Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-01-06 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Wednesday, January 6, 1993; 7:30 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC PRESENT (" Denotes Members Present) * Mary Decker Erik and Karen Hewitt, * David Ofner 106 Bird Cemetary Road, Groton * John Pachai George Totman, 31 Church Road, McLean * Lyle Raymond, Chairman * Nial Smith George Senter, Code Enforcement Officer PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Raymond called the public hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. and read the Legal Notice regarding the application made by Erik Hewitt for a variance of Section 319.2 pertaining to sign setbacks of the Town of Groton, Land Use and Development Code. Erik Hewitt applied for a permit that was denied on November 30, 1992. Mr. Raymond opened the public hearing and stated that all the members of the Board did observe the sign and its current location. Mr. Raymond noted that he had received a letter from John Peri, the property owner where the sign is located, and from David Tregaskis who rents the property, which each stipulated permission to Mr. Hewitt to place the sign advertising his business on their property. Mr. Raymond asked Mr. Hewitt if he was aware of the regulation which stated that a sign must be no closer than 10 feet to the road or overhang the road right-of-way. Mr. Hewitt stated that he was not aware that he needed a permit for the sign. He also stated that there are pine trees that would obstruct the sign if it was set back farther. He explained that the sign was placed there so that it would be visible for customers of his business. John Pachai questioned the size of the sign; it is 4' x 38". Mr. Raymond commented that according to the regulations any sign larger than three square feet must be located on the premises. George Senter stated that he had also observed the sign and had measured the distance from the center of the roadway, which is 24 feet; it overhangs four feet into the right-of-way. George Senter explained that he doesn't have a problem with the size of the sign. Mr. Raymond asked Mr. Hewitt if it would be possible to get permission from the landowners to move the sign back to comply with Section 319.2. Mr. Hewitt was uncertain if he would be given permission; the owner is only in the area during the summer. George Totman added that the person renting the land, Tregaskis, has given permission for the location of the sign presently, but may not agree to moving the sign back farther. The post for the sign is on the boundary of the right-of-way, but the sign overhangs into the right-of- way. Mr. Pachai raised the question that if Erik Hewitt were to lease one square foot of land from Peri, is that premise. Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 Wednesday, January 6, 1993 Mr. Raymond questioned Mr. Hewitt about the possibility of placing the sign on his own premises. Mr. Hewitt explained that most of his business comes from the south and that customers frequently go past his property before seeing it. Therefore, he placed the sign on the hill before his driveway so that his customers could more readily identify the location of his business. Mr. Hewitt explained that to place the sign on the opposite side of the road on his property, he would have to cut down a number of the large, older trees on his property, but is not willing to do so at this time. Mr. Hewitt explained that his property runs to the south but is bordered by a hedgerow. He felt he would have to get permission to trim the hedgerow back from the adjoining property owner. This option didn't seem feasible since that portion of his property dips down, and to place the sign the required distance, the sign wouldn't be visible. David Ofner suggested the possibility of placing the sign on a bracket hanging off of the building. George Senter explained that the building is also in the road right-of-way and by placing the sign off of the building it would increase the encroachment problem. Mr. Hewitt felt that the sign might be in danger of being hit by a snowplow. Nial Smith questioned Mr. Hewitt as to whether the sign works in its current location for his business. Mr. Hewitt responded that the current location of the sign has made a positive impact on his business. He added that the previous sign was located down by the shop, and the pine trees blocked the view of the driveway preventing new customers from finding the property until they had passed it. Mr. Raymond suggested putting the sign on the peak of the business so that it could be seen before coming over the hill from the south. Mr. Hewitt explained that his home and business occupy the same building, but would like to keep them separate; therefore, he doesn't want to put the sign on the peak. George Totman suggested to the Board that another option to this variance is Site Plan Review. Site Plan Review looks at whether the business is in keeping with the neighborhood. The Hewitts would have to apply to have a Site Plan Review done to operate their business, even though they are already in operation. Chairman Raymond adjourned the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING Chairman Raymond immediately convened the business meeting at 8:02 p.m. Mr. Raymond explained that there is obvious confusion in interpreting the meaning of the Town Code on signs. Sections 319.2 and 319.7 appear contradictory with no clear guidance on how apparent differences in interpreting these sections are to be resolved. Mr. Raymond advised that the Board will probably have a firmer and more reasonable basis for its decisions on sign regulations by falling back upon the State requirements for granting area variances and the statement of purpose for the sign regulations in Section 319.1 of the Town Code. Mr. Raymond explained that the State asks that the Zoning Board of Appeals balance two elements: the benefit to the applicant from the variance, and the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community or neighborhood that would occur if the variance were to be granted. The State asks for five factors to be examined in determining this balance. Section 319. 1 of the Town Code covering signs asks that three factors be considered: (1 ) Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 Wednesday, January 6, 1993 proper identification of the activity; (2) whether the sign preserves and enhances the visual character and quality of the area; and (3) to prevent installations that are particularly distracting and hazardous to vehicular traffic. State Factors The first factor to be considered is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the grant of the variance. John Pachai felt that the location and size of the sign do not change the character of the neighborhood. The second factor to be considered is whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance. David Ofner stated that due to the peculiarity of the property, the benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved by a method other than a variance. During the public hearing, several options were discussed, but none seemed feasible or desirable. The third factor to be considered is whether the requested variance is substantial. Mr. Raymond felt that it is, since the Code, in Section 319.2, requires a 10-foot setback from the highway right-of--way (25 feet for a town road like Bird Cemetary Road), Mr. Hewitt's sign is actually nearly on the highway right-of-way line, with no setback from it at all. Furthermore it overhangs the right-of-way. However, Mr. Raymond also pointed out that this "substantial" variation must also be interpreted in a reasonable manner, given the earlier discussion of the confusion in interpreting the Town sign regulations, and the need to rely on basic premises rather than specific statements in Section 319.2 and 319.7. The fourth factor to be considered is whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The Board agreed the variance would not have an adverse effect or impact. The fifth factor to be considered is whether the alleged difficulty was self-created (that it was will not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance). Mr. Pachai felt that it was self-inflicted, but shouldn't preclude the Hewitts from receiving a variance. Ms. Decker and Mr. Raymond disagreed with Mr. Pachai that the difficulty was self-inflicted; they felt that Mr. Hewitt made the best of the circumstances (trees, vegetation, and terrain). Mr. Raymond felt that they should consider it but not be bound by it. This factor was not resolved; evidence could be interpreted other ways. Town of Groton Code Factors As to the purposes of the Town Code on signs, stated in Section 319.1, the sign was found to /not only properly identify the business, but was done in an artistic manner that clearly enhances the visual quality of the area. Visual inspection also revealed no basis for concluding that the sign was distracting or hazardous to traffic. Even though the sign does overhang the highway right-of-way, there is still sufficient room for the town snowplow to operate. Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 Wednesday, January 6, 1993 Fines 1 . Mr. Raymond questioned the use of the right-of-way setback requirement in Section 319.2 in regard to making a reasonable determination of whether a variance should be granted, when it is considered in regard to the purposes set forth in Section 319.1 . Mr. Pachai agreed. Mr. Smith could not see moving the sign post to get the overhang outside the 25-foot highway right-of-way. Mr. Pachai agreed that the variance is substantial, but for the sign to provide proper identification it is necessary to be located in its current location, according to testimony given. 2. Sections 319.2 and 319.7 of the Town Code are confusing in terms of application. All Zoning Board of Appeals members agreed, except David Ofner, who interpreted "any property" in 319. 7 as referring only to the premises owned by the business. Mr. Raymond took the position that "any property" could also mean other properties as well. Ms. Decker agreed. Mr. Raymond concluded that this illustrates the confusion in resolving interpretations of these sections of the Code, and why the Board must go back to the basic purposes of the sign regulations to make a reasonable decision on whether to grant a variance. 3. The five State factors for granting an area variance have been carefully considered. Only one, regarding a substantial variation in Code requirements, is not met. This was not considered a problem, due in part to the fact that it meets the purposes in Section 319.1 . 4. The sign meets all of the purposes sets forth in Section 319. 1 . Conclusions Mr. Raymond felt that a variance should be granted. Mr. Ofner questioned whether something should be stated about the size of the sign. Mr. Raymond disagreed commenting that the size of the sign is not substantially larger and the location meets the general regulations for proper identification. Mr. Ofner also suggested that a variance should contain a condition that it must be approved by the Town Highway Superintendent. Mr. Raymond stated that this is not the Highway Superintendent's job, and that this would place him in the regulatory business which is the responsibility of the Zoning Board of Appeals, not the Highway Superintendent. Mr. Ofner's suggestion was modified to simply state that the Highway Superintendent has no objections. Mr. Pachai moved that based on the findings, the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the variance conditional upon the Town Highway Superintendent having seen the application and having no objections to the sign being placed in the right-of-way; Ms. Decker seconded. VOTE: ALL IN FAVOR Chairman Raymond closed the business meeting at 8:45 p. m. Variance granted.