Loading...
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.