ZBA Meeting Minutes 4-11-17
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Tuesday, April 11, 20176:00 P.M.*Unapproved*** See subsequent minutes for any changes Members Present: Peter Fjeld, Chair, Donna Swinington, Jeff McDonough, Tom Drew Members Absent: Bill Shouldice Others Present: Mary Anne Sullivan, Suki Fredericks, Thomas Millington, Stephanie Kellogg, Lance Chicoine, Sandra Trombley, Secretary Call to Order/Roll Call: Meeting called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Chair and roll call. Review Agenda: Reviewed agenda. Approval of Minutes of December 27, 2016: Motion by Jeff and second by Tom to approve minutes of December 27, 2016 as written. All in favor. So approved. New Business: Permit Application #04-17-ZBA for a waiver for new sign with electronic display for Church of the Nazarene, Applicant Thomas H. Millington, 39 Windy Knoll Lane, Parcel # 060029.8, Zoning District RAC. Chair read the warning and explained procedures and interested party status. There were no conflicts of interest on the Board. Interested parties were sworn in. Tom M. was asked to present his proposed application for zoning permit. There were no letters or email presented. Tom M. stated for the record that the address was Windy Knoll Lane and not Windy Hollow Lane. Tom M. explained they wished to replace the current 4x8 sign with a more modern digital illuminated sign that can be controlled by a laptop. Other than the pedestal base, it will not increase much in size. Tom stated that the sign that they want is about the smallest they can go to make a sign; or readable from the road at 50 mph. This size was the size they came up with working with Stewart Signs. The dimensions make it sound bigger than it is. Tom M. explained that we now live in a modern age and the Church is trying to be more effective and known to the public; announcing times of meetings and other activities going on. They want to post an encouraging word for the day. It would be conveniently controlled from a laptop inside the building; instead of going out with a paint brush. Tom M. stated that other signs that have separate letters that you can hang are more common, but the modern way is with a lighted digital sign. Tom M. explained, they do not want to make it a nuisance to any motorists. No blinking, scrolling, flashing lights. The goal would be to have the message for the day. They would verbally or write that they would not have the blinking, flashing lights. The sign has many capabilities, but Tom explained, they would not necessarily use all its features. Primarily, it would list websites, service times. Right now the Church is part of the Red Cross. Tom stated that they are not necessarily going to keep that status. This sign could inform any immediate changes in the area. The Chair asked why the application had various sizes. Tom explained they have a 2’ base. The photocopy of the sign had the dimensions as 4x8 and then there was a cross at the top that was 1’ 5” higher; but it’s not necessarily higher. It doesn’t make the sign that much bigger. Donna stated that the application states 8x9’11” under proposed project and the dimensions on the back state 8’x7’5”. She asked, “which is it?” Tom explained that first he submitted as 8x9’11” because they had submitted the pedestal base as 4’; and they don’t need 4’. He explained it would be 2’ from the ground, 4’ of sign, and then the ornamental top with cross would make it about 7.5’ high and 8’ wide. Tom Drew asked him to come up and explain the sign and dimensions. Tom D. asked if was two sided. Tom explained it was two sided. The bottom two feet of the sign would be digital. Tom Drew asked about the colors of the lighting and asked if the letters are lit up. Tom M. explained that it can be color or white. The top half would be illuminated with white letters and a green background. Tom Drew asked if the lights would be on 24 hours. Tom M. stated; that could be worked out and on a timer; if necessary. Peter asked if it was not compliant because of the size. The Zoning Administrator explained that the application had too many variables. As it was originally proposed, it did not meet the 16 square feet size requirement, and also the lighting could be used in various ways, flashing, oscillating and the town could review church signs. You could make the argument that every time the digital display is changed, it is a new sign. It could be scripture, it could be advertising. It could be used in a number of ways. She thought best that since there were several neighbors a lot of traffic, many variables, that it best go before the Deliberative Board. Tom Drew confirmed that the current size of the sign was 4’x8’ and is not illuminated. Peter confirmed that the sign would be basically the same size, with an added decorative top, but would be illuminated, where the current sign is not illuminated. Jeff shared some concerns about what the message might be and if it could be offensive to some. You would have the ability to change what is says on a daily basis. Tom M. stated the words would be words of encouragement, peace and love. He shared that this sign costs about $18,000 and the funds are not yet available. It is something they want to do before the year is out. Tom Drew confirmed that a permit stays in effect for two years. The Chair opened the meeting to interested parties and the public. Stephanie Kellogg shared her concerns. She stated that the application form had various sizes of the sign and they were confused about the true size of the sign. She is very concerned about the illumination of the sign and the fact they can see if from their house. She stated that there are no signs like this in Leicester currently and concerned what it would do to property values. She was concerned about living next to a blinking sign. Even if it isn’t blinking, it’s changing continually. She stated she has a lot of issues and she doesn’t know what the answer is. With it scrolling and changing at the bottom, she wonders how it will be illuminated. Lance Chicoine stated that he and Stephanie were adjoining property owners at 62 Windy Knoll. He stated that there has never been a problem with the church, but with a lighted sign, you are coming into a different category for resale value of our home or just our kids living there. We all know we are in a modern age, but to see a sign like that, is difficult. Everyone is on Facebook and email so he didn’t see the need for the digital lighted sign; especially at 55 mph trying to read it. At 55 mph, you could barely see it or read it. He explained he doesn’t think it’s needed. He stated that as a business owner in Brandon, you wouldn’t be able to have it. It will be hard for us to go up that driveway every day and see the lighted sign. Stephanie said her son’s bedroom is on the bottom floor and if the sign is lit 24 hours, it will be a big problem. She stated that Leicester is a small town and she asked if it was necessary. She understands they are trying to reach out to people, but she doesn’t know if that is the best way to do it. Jeff stated it would be hard to know how bright it will be. Stephanie asked how the Board will be able to regulate it and who would police the sign. She wondered what the sign will do to property values. The message on the sign is not the problem, it’s the type of sign. We are in Leicester, not Vegas. Lance wondered why a regular sandwich board style sign wouldn’t work; that you see at other churches or stores where food and drink specials are changed every day. When the whole sign is lighted, that makes it much more of a problem. We are the ones that will really see it every day. Donna asked if Tom M. was proposing to have it lit all night long. Tom M. answered, “not necessarily”. That is one of those things that they don’t want to be offensive. It’s pretty easy to have a timer on it, if it’s an issue of lighting. Lance recommended that if they wanted to say, peace and love and relationship that they get a nice little sign and light it with a light bulb. Why spend the money if you are willing to have a timer on it. Tom Drew asked the purpose of this sign versus the sign that the church has right now. Tom M. answered that in June they are having vacation bible school and they want to advertise that function. They want to try to do public outreach. They want to post scripture and words of encouragement. Jeff asked if Tom had looked into any other type of signs. Tom M. stated that black letters against the white background has been around for ages. He didn’t know of any other options other than painted or digital lighted signs. When all the discussion was completed, the Chair thanked the interested parties and informed them that the Board would be going into deliberative session to make their decision. The Chair informed the parties that they would have a written decision within 45 days. The Board deliberated and made the following decision. Motion by Tom and second by Jeff to deny the permit application based on Section 634: #3
- Be of a character, size and location that will be in harmony with the orderly development of the district.