Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-10-16October 16, 1978 - Monday Regular Meeting The BOARD 0P APPEALS held its regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, October,s16, 1978 at 7:30 p.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; R. Louis DiPruscio, Clerk; James D. Noble, Jr.; John J. Gaffr4v; and Richard J. Trepanier, Assoc. Member. PUBLIC ~EARINGS: GEORGE SORRUENDER - Chickering Rd. requesting variance from Sign By-L~w, sec. 6.64, 6.65 (d) & 6.78. Mr. Schruender told the Board that the sign was there for 25 years and for the last 2 years there was no way to appeal the Sign By-Law; I want to put a sign back in ~gain because of membership in Realty U.S.A.; there is no way I can put up a sign on the other side of street to point to my office; when the sign got knocked down I was no longer in conformance with the state and they weuldn't renew my license at that time; the land is owned by my mother and when my father sold the land across the street he kept this triangle for the specific purpose of a sign. The sign will be a) off premiss; b) lettering size is different; c) highway setback; sign will be 12 ft. off the ground; would like it to be lighted; 4 ft. x 8 ft. dimen- sions. Charlie Foster explained some of the reasons the Committee had in putting the By-Law together - had 6o decide between accessory and non-accessory signs; the only non -accessory signs allowed are for community oriented business. It seems that George is applying fori.a variance for something that is not allowed. Sec. 6.78 states that no non-accessory signs are allowed. Much time was spent to determine what size signs should be allowed and established formulas for this which he is also asking a variance from. The site on Chiokering Rd. has 4 businesses operating out of it. A total of 8 signs are allowed on the premises so it should be adequate without putting a sign across the street. It is my personal opinion that adequate signage can be accomplished without the variance. Sohruender thought to put it on the premises side would be in,conflict with the traffic pattern, physically you cannot put the ground sign on the lot and have the visibility that I want. Foster stated that he would think this would have to be considered in light of a use variance which could be a legal problem. Mr. Noble asked why it could not be put where the flagpoles are - because it is state land, said Schruender. OPPOSITION:~David Lanzoni, 3Village Green Dr.: against an illuminated sign; Bob Lanz~ni, 1 Village Green Dr.: same objection; Peter Hornbeck, Sign By-Law Committee member: commented that the present structure is also illegal amd should be removed. Mr. ~oster stated that the Committee also tried to keep signs away from residential arsa~e Mr. Noble made a motion to take the matter under advisement. Mr. Trepanier seconded and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Noble then made a motion to take the matter under advisement for reconsideration. Mr. DiFrnscio seconded. Vote: unanimous. Motion made by Mr. Noble to continue the hearing on ~chruender pertinent toi~the sign on Chickering Rd. so that any further testimony may be taken on Nov. 13, 1978. Mr. Dil~ruscio seconded and the vote was unauimons. O~ Nov. 13, 1978 Mr. Frizelle reported to the Board re meeting with Sign By-Law Committee at which nothing that is before the Board was discussed. What transpired was input from the Committee as to their thinking when formulating the By-Law. There are very few non-accessory signs and it appears that they were not intended to Be brot~ht under the grandfather cluase, Mr..qchruender stated that it is a financial hardship because real estate depends on exposure. Mr. Frizelle and Mr. Foster agreed that non-accessory signs are prohibited by She new By-Law wish a few exceptions. Mr. Foster added that they kepS She same provision of the 1972 By-Law as far as non-accessory signs are concerned. ~he state law removes off site signs from zoning. Mr. Serio commented that it seems as though we hav~ no auShority to give him relief. A motion was then made by Mr. ~repanier to continue to a Special Meeting on Wed., Nov. 2~th at 7:30 P.M. Nov. 2~th the public hearing continued once again. On Nov. 29th Richard Sullivan, attorney representing George Sohruender, reiterated what Mr. Schruender stated at previous meeting. After much discussion regarding Ch. 808 and the sign by-law, Mr. ~repanier made a motion to take the matter under advisement. Motion seconded by Mr. Noble. Mr. Sullivan was asked if he would agree to an extension of time until January. Mr. Sullivan stated that he agreed to grant the Board's request. Later on in the meeting the membership agreed that there was no way legally that they could help Schruender out in this matter; there is no valid reason %o grant the varianoe. A motion was made by Mr. Trepanier %ha% the petitioner's recfues% be denied because there is no basis in the present sign by-law to grant the request. Mr. DiFruscio seconded and the vote was unanimous.