Westport News

The Zoning Board of Appeals hereby submits the following record of the Board’s proceeding and its’ decision on the application of Michael Goes (applicant/owner),
181 Cadmans Neck, Westport, MA for a Variance from Zoning By-Law Article 5, section 5.2.1 to erect a sign pole (14’ x 48’ x 100’) to be located at 0 Frontage Street, said property is more particularly shown on Assessor’s Map-1, Lot-31A.

RECORD OF PROCEEDING AND DECISION

Pursuant to a Notice of Public Hearing, which was duly published in the Shorelines on May 17, 2007 and May 24, 2007 and posted on the Town Hall Bulletin Board, and mailed to the Applicants, Attorney on Record, Abutters, Owners of land directly opposite on any public or private street or way, abutters to the abutters within three hundred feet of the property line of the Applicants, the Towns of Westport and Dartmouth Planning Boards and the City of Fall River Planning Department, a Public Hearing was held on Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at the Westport Town Hall on the above application for a variance as to property located on Assessor’s Map 1, Lot 31A and recorded with the Bristol County (S.D.) Registry of Deeds in Book 8426, Pages 119 & 120.

June 6, 2007
Sitting on the petition were Clayton Harrison and Gerald Coutinho.  Mr. Tripp recused himself due to a conflict of interest with the petitioner.  Absent were Donna Lambert, Christopher Graham and Barbara Hanley.
Mr. Harrison opened the hearing with the reading of the Public Hearing Notice and the Abutters List aloud at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Harrison explained that there were not enough members of the Zoning Board of Appeals present to meet a quorum and asked if Mr. Goes would agree to a continuance, with no information regarding this petition being reviewed tonight.

Mr. Goes agreed to continue this hearing to June 20, 2007 at 7:30 p.m.

June 20, 2007
The continued hearing was opened at 7:30 p.m.  Chairman Harrison read the Public Hearing Notice and Abutters List aloud.  Other members serving were Donna Lambert, Christopher Graham, Barbara Hanley and Gerald Coutinho.

Also present were Michael Goes, applicant and John McNally, Building Inspector.

Mr. Goes stated that he wants to erect a sign at 0 Frontage Street.  Mr. Goes presented a day and night photo of the sign and said that the sign would be internally illuminated.

Mr. Coutinho asked Mr. Goes what the area, where the sign would be erected, was zoned as.

Mr. Goes stated that the location was in a residential area.  Mr. Goes then presented a letter of determination from the Building Inspector dated June13, 2007.

Mr. Harrison read the Zoning Enforcement Officers’ letter aloud, which deemed the lot unbuildable due to lack of sufficient frontage.

Mr. Goes stated that his intention was to purchase a lot in order to erect a sign on it.

Ms. Hanley asked if there was accessibility.

Mr. Goes stated that the road is open to be able to get to the lot.  Mr. Goes said that he originally wanted to erect a monopole sign near his business, which is located at 75 Old Bedford Road.  Mr. Goes noted where his three lots were, in reference to where he wanted to place the sign.  Mr. Goes stated he would not have purchased the lot on Frontage Street if a sign could not have erected on it.  The lot nearby has erected a large billboard sign and Mr. Goes stated that it blocks any sign he could erect.

Mr. Coutinho asked if the Building Inspector stated that if this were commercial property, would Mr. Goes be able to erect the sign even though he does not have the actual business there.

Mr. McNally, stated that there are other businesses in town that have such.  Mr. McNally had an opinion from Town Counsel, and that is that the Town does not have a legal sign bylaw.

Mr. Goes stated that when he first went to the Building Inspector, Mr. McNally said that it would be no problem erecting a sign on the property at Frontage Street.

Mr. McNally stated that Mr. Goes went to the Building Department and spoke with him about his proposal the first time.  On Mr. Goes’s second visit to the Building Department he presented a plan and that is when Mr. McNally realized that the proposed sign would be in a different zone; a residential zone created when the highway was installed.  Mr. McNally stated that he had no problem with granting a permit for the sign, as long as the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance in order for him to do this.

Mr. Harrison asked if any of the abutters were present and had any comment on this matter.

Mr. Kenneth Pavao, 17 Adirondack Lane, stated that he is an abutter on the western boundary of Mr. Goes’s lot.  Mr. Pavao’s neighbor at 10 Adirondack Lane was going to erect a sign on his property and was shot down.  Mr. Pavao’s property faces that property and he stated that is what he would be looking at everyday.  Mr. Pavao felt that the sign would depreciate the value of his property.

Mr. Antone Pereira, 34 Frontage Street, stated that he is an abutter on the east side of Mr. Goes.  Mr. Pereira stated that the zoning bylaws require a hardship for the granting of a variance and putting up a sign is not a hardship.

Ms. Stacey Goes stated that the hardship is the money that was invested in purchasing the property after they were told that they could place a sign on it.  Ms. Goes noted that there are signs all in that area.

Michael Joseph, 1025 Pequot Street, New Bedford, stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would be granting a variance on a non-hardship if they allowed this.  The abutters will be looking at a billboard sign and that would create a hardship for the abutters.

Antone Pavao, 279 Davis Road, stated that he would be able to see the sign.  There are no signs on Frontage Street, only on Old Bedford Road.  Mr. Pavao asked why the sign could not be installed about 10 ft. below the height of the sign for White’s Restaurant.

Ms. Hanley stated that her understanding is not to undermine the use of the area.  The area is still residential.  Ms. Hanley’s opinion would be that Mr. Goes would be better off asking for a variance for residential use and deeming the lot buildable.

Mr. Goes stated that there are businesses all along the street and it was the Town that split the zoning.  Mr. Goes stated that he would not spend any more money on this.  There are telecommunications towers, auto repair and auto sales businesses in this area.

Mr. Graham stated that he would like to do an onsite.

Mr. Coutinho stated that if there are businesses and signs all over the area, then they were not talking about a residential subdivision.

Mr. Goes stated that he would not be selling or advertising, he would only be naming his business with the sign.  It would be roughly 100 ft in height, just above the tree line.  The height and size can be a lot less than what Mr. Goes asked for, as long as it has appropriate visibility.  The sign would not throw off any spotlights and the message part of the sign that is illuminated can be adjusted.

Mr. Coutinho stated that the way Mr. Goes runs a business should be encouraged in Town.  Mr. Coutinho stated that Mr. Goes has run a clean business in Dartmouth and he would like to help him to get up and running while staying within the zoning guidelines.

Motion made by Mr. Graham to conduct an onsite visit of the property on Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.  Second by Mr. Coutinho.  The Board voted unanimously in favor.

Motion made by Mr. Coutinho to continue this hearing to Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.  Second by Mr. Graham.  The Board voted unanimously in favor.

The meeting ends at 8:24 p.m.

June 23, 2007
The onsite meeting was called to order by Clayton Harrison at 9:00 a.m.  Members present were Clayton Harrison, Donna Lambert, Christopher Graham and Gerald Coutinho.  
Petitioner Michael Goes was present.
Abutters present were Tony Pereria, Antone Pereira, Deke Astle and Sheila Pavao.
The boundary markers were located on the property.
The following was noted:
1) Ms. Pavao’s house was in close proximity to the proposed sign and her bedroom faces the location of the proposed sign.
2) There is only one licensed repair garage located on Frontage Street, J’s Repair.
3) The height of the sign being requested is 100 ft.
4) This is a residential zone and if approved, this would not change the zoning status of the property. The zone would remain residential.
5) There were no other large business signs on Frontage Street in that area.
6) The water from Watuppa Pond does not encroach onto this lot as shown on the map presented; in fact, there is a paved road across the entire lot frontage between the pond and this lot.

Motion made by Mr. Coutinho to adjourn the onsite meeting at 10:00 a.m.  This meeting will be continued to Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.  Second by Mr. Graham.
The Board voted unanimously in favor.

June 28, 2007
Chairman Harrison opened the continued hearing at 7:00 p.m.  Members serving were
Clayton Harrison, Gerald Coutinho, Donna Lambert, Barbara Hanley and Christopher Graham.  Also present was Michael Goes.

Mr. Goes stated that he had no further information in regards to the design of the sign.  Mr. Goes said that he took into consideration alternative sign layouts.  Mr. Goes stated that he has offered to give the property on Frontage Street to the abutters, Mr. Pavao and Mr. Pereira, with the property being split into two with an easement to Mr. Goes for access to the sign.

The Board questioned the legality of this type of offer.  A discussion regarding splitting the property.

Mr. Pavao, 7 Adirondack Lane stated that he is not in favor of the sign in a residential area.  Mr. Pavao said that it was a very nice gesture of the property offer from Mr. Goes however, he is not in favor of this petition.

Motion made by Mr. Graham to close the hearing.  Second by Ms. Hanley.  The Board voted unanimously in favor.

Ms. Hanley stated that this petition was requested under Section 5.2.1 of the Zoning Bylaws and Chapter 93 of the Massachusetts General Laws.  A variance that is requested and granted goes with the property forever.  Ms. Hanley stated that this request does not meet the criteria for a variance.

Mr. Coutinho stated that the property lacked frontage, which makes the lot unbuildable; that makes it meet the criteria for a variance.

As for clarification, Mr. Coutinho said that there is one licensed business located on Frontage Street, which is J’s Repair Garage.  The consistent use for the area is residential.

Motion made by Mr. Graham to deny the request for a variance due to the fact that the request does not meet the required criteria; changing the use of residential to commercial would be detrimental to the neighborhood; no legal hardship was demonstrated.  Second by Ms. Lambert.  The Board voted unanimously in favor.

Chairman Harrison advised that any aggrieved party has twenty (20) days to appeal the Board’s decision after filing with the Town Clerk.

Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals may appeal to the Superior Court Department in which the land concerned is situated or to the Land Court Department or to the division of the District Court Department within whose jurisdiction the land is situated by bringing an action within twenty (20) days after the decision has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk.  Notice of the action with a copy of the complaint shall be given to such Town Clerk as to be received within such twenty (20) days in accordance with M.G.L.  Chapter 40A, Section 17.

Upon expiration of twenty (20) days from the date of this decision, without an appeal filed for the dismissal or denial of an unsuccessful appeal, it shall be the responsibility of the Petitioners to obtain the signature of the Town Clerk to the certification and to record
this decision and the certification of the Town Clerk in the Bristol County (S.D.) Registry of Deeds.

If the rights authorized by a variance are not exercised within one year of the date of granting such a variance, they shall lapse and may be re-established only after notice and a new hearing pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 10.

UNDER MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS, THIS DECISION AND NOTICE OF FINDING SHALL HAVE NO LEGAL EFFECT UNTIL IT IS RECORDED IN SAID REGISTRY OF DEEDS.