TOWN OF BEDFORD
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
January 14, 2008
BEDFORD MEETING ROOM
A meeting of the Bedford Planning Board was held on Monday, January 14, 2008 at the Bedford Meeting Room, 10 Meetinghouse Road, Bedford, NH. Present were: Chairman Paul Goldberg, John Levenstein (Vice-Chairman), Russell Marcoux (Town Manager), Jim Stanford (Public Works Director), Harold Newberry, Neal Casale, Karen McGinley, Chris Riley (Alternate), Rick Sawyer (Town Planner), and Cynthia May (Planner II).
I. Call to Order and Roll Call
Chairman Goldberg opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Cynthia May, Planner II, read the agenda.
II. Old Business
III. New Business:
A. Application Acceptance and/or Public Hearings on Applications:
1. The Planning Board will hold the first public hearing on proposed zoning amendments submitted by the Planning Board and by citizen petitions. The full text of the amendments is available in the Town Clerk’s office during normal business hours and on the Town website at www.bedfordnh.org
2. Barbara King’s Flowers Etc., Preston & Barbara King (Owners) - Request for a Home Occupation Permit for the operation of a floral arrangement and delivery business, 23 Twin Brook Lane, Lot 41-16-10, Zoned R&A.
3. DBA Hearth & Home Inspection Services, Inc., Henry A. Vanderbeek (Owner) – Request for a Home Occupation Permit for the operation of a residential and commercial inspection business, 7 Holbrook Road, Lot 10-33, Zoned R&A.
4. 2 Commerce Drive (Owner) First Sign & Corporate Image, Inc. (Applicant) – Request to amend the condition of the previous sign waiver approval prohibiting additional signage, granted on September 11, 2006, in order to allow a request for a 32 square foot directory sign at the entrance to the site, 2 Commerce Drive & South River Road, Lot 35-99-10, Zoned PZ.
5. Jacques Laurendeau (Owner) – Request to amend the condition of the previous approval of a two-lot subdivision granted on June 4, 2007 regarding the Fair Share Contribution, Wallace Road opposite Benning Way, Lot 27-7, Zoned R&A.
6. Henry Beaudet (Owner), Proposed final lot line adjustment, 15 Eastman Avenue & 12 Wathen Road, Lot 46-15 & 21, Zoned PZ.
B. Concept Proposals and Other Business:
Ms. May said all applications submitted are complete and in Planning staff’s opinion they are ready for application acceptance. The abutters for each application have been notified and it is also Planning staff’s opinion that there are no items of regional impact under new business. Chairman Goldberg said before I ask for a motion, I’m going to appoint Chris Riley to sit in for Deb Sklar, who is not here tonight.
MOTION made by Mr. Marcoux that the Planning Board accept the agenda as read. Seconded by Ms. McGinley. Vote taken – all approved. Motion carries.
1. The Planning Board will hold the first public hearing on proposed zoning amendments submitted by the Planning Board and by citizen petitions. The full text of the amendments is available in the Town Clerk’s office during normal business hours and on the Town website at www.bedfordnh.org
A memo written by Planning Staff as follows:
The Bedford Planning Board will hold its first public hearing at 7:00 PM on Monday, January 14, 2008 in the Bedford Meeting Room at BCTV, 10 Meetinghouse Road, Bedford, NH 03110, to hear comments from interested persons on proposed amendments to the Bedford Zoning Ordinance, as follows:
Amendment No. 1
Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 1 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Bedford Zoning Ordinance to amend Article 45-2 DEFINITIONS by deleting the words shown in strike through and adding the words in bold as follows:
Amend Article 45-2 Definitions by deleting the existing definition of “Commercial Use” - An occupation, employment, or enterprise that is carried on for profit by the lessee or licensee and replacing it with the following definition: Any use involving in part or in whole the sale of merchandise, materials or services, but not including home occupations as defined in this section.
[This amendment is intended to clarify that commercial uses may be carried on by for profit as well as not for profit entities.]
Amendment No. 2
Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 2 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Bedford Zoning Ordinance to amend Article 45-2 DEFINITIONS by adding the following words shown in bold as follows:
Amend Article 45-2 Definitions as follows: “Structure” – A combination of materials for occupancy or use, such as a building, bridge, trestle, tower, framework, tank or group of tanks exceeding a total of 500 gallons, tunnel, tent, stadium, platform, shelter, pier, wharf, bin, sign, fences and retaining walls over six feet (6’) in height, swimming polls, sports courts, or the like.
[This amendment is intended to allow tanks or groups of tanks that are 500 gallons or less to be exempt from the minimum structure setback requirements.]
Amendment No. 3
Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 3 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Bedford Zoning Ordinance to amend Article 45-2 DEFINITIONS as follows:
Amend Article 45-2 Definitions by adding the following definition: “Kennel” – An establishment licensed to operate a facility housing dogs, cats or other household pets and or where grooming, breeding, Boarding, training, or selling of animals is conducted as a business.
[This amendment is intended to add a definition for Kennel which currently does not exist.]
Amendment No. 4
Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 4 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Bedford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article 45-9-6 U.S. ROUTE 3 CORRIDOR PERFORMANCE ZONING DISTRICT, Permitted Uses by adding Subsection (y) Kennel; and
Amend Appendix 45-A Table of Uses by adding Kennel as a commercial use permitted in the Commercial (CO) and Performance Standards (PZ) Zones.
[This amendment is intended to specifically allow kennels in the Commercial (CO) and Performance Standards (PZ) Zones.]
Amendment No. 5
Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 5 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Bedford Zoning Ordinance by deleting the words shown in strike through and adding the words in bold as follows:
To amend Article 45-11-2 DISTRICT REGULATION FOR SIGNAGE, Section (i) Route 3 Performance Zoning District, Subsection (1) as follows: All signs shall be set back from the side and rear property lines at least fifty feet (50’) thirty feet (30’) and from the front property line at least ten feet (10’).
[This amendment is intended as housekeeping to be consistent with Article 45-11-1(a) which was amended in 2006 and currently provides for a thirty foot (30’) setback.]
Amendment No. 6
Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 6 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Bedford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
To amend Article 45-4-2 USE REGULATIONS, Section (b) Uses Permitted By Right With Conditions Imposed, Subsection (2) Elderly Housing, by deleting Subsection (d) Parking in its entirety; and
To amend Appendix 45-A Table of Uses by deleting footnote number 28 - Elderly Housing, Subsection (d) Parking in its entirety.
[This amendment is intended as housekeeping so to be consistent with the Land Development Control Regulation Section 322.2 Off-Street Parking Requirements and the 2002 Amendment which removed all other parking requirements from the Zoning Ordinance.]
Amendment No. 7
Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 7 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Bedford Zoning Ordinance by adding the words in bold as follows:
To amend Article 45-4-2 USE REGULATIONS, Section (f) Supplemental Provisions, Subsection (1) Home Occupations, Level II Subsection (e) as follows: Septic system design/capacity for home occupations that have any non-resident employees or that utilize large water or waste water volumes, such as day care facilities, hair salons, and catering services shall be verified in writing by a licensed NH septic designer or a professional engineer.
[This amendment is intended to require applicants seeking Home Occupation permits who have non-resident employees to verify that their septic systems are capable of handling any additional flow, if any.]
Amendment No. 8
Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 8 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Bedford Zoning Ordinance by deleting the words in strike through as follows:
To amend Article 45-6-5 Cluster Residential Development, Design Requirements Section (j) Design Standards for Single Attached Dwelling for Elderly Housing, Subsection (3) as follows: The installation of residential sprinkler systems or the construction of fire walls shall be required for buildings containing single attached dwellings.
[This amendment would make the installation of fire suppression sprinkler systems mandatory for attached elderly housing units.]
Motion made by Mr. Marcoux to open the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Newberry. Vote taken – all approved. Motion carries.
Mr. Sawyer said just to note there are no citizens petitions this year, so the 8 amendments are simply proposed by staff along with the Planning Board for essentially, in our minds, housekeeping measures. Mr. Sawyer proceeded to read through the amendments.
Amendment 1
Mr. Sawyer said the current definition speaks more to profit and non-profit.
Amendment 2
Mr. Sawyer said this is amending the definition of structure. We did talk about this when I briefed you on this at the last meeting, and this is simply to add a single tank or a group of tanks exceeding a total of 500 gallons. This is so that we could have tanks that are less than that size be exempted from the structure definition. We’ve run into a few problems with mostly propane tanks wanting to be located closer to a setback line. Mr. Casale asked does the language in brackets appear at all on the ballot? Mr. Sawyer replied it does. Mr. Casale said we have the same issue with the tanks or groups of tanks that are 500 gallons or less, that’s not as precise as what is on the amendment itself, so we’ll need to change that. Mr. Sawyer said it was just my
oversight in not changing that. Mr. Casale said in other words, the issue last time was that could you have 300 tanks that are 500 gallons a piece or is it the total of the tanks. Mr. Sawyer said we can make that change. Chairman Goldberg said it’s the total. Mr. Casale said but if you read in the brackets, it’s not as specific as the amendment. So if that’s going to be on the ballot that has to be changed. Mr. Sawyer said these are actually written exactly as they would appear on the ballot including the language before it. I’m just choosing just not to read all of that.
Amendment 3
Mr. Sawyer said this is just to add a definition of kennel where one currently does not exist in the ordinance today.
Amendment 4
Mr. Sawyer said this amendment goes along with Amendment 3, stating where kennels would be permitted as a permitted use in the Town. We’re proposing the commercial zone and the performance zone.
Amendment 5
Mr. Sawyer said this is very much a housekeeping measure. In 2006 the other section that refers to this language was amended to have a 30’ setback and for some reason this section was an oversight in that zoning change. This is to allow the signage to be setback at 30’ instead of 50’ as currently written in that section.
Amendment 6
Mr. Sawyer said this is also housekeeping, in our minds and that is to put the elderly housing parking requirement solely in the Land Development Control Regulations and not in the Land Development Control Regulations and the zoning as it currently exists. All the other parking requirements in the entire ordinance were taken out in 2002 and for some reason this section was just an oversight, in my mind. It does not significantly change the amount of parking required. I did make a note of that. The Land Development Control Regulations requires 1 covered space per dwelling unit, 1 space per employee at the largest shift, and a quarter of a space per dwelling unit for visitors. The Zoning Ordinance currently does the first two but does not require any visitor parking. So this actually
holds a higher standard by doing this. Right now applicants have to meet both standards, the problem runs into if somebody wants to not provide the total amount, they will have to get a variance from the Zoning Board and a waiver from the Planning Board and I don’t think that was ever intended.
Amendment 7
Mr. Sawyer said this is something that has come up at the last couple of Planning Board meetings with home occupation. Home occupation regulation in that those home occupations that non-resident employees need to have a septic system plan provided to the Building Inspector. That is something the Building Inspector has been doing routinely, it is just nowhere in the ordinance and his feeling is that it is definitely a necessity.
Amendment 8
Mr. Sawyer said this takes out the language that would allow the construction of fire walls in attached elderly housing projects, therefore, forcing the requirement for a sprinkler system and this is a direct request from the Fire Department, so all attached elderly housing structures would have to be sprinklered. Chairman Goldberg said one thing you have to be careful of, I don’t know if we’ll ever see one large enough, but even a very large building even with sprinklers you might have to construct fire walls. That would be a code issue.
Ms. McGinley said I have a question about Amendment 2. When you were describing that you said a single or a group and it just says a group. Mr. Sawyer replied it is because tank already exists in there; it is not in bold, but if you look just before the bold language, it says tank or group of tanks exceeding a total of 500 gallons. Tank already existed but it was making all tanks having to meet the setback. That is the change that would allow 500 gallons or less to be exempt from the structure definition.
Mr. Marcoux asked with Amendment 6, where it says by deleting Footnote 28 elderly housing, should that not be stricken out, where you are deleting it to be consistent with the others? So wherever we’ve made a change, if you look on the others, anything that’s being deleted there is a strike through. Mr. Sawyer said except in this one I don’t list the language that is being deleted, we’re just deleting the entire section.
Mr. Newberry said with Amendment 2. It looks like there is a typo; it says swimming poles. Mr. Sawyer said that was pointed out the last time and I realized it didn’t get changed in this.
Chairman Goldberg asked for comments or questions from the audience.
Motion made by Vice-Chairman Levenstein to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Newberry. Vote taken – all in favor. Motion carries.
Mr. Sawyer said just to announce, there will have to be a second public hearing on January 28, 2008 on these items as well. There are no further changes; they just go on as presented.
2. Barbara King’s Flowers Etc., Preston & Barbara King (Owners) - Request for a Home Occupation Permit for the operation of a floral arrangement and delivery business, 23 Twin Brook Lane, Lot 41-16-10, Zoned R&A.
A memo written by Cynthia May, Planner II, dated January 14, 2008 as follows:
The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. King, are requesting approval of a Level II Home Occupation Permit. They plan to operate a floral arrangement and delivery business along with one part time non-resident employee, within a 575 square foot area of the basement. The applicants recently purchased the home, which is approximately 3,194 square feet. The Kings propose to refinish a portion of the basement to provide the work space for this home occupation. Situated on a 2.8 acre lot on the southern side of Twin Brook Lane, the parcel abuts a children’s summer camp located on the Amherst side of the Town line. The house is set back on the level portion of the lot and is surrounded by lawn area, with several trees framing both sides of the front yard. The remainder of the lot is wooded and slopes away from
the back yard toward the southern property boundary and Town line. A long driveway extends from the Cul-de-sac street to access a side entrance garage, with a small pull-off area at the end of the driveway.
Article 45-4-2(f)(1) permits a home occupation of no more than 650 square feet, which is to be located within the principal structure, with not more than 1 commercial vehicle and no more than 2 non-resident employees. It appears that this business will occupy no more than 575 square feet of the home. They do not operate a commercial vehicle, and the application states that there is one resident employee and one non-resident employee, who typically works one half-day per week assisting with the operation of the floral business. The non-resident employee is what triggered the need for this home occupation to obtain a permit.
According to the applicant, there are no plant materials delivered to their home for use in the business. Mrs. King picks up her own materials, and the finished floral arrangements are delivered to the customers by Mrs. King or her husband. All the orders for floral arrangements are taken over the phone. Customers do not come to the house as part of the business operation, so there is no need to provide additional parking area. The hours of operation are listed on the application as 8:00 AM to 4:00 P.M., Monday through Friday; however, after speaking with the applicant, it seems reasonable that they should be permitted to put together and deliver floral arrangements on Saturdays as well.
The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board grant final approval of the Home Occupation Permit for the operation of a floral arrangement and delivery business at 23 Twin Brook Lane, Lot 41-16-10, with the following conditions:
1. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be applied for and issued by the Building Inspector prior to continuing this Home Occupation to verify conformance with Town standards.
2. A septic design shall be supplied to the Building Code Official prior to applying for the Certificate of Occupancy.
3. The hours of operation shall be from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday.
Preston King, 23 Twin Brook Lane, said Barbara King’s Flowers is a small flower shop that designs flower arrangements for any occasion. The shop is located in a small portion of the basement, using approximately 575 square feet of space. The shop is a phone order business that does not allow customers to the business. When orders are placed by phone, they are created and delivered to the customer. The shop does not have any commercial vehicles, the business does not have a sign of any kind advertising the business, and the shop does not allow deliveries of supplies. They are purchased and picked up at the supplier’s location and brought to the business. The shop does have one part-time employee that usually works 1 day a week. Business hours are from 8:00AM to 4:00PM
Monday through Friday and hours may vary during holiday times.
Mr. Marcoux asked this question may be more for the staff, unless it is something I didn’t understand. In 45-4-2, where it mentions what is permitted, it says that no more than 2 non-resident employees and in there it says there is no commercial vehicle, 1 resident employee, 1 non-resident employee, and Mr. King just mentioned that it is only 1 day a week. Then in the last sentence it says, “The non-resident employee is what triggered the need for the home occupation to obtain the permit”. Doesn’t that run counter to what’s in the first sentence? Ms. May replied no. Mr. Sawyer said you can have a home occupation without non-resident employees without a permit, so if you have non-resident employees, you have to come to the Planning Board. That’s all it
means. Because he has a non-resident employee, he has to come before the Board.
Ms. McGinley said I do note that the staff had spoke to the applicant about the hours and days of operation and that they have been expanded. I have a question of the staff and of the applicant. It is a home occupation and you and your wife run it, if there is a need to work on Sunday, would you want to work on Sunday? Mr. King replied we would like to have a day off but during holiday times, sometimes we make a slight exception. Generally we try not to. Ms. McGinley said if we approve it this way, Monday through Saturday, what is the practical effect of that? Chairman Goldberg said none probably.
Chairman Goldberg asked for comments or questions from the audience.
Motion made by Mr. Marcoux that the Planning Board grant final approval of the Home Occupation Permit for the operation of a floral arrangement and delivery business at 23 Twin Brook Lane, Lot 41-16-10, with the following conditions:
1. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be applied for and issued by the Building Inspector prior to continuing this Home Occupation to verify conformance with Town standards.
2. A septic design shall be supplied to the Building Code Official prior to applying for the Certificate of Occupancy.
3. The hours of operation shall be from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday.
Mr. Casale asked should we add in there it is within a 575 square foot area? Chairman Goldberg said we could. It is below the minimum. Mr. Riley said if he decides to expand up to a 650 square foot it allows him to do that.
Motion seconded by Vice-Chairman Levenstein. Vote taken – all in favor. Motion carries.
3. DBA Hearth & Home Inspection Services, Inc., Henry A. Vanderbeek (Owner) – Request for a Home Occupation Permit for the operation of a residential and commercial inspection business, 7 Holbrook Road, Lot 10-33, Zoned R&A.
A memo written by Cynthia May, Planner II, dated January 14, 2008 as follows:
The applicant is requesting approval of a Level II Home Occupation Permit. He plans to operate a residential and commercial inspection business to include radon, mold and water testing services. The base of operation will be from a home office, also utilizing garage and basement storage space for a total of 200 square feet dedicated to the business use. The home, which is approximately 1,775 square feet, is situated on a 2.44 acre corner lot at the intersection of Holbrook Road and Old Bedford Road. The house sits on a relatively level and open area of the lot with driveway access from Holbrook Road. The remainder of the lot is sloping and tree covered. Because the applicant plans to have a business sign, he is required to seek a Level II Home Occupation Permit.
Article 45-4-2(f)(1) permits a home occupation of no more than 650 square feet, which is to be located within the principal structure, with not more than 1 commercial vehicle and no more than 2 non-resident employees. It appears that this business will occupy no more than 200 square feet of the home. The applicant does not operate a commercial vehicle, and the application states that there are no non-resident employees. Customers do not come to the house as part of the business operation, so there is no need to provide additional parking area. The hours of operation are listed on the application as 8:00 AM to 5:00 P.M., 7 days a week.
The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board grant final approval of the Home Occupation Permit for the operation of a residential and commercial inspection business at 7 Holbrook Road, Lot 10-33, with the following conditions:
1. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be applied for and issued by the Building Inspector prior to commencing with this Home Occupation to verify conformance with Town standards.
2. The applicant shall apply for a sign permit prior to installation of the sign.
3. The hours of operation shall be from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Sunday through Saturday.
Henry Vanderbeek said I want to thank Mr. Sawyer and Ms. May for being very good to work with. They made the process extremely easy and actually fun. I’m just going to put a sign out front of my property saying that I do home inspections and basically that is it. I’m really not having any employees and I’m just going to put a phone number out there. If someone drives by and you want me to come inspect your house for a fee, I’ll be glad to do that.
Mr. Sawyer said the only reason he is here is because he wants a sign; otherwise he would be able to do it by right. Vice-Chairman Levenstein asked where are you going to put the sign? Mr. Vanderbeek replied right out front by the tree. I guess I have to go back about 10’. There is just about enough room there that you can see it coming from one direction but not the other. Chairman Goldberg said you also have to apply for a sign permit that shows the setback. Ms. McGinley said the setback is to make sure that you’re putting in your yard, not the right-of-way.
Vice-Chairman Levenstein asked Mr. Sawyer, why does he need a certificate of occupancy if it is only really for the sign? Mr. Sawyer said essentially that’s it. The Building Inspector would just verify the compliance with a sign permit. Chairman Goldberg said it also says 1 commercial vehicle and no more than 2 non-resident employees. Mr. Sawyer said that’s what he’s permitted to have up to. Chairman Goldberg said it gives him the ability to have 2 employees. Mr. Sawyer said we don’t anticipate that here. Mr. Vanderbeek said I guess that’s not a bad thing in case I want to expand tremendously in the future. Ms. May said the ordinance is actually worded that it says that the applicant for a Level II permit, has to get the certificate of occupancy
to move forward. Ms. McGinley asked but we’re not approving it with the 2 non-resident employees are we? Chairman Goldberg said if he gets the Level II permit, doesn’t he have by right to have 2 non-resident employees? Mr. Sawyer said essentially; this Board’s not necessarily reviewing that tonight, but I guess I could enforce on him having to come back to this Board if he added employees. Vice-Chairman Levenstein said but he would because he doesn’t have a designated area for parking. Ms. McGinley said the other issue is on our prior applicant, we have required a septic design. Mr. Sawyer replied that’s right. Cynthia was just stating that’s what he’s allowed up to, he is not asking for any of that tonight. She was just stating that’s what the ordinance allows up to. He is really here because he just wants to put a sign out front. Mr. Riley asked if there was any
modification to the operation, he would have to come back? Mr. Sawyer replied if it intensifies, I would say so. If he adds employees, he would need to come back. If you went from 200 square feet to 500 square feet, no I don’t think I would enforce on that.
Chairman Goldberg asked for comments or questions from the audience.
Motion made by Mr. Casale that the Planning Board grant final approval of the Home Occupation Permit for the operation of a residential and commercial inspection business at 7 Holbrook Road, Lot 10-33, with the following conditions:
1. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be applied for and issued by the Building Inspector prior to commencing with this Home Occupation to verify conformance with Town standards.
2. The applicant shall apply for a sign permit prior to installation of the sign.
3. The hours of operation shall be from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Sunday through Saturday.
Seconded by Mr. Riley. Vote taken – all in favor. Motion carries.
Ms. McGinley said I would like to commend our Town of its excellent snow removal.
4. 2 Commerce Drive (Owner) First Sign & Corporate Image, Inc. (Applicant) – Request to amend the condition of the previous sign waiver approval prohibiting additional signage, granted on September 11, 2006, in order to allow a request for a 32 square foot directory sign at the entrance to the site, 2 Commerce Drive & South River Road, Lot 35-99-10, Zoned PZ.
A memo written by Cynthia May, Planner II, dated January 14, 2008 as follows:
OVERVIEW: The applicant is asking the Planning Board to consider amending the conditions of a previous sign approval to allow a new freestanding identification sign for an office building located at 2 Commerce Drive in the Route 3 Performance Zone. Scott Aubertin, of First Sign, Inc., is the applicant representing 2 Commerce Drive, LLC, as authorized by the property owner, Mr. Arthur Sullivan. The application was submitted under the requirements of the Performance Zone, Sub-section 45-9-13 Sign Standards under Article 45-9, U.S. Route 3 Performance Zone.
SITE HISTORY: On September 11, 2006, the Planning Board voted to grant two waivers to the above referenced section of the Bedford Zoning Ordinance for a new building sign. At that time, the applicant justified the request to exceed height and size limitations, stating that the larger proposed single sign placed higher on the building would enhance the building appearance, and would allow a more prominent placement of the building name and address for better visibility from Route 3. The applicant further offered that the larger building identification sign would preclude the need for individual tenant signs on the building.
Planning Staff at that time supported the applicant’s request to exceed the allowable height for the building identification sign, but did not support the increased square footage. Planning Staff at that time also recommended that an approval include a condition that no additional signage should be permitted in the future, and that the existing tenant sign should be removed whenever that tenant vacated the building (the tenant lease is about to expire with no renewal.)
As stated above, the Planning Board granted both waivers on September 11, 2006, stipulating that in accordance with Planning Staff recommendations, the single existing tenant sign shall be removed when that tenant vacates the building, and that no additional building or ground signs shall be erected. The applicant provided a copy of a letter to the Town of Bedford, dated October 2, 2006, confirming that the applicant understood the terms of the waiver approval, and that this letter was intended to satisfy the conditions of approval for the waiver granted in September 2006 (please see attached minutes of September 11, 2006.)
CURRENT APPLICATION: The applicant would like the Planning Board to consider an amendment to the previous approval to remove the condition that prohibits additional signage on site, to allow a freestanding identification sign at the intersection of Commerce Drive and Route 3 as shown on the attached plan. The proposed sign would be in conformance with the requirements of the Performance Zone Ordinance, and will be 34.5 square feet, as permitted by Sub-section 45-9-13 Sign Standards under Article 45-9, Figure 45.19, U.S. Route 3 Performance Zone, which allows signs up to 50 square feet for multiple tenant business centers. The consensus among staff reviewers was that the previously approved sign may not be an effective directional tool; therefore, the ground sign would be helpful
to people trying to identify the building as their destination.
Staff is recommending that the applicant locate the proposed sign next to the driveway on Commerce Drive where the granite address marker currently sits. This would clearly identify the curb cut off Commerce Drive as the point of access to the business. This would be in a similar fashion as the sign at 8 Commerce Drive (please see attached photo.) The small granite sign could be relocated to another place, and should also be shown on an as-built plan. The sign appears to meet all the criteria of the ordinance. Staff would also recommend that the applicant submit an as-built plan prepared by a licensed surveyor to ensure that the location has followed setback requirements.
The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board amend the conditions of the previous approval to allow the freestanding identification sign for 2 Commerce Drive, Lot #35-99-10, to be constructed as shown on the drawing by First Sign, Inc., dated 11/2007, with the following conditions:
1. Once the sign is installed, the applicant shall submit an as-built plan prepared by a licensed land surveyor, certifying that the sign location meets all the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The applicant will apply for a building permit, to be approved prior to the installation of the sign.
3. The applicant will landscape the area around the sign in accordance with Section 45-9-11 Minimum Landscape Requirements for Signage, and Section 45-9-8(e)(7) Signage Landscape Strip, with final approval of installed landscaping by the Planning Director
Scott Aubertin, First Sign, Inc., said I’m representing the owners of 2 Commerce Park Drive. As you know we are in here to request an amendment to the conditions of the previous sign waiver that was granted on September 11, 2006, at which time we were allowed to put a larger than permitted sign on the building on the 2nd floor where we put gold leaf letters on the brick building and the trade-off was that we would not have any other signs on the property. Since then we have removed all of the internally illuminated channel-letter signs from the front of the building, with the exception of one. Those people are in the last year of their lease and that sign is scheduled to be removed also. Our goal was to remove everything from the building that detracted from the look of the building to
make it look much more professional and attractive and I think we’ve succeeded in that. Since that time, we have realized a couple of other needs that have come up. One is identification of the building has been one of them because even though the sign on the building is very attractive, it is obscured by the trees when they are in leaf and it is a little bit hard to see what the property is. The second thing that has come up is that we have a tenant, American Cancer Society, which is non-profit and requires a lot higher visibility and a presence and a Bedford location being important to them. What we are requesting is permission to put a free-standing sign, which is within the scope of the ordinance in the Performance Zone to augment the sign that we have on the building. I’m now showing the one that we’ve actually made it look like now at 8 Commerce Park Drive, and then I’m showing the proposed sign for 2 Commerce Park Drive. As you can see we have given American Cancer
Society the majority of the sign, as well as representing the other tenants on the sign since they’ve lost their signs from the front of the building and also put the address on there to help patients and customers find the property. We’re proposing to position the sign in line with the telephone pole. It does comply with the ordinance in the Performance Zone and the setbacks. It is considerably smaller than what we’re allowed in a multi-tenant building; we’re actually allowed 50 square feet and we’re requesting a sign that’s just slightly over 32 square feet. Our goal is so that by positioning the sign out there, people at the intersection and people traveling northbound on Route 3A can see the sign before they get to this intersection and actually turn into the property. As I said, the sign is not internally illuminated and it is within the structure of the ordinance and it will have the requisite landscaping on it. I know that the Planning Department did recommend that it
be back where the other sign is and I have a little bit of an issue with that only because the motivation of getting the sign is to help people find the property and to give American Cancer Society a little bit of visibility out there. We feel that’s better suited out there where they actually get the visibility. It doesn’t really do that for them at the other entrance.
Chairman Goldberg asked right now the existing sign on the building would come off when the tenant leaves? Mr. Aubertin replied yes, that sign is the last illuminated sign on the building. It is scheduled to come off, they are in the last year of their lease and they are not renewing. Even if they did renew, it would be written into the lease that the sign would be taken out of there. They wouldn’t have the sign any more. Mr. Riley asked Mr. Sawyer, would they need a sign waiver if that sign is to stay on the building and we grant approval for this sign? Ms. May replied no, they wouldn’t need a sign waiver. They are actually allowed to have both the sign on the building as well as the ground sign for identification. Mr. Aubertin said Mr. Riley, if you’re
talking about the one that’s coming down, that’s just a grandfathered sign and the agreement from the previous waiver was that those signs would come down as the tenants left and that tenant is still in there and they are on their way out.
Ms. McGinley said Mr. Chairman, I need to recuse myself from this application.
Vice-Chairman Levenstein asked the Brady-Sullivan sign isn’t coming off from the building? Mr. Aubertin replied correct. That is the one that we have the waiver for. Vice-Chairman Levenstein said if you took that one off, you wouldn’t even have to come here. But then I guess you would because we told you you couldn’t have another sign. Mr. Aubertin said I guess if you took that off then technically the waiver would be not in effect anyway. I’m not sure how that would work. Mr. Sawyer said the Board granted you a waiver to have the sign higher on the building, plus to have a second sign. Mr. Riley is right. There are waivers in place already for those signs that are on the building. Those don’t get amended or modified in any
way. Mr. Casale said it was height and increase in square footage. Mr. Aubertin replied that’s correct.
Mr. Marcoux asked is that #8 on the right hand side? Ms. May said the one you’re referring to is the 8 Commerce Park Drive sign. Mr. Marcoux asked what is the one on the right hand side on the bottom on the far right? Mr. Aubertin replied that is a park sign. Chairman Goldberg said the initial waiver that you were here for was for the Brady-Sullivan sign. Mr. Aubertin replied that’s correct; Brady-Sullivan Commerce Park sign with the gold letters up on the building and it was required because of the scale of the building we wanted to go larger than what the permittable size was, and also it is above the actual height that’s allowable, because the ordinance requires that it be underneath the second story windows and in the front of the building architecturally, we have that
big blank space above those windows that we wanted to utilize. Chairman Goldberg said but the staff did not increase the square footage, so it’s only the allowable height, so the square footage of that sign is okay on the building. Mr. Aubertin said square footage was increased also. Mr. Sawyer said it is 73.5 square feet where 32 square feet was allowed. Vice-Chairman Levenstein asked so we need to have Brady-Sullivan Commerce Park Drive on it twice for what reason?
Mr. Casale asked Mr. Aubertin, you applied for the Brady-Sullivan sign and it was before the Planning Board in September of 2006. Mr. Aubertin replied that’s correct. Mr. Casale said I assume that the trees that are out there now that you’re complaining are now in the way of the sign were out there at the time and in full bloom. Mr. Aubertin replied absolutely and if I may say, I’m not complaining about them, by any means, I’m just stating the fact that they do obscure the sign somewhat and it didn’t occur to me that that was going to be an issue at the time. Mr. Casale asked you looked at this ahead of time though? Mr. Aubertin replied I did. Mr. Casale asked when did the American Cancer Society sign their lease contract with Brady-Sullivan? Mr.
Aubertin replied I don’t know exactly when they sign it; it was after we received the waiver for that sign. Mr. Casale asked when they came in I’m assuming that they did their homework as well and did anybody from Brady-Sullivan tell them that there was a limitation on the signage for the building? Mr. Aubertin replied yes, absolutely. Mr. Casale asked they did tell them? Mr. Aubertin replied yes, and we expressed to them that we would attempt to get a sign on the building for them. Since then, we looked at coming to you with an application to put a sign on the building and felt that that was the most appropriate thing, so we went back to the American Cancer Society and suggested that we do something that would be a little more versatile or more all-encompassing by putting a ground sign there instead. Mr. Casale said but it was very clear to your company and also probably Brady-Sullivan that when you increase the square footage on the
Brady-Sullivan sign, which is pretty large on the front of that building, and also the height, that you’re not allowed to put any further signs up. Mr. Aubertin replied absolutely. Mr. Casale asked you didn’t think that was going to be a problem when you told the American Cancer Society that you would come before the Board again. Mr. Aubertin said we knew there would be an issue, absolutely and honestly we felt like what we have done to the building has improved the site and what we were asking for was not unreasonable, hence I came forward to ask for this because I feel like it is still upholding the spirit and intent of the ordinance and it is still going to maintain the integrity of the park and not inflict on anybody else’s rights. That was the basis of my decision.
| 
