. He said he would not approve a petition asking for relief
when the applicant is not even in compliance with the existing variance granted. Mr.
Ferguson adds that the Coke and Pepsi stand in front the building also violate the
previous decision. He stated he agreed with Mr. Houseman’s observations.
Following the questions and discussion, Mr. Schmidt moved to split the sign
requests into two separate votes, seconded by Ms. Fish. Motion carries 4-1 (Mr.
Ferguson opposed). Mr. Schmidt made a motion to grant a variance for the freestanding
sign, seconded by Ms. Fish. The motion did not carry 3-2 (Mr. Ferguson and Mr.
Houseman opposed). The petition as to this sign was DENIED.
For additional discussion, Ms. O’Brien addressed the paper window signs and
states that they are not conforming with the original variance. She stated that they should
be removed.
Mr. Schmidt made a motion, seconded by Ms. O’Brien, to grant the modification
to the wall sign. The motion did not carry 1-4 (Schmidt in favor). The petition as to this
sign was 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 of 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