MEMBERS PRESENT:       Gwen Webster, Acting Chairperson; Boris Funtow, John Holt, Steve Waltien (Tom Koerner was absent.)

ADMNISTRATION:            Brian Bigelow, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Jane McKnight, Rebecca Kennedy, Ed Bovill, Barbara Grant, Jeff Nick, Tom Loyer, Mary Callaghan and Margery Sharp (Shelburne News).

 

Gwen Webster called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.  Introductions were made.

 

None.

 

Jane McKnight, owner, and Rebecca Kennedy, tenant, appeared on behalf of the application and the appeal.

 

STAFF REPORT

Ms. Webster reviewed a brief history of the property as a commercial business and the request for a sign permit for a free standing sign and two add-on signs.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. McKnight stated she purchased the building four years ago from Caldbeck and Schweitzer and operated under the assumption the building was a non-conforming structure. There are photographs showing the building in the same footprint since the 1970s. The building has since been renovated. There was an existing sign and one add-on sign. Ms. McKnight said she assumed she could have the same configuration of signage, but when the Selectboard was discussing signs recently she realized her sign was not covered under a ‘grandfather clause’. Ms. Webster noted a sign was not posted on the property in the 1960s. Ms. McKnight said the building was used as a restaurant in the 1920s. It was assumed there was a sign for the restaurant. The building has been in continuous commercial use. Most neighboring structures are commercial uses with the exception of a few residential units. Ms. McKnight acknowledged the sign was installed without a permit, but the sign is a tasteful and attractive, an improvement rather than a blight on the character of the neighborhood.

 

Mr. Holt asked for clarification of the front yard setback. It was noted staff checked the side yard setbacks. The property owner paced off the front yard setback in the snow and estimated the sign location to be greater than 10’ from the edge of the road. The building is located on the old Route 7.

 

Mr. Funtow asked if the existing sign was installed in the same location as the previous sign. Ms. McKnight said she used the same ‘goal posts’ that supported the previous sign. The location or posts have not been altered. Brian Bigelow reported an application was presented to the Zoning Board in May, 1983. The McKnight free standing sign is larger and the applicant is seeking a sign permit retroactively.

 

Regarding the appeal, Ms. McKnight explained that when she discovered a sign permit was needed space from the law office suite had been subleased and she was not aware of the rule limiting the number of signs. The add-on signs are grouped together in one permit application. There was mention of variance criteria relative to signs. Ms. Webster noted there are non-conforming lots and non-conforming setbacks in the village. Ms. McKnight observed there are many businesses in the village with more than one add-on sign, for instance, a large board sign with many name boards attached or the add-on signs at Tenneybrook Square which are designed to touch each other to give the appearance of one large sign though there is air space between the boards. Ms. McKnight suggested review of the sign section in the zoning ordinance is warranted (it was noted the Planning Commission is in process with this review). It is difficult to adapt signs to a variance, which was created to address buildings, stated Ms. McKnight, suggesting one option might be to use a Lucite board to attach two signs as one add-on sign. Ms. McKnight reiterated that the 2,200 s.f. building dates back to the 1920s and has been in continuous commercial use. The building is designed for more than one user. There are three business tenants presently. Ms. McKnight mentioned the cost of the sign in terms of the ‘hardship’ criterion. Ms. Webster pointed out the hardship was self created. There was continued discussion of variances. Mr. Funtow pointed out zoning clearly allows only one add-on sign. The applicant can remove the additional sign. Ms. McKnight asked if the Board will consider the cost of the sign. Mr. Waltien explained per Vermont law the Zoning Board is not allowed to consider cost. With regard to violations relative to add-on signs, clearly better enforcement of the regulations is needed. Ms. McKnight opined the ordinance related to signs is vague. Mr. Holt read §1680.1B, which clearly states one add-on sign shall be allowed. Ms. McKnight asked for a definition of an add-on sign, citing the Tenneybrook Square sign (large board with many smaller slats touching each other giving the appearance of one sign). Ms. Webster questioned if a sign is considered an “add on” if the design of a smaller sign is an integral part of the entire main sign board package. There is also question whether a chain or eye hook constitutes an add-on sign. There was further discussion of the sign(s) at Tenneybrook Square. Mr. Waltien stated the Tenneybrook Square sign(s) appear to be in violation of the ordinance. The Zoning Board cannot explicitly vote to violate a particular ordinance, and there has never been a policy issued by the Board to default. Ms. McKnight stated common sense would dictate when a tenant changes, the former tenant’s small sign is replaced on the one large sign.

 

There was further discussion of add-on signs and examples of buildings with multiple tenants each having a sign. Mr. Funtow described one scenario of three signs presented in a sign design and the addition of decals on the existing main sign warranting review/approval by the Design Review Board. Mr. Waltien recalled the Zoning Board reviewed a sign application in the village at the location of the coffee shop and antique shop. The application was denied.  The town has an explicit sign regulation. Ms. Kennedy asked if individual signs each attached to the same set of standing posts versus hanging from a chain are considered add-on signs. Mr. Bigelow stated the signs would be considered add-on signs. Regarding the sign at the former Bond Auto building sign, it is recognized tenants change, but the sign is considered one large sign. Mr. Funtow opined signs eye bolted to posts are add-on, but one continuous block of material is one sign. Pieces are attached are part of the main sign.

 

It was noted the site plan should note the sign measurements from the edge of the right of way. Staff will work with the applicant on this matter. It was suggested a sign could be placed in a window. Ms. McKnight asked if a sign reconfiguration for one add-on sign could be approved administratively.  Mr. Bigelow confirmed that a single add-on sign is reviewed administratively

 

Mr. Funtow asked if the law office space is separate in the building, noting professional offices in the Residential 2 District are not permitted. The law office can continue, but another non-conforming use could not be added. Ms. McKnight pointed out historically there have been a variety of uses in the building, including at one time four uses in four separate office suites. Mr. Funtow pointed out Conditional Use approval would be needed for a change in a non-conforming use. Ms. McKnight stated she got a legal opinion from the real estate attorney prior to buying the property, and would not have purchased the building if another professional use was not allowed. Mr. Bigelow stated there were two attorneys using the building prior to the purchase by the current property owner.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Edwin Bovill and Barbara Grant, owners, appeared on behalf of the application. Ms. Webster mentioned the applicant is her mother’s doctor. The Board felt recusal by Ms. Webster was not necessary.

 

STAFF REPORT

Ms. Webster read Staff Report on the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Bovill explained the proposal to replace an existing window with a bay window on the south facing wall of the single story house. There is a hedge between the neighbors so the bay window will not impact the neighbors. The new window will allow more light into the bedroom. The proposed design is within the 50% volume allowance for an existing house.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Jeff Nick and Tom Loyer appeared on behalf of the appeal.

 

STAFF REPORT

Ms. Webster reviewed the application for a sign permit by Shelburne Little League Association.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Jeff Nick explained the proposal to raise funds for the baseball program through outfield signs at the new Harbor Road playing fields. The location of the proposed signs was indicated on the site plan. Color pictures looking north from home plate and School Street were reviewed. The request is for 4’ x 8’ signs with up to 30 signs for the two fields.

 

Ms. Webster expressed concern about the impact to views as people drive on Harbor Road, commenting the requested signs are a great departure from the signs at the Town Hall playing fields, which are insulated from road views. Mr. Nick pointed out there is a larger vision for the fields so funds are needed. The addition of bathroom facilities is one item. The views now include the town’s garage and equipment (backhoe, salt shed, sand pile). The signs will screen the town garage from view.

 

Mr. Funtow asked about the mechanism that allowed the existing signs at the ball park since there is nothing in the ordinance that allowed the signs. The signs are more than temporary signs. Under the ordinance the Hannaford sign would be prohibited. Mr. Funtow read a section of the ordinance pertaining to signs selling a product versus supporting baseball. Mr. Loyer said he solicited many of the signs and they are all about baseball.

 

Mr. Waltien asked why Little League needs to sell signs. Mr. Loyer replied the Town has a financial shortfall to complete the new facilities. The Little League Association discussed the vision with the Town for dugouts, a snack shack, bathrooms, and such. Also, the field was poorly built (the pitcher’s mound was not constructed with the correct type of clay base). Mr. Waltien commented the amount of money for Little League seems extraordinary, and expressed concern about outside corporations having signs that look like billboards. Mr. Bigelow noted the Zoning Board deferred to another board (Design Review Committee) for the Town Hall playing fields.  Mr. Waltien stated Harbor Road is one of the main thoroughfares in town and the signs were visual pollution. Ms. Webster interjected South Burlington allows banners that are much smaller and can be taken down between games. Mr. Funtow noted the ordinance allows one freestanding sign that could display donors.

 

Mr. Holt asked about the maintenance of the fields which are on town owned land. Mr. Nick said Little League pays for maintenance. The billboards pay for rebuilding pitcher’s mounds and field maintenance. The signs are displayed from mid-April to mid-September. Mr. Holt asked if the Board can justify the signs for a community owned/operated facility (i.e. taking the position that denying the request would interfere with the functional use of facility). Mr. Holt asked if the signs could be approved under Section 1680.1.2. Mr. Bigelow mentioned putting black wind screening material on the outfield fence to screen the signs from view from Harbor Road. Mr. Nick pointed out there are signs on many, many baseball fields. There was further discussion of §1680, Sign Regulations, relative to distractions and obstructions which may contribute to traffic accidents, impact property values, and such. There was question as to whether the application falls under the use of a school. Mr. Holt read uses regulated with respect to location, size, height, yards, courts, setbacks, and density. It was noted the Waldorf School can see signs from Turtle Lane. Mr. Waltien suggested leaning the signs against the fence rather than attaching them so they can be removed when the fields are not in use.

 

Mr. Funtow noted the request is under special provisions for signs. Mr. Loyer replied the other options did not fit the request. Mr. Funtow pointed out there is no provision for approving multiple signs under Section C. Mr. Waltien suggested canvas banners that can be removed by the players. Mr. Nick stated board signs are better than canvas banners. Mr. Nick suggested the Board approve five one-year signs on a trial basis. Ms. Webster said the regulations do not allow the signs, and suggested one sign at the entrance of each park with the names of business sponsors. The signs should be facing away from Harbor Road.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mary Callaghan, resident, stated the signs help define a ballfield.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The Board will discuss the appeal in Deliberative Session.

 

 

 

 

The public portion of the meeting was adjourned and Deliberative Session convened at 8:55 p.m.

 

The ZBA exited Deliberative Session and reconvened the regular meeting at 9:25 p.m. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ZBA meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

 

Minutes respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary.