Freddies - Decision
Decision on Petition for a Special Permit
Requested by Derek Duffy
A public meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeal was held on Tuesday, February
26, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at 191 Cabot Street, Beverly City Hall, Beverly, Massachusetts.
The agenda included a petition by Derek Duffy for a Special Permit to replace the
existing non-conforming “Freddie’s” sign, of the exact same dimensions with different
color’s and lettering, regarding property located at 355-357 Rantoul Street (the “Parcel”).
The property is located in a CC Zoning District.
The February 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, Margaret O’Brien, Scott Ferguson, Mark Schmidt and
alternate member John Colucci. Member Andrea Fish left early and was absent for this
application. 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 that show the location and zoning of the Parcel and the proposed
sign.
Attorney Philip Moran spoke on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Moran stated that
they are asking to replace the existing non-conforming sign of the exact dimensions with
different color’s and lettering. Mr. Moran introduced the owners of the business, Derek
Duffy and Michael Collins. Attorney Moran stated that the business was purchased in
December 2001 and the restaurant will be changed to an Irish Pub. He submitted plans of
the existing Freddie’s sign and the proposed revised sign with the new name of the
Pickled Onion Bar and Grill. Mr. Moran stated that this proposal would not be more
detrimental to the neighborhood and that the owners were continuing the use of a
landmark in the City by keeping the sign. He submitted photographs of other businesses
with large signs, Burger King, Gloria’s, and Brother’s Deli.
Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public wished to comment on
this proposal. Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street questioned why this petition was a
special permit and not a variance. Building Commissioner Timothy Brennan stated that
his determination was that the sign was a non-conforming structure. Ms. Maglio
commented that she is opposed to this petition and that the sign should be removed as
required under 29-25A of the Zoning Ordinance. Stella Mae Stevens of 840 Hale Street
stated that she does not know why they are trying to make a new sign out of the old
Freddie’s sign. She added that the old restaurant is gone and a new one is replacing it.
1
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 is a member of the Design Review Board and that she feels
that when a business closes and a new one opens, it should conform to zoning and come
into compliance. She stated that she was not in favor of the petition.
Mr. Colucci asked the petitioner if they had heard anything from the neighbors
regarding this sign. Attorney Moran stated that he had spoken with the Mayor, Building
Department and the Planning Director and they had heard no opposition to this proposal.
Mr. Schmidt commented that according to the ordinance upon the closing of any
business establishment, any non-conforming sign, then existing, shall be eliminated and a
new sign erected that will be conforming.
Mr. Houseman stated that the policy of the sign ordinance is clear, as stated by
Mr. Schmidt. However, he added, the real issue is whether Freddie’s sign is so “over the
top,” that it has become a Beverly landmark. Mr. Brennan commented that the sign has
been up for 30 years. Mr. Ferguson commented that he understands the zoning law and
that the sign is from the 1950’s era and is a landmark but commented that to maintain this
business the owners don’t need this sign.
Mr. Houseman asked Mr. Brennan what size sign would be allowed under zoning.
Mr. Brennan responded a conforming sign could be two times the lineal frontage up to 40
square feet or one sign of 20 square feet.
Mr. Schmidt commented that it was not clear to him whether a business closes
when it changes hands. He added that it’s not clear that a business closes when it shuts
its doors for the purpose of renovations inside. He is unsure as to the chronology of how
the business at the Parcel went from Freddie’s to the Pickled Onion. Attorney Moran
stated that the petitioner’s bought and operated the business as Freddie’s and now want to
change the name of the business. Mr. Schmidt stated that if the business is operating as
Freddie’s, is purchased by someone else who operates it as Freddie’s, then it hasn’t
closed. Mr. Schmidt asked what was the business structure of Freddie’s. Attorney
Moran stated that it was a corporation owned by Al Tempkin and now is owned by Mr.
Duffy and Mr. Collins “50/50.”
Mr. Houseman suggested continuing this matter to the next meeting. That would
give the Board time to check on the Mr. Schmidt’s good question and to ask for input
from the Design Review Board before making its decision. It would also give the
applicants time to gather letters, signatures on a petition, etc. from the community in
support of the application. He said the Evening News checks with him every month on
newsworthy matters, and he could probably get the issue some visibility. He also raised
the issue of whether a variance was needed for the relief requested, instead of a variance.
He added that this is not a “Section 6” special permit matter.
2
Mr. Duffy stated that they wanted a decision right away, and did not want to wait
a month. He added that while a big sign would be good for starting the business, its
success would depend on the quality of the food and service, not the sign. He also did
not want to offend potential customers by a controversy in the newspaper over the sign.
The Board noted that there was no consensus among the members on the several
issues before them.
Following the questioning and discussion, Mr. Schmidt made a motion, seconded
by Ms. O’Brien, to incorporate the Board’s observations as its findings that the criteria
for a special permit are satisfied, and to grant the petition. On a vote of 3-2, the vote did
not carry. The petition 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
3