[Music] Good evening everyone and uh welcome to this evening's uh town of Denver's uh zoning board of appeals. Um we are now in session. I would please uh start by asking if you could just silence any um mobile devices or phones or beep I don't
know people carry beepers anymore. Uh, anything that will make noise and interrupt us, if you could just uh please uh turn them to silent. Uh, I'll start by uh introducing our board members. Down to my far right is Becky Kilbornne. Uh, beside her is Karen Doy.
Our clerk tonight is Ken Scholes, myself, John Ber as the chairman. Uh, to my left is Ken Javvernan. Uh, Chris Dumbowski, and um Kevin Burch all the way down the end there. Um we we um will
briefly go through uh oh I'm sorry and from our planning department our planning director Mr. Brian Zelli. Um, I'll just briefly, uh, for those who aren't aware of our process, I will just briefly point it out. Uh, the clerk will start by reading your case. Uh, at that point, we ask the applicant to go up to
the podium. Uh, announce to yourself, your name, your address. We are being recorded on Damber's cable. Uh, so it's for the folks at home, but also for our ability to take me, uh, meeting minutes, so uh, we can capture everything that's said tonight. After you've presented
your case, uh the I'll bring it back up here to the board. The board will ask questions um about your application and uh once the board has finished asking questions. I'll ask I'll then open it up for public comment. After public comment, we'll come back to the board
and we will deliberate. Based on those deliberations, you'll get a feel of how uh we're planning to vote. As this is a public meeting, we do it in open. And um at that point uh we'll give you your options uh on how to proceed forward. Uh
with that said, um uh board members, we were in receipt of uh minutes stated uh September 22nd. Um if I could get a motion for those minutes. So moved. And a second. Second. Any further discussion? Hearing none.
All in favor? I opposed. Very good. Um, and with that said, I think we can get going. Mr. Clerk, we have our first uh continued case. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our first case is 75 Silven Street. This is zoned industrial 2, uh, map 54, lot 31.
Request a variance under section 37.3 to allow two singlesided and two double-sided signs in addition to the two freestanding signs currently on site. Uh the request is made by 75 Silven Street LLC care of Nancy McCann
Esquire docket 25-5 5116. Good evening. Thank you very much. My name is Nancy McCann. I'm here on behalf of the applicant 75 Silven Street LLC. With me tonight is Jay Coughlin, principal of the LLC. Also with me
tonight is Ed Spinny, who is the sign consultant for this project. and we are requesting a waiver/variance under the new sign bylaw to permit a new sign package to be installed at 75 Silvin Street. As you know, this
property is located in the industrial 2 zoning district and the applicant acquired the property last year and has since that time been making a number of different improvements to the site um to uh to update it and improve the uh the
overall appearance. Um, this property is an industrial complex. It's been an industrial complex for decades. You all may recall when it was the headquarters for Sylvania and the big lights were there all uh all night long. Um
but uh it is now a uh Sylvania has left obviously and it's a multi-tenanted industrial building buildings several buildings three buildings um for office manufacturing all permitted uses in the I2 zoning district. It's a large site.
It's over 15 acres. It has um 960 ft of frontage on Silven Street. It has 750 ft of frontage on Adam Street and it has over 260,000 square feet of industrial space. Um the
proposal is to in uh install a new sign package that's going to adequately identify the property and the entrances uh both off of Silven Street as well as off of uh Adam Street and to update the
uh the signage. Um Danvers adopted a a new sign by law in February. Um it uh was delayed going through the attorney general review process uh for good reason. It has some issues. There were
issues with its adoption. There are issues with uh the language. Uh there are errors. But for one reason or another, the AG did end up approving it towards the end of the summer. So that's what we have to work with and until
there are changes made to it to correct the issues. So working with that bylaw, um we have formulated the application that's in front of you tonight. Uh I've been working with Mr. Zakelli
having several meetings uh over this bylaw to try and figure out what it says and how it applies. Um uh back uh so with that kind of as a background back in 2007 this board did grant variance
relief for this site um and allowed three signs along Silvin Street. Um and in addition there were some 15 directional signs installed around the
property. One of them was a directional sign on Adam Street. Um the three signs on Silven Street uh were located in the general locations of the the entrances and then there were 15 directional signs all over the the property. In reviewing
the site and upgrading the appearance, um the applicant retained uh Mr. Spinny and his company to uh to review the signage and it was determined that the signage that's on the site is cluttered. Um it's dated. it's not adequate for the
industrial complex and to uh adequately identify the entrances for this multi-tenanted building. And so a new uh a new sign package has been uh presented. So, the proposal is to remove the signs uh that are there as well as
removing all of the directional signs that uh that clutter the site and install four uh new signs at the four entrance points. You have uh the sign package with your application and uh Mr. Spinny will go over the the specifics
with you. Um, but you have a site plan that identifies where the signs are proposed. There are two different sizes of signs. There are two signs proposed to be 64 square ft and two signs at 28 uh square feet to identify the entrances
both along Silvin Street and identify the property along Silvin Street as well as uh to identify the shipping entrance uh adequately on Adam Street. So we uh in addition to installing those
new signs, all of the internal directional signs, six 15 16 of those will be gone. Um we think this is certainly a very reasonable and uh and modest sign package for this site. One of the
perhaps one of the biggest uh issues that uh looms over us with the new sign bylaw is that it doesn't take into consideration the size of the site
um or uh for purposes of freestanding signs. It doesn't take into consideration the uh linear footage of the uh of the frontage. So what is permitted under the signed bylaw
um as it's written now and erroneous as it is uh would be two freestanding signs 40 square feet 10 ft tall. That's what's permitted on a 15 acre site with well over a thousand
square feet of frontage. That's the same amount of signage that a tailor shop on a corner lot would be able to have and it's simply not adequate. Um, and what we think we've come up with here and what Mr. Spinny has designed is a
reasonable attractive um signage that will adequately identify the property um and uh but but not be overburdensome. Uh, and that's what you see on uh on the application. Um, the
total square footage of the signage uh comes to 184 square ft. If the bylaw were properly uh written without the the errors, I believe Mr. Zeli and I uh determined that it should probably be
200 square feet. The square the freestanding sign should be 100 square feet each. And uh unfortunately that's not the way the bylaw is currently written. Um so I think I'll turn it over to Mr. Spin. Attorney, before you do that, just so we
don't get too far down the road, I want to just let's talk about the bylaw for one second. So prior to this change cuz I understood the bylaw to be different as well. What would your need have been had no
change gone through? We would have needed um a variance for the number of signs and for the the but not the overall square footage. I don't believe for the overall square footage. It would still be for the
number of signs because the the number of freestanding signs was one on uh one on each facing each frontage. Um, but now, um, the number of of signs permitted is the same, but they're
they're much smaller. And I think, uh, and I'll go out to Brian on this, I believe, um, we agree that this bylaw is probably going to change moving forward. So, we alerted the state that said that please don't we essentially said please don't approve it,
right? be um because we just we preferred the old bylaw based upon some of the changes that um attorney McCann was talking about. Mainly the the whole thing can be summarized in about one sentence. It's that a lot of the dimensions of the
downtown signage is now everywhere where it should just be downtown and other industrial sites, not commercial sites. That's the problem. It still allows people to apply for things and you guys have the ability to make the right decision. like it it doesn't prevent anything from happening,
but it is problematic and we definitely are going to change it for sites like this. Certainly for sites like this for downtown it's probably fine but most espec es especially the C the C3 and I2 like that's it's a problem. No one size doesn't suit Paul I think is
what I understand. I believe you're absolutely correct. Okay. All right. Uh so like I said sorry to interrupt. I just want to make sure we were all clear on the bylaw piece of it. So, uh, let's hear about the science. Hi everybody, Ed Spinny from Sign Art. Um, you have a package in front of you.
What we are trying to do is clean up all the clutter and um, bring a lot of small signs and two larger signs into uh, four equal signs, one for each entrance area. Essentially, we have uh
multiple entrances, and we're trying to make those entrances not get driven by. So, we have one major sign um that is a double-sided sign on the front on Silven Street. We have a small sign on one end
of Silven Street. We have one sign that is on the corner of Silvin and Adams at the beginning of the uh if you wanted to bring up the site uh plan there, that might help a little bit,
please. So, I'll kind of keep going, but there's an entrance on Adam Street, which is shipping and receiving. So, we're trying to denote, you know, that that's where we want the trucks to go in and out. And that will be the larger sign. No, that's a smaller sign because it's more on a on a side street. So, we
didn't want to make it too large and we feel it's it's readable and and the the smaller size. Um, so the larger signs are uh the two sign A's on the U plot. Plan one is in the on the corner of Adams and that's 64 square ft
and That is one of the larger ones. I don't have the square footage in front of me. I'll look it up. 180 64. Yep. Okay. 60. And then we have one on the main there
was a main entrance sign uh two main entrance signs on the middle island. We're putting one in the center so that coming from either direction you'll see the the entrances as you see the sign. And that's the smaller version or the larger version? the larger version, the two sign A's. So that's in the center of
the bottom and to the right of the bottom are the two larger signs. Sign A. It's pretty Yeah, it's pretty hard to The site plan's kind of small, teeny tiny. So the larger ones are uh larger ones center one to the right
and two. Okay. A and A. And then the smaller sign is up to the right on Adam Street and far to the left at the end of the lot where the entrance to building A is. So the buildings are very large and we
have lots of entrances. We don't need to cause um confusion and accidents of people going by entrances and saying, "Oh my gosh," and stepping on the brake. We want to make sure they can see it clearly. But we didn't oversize anything. And I believe under
the the U older bylaw, we would be under the square footage. Uh we just are asking to take down all those little directory signs and bundle them up and clean them up and put the two extra signs, the two extra small signs up. Um
pretty much the last uh time you guys voted, you voted on larger signs near the entrance. So, we're just moving them a little, but we're we've got them there, and they are a little smaller than the last time. And then, like I say, cleaning up all the small stuff and putting two more single directional
signs. We don't want to muddy up the waters, so we're not putting anything on them that's unnecessary, like tenants names, none of that stuff. Uh, directory signs, uh, shipping and receiving, or just the name of the facility so people
know where they're going. So, we tried to design the signs uh so they're interior lit, but yet the backgrounds do not light up, just the lettering. Um, so these are pushth through letters. Um,
so uh the uh the information on uh the rental is non-lit but raised. Uh so we tried to make them a little higherend and more professional looking than what's there. So there is no vinyl letter. everything. Uh, no vinyl that's going to peel and look terrible in five
or seven years. It's all paint, automotive based paints and uh, acrylics. If anybody has any questions on the and the LEDs interior for lighting. Yeah. How about uh turning the can finish and then we'll bring it to the
board. Um, the only thing I have to add is that I have request a waiver slashvariance, which is kind of a different animal. That's under your new signed bylaw. Um, it's listed under the bylaw as a waiver,
but then it's called a variance in the in the wording of that particular section. It's new to us, too. I don't believe we It's always been a variance. It's always been a variance. It's always been a variance. This is kind of a waiver
variance, but um what the criteria is under the sign bylaw is a finding that no substantial detriment shall result from the proposed signs. That's the that's your criteria. That's
also different um under the new bylaw. So, we certainly feel that no substantial detriment will result from this signage package and it will be as for all of the reasons Ed uh stated um actually quite beneficial.
Okay. Before I turn it over to the board, just uh one more clarification. The the sign B that did you say that was 28 square ft in size? Yes. Yes. And and sign A is 64 square ft in size. Very good. And um if you don't have
anything else, I will turn it over to the board and uh Becky, we'll start down there with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um it's a huge site. I can see a ton of work getting done down there. Um it's going to look beautiful. Uh I think when
it's all finished, they were striping on Saturday. So, um I only question I have is next to two of the main signs there was a smaller sign that said Zoe's Cafe and um of course I'm going to have to
ask um it's not in here at all and um I noted the sign. So, okay. Um I'm going to respond briefly and then turn it over to Mr. Zelli because uh it was a surprise to us too. Okay. Okay. Um, however, a building permit was
issued to the tenant. The applicant and the owner had no nothing to do with it. Oh my goodness. Um, and um, this is on us. This is on the town. This is on us. There we go.
So, that's going to sit next to the new signs. I mean, I think you have the ability to to manage that. Meaning I even though they did not apply for that, I think you have the I mean they're here in front of you asking for certain things.
Okay. I mean it it's uh the same colors as the existing signs. It's going to look very it's going to look and it's also the same with the new signs. It's going to look like these. Okay. I'll I'll uh that's my only question. Thank you.
Thank you, Becky. Uh Karine, um I I I don't really think you have an issue here. Like they're your tenant. I'm sure somewhere in the lease it says that you need permission in order to put up any signage and the town should have made sure that the owner of the building
was on the application. So I honestly do not know how that happens, but I think the developer or the owner of the building has the right to tell their tenant to take the sign down. So, I don't see that as an issue. Um, as far
as this particular sign package, who exactly is Gateway Realy in Quinn with regard to to to the owner? Because the the owner is 75 Silven Street, but if the signs that you have in the package are the actual renderings, who is
Gateway? That's the management company. So, that's the management company. also uh Jay is a principal of that company as well. It is a related entity to the LLC. Okay. Okay. Um and these are the exact
renderings. So instead of on the old signs you had 75 Silven Street on the big signs and then it had arrows and directionals to which building you would go to. Those are now eliminated. And is that exactly what's going to be on the sign?
just really the phone number and the address. So there there So so in other words, you you pull into the and you're going to building C. That only tells you that you're at 75 Silven Street. Is there any directional that tells you which
building you're going to? What we did was after you cut into the mic, please. We um what we did was we met with the planning uh board and we decided to uh mark each building A, B, and C. So when you drive in, you can clearly see that
building B is to your left, C is to your right. Or if you drive in a different entrance, you can see that A is to your right. So the buildings are now clearly marked, which they really were never marked. They were marked with like 12 or 15 small little signs. Go here, go there, go here. So now when you see your
main entrance sign and you pull in, all you have to do is look right out your windshield in front of you and you can see building B, building C. And that was permitted uh and discussed with planning as part of our grand scheme and that was permittable um by right. Okay.
Okay. And those are installed as of now as well. Okay. And then um actually I I went by twice and I I didn't see those, but but I take your word that they're up on the building. It I think there are two temporary signs on the end. I assume
when this package goes up, those temporary signs will come down. Yes, that's uh we decided we didn't want rental signs all over the property. Okay. Um, so we have our rental information on the address sign and we feel strongly that the address sign is
what is is needed. You know that our clients know they're coming to 75 Silven, building A. Then all they have to do is pull into the property and they look around. Now, we purposely made the building signs so they they weren't huge and obtrusive for the neighbors. Um, so
that driving by on Silvin, you may not see them. You know, they're not made to be seen from Silven. They're made to be seen when you turn in. They're right in front of you. Okay. And and tell me about the illumination of the these two um sign A's.
So, all of the signs, some of them are single-sided and some are double uh depending upon the area they're in on the plot plan. Uh they are all internally illuminated by LEDs. They um
75 is a pushth through letter. State street is a push. So all the letters push through an aluminum face. These are solid aluminum signs where we hog out the letters. Then we put pushthroughs in and we do the lighting from inside. So
you have some uh small facelit areas like gateway is a facelit and then you have some glow areas for the 75 as a back glow because black doesn't light up. Um, and then the stripes are lit. Um, so we tried to be very conservative
and careful with we're not trying to be too salesy or retaily. We're trying to be more professional with what the look is. So, they're going to be very subdued and and we think pretty classy. And what is the hour of operation for
the lights? like well we assume that you guys would put something on us for that but uh you know the building is not open I don't believe 24 I believe our bylaw states it's 1 hour after hour after hours of operation
y and we figured that's what it would be that's what are your hours of operation question I think you've got some that are 24 24 uh yeah there's some distribution that's 24. Uh
does that mean there sign off 24 hours? That's right. That that's uh permitted in the it's permitted throughout Dampers the 24-hour operation and they do operate three shifts um for uh for this site. So
if it comes a time when it's there are no businesses open uh you know later in the evening then they would be off according to the bylaw. Um, but they are lit just like as I as I mentioned Sylvania, those of you who remember when
Sylvania was there, their light bulbs, you remember that the light bulbs were just Yeah. lighting onto Silvin Street all night long. It wasn't a sign, it was their bulbs and I guess they that was their advertisement or something. But that would they were 24 hours.
Um, I'm going to get kind of wonky here. um only because I have a client that's going through this. Um do you have a light plan with this and what is the I guess um outreach of this light? Will it will it end up um like shedding light
onto the street or is it going to end at the property line? Uh the signage lights will probably end within two feet of the sign. Okay. So, it's not an obtrusive backlit white face that's shining out big light.
So, uh would it go out onto Silven Street? I I doubt it. Okay. About two feet from the front of the sign. Okay. Okay. Um that is it for now. I might have additional questions, but thank
you. Thank you, Karine. Uh Ken, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually had the same question about the renderings uh of the signs. Um so the there's four signs. Are they going to be perpendicular with the road or are
they parallel with the road or perpendicular with the road? Um there's the corner one is going to be aimed to the street and that's a single-sided one. That's on the corner of Adams and straight outwards. the the others are going to be two-sided so you can see
them uh from each direction as you drive up because there's so many ways you can drive in there. All right. And the the sign that's on Adam Street is still going to say 75 Silven Street. Yes, because that's what the building
using or not. Okay. That's what the building is known as. I think that's all I had. Thank you. Thanks, Ken. Kenj, um I had the same questions about the the lumens of the uh light th those
existing signs that are there now. Are are those lit up? I do I do not think so. Enter the mic, please. I do not believe they're lit. And if they were if they were lit at one
point, uh I don't know that. Okay. Do we have any neighbors here about the Oh, we'll find out in the public. All right. Thank you. I have no other question. Thank you. Uh Chris, so out of all four of the signs, realistically, the only one that would
put light onto the street is the one that's on the corner of Silven and Adams. The other ones would be in in a sense, you could say that, but the reality is because of the the way that it's set back. Yep. In the triangle, it's within. It's set back far enough that I do not believe
the light will come off the grass. I'm not going to say you can't see the sign from a distance. Yep. But there's a difference from light spewing out all over the street and lighting up the sidewalk in the street then. And we don't expect any of our light to get off of our lawns. Okay. Thank you. All set.
Thanks, Chris and Kevin. No questions. Thank you. Uh let's see. Yeah, I think a lot of the questions were answered um by uh other board members questions, but um did I hear we mentioned there would still be two directional signs on top of
these four or did I misar that there's no directional signs? No, at all. Uh so we're going to remove the 15 existing and the two large ones. We're going to replace it with these four signs and
there'll be zero directional signs. That's right. Okay. And would you take a condition if this was voted on favorably to be sure the sign uh Karine referenced is removed. That is the restaurant sign. Yes.
That was for which a building permit was issued in error. It sounds like Yes. Um, I believe under the lease, did it have a requirement that they had to get the permits
for the sign? And they received the permits for the sign. Um, I know it's it's double-sided here, but I it would seem counter productive to what you guys are
trying to do to clean up the site and come to us with one sign package that we then have this one other sign for whatever reason, whether it was the town or the uh tenant didn't go through the right channels, but it sounds like
they did the they didn't get owners. So the the the problem for the town was that we gave the permit without owner's authorization. It was the owner of the business, not the owner of the building. So they said the owner was the owner, but it was the owner of the business. Our mistake.
But I don't know if that precludes the fact that if we made a mistake for the issuing the building permit, it's not like, okay, well, yeah, you get the building permit anyway, even though we made a mistake. Like, I don't think that's how it works, right? Well, that's why I'm I guess I'm still asking the question. So I think the town could say the building permit was issued in error.
and we'd need a letter to that require that to be removed. I'll talk to the commissioner. Okay. Because th those signs in addition to not having the owner authorization process part um
those would have required zoning relief also, right? Yeah. And they didn't receive it. Okay. So, I think it it was a legitimate error and the town if it does issue a permanent error has the ability to go back and say
we we resending it. Yeah. Okay. Right. Um you can refund the application fee if that's an issue. Yeah. I don't think that's the real money here. No, I 100% agree. But they also I'm sure the lease says that they're supposed to get the owner's permission and approval
before they even submit it. So they kind of circumvented that. It sounds like to me to exactly like you the I don't know that it says that it authorizes them to So there's a there's a question here. All right. I I I think you've answered all of it. Um uh back to the building signs cuz I'm
I'm a little confused on those as well. So are those like a raised letter or painted or what? What are they? Individual back internet mic please. We we're recording this so individual backlit letters. Sorry. Okay. Um, so they glow against the building. There
is no face lighting on purpose because we didn't want to be intrusive to the tenants. And this might be for more for attorney McCann. So those letters don't count as part of the square footage uh against our bylaw. Nope. Well,
typically not when when building identification. So, it's more like an address. Okay. It's part of the address. All right. And um we we talked about the setback of these signs. How far are they set back off the street? All uh the ones on Silven and the ones on Adam, most of them are 10 ft back. The corner
one is a little further back because there's a a a 20ft x 20 foot square where we can't. So that's close to 20 ft back. So the one on Adams is 20. And we think not on Adams, the corner one, the corner of silver. All of the the two sign B's Yeah.
on the proposal and the main sign A, the double-sided are all 10-ft setback. the uh what Ed was referring to is in this new bylaw there is a um a triangle
um that has to be measured out for corner signs and this corner sign on Silvin and Adams meets the requirements. So it's set back a little. So that's like a keep out area. It it kind of is. Okay. Yes. All right. And back I just have two
others. Um, so we have some tenants at a 24-hour operation, hence no closing time. So hence the signs will be on 24 hours. Um, and I think I understand why we're not
listening to tenants because that just is constant flux potentially, right? So tenants coming and going. All right. Um, okay. Um, I will just ping the board one more time if any additional questions have come up. No, we're all good. Okay, I'm going to go
out to one sec. Sorry. Were there any um letters from neighbors? Uh, sorry. Good point. Yeah, we did have one letter and uh it was in your packet. Yeah, Ken was not here that evening, so our clerk doesn't have it. And I don't
have it in my packet. Do you have a copy, Brian, that we could summarize? Sure. Uh I think we had a we had a we had uh attorney McCanna a letter in OP uh opposition. I did. And you have received a copy of this letter? I did.
Okay. Uh so we would like to read it into the record at least a very long. Yeah, it's a it's a little long to read. Yeah, I think we could just summarize and maybe give the the person's address and name. All right. Hold on. Um with that said, we'll we'll bring that letter up uh after public comment.
So, um, uh, is there anybody here that would like to be heard on 75 Silven Street? Okay. Hearing seeing none, we'll see if our IT professional over there can come up with the letter.
Sure. So, this is um this is a letter from Susan McDonald who is a a in a butter. And do you have an address on Susan? Um, I remember it was quite lengthy and it was uh opposing the signage package.
So, no, she did not list it, but I can get I can get that from Well, actually, we we don't read into record uh letters without addresses. So, um we'll note that it was a letter of opposition, but I think I'm right about that. We don't honor a letter without an address. I mean, we'll we can find her
address in 5 seconds, but Okay. Um, basically, um, just to summarize, um, she wanted to start off by making a correction that saying that when she drove by Adam Street entrance, there were act there were signs there installing a new truck entrance. She
wanted to make sure that those were not those were not in the application. So, those should be looked at of whether or not they're in the application or will be removed. They said that they were going to remove them. Um uh this person actually wanted the
smaller signs throughout the site even though it was more um she said the signs are small and distributed throughout the property and it's misleading the fact that they that they do not include the photos of the main interest signs with the Zoe's Cafe sign added which is what
Karine was talking about and that's saying that they're uh this is a cause for concern. concern because they're the they are misleading the board. Okay. I do have one additional question actually before we deliberate. Um when this site came before us on a different
application um I remember uh complaints out of the neighbors at that time about deliveries and trucks uh being parked because they didn't know where to pull in. Where do we think we're at with that? And has
that subsided? Uh well, no one is here complaining. Um and the signs that are being proposed should address that because they clearly say shipping and deliveries on them with
that entrance identified both on Silven as well as on Adams which is not there now. So we think this these signs will help that situation. I then that would be the goal, right? But I'm just I guess I'm wondering from that application time to now, do we
think there's still been an issue there? In the owner's estimate, in the owner's estimate, no. Uh and we haven't heard anything. And again, I think it speaks that that uh uh
hearing had a a very large number of people in the audience if you recall. Yeah. Yeah. No, I do. and they're not here this evening on this issue. So I would think that speaks I I have a question after she's done. Yeah, we'll let you go for public
comment. Go ahead. Go up to the mic. Sorry, we're a little out of order here, but um I'll allow it. I think the letter. Hi. Hi there. Good evening. Uh Linda Pulcari. I live on Pine Street, so I
have this building right in front of my house where the 24-hour operations go on. It's still very loud. Um, there's a lot of backup beeping going on when they're trying to load in. I see trucks still coming in and they're going the wrong way and they're trying to back up
these trailers down a little driveway. It's just all hours of the night. So, it's still happening. Um, also another annoying situation is for some reason over there, everyone's car alarms go off. I don't know if they're working and they hit their button or
something, but that's I've had to call the police on that a few times. You know, it's like 3:00 a.m. I don't want to be woken up by that at 3:00 a.m. Understood. You know, um, and just to be clear, they are here on a sign package, so it's not a lot we can do about that, but we can certainly ask the applicant to
talk to their employees to see. It's just a courtesy thing. That's all. You know, we we're very quiet. Even though uh Pine Street is a busy street, it's actually a very quiet street. So, I hear everything. I hear people talking. Sometimes they used to have
like do donuts in that parking lot. I'm sure they're not going to do that now because it's nice and new. They recently paved it. So, um my So, I had a question um for the Adam Street sign. Yep.
So, I feel like it would be important to label that that is Adam Street, even though it's going to say 75 Sen. I think that's going to be confusing. It's not easy to navigate a trailer truck around there if they miss it or if they get confused if they've never been there
before, you know, that's kind of a bad area. There's not really any easy place to turn around now, you know. Okay. Well, I'll let the applicant answer on that. Yep. Okay. And you're for or against us? Well, my other question is, is there
going to be some kind of a dimmer on these signs? Well, I think the applicant pointed out they're not very bright. They only illuminate 2 feet from the signs. Yeah. I mean, I think they look nice. Um I just don't want anybody on that side to be bothered. They're not going to bother me. I'm more of the volume issue
on my side. Sure. So, um I just really Sounds like there won't be a lot of light splash or or pollution. Yeah. If it's equivalent to a street light or something, then that's It doesn't even sound like it's that bright. Yeah, that's I'm not against that, you know. Okay. But they, you know, it looks like it's
going to be nice and so I appreciate them cleaning up the area and stuff, but very good. I don't know if they want to answer that question. I'll get them up there. Thank you. There will certainly still be the public street signs that will identify Silven
Street and Adam Street at that corner. I there will be nothing in the address for someone who is coming and the Adam Street entrance is the delivery entrance. There will be nothing in the address that says Adam Street. So I think if you
put and Ed can speak to this as well. I think if you put anything other than 75 Silvin Street on the Adam Street entrance, that will be confusing because there is no address for no tenant, no
deliveries. Will the address say Adam Street? So if you stick with 7, it's a corner lot and the address is 75 Silvin. You stick with with that. I think that would be appropriate. But Ed can speak to that also.
I I totally agree that we could confuse the heck out of everybody. I understand the concern. Um the building is being everybody knows that at 75 Silven Street, these three buildings um and the well everybody in Danver's
no truck deliveries the instructions to all the drivers and everything. You go to 75 Silven Street, take this the deliveries are on the side street. So, um, we just think two addresses on there would confuse the heck out of things and you know how people get confused very easily these days.
Sure. Um, me included. All of us. But, um, it it uh, you know, it's not like they're not telling people where to go. So, the drivers coming even if it's their first time there are being told in advance where they have to go.
Okay. you know, so um and I'm I'm sure that new ownership will will listen and try to fix any of the noise issues as as best they can. They're doing a great job revitalizing the the whole area. Yeah, I think I think there's agreement on that that it's it's gone in the right
direction. Attorney McCann, um is it um within the realm of the owner to uh possibly a letter to tenants to try to address the noise concerns uh off hours for the neighborhood? uh the 3:00 am power alarms and things of this nature.
Oh, sure. And he's he's here and you're hearing it loud and clear. So, uh I can I can imagine that would be uh quite um intrusive as a neighbor, you know, to have to hear that stuff. Sure. Even though it's 24-hour operation, 24-hour operation, and it is a uh
industrial commercial. Industrial industrial high site. Um you know, I think that Yeah, that could go a long way. Sure. Okay. Happy to do that. Uh, with that said, I'm going to close the public portion here and we will uh vote. Oh, sorry. Deliberate. Thank you.
Um, we all we all good. Oh, I I closed it, but uh for you, Bill. Okay, come on up. Bill Brad Street town meeting member, precinct one. Uh, I know in the past at
one of the meetings there was a problem with the trucks arriving and idling until they could do what their business was. Uh, I don't know if that's been addressed. The other the other thing I Well, I I think I can answer it. I mean,
I know the state of Massachusetts has a fiveminute idol law and that's a police action. So, um, that would be my next question. Did you re receive any information? Nothing came to this board ahead of the meeting from the police department. Yeah. No, we have no complaints on
record. We have no neighbors here speaking to that except for this one. And um I think we've you know there's actionable something that the police department can do in those cases. So the last thing and I think I mentioned it at the select board meeting on signs.
Can you add the last use your inside voice? Uh say it one more time. Use your inside voice, the last line on a sign, so that uh people having coffee or doing whatever
aren't heard by people. I think I think the owner's getting that loud and clear. I might not be up here, but um certainly the residents are on Yeah, sure. No, they deserve their peace and quiet. The people that live on one side of Totally agree. Considering the area, I don't think
they're going to complain, but others might. Yeah. Very good. Thank you. Okay, with that said, I will uh come out and we will You ready again? We are. I'm ready for a third time. Uh we will deliberate and Becky, we've chatted with you. All right. Um I uh know the new owner of
this property. They own a lot of properties all over the Northshore. Um the properties are all very well maintained. So I think uh we should be happy to have them in our town. Um we could see all the work that they're doing down there already. Um,
that being said, we have to be realistic. It's an industrial property with 24-hour uh operations and um I think the new signage package will help with everyone coming and going and um I know we're going to have a lot of activity down
there, but um it is what it is. Um it's an industrial property and has been forever. So, uh I would be in favor of this. Thank you, Becky. Uh Karine, um I I I actually think the old signage
is outdated. It looks like it's definitely from a different generation. Not 100% sure. I love the new signs, but they are more updated. Um and I would put the condition with regard to the signs and the illumination
that the light arc will not extend past the property line. Thank you. And otherwise, you're in favor. Let the cafe sign. Do you Oh, I mean, if we can get the cafe signed down, um I would be all for that.
Yes. Very good. Thank you. Uh okay. Um yeah, I I mean I will vote for this. I think it's pretty modest. I think this is confusing. So, seeing this removed with the new signs, I'll be in favor of this. Thank you, Ken. And Ken J.
I think it's a good cleanup um from what exists now. So, getting rid of all those those 15 directional signs and stuff, it's going to look a lot neater and um I I'll vote for this as well. Very good. Thanks, Ken. And Chris, I would also vote for this as well. Um I
think the signs are great. I love the color instead of that bland brown and white look. Thank you. Thank you. and uh Kevin Y uh agreeing with all of the comments
from my fellow board members about the aesthetics of these signs and it being an improvement and all that. Uh all that being said, although I I highly doubt M voting, uh I would I would not vote for this. Uh only because I I do not think it's this board's job to fix a bad
bylaw. Um the bylaw needs to be fixed. I think everybody acknowledges it needs to be fixed. I would not make the remedy to that uh granting uh a variance. I think the standard for a variance is in chapter 48 and it's quite high. Um and it just has nothing to do with what
we're doing here tonight which is just trying to fix a badly done by law. Thank you. Um, and uh I do think this um addresses uh I I guess a freshen up uh maybe to
paraphrase what paraphrase what Karine said of of the site. Um I would ask though that the town um uh send a letter to uh whatever cafe it is to ask uh you know I basically alert them that the they'd like them to take that sign down.
And uh I too would vote in favor. So, with that, could I get a motion, please? Um, would you like me to read it? Somebody. Um, I make a motion to grant a variance waiver under section 37.3
to allow two singlesided and two double-sided signs where only two signs are allowed and that this condition does not affect other properties or structures in the same zoning district. A literal enforcement of the zoning bylaw would involve substantial hardship
to the applicant. Granting this variance will not create a substantial detriment to the public good. It will not nullify or dergate from the intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw. And I would also
add um three conditions. One, um, that the illuminated light arc will not extend past the property line. Two, that the applicant, uh, work with the town to
remove the tenants sign from the property. And three, that all of the other signs on the property will be taken down. I've got a motion. Could I get a second, please? Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Does that say
opposed? I'm not voting. Sorry. It's a five. All right. Yeah. Sorry. Okay. Uh thank you very much and uh good luck. All right. Uh as a as a point of information, Mr. Chairman, which five are voting? I
I'm sorry. I should have assigned that at the beginning. Uh that on that one, it was uh it was uh Karine. Yeah. Um Ken's, John, and Chris. Correct. Uh, and Becky and Kevin were alternates on that. Correct.
Um, on this case, I believe our clerk's going to recuse himself. Is that correct? That is correct, sir. All right. And I'm going to act appoint Karine to uh act as our temporary chair. Karine, if you could read the next application.
Um, the first regular item um for this evening is 16 Salv uh Salvatore Circle um R2, map 41, lot 52. request a finding under table 2 to expand a non-conforming building that is non-compliant with
respect to side setbacks at 10.8 ft with the proposed addition being only 8.3 feet from the property line. request made by Gary and Kathy Atkinson. Um, docket number 25-5118.
And, uh, I will um, appoint uh, Becky, you will um, vote on this case. And there's somebody here uh, for 16 Salvatore Circle. Yeah. If you could come up to the mic, tell us who you are and what you'd like to do.
Yes. My name's Gary Atkinson. I'm here with my wife and what we're trying to do is put an addition onto the back of our house that will allow us to bring the uh the washer and dryer upstairs and build a Can you hear me?
Yeah. No, I said that's a good move. Yeah. And uh and we're bringing the washer and dryer upstairs. We'd like to uh build a have a walk-in shower rather than what we have now is a very small bathroom that you have to step over the
tub. And uh as we age uh these movements get more and more difficult. And so we want to bring all our life uh experiences onto the to the first floor. Sure. And uh we're going back and you
can see the the the lot is kind of is wedge shaped. And what happens is when we go straight back, we kind of get a little closer to the fence line. And uh the overall size of the new
addition is we're that we're proposing is uh about 218 square feet. And of the the the whole addition only about 27 square feet is moving closer than the existing clearance that we have or
setback that we have of I think it's 10.8 ft. So it's just it's the it's the back corner of of the addition. Okay. Seems pretty straightforward. Anything else you want to uh present?
You know, I'm not sure you've I I you've seen my narrative and we all have a copy of it. Yeah. And and I believe your neighbors were in here last meeting doing something similar. Yes. Yes, they were. And and they told us we've been down your street a little bit lately.
Yeah. They said uh that uh it might be good if you got some uh a letter from your neighbors to Yes, we have a couple of those. We'll read them into the record as well. Yes. And uh so we've spoken to the neighbors on either side and they've
expressed no uh no problems with it. Very good. Okay. If you don't have anything else, I'll uh I'll turn it over to the board. Okay. Excellent. Um Kevin, we'll start down there with you. So in between the kind of two
rear wings of the house now, there's a little box that says BH. And forgive me if it's just my bad plan reading, but bulkhead. I see. So that So is that essentially why this whole thing couldn't have just been shifted to the left and built? As you can see, there's like a little jog there. Yeah.
So we we've moved it over almost two feet and but the bulkhead just uh it's kind of a a barrier. Understood. Um yeah, no further questions for me. Thanks. Thank you, Chris.
the bulkhead. Is it It's one of the metal doors, I assume, with the steps down and in. Okay, no questions. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. And uh Kenj, I have no questions. And Mr. Scholes. Oh, sorry. You're not voting. Karine,
um I I have I have no uh questions. I'll reserve for comments. Very good. And Pecky, I have no questions. Um I I only have one question. I do see the the the existing house is 10.8. 8 ft. And this new addition will be 8.3.
Does that 8.3 include an overhang? Yes, it does include the overhang. Okay. And I believe that was my only question. Um I think and this is more uh for you, Brian. I think town engineering um
said that storm storm water permit would be be required, but that's only if this was a 50% uh addition to the house, which this doesn't fall under that. I'm surprised. I I I I did some calculations. Yeah. No, it's not even close. So, I I I
think our town engineering department might have got an error there. I'm not sure why they even mentioned that. Okay. So, I'm just pointing it out that where I I'm with you anyway. So, I don't believe this requires a storm water permit. I I got that message and I You did your homework.
I did my homework. checked it out, but we'll get we'll get them to sharpen their with me because it just seemed it's only like 15 or 18% agreement. Okay. Uh very good. And um I will go out to the public. Anybody here would like to speak? Oh, sorry. Before I
do that, Karine, if you could read in uh the two letters we received. Actually, Mr. Chairman, just to be consistent, there's no address and the name is illegible. There are there are addresses on the bottom. They're at the bottom, but I can't read. Maybe the applicant
can You know, the name of your neighbor is at 16 and uh sorry, at 14 and 18. Yeah, the uh let's see. I'm 18. That's why he's recused. Okay. All right. Scholes at 18. And uh how
about now? You just have to know who your neighbor is on the other side. And Kathy Nolles. Yes. Nolles. Very good. I'm sorry. What is Scott and Kathy Nolles? Nolles. Scott. No, no, no. I have that. Um, I just needed the gentleman's first name. All right. To to October 1st, 2025, to
whom it may concern, we are a direct a direct neighbor of the Atkins Atkins um living at 16 Salvatore Circle. We have been neighbors for many years and have no objections with them building. In addition, on the back of their house, we foresee no negative impacts to us or the
neighborhood from this project. Sign Ken Scholes at 18 Salvatore Circle and Kathleen and Scott Nolles at 14 Salvatore Circle. Very good. Our neighbor on the back side of the house is the St. Richard's Church. So,
very good. And obviously they're not here in protest either. Okay. Anybody uh from the public would like to be heard on 16 Salvator Circle hearing? Seeing none, I will come back to the board. We will deliberate and I started with you Kevin. Uh
yeah, I if if what we were doing is adding more linear feet that is into the setback at the same number that is into the setback, absolutely no problem. Um it is on the garage side of of the you know a butter's property which I think makes it uh more tolerable. I understand
the laws in regular shape in terms of whether it's more detrimental. Uh whether when you're you know a third of the way into the setback and then we're essentially going to half. Uh, I would start to think that maybe we're getting to the point where we're more detrimental, but it
I think ultimately I I support it. Um, so very good. Uh, Chris, I would be voting in favor of this. I am also definitely going to be jealous of the size of your master bathroom. That's for sure. Very good. Uh, Kenj, I'll vote for this
as well. Very good. and Karine. Um um I actually think um all the neighbors that have come with these um like additions, they've all been um in keeping with the neighborhood. I love the fact that you all seem to include
your neighbors in this. Um so when you actually put the addition on, everyone in the neighborhood is in agreement with it. So yes, I will vote for this. Very good. And Becky, and I did go out and visit the property and I would also vote for this. And I too don't don't see an issue with
this. It's a very modest addition and it keeps you in your home and uh keeps you from those stellar stairs. So, excellent. And I would too vote in favor. So, if I could get a motion, please. Um a motion to grant a finding under table 2 to expand a non-conforming
building that is non-compliant with respect to side setback at 10.8 ft with the proposed addition being only 8.3 ft from the property line. in that the alteration um or change to the non-conforming
structure is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood. Very good. I've got a motion. Can I get a second? Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Very good. Good luck. See the
building uh department and uh they'll get you squared away. Okay. Okay. Um, moving right along, Mr. Clerk. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our next case is 103 Newberry Street. This is
zoned Highway Corridor, uh, map 40, lot 12. Requests a variance under table 2 to place a mobile home number 22 on the side property line embedding the cemetery where a side setback of 25 ft is required. The request is made by Leah
and James LLC, care of Nancy McCann, Esquire, Docket 25-5119. Attorney McCann, our alternates on this will be Becky Kilborn and uh Kevin Bur. So, the voting members are your regular members. Correct.
Thank you very much. My name is Nancy McCann. I'm here on behalf of the applicant and property owner uh Northshore Property Group LLC and Leah and James LLC. With me tonight is Will Scuda who is the project engineer. Also
with me from Northshore Property Group LLC is Mike Vonfiglio and from Leah and James or Leah and James LLC. The owner of the property is James St. Pierre. Property is located at 103 uh Newbury
Street in the Highway Corridor Zoning District. This is the Shady Oaks Mobile Home Park. Um, back in 2023, we appeared before this board and received a finding and variance relief to allow some
expansion of the park and some uh renovations which involve the addition of some new uh mobile homes to the park. Um, in conjunction with those improvements, home number 22 that we're discussing tonight, which was previously
known as home 24, um, home number 22 did receive variance relief to be 10 ft from the, uh, side lot line. the two abuing homes to home number 22. Um those are existing homes
and those are uh one foot from the property line and the other is uh 2 feet from the property line. Um the plan that you're seeing there was the original approved plan back in 2023 and you can
see the existing homes on either side uh being 1 foot and 2 feet from the property line. During the course of the construction of the improvements and the installation of the new uh the new mobile homes that were approved,
um the home number 22 location was altered um to be in line with the other homes. As you can see from that uh that plan u from 2023, um the mobile home really sticks out
quite a ways into the driveway. So during the course of construction that location uh of the home was altered. It was pulled back out of the driveway and it is uh was closer to the lot line than the approved 10 ft. U the asbuilt survey
um unfortunately identified home number 22 as uh being on the lot line with the um what is an ancient uh cemetery. So we are seeking a variance uh to allow the home to remain as it was installed
um in the location that is uh the point of it is located um on the lot line. This is as you will uh recall a very irregularly shaped lot. It also uh has
significant topo issues um and has about 2 and a half acres um quite a bit of frontage, 335 ft of frontage on Newbury Street, but significant topography issues that really dictate um the placement of uh of the mobile homes. And
we discussed that with the board back in 2023 when the variance uh was granted and the finding was granted. Um this has been a mobile home park for many many years. Um there is uh evidence
uh that originally this mobile home park had 30 mobile homes. When we uh appeared before you uh and received approval, there are now 27 27 homes, but at one point there
were actually 30 homes on on this site. There are now 27. Um, mobile homes as as the board recognized, uh, does provide home ownership options for people who would not otherwise qualify or be able
to afford a single family home or even a condo under today's market. Uh the mobile home uh option does certainly meet a need to provide uh housing for and home ownership for uh for folks who
would otherwise be out of that market. And as homeowners, they become true uh members of the community. Um so at this point, what I'd like to do is turn it over to Will. um he provided some photos and he can describe the the location a
little better than I uh for uh what we're seeking and and why the the location change was made. Uh good evening, Will Scooter from the morning camera group. Um first I did print photos if you would accept these
um distribute them. So, uh, as uh, attorney McCann was saying, the the existing trailer was actually shifted during construction. Um, it was shifted back, which actually improves the drive aisle. So, the benefit of that is now that it's basically on the curve where this unit
is, and pulling it back kind of increases that sight line. Um, thank you. It also was, you know, part of the reasons that they moved it back was for snow plowing because this is kind of at the bottom of a slope. So, as this slope turns up, that's where they push snow.
So, that's kind of the reasoning of why it got moved and where it stands today. Um, as she also mentioned that there's the existing units on that back line of the cemetery are 2 feet and 1 foot. So, this is slightly closer, but if you look at the photos, you can see it's very
well kind of lined up visually with the other units there. And then I also there there are other photos in there. Sorry for the order. Uh my computer doesn't like to print them as I take them, but I put a key map together kind of directing of where those photos were taken. Um so you can
see that I I just wanted to show that the whole site itself has been repaved and is a lot more adequate for access through the site. Um, am I am I correct to assume it's uh photo nine is the one that shows this particular trailer or mobile home?
So, if you look uh photos 6 and 11 and 9, 12, and 16 are basically the ones that show that unit. 6 N. So, the ones that pertain to this. So, unit six, this is kind of taken
through the back looking through the cemetery. Um, it's the one that's right behind that oak tree, uh, that's kind of leaning. And then if you look at photo eight on that same page, uh, not the red trailer, the one on the left of that is the unit
that we're talking about. Yeah. The Exactly. Right where the cursor is, that's this unit. So you can kind of see it was pulled back and aligns better with that front of that unit as well. And then if you look at the next page on on photo number nine, that is looking
directly at it. Again, it's the unit to the right of the red one, basically under that oak tree. Um, and that's kind of again right along that cemetery lot line. And then unit or photo number 14 kind of shows the front view um looking down the
drive aisle towards that and as well as 16 is kind of a straight shot. So you can kind of see it does align better with that existing unit that was there. All right. Anything else you want to present? Uh, I think that's it. I touched upon
the hardship being the shape and the topography of the lot, which this board found to be a hardship affecting this lot back in 2023. Uh given the location of the two abuing homes on either side and the configuration of the the
driveway, um pulling the h the mobile home uh back uh makes it fit better within the the neighborhood and uh avoids this uh mobile home sticking out into the driveway. Um and there uh is certainly no detriment to the public
good. And these homes uh and this home in particular serve a need um and is in keeping with the intent and the purpose of the bylaw which uh states that it is a a a purpose to provide housing for persons of all income levels which the
mobile home park generally does that. Be happy to answer any questions. Okay. Uh thank you. Um I will start down there with you Becky. Uh I don't have any questions. Okay. Uh Krie, um Attorney McCann, can you just give us
um just a brief summary of how this um non-compliance came to surface? It said that you were um the applicant was having the lot surveyed. Is that what happened? I no an asbuilt plan was
prepared because this uh went through um approval processes and we had to have an asbuilt plan and it when the asbuilt plan was done that was when it was identified that this okay the issue okay that makes sense um it if I'm
looking at the plan that you have here I don't know what it's entitled but it looks as if the original design of this they were in line with one another, meaning um 22 and
23 and and it it seems as if it was pushed forward instead of being pushed back, but if you look at the original design, it looked as if both 22 and 23 was
supposed to be the same size. So, did this um like specific mobile home um did you just purchase like a bigger size and that's why it ended up pushing back? I don't know the answer.
So, the proposed mobile home um was about 4 feet shorter. So, it was a little bit longer, but it was moved back as well. So on the approved plan, we held the 10-ft setback because this is one of the spaces that there was a previous trailer there. We just didn't know exactly where it was. So we held
the 10 ft um but during construction it got shifted back. So the two um those specifically 20 uh 22 and 23 are not the same size.
Correct. Yeah. If you look on, so this is kind of an overlay with the asbuilt um what we're here today for the variance in red and then that black outline is the proposed location the original approved location kind of
right where that number 14 is pointing where that black square is right there. That is the approved location. Okay. The red is where it is correct. So, but but there was never any thought or or can you not go back now
just to have 22 and 23 be the same size because if they were the same size, you wouldn't need to be here. Correct. They're they're constructed at this point. Okay. I mean, I know they constructed, but I I don't I don't know what the um what the issue would be with kind of I
guess moving or changing. So, okay, that's it. I have no other questions. Thank you, Ken Scholes. Um, I don't think you have any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Kenj, so you were approved for a 10-foot setback and then so you move what is the
setback going to be now? There is a zero. It's zero. Zero. It's on the property. So, it's right on the property line and the other one's like a foot in two two feet away. Correct. So, that's just for this unit. We had the 10 foot set back. Um, there are other units that are closer
that were existing previously. It's three in one. Yeah. So, did you have to change the pad, move the pad? So, these were new trailers that were brought in. So, they they constructed new pads, uh, new utility connections,
and they put this on. So, we identified this during the asbuilt process, unfortunately, and that's why we're here today. Okay. Uh, all right. Uh, I don't have any more questions. Thank you, Chris. Um, I think my only question is why this went off the
original plan of being 10 feet off the property line and now all of a sudden we're sitting on top of it. Yeah, it's something that uh occurred um during the construction process. Uh unfortunately, it happened. Uh we weren't involved with that. That just
kind of came about at during the asbuilt and that's when we've noticed that it is in fact got shifted further than they probably intended to. Um, but it did get shifted and it's basically on the lot line within an inch or so.
Thank you, Kevin. Sorry. [Music] I'm trying to look at the plans from uh tonight and from 2023. Uh, I guess question for staff if I may, Mr. Chairman. Sure. the
do we have any idea who owns the abuing cemetery or is this just one of those New England things? There are just weird abuing cemeteries everywhere that you know well I mean Job and Eli Jedadiah uh are not really available anymore. I actually tried to look this up. I I so
as of right originally came and I the last I could kind of tie it to was 89 Newbury somehow was tied in with that and then ownership got unknown at that point. Right now it's considered an it's like
an orphaned parcel that um that Shady Oaks uh they maintain. So they're doing they they don't need to do that but they're maintaining it making it look nice. They I know they I think they mow it. Um, so they're maintaining it, but there is no like owner who's
angry or anything like that. Uh, meaning that the um the tenants are very quiet. Well, yeah, that joke too. But but there there um ju the descendants of the owners are not present like we we we are nowhere. It is an orphaned parcel.
Yeah. That answer, Kevin? I I think it does. Um, yep. I I think uh just as as I think I've set up here and I think maybe perhaps you were uh uh I was the audience you were playing to, Miss
McCann. Thanks for addressing the the 4DA variance requirements in your uh in your uh uh statement. I appreciate it. No other questions. No. Okay. Um and maybe this is more for you, Attorney Man, so I'm trying to recall
2023. Um, I believe you added 13 homes. Yes. The proposal was initially for 15 homes. That's correct. And we dialed back to 13. So, out of
these 13 that were added, are they all identical in size? And are they all brand new? They would all be new. Are they all identical in size? No, they are not. Okay. So would we say number 22 is on the larger end of the ones we added?
What is Oh, let me ask it another way. What is the largest size we added and where are the locations? Uh so the largest ones that were added are 60 ft long roughly. Um and they're kind of in the back. So if you go up on that plan plan north uh the three units
Okay. And and what is the length of uh 22? Uh 56 feet. 56. Yep. And then there's also 52 foots out there. So it's 52. So those were like the three main sizes. 60, 56, and 52. Okay. And um the propane tanks, do they
sit in the setback as well or are they in the cemetery? They're actually gave me a picture and I didn't uh even Yeah, if you look at it, it's it's they just they're just on the lot uh in the property. um because it's angled on that lot line, they sit in that little triangle behind the the dwelling.
Well, I have to believe that this error was known at the time the pad got poured and ignored. Um it just seems like we're way down the road to find this problem, but um I
guess that's more a comment. Um okay, those are all the questions I had. Um no additional from the board. If not, I'll go out to the public. Anybody have one more? Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Sorry about that. They're trying to move. So, aren't 23 and 21 also nonconform?
They're they don't meet the setback either. Those were they were they were before zoning. Is that what we're saying? There's a different um I can summarize for I don't get it. Mrs. Kelly, I believe the setbacks don't really apply in trailer parks, correct?
Mobile home parks or whatever. Uh, no. I mean they they they do but they just had to go through a process to to get to get them because but no definitely setbacks uh count that's why we're here
believe everything we added we asked for this 10-ft setback back in 2023. Well there's all yeah there's no doubt that they went through the whole process and and you said yes 10 ft go that's great. No. And so you you gave permission for that
and the one foot and the two foot were there at that time two on either side that are 1 ft and 2 feet. Those were originally existed in 2023, right? And so, uh, while we are, uh, a
ways down the pike and it is quite, uh, a process to try and move this, uh, this, uh, unit 22. Um, in this case, it is in keeping with the
the two mobile homes on either side. Um so it was a mistake. It was a mistake during construction. Um what is the the harm of the mistake? I would suggest there really isn't a harm for the
mistake. Um it would be very difficult to uh if not impossible to undo it. But um shouldn't have happened but it did. It's a mistake. That's I don't have any other questions. Can Mr. Chairman if I
Yeah, go ahead. So we are already have have a non-conforming situation with in terms of the setbacks. So why aren't we asking for a variance to determine whether this makes it substantially or excuse me why aren't we
asking for a finding about whether this is substantially worse? Why a variance? Uh because it's a new mobile home. So these were all new mobile homes. These were additions. These are So these are mobile homes that didn't exist and they're going into the setback, right? But homes 24 and 22 already
existed, right? Correct. But they're but it's the sep it's a separate structure. We're talking about this structure. So if I if I connected them then we'd be asking for a you connected them then it would be one it would be one variance amongst all of them. Mean like if I
but each one of these buildings needs its own. If I were into my setback on my house, right? And I wanted to bet and I wanted to add on right to the property line, I'd be here asking you uh for a finding. Correct. But because these are separate structures, that's why we're at
it's the same thing as if you had a a shed, for example. Like if it was connected to your house, you would have to have the principal setbacks and that would that would and like if you were already in there, it would be a finding. But if you have a standalone shed that you're trying to break a setback, that's a variance. Okay. All right. Thank you. Very good. I'll go out to the public on
this. Any I have one more question. Sorry about that. Mr. Chair, is that um who owns the shed? What unit owns that shed between um 22 and between the two there? 21. Yeah. Is that still there? It's 2 ft off the
line. Well, this is this is an asbuilt, so it is there. Hi, my name is James St. Pierre. I'm the owner of the property. Hello. Uh the owner of that shed is in unit number 22. 22. This new unit?
Yes. So the shed was an addition uh as well. Yeah, he it's a portable structure. It sits on cinder blocks. Does that require permit? Uh Mr. Zakilli, I would leave that to the commissioner. But if that did require a permit, it
would have to be zoning compliant. Yeah. And which it is also would be 5T, right? So that's also not right. Does that answer your question? Yes. Do you have any more? Nope. Okay. Anyone else?
Okay. I'll uh go out to the public on this. We're here on 103 Newberry Street. Yes, sir. Danville Brad Street town meeting member of precinct one. By allowing this the
way it sounds to me, are you setting a precedent for down the line if someone else makes a mistake? Well, I can answer that. I believe uh we look at each case individually and no precedent is set it.
That answer it. Well, it is an answer. Thank you. Yeah. Anybody else here for 103 Newberry Street? Okay. Hearing seeing none, nobody online, Brian, I take it. All right, we will deliberate. I think I
started with you, Becky. Um, I did drive through the property. It's very tight in there. Um, and um, I'm not voting on this, so I will defer to the board. Very good. Thank you, uh, Karine.
Um, I agree with Becky. I think it's tied in there. Um, I think if you had selected the smaller size unit, it would have been in line with the um, adjacent um, uh, trailer and I also think it
would have fit on the property. So, I am voting no. Thank you, Karine. Uh, Ken. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I hate to vote on something because of a mess up or
something um, wasn't done right. But I think this is a unique situation because of that lot behind them. Very unique. So I would vote in favor of this. Very good. Ken Jerry,
it's um you certainly don't want the unit in the driving path. So to pull it back, I think is definitely good because it is tight in there. And the other units are a foot and two feet apart.
I don't think the shed is an issue. That's 2 feet off the line. That's no closer than the other unit. and this is sitting on the line, but there isn't a neighbor back there to complain and stuff. And I I know it's a mistake and stuff, but I think this is actually I
mean it's if you had a shorter home, it would have fit better, but since you have what you have and I think it's um that's the best option right now, I I would vote yes on this. Thank you. Um
Chris uh because I feel like this is an oops or a mistake and might have been an oversight or someone turned a blind eye. I would not be voting in favor of this. Thank you. Um
I think what troubles me a little bit about this is that there is more there than is allowed by right. Right. And so when we when the board grants relief for that now you now he comes back and say oh well we couldn't do it we had to shift it
because it's hard to fit all this in here. Um and I think my response to that would be we know that's why the that that's why you were limited to some certain number by right. So I think perhaps there's more here uh than should be. I know we're not here to relitigate
you know what was approved in 2022 or 2023. Uh but I think uh I think the number I think the numbers are already there so I'll I'll forgo a conclusion. Very good. Um attorney there's you know kind of good arguments on both sides
here. You don't have the votes. Um I too would oppose this. I think you know we spent time um coming up with this plan. I thought it was a good plan at the time in 2023. Um, I can understand wanting to have the
um driveway path. However, I I believe a smaller uh unit would have achieved that and still hit the setback or at least half of the setback. Um, so I think for that reason I'm a no. So what would you
like to do? I further would ask that the uh a permit be pulled on that shed as well and that it comply to the setback which need be although I look at the the original plan and there was a shed there so on
yeah on the original plan so I don't know that that's necessary for that well I think I we just heard the owner say it was new I thought that's what he said it looks new hi James St. Pierre, owner of the Shady
Oaks. Uh, it's a it's a replacement cuz the other one was kind of decrepit and just old and gross looking and um Okay. But on a replacement, I think we would have asked for a permit. Yes. Yeah. So, okay. I'm sorry. My understanding was if it was with Well, that's why we asked everybody to go through the planning department and
the I mean, you can always replace a shed in the same location. If it's just a replacement, same size, it's just a if it's it still needs a permit. Well, if it's under 200 ft, it doesn't need a It doesn't need a building permit, but it does need zoning conformance. So, It is under 200 square feet, right? But it's only conformance would
be 5 ft off the property land, which this is not. Or it replaces an existing grandfathered as Mr. Z. Kelly just said, we still would have it still would have gone through an accessory structure permit. But yes, you you could have done exactly if it was an existing shed and all you're doing is replacing it same
location, you still need to apply for an accessory structure permit. It's a nothing, but you do need to apply for it even if it's under 200 feet. not a building permit. It's an accessory structure permit because even at 120, you still need to be zoning compliant. 120 square feet, you still have to be
zoning compliant. So, we receive all permits even if it's under 200. If it's between 120 and 200, it's just an accessory structure permit. If it's over 200, you also need a building permit. Okay. We'll check on that and apply as as necessary. Mr. Chairman, could I have a moment?
Sure, absolutely. Yeah, on 757 the motion is not we approved two double-sided and two singlesided. There's three double-sided and one singlesided. But the error happened because NY's narrative said two and two. But if you
look at the plans that were submitted, it's three in one. It's three in one. And when they talked about it, they talked about Okay, I I'll get clarified. Thank you for Thanks for finding that. Good job. Thank you. Well, I That's why we have wy veterans like you.
I'm like, I know. I three in one. Well, it's hard when they're asking for something and they're not actually asking for the That was what they asked for. No, no. It was It's It's That's what I'm saying. It's in I mean that they asked for that but that's not
but the sign package is slightly different is different that's that's why that's why we'll go back we'll reopen we have the power I just remember what he said and she's still here that's
just have to modify the approval Kath I mean the plans they just said we look at the narrative I have less for approving. Is this the biggest screen? How come we
can't see the clock now? I don't know. I have Can we take a fiveminute rematch? That that sounds like a great idea. We're going to take a fivem minute recess. We'll be back. I remember. uh for the Danas Sony Board of Appeals. Um sorry,
there you are. We're good. We are now back in session. Uh Dan's uh zoning board of appeals. Attorney McCann, what would you like to do? And this is on uh 103 Newberry Street. I would like to request a continuence to your next available meeting. I think perhaps your next
meeting is full, but the meeting after that. Um to allow uh my client an opportunity to see if there's any way to resolve this or make the situation better. Uh okay. So I would request a continuence.
All right. I know we're full for October 20th. So it's November 10th. So this will push us into November 10th. All right. Um, any further comment from the board? Could I get a motion to continue this to November 10th?
So moved and a second. I second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Very good. We'll see you on November 10th. Thank you very much. Um, attorney McCann, before we go back, uh, go to our
last case, 200 Endicott. Um, uh, we've got a a little bit of confusion on the 75 Silven Street application. We, uh, made a motion for two large signs and two smaller
signs, but I believe your narrative and application asked for three and one. So, uh, could we get some clarification on that? No, no, no. The other way around. No, no, no. You, in your application, you asked for two double sign, two
double-sided and two singlesided. But if you look at the renderings, it asks for three double-sided and one singlesided. So, we didn't want you to leave if you really need three and not two for the double-sided. Okay? And when he when he described it,
he said three in one. He said the only one that was single-sided was on the corner. I thought Yeah, that was Yeah, because it's facing out. There's just the one right on the corner. Yeah. Other The other ones are all double-sided.
Correct. Okay. But when we made the motion, we made it two and two. But it would say two single and two double. Um because that's what the application said. Because that's what the application said. All right. Let me just look at where. So yeah, we just need a clarification on that and we can amend uh I think our
language based on that. I think those cafe signs count as the two single, right? Um yes. So if we could amend the motion so that the singlesided is uh just the one on the corner which
in the application exhibit A is number three. And okay, so sign number, just to be clear, sign number three is a singlesided sign. Yes. And everything else is doublesided. Correct. Three doubles, one single. Three doubles, one single. Three doubles, one single.
And I'll just pull the board. Becky, you're all still in the same boat with that. No changes on the boat. Okay. I'll make a note on my pad that I hope I give you. You've got it as well. All right. So, three, uh, number three is the single-sided.
Yes. Well, this right. Yeah. So, sign A, one is double-sided, one is single-sided, and sign B is they're both double-sided. Okay. What Becky said?
Well, yeah, I would I would I would have someone make the motion. Okay. Could I get a motion on that uh update to 75 Silven Street by anyone? Um Brian, do you want me to read the whole thing again? Yeah. Yeah. And then instead of the two double two single, three double one
single. Okay. Um motion to grant a variance waiver under section 37.3 um.3 to allow um one singlesided um sign and three double-sided signs
where only two signs are allowed and that the condition does not affect other properties or structures in the same zoning district. A little enforcement of the zoning bylaw would involve substantial hardship to the applicant.
Granting this variance will not create a substantial uh detriment to the public good and will not nullify or dergate from the intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw um with three additional conditions. one. Um,
that the light arc will not ex the the illuminated sign light arc will not extend past the property line. That the applicant will work with the town to remove the the tenants um signage. And three, that all other signs on the
property will be removed. I would read that docket number in too. And this is docket number 25-5116. And those are all um other uh ground signs as indicated in the application
will be removed. Not all other sign. All other ground signs. The directional signs. Yes. Directional signs. Very good. I will second that. I've got a motion. I got a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I opposed. Thank you very much. That's a redo. Okay. And Mr. Clerk,
we'll go on to our final case. Our last case this evening is 200 Enderot Street. Uh this is zoned commercial 3, map 62, lot 5. Requests a variance under section 37.3 to allow one freestanding sign and four
wall signs to be installed where only a total of two signs are permitted in the zoning district. Uh the request is being made by Raising Kane's Restaurant LLC care of Nancy McCann Esquire dock at 25-5120.
Thank you very much. My name is Nancy McCann. I'm here on behalf of the applicant Raising Canes Restaurant LLC. Uh with me tonight is Melissa Brule from uh Raising Canes. Also with me uh
remotely is uh Jennifer Squire uh with our um signed consultant uh company for this project. Uh Raising Canes is coming to Danvers. uh 200 ended cut street uh formerly the uh Fidelity uh site. Um the
Fidelity building is being uh completely removed and a smaller building is being constructed in its place. Um, we are requesting a waiver variance under the new signed bylaw that we discussed earlier tonight in order to uh provide a
sign package that's going to adequately and appropriately and attractively uh identify this new restaurant. This is a uh a restaurant with a drive-thru. In fact, it has a double drive-thru. This is a use that's permitted in the C3
zoning district. Um, Raising Canes is a is a national uh restaurant and uh they are known for their exceptional chicken fingers. Not just good, exceptional chicken fingers. And in fact, the menu is limited to
chicken fingers, coleslaw, French fries, I think, bread and butter. That's what you got because they're so good. So, uh, they have about 900 restaurants, uh, across the country. By
the end of this year, there'll be 10 in Massachusetts. And, um, this, uh, property is going through the site plan review property. Again, it's a permitted use in the C3 district. Um, the site has been designed to reduce a
curb cut, and again, it's it's going through the planning board process. The new signed bylaw, as I mentioned earlier, um has problems. It has errors and uh unintended consequences quite honestly uh particularly for the C3
zoning district. I've met a number of times with planning directors of Kelly in order to um isolate the relief that's that's necessary under the new bylaw uh for the signed package as proposed. Um
and uh again as the the package you've got uh colored uh renderings within the package uh is needed to adequately identify the restaurant. This is a new business coming to town, the entrances, the drive-thru. We want it to be attractive. We want the entire site to
be attractive and the building to be attractive and to also represent uh the business image and its mission and uh and Melissa can certainly um speak speak to that. Um permitted uh in the zoning under the new zoning
bylaw we are permitted to freestanding signs um uh 40 square feet 10 feet in height as the as Mr. Z Kelly has indicated that's an error. Uh it really should be 100 square feet each and 20 ft
high, but we work with the bylaw that we have. So the bylaw as it stands permits um two freestanding signs. We are proposing one freestanding sign. That
sign is 77 square ft and it's 20 ft high. So it meets the dimensional requirements as they should be. Um but we are requesting a waiver uh under the the new bylaw to allow that
single freestanding sign. We uh what is permitted with regard to attached wall signs. The attached wall signs in this uh under the new zoning bylaw two attached wall signs are permitted. We are proposing a total of
five attached wall signs. Um, one uh on each side of the building uh are the canes signs that you see uh on the the graphic there. It simply says canes in a
red circle. Um and uh one red dog. It is a picture of a red dog. Under the bylaw, a picture of a red dog is a sign. So, we have four canes, one on each side of the
building. And then we have the red dog uh graphic. That's Kane. That's his name. And he comes with the the history of the site. So, we uh it's important for us to have um him his image on the
uh on the building. So again, are you talking about location D or E talking about? I want E. E. Okay. The picture. That's a white dog with a red scarf. Yes.
My girlfriend would be very mad at me if I got this wrong. So looks like a lab. Looks like a yellow lovely yellow lab. And I think that's what he is. Not a red dog. Um, well, I get what you're saying.
Let's let this talk about that further. I'm confused. All right. So, each of the canes wall signs, they are small. They're 24.14 square feet. They simply say Canes and
Chicken Fingers, of course. Um, the red dog himself is 32 square feet. So we have a canes on each side of the building and we have Kane himself um for a total of five. So again the
permitted uh number of attached wall signs would be two. The permitted square footage for attached wall signs is 91.3 square ft. That's based on the calculation under the new bylaw. We are
proposing five four canes and one cane himself and the total square footages uh is 102. So not a significant difference in
aggregate square footage. That's a a waiver that we are requesting. We are requesting a a waiver for the number of signs five instead of two and square footage 102 instead of 91.3.
Uh finally um we uh permitted under this new bylaw. Your new bylaw permits murals. Those murals by right can be a thousand square feet.
What? Yes, ma'am. They're they're meant to be on large buildings above the first floor in the downtown. That was But they say yes, but they say nothing about the size. This is where you're taking advantage of the error. It says nothing about the the uh the
square footage of the building. But that was probably the intent, right? So, a mural can be a thousand square feet, but it has to be above the first floor. We are proposing one mural, 108 square feet. We're not looking for
1,000 square feet, 108 square feet. The waiver request here is to allow it to be on the first floor, which makes sense because it's only a singlestory building. The mural is as you see it there. It's a heart
um that has the the historic business components that uh Melissa can speak to. There's cane in the middle and some other items that are uh that make up that mural. It is
painted on the building. It is not illuminated. It is a true mural. that meets the definition of mural under the new sign bylaw. And so we are requesting a waiver for that mural, not because of the number of signs or anything like
that. We're allowed to have a mural. The uh we are requesting the waiver to allow that mural to be on the first floor because we don't have a second floor and it could be a thousand square feet and we're proposing 108 square feet.
Um mentioned in the the package is also uh one love canopy letters that is permitted. We have uh again uh Mr. Zakelli and I have spent a great deal of time going through this new bylaw. So we need no zoning relief for the one canopy
one love canopy letters. Uh they're actually smaller than what's permitted. The bylaw would permit those canopy letters to be 22 uh.5 square feet I believe and our proposal is 17 square feet but that is
not uh does not require any zoning relief. Um the maximum square footage uh under the bylaw for uh it's in the aggregate for signage is 280 square ft and we are
proposing 3 104.11 square ft. So um that is the sign package. Um we think it is a very reasonable sign package. It looks
good on the building. Um, and the zoning relief that's required is as I've as I've stated the a waiver waiver variance for the freestanding uh
sign because um of the error in the bylaw to allow it to be 77 square ft where normally it could be 100. Um the proposal for the number of wall signs uh and the square footage of wall signs um
the number we're pro proposing is five with a total uh of 102 square ft where 91 square ft is permitted. Uh and the mural a waiver to allow that mural to be on the first floor. Um,
and I think that that that is it um for what it for what is needed. And um Melissa, do you want to speak to uh the purpose of the signage for Canes? Uh hi, good evening. Melissa Brochell,
Raising Canes. Uh I'm the property development manager for the uh northeast uh region. So, from Maryland to Maine, Jersey all the way over to Ohio. Um, I wanted to explain a little bit more about the symbolism behind some of the signage. I think that'll help paint a
little bit of a better picture as to the history of Raising Canes. Um, for those that are unfamiliar, uh, Raising Canes started out uh, as a u as a a business plan uh, for a college class. Um, our founder and CEO, Todd Graves, uh, had
gotten proposed from a professor to come up with a business plan that could withstand the the test of time basically. And he, uh, came up with the idea to start a chicken finger restaurant. Uh, and it would serve only chicken fingers. Unfortunately, that got
the lowest grade in his class. And he was very irritated that that was the lowest grade. So, he wanted to find a way to make his dream a reality. And uh through some of this symbolism, I think you guys will understand a little bit more. So once he had gotten uh that
feedback that it was not feasible, he uh wanted to try and find a way to make a lot of money and make it as quickly as he could to try and make his dream a reality. Uh somebody had suggested that if you go and you become a Sakai salmon fisherman up in Alaska, you could make a
lot of money real quick. Uh so that's exactly what he did. He went up to Alaska, became a Sakai Simon fisherman and then somebody suggested to him while he was there uh that he could actually make a lot more money if he started working at the refineries up there. Uh so he also became a refinery worker. Um
and you can see in the one love mural uh that we are proposing there are a few different symbols there. Uh the in if you want to scroll down for me. Perfect. So in the middle there that is Kane and Kane is actually a female. Uh that is uh we consider that a our red dog banner.
So that's why we were calling it the red dog. But in the center of everything is Kane. Uh it's our namesake. It was our it's our uh founder and CEO's dog. Um and we are actually now on Cane 3, which is why we're trying to update the logo uh on the the the red dog banner. Uh
going back to the mural, uh to the left bottom, you'll see the number one and you'll also see the one love uh theme throughout our uh standard branding. Uh that's our chicken fingers. Our one love is our delicious chicken finger meals and that is what we truly pride
ourselves on. Again, we have a focused menu. Uh it's five menu items. Chicken fingers, crinkle cut fries, Texas toast, butter, um cane sauce, and then your chicken fingers of course. So, with that being said, we know what you're going to order when you pull into the drive-thru.
We just don't know how many you want. So, the one there is for our one love for our chicken fingers. You'll also see the Sakai salmon as well as the hard hat. Um, and then at the very top on the top right is a disco ball. Um, if you've ever been to Canes or if you've ever heard of Canes, you'll likely see there
are disco balls throughout our the interior of our restaurant. And that is paying homage to the very first piece of decoration that our CEO had in the restaurant to make it uh a little bit nicer for people to come and sit and eat. Uh that was actually lit with a um
a skylight that was in the our original location which is still in um in uh production at the south gates of LSU um in Baton Rouge, Louisiana today. um and it's still functioning as a very high-end um Raising Canes restaurant.
With that being said, uh we do believe that this package itself is it's our standard package. Um it is very tasteful. Um there's not a lot of uh outlandish signage uh that we would necessarily be proposing. It's really just to uh have people understand who
Canes is, um where we came from, and we really just want to be a part of the town, which is why we always put our uh locator down towards the bottom. Um, just as a note here as well, um, if any of you are on social media, this is a big social media poll, uh, for people that want to visit all of the Keynes
restaurants that they can, uh, they do like to take photos in front of that or at least snap a picture that so that they can say that they were at the Kees and Danvers. Any questions on the signage that I Very good. Um, I think we'll we'll hold and uh, ask at the end. Thank you. Unless you're done with your
presentation. Thank you. I I believe I am other than to uh sum up with the uh the requirement under the uh the zoning bylaw is uh that um the sign
package uh is not detrimental. Very good. Okay. And with that said, uh I'll turn it over to the board and uh Kevin, we'll start down there with you. Uh I sorry before you go there it'll be
the same five voting members regular members regular members. Yes. So Kevin I guess if the board were inclined to grant all or part of the relief you're seeking is this one motion or is it a is it a waiver or a
collection of waivers and then a variance? I believe it could be done with one motion for a waiver slashvariance. I think that's what we uh I just want to say very quickly why it's in the bylaw. It's called a variance and
a waiver. So basically everything in the downtown we're trying to make that the planning board. So you're you're trying to do something downtown even if it's signage that's going to be with the planning board. Planning board cannot give variances by right by law state law. They're called waivers. So in certain in
basically in the downtown it's a waiver. We have always kind of dealt meaning the ZBA has always dealt with um signage that doesn't comply as variances. Probably doesn't make a ton of sense to do signage through the variance process
because nine times out of 10 soil shape and topography have nothing to do with it. Probably should just be a special permit. It's the same, you know, four out of five votes. So that's probably a change in the future. But that's why we have this variancewaver conversation because of the planning board in the
downtown is a waiver. Everywhere else it's a variance. Got it. Um yeah, I think my opinion as to earlier hasn't changed much. I wouldn't I won't I would not be in support of rewriting through Do we have questions for the applicant
at this point? We're just going to ask questions right now. I guess in addition to the the cane signs make sense to me, right? identifying the business sign that points out where the drive-thru is makes sense to me. The rest of it just seems
like branding. Is it is it important to, you know what I mean? Like a it's there's a a dog and the dog is lovely. For everybody watching, don't come at don't don't at me. Uh the dog's great. Uh there's a mural, but like so I would understand if we need if we needed such
as you've presented before, we just need more signs to identify the business and what it is and where you turn. But this all just seems like branding and and maybe an exception for branding isn't, you know, the additional signs just seem like branding. So like why what what's the hardship of not putting up uh a dog
or putting up a mural or how do we get to hardship there if if the relief weren't granted? Well, I don't think the bylaw requires hardship in this case. And um signage doesn't just have to be directional.
Sure. It can be and should be business identifying and as Melissa just gave you the the history um the branding as you call it is important. It's important for this business and there are certain
elements that are very important. Um, Kanes is very uh community involved and uh having its image and it's its brand if you will identified um and in this
case it's it's primarily we have the identifying signs for purposes of where you might turn in and seeing the building. But then we also have the the the dog and the mural in areas where our customers are going
to be um and they're going to be able to see that and experience it and and hopefully enjoy it. It's a it's a pretty element. And you know, one of the again going back to the this odd bylaw, we
actually started this process with the planning board because the bylaw got so mixed up in the summer with the AG and what they were doing and not doing and we made this presentation to the planning board and uh several members of the planning board said, you know, we we
were thinking just in the numbers that it might be too much, but then when you see it on the building. It actually looks very attractive and and it's a nice statement and it makes the building look look nicer and it's all
uh very much incorporated into the design and into the architecture. And so is there any chicken and egg we need to worry about here? Like we need a sign because it's important to identify that there's a drive-thru. Uh but the but the planning has the planning board already done uh site plan review and
approved having they're they're in the middle of site plan review right now. They're going through a traffic pure review. So I guess it I mean that's actually something to talk about. It's I guess it's possible that there the site plan could get changed slightly where there could be a change in the signage. Do you think that No, I don't think there will be any
change in the building location. The question is whether there might be an adjustment on the curb cuts or something. That's the only the only question. Otherwise, the planning board didn't have any other other issues. Um, and might there be a might the third
party peer review for traffic maybe say you need a little a small enter sign or something, which we're not proposing? Maybe. But it's not going to alter the actual Yeah. I just I think the town's done a a good job of not bouncing applicants back and forth between land use boards. So, I I wanted to make sure we weren't about
to do that to you. All right. Thank you. That's it for me. Thank you, Kevin. Uh, Chris, no questions. Thank you. Kevin J. H. Sorry, Kenj. Um, so I thought you you mentioned a couple times that it was 102 square ft for the
four um circular raised cane uh signs and then red dog or white dog together. So, but I get 128. You get more.
Yeah. 128. So if you go four times a 24.14 you get 96 and then plus a 32 it's 120 about 129 square ft. So I was just wondering does that your math may be right. I may be my math
may be off on that. So I'm just wondering if that math was wrong on the total square footage. Are you now well over are you 32 or whatever square feet or whatever over what you know I I will add it I will add it.
So I was under the impression that they would had to do 90 there the byite was 91.3. Yes. And I believe you're at 128.56. Yes. 128. All right. That's that is the relief. 128.56. I misspoke. I apologize for
that. So by bright allowable 92 913 they're asking for 1286. Yes, that's correct. Okay. So the the total numbers is okay. Just those the little the the aggregate the aggregate in the middle was okay.
Gotcha. All right. I have no other questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so the the cane's wall signs are illuminated. One love is illuminated in just white. Correct.
And then of course Jay the freestanding sign out on the corner is illuminated. And are we doing with the one hour after close of business shutdown? No further questions. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Karine.
Um I I have I have a question about those curb cuts. I know that obviously it's not really in our purview. you go through site plan review, but are they concerned? Um, I read in your narrative that um, and I I see from the flow
through the drive-thru that you you would have to drive all the way through to where you pick up your food past where that first curb cut is. That's like closest to 95 or 128. That's being closed. Is that the one that you're going to
close? The one next to Flip the Bird? Yeah. Yes. Yeah. I mean, I have chicken wars here. See, like again, I've been to when it was the Fidelity site. Pulling in is kind of tough when you come around the corner. So, you have an entrance from
Silven Street. Would you you it looks from the picture that you'll be able to get in the queue from Silven Street, correct? Yes. Okay. So, the the other option is to go around the corner, take that right in, and then get into the queue, but then
you're going to have to drive around, go through um pick up your food, and then go back out that same entrance that's at the corner to take the right. Correct. If you wanted to go back out onto Tendicut Street. Yes. It's all right in, right out. Silven
Street is right in, right out. Right. Endicott Street is right in, right out. No, no, no. I I I I know that like you can't take a left from either one of those. Um but again, is and is this what the planning board is having an issue with? They would
prefer to keep the cutout on the other side. No, they have not expressed a preference at all. um they simply wanted a third-party peer review to make sure that they are comfortable with the location of the
curb cuts and that was a recommendation from the town engineer was to have a third party peer review and that's what's being done and that is what they are looking at but it's all right in right out. Sorry. It's not just the curb cuts though, but the we're also
looking at the light the the timing the synchronization for the lights because people that are making a right from Silven Street. So if you're going up Silven Street and you're going to be making a let's say a a right onto Endicott, there's not a no turn on red. So you have people making lefts in. So
there's a lot of friction right on this corner of Silven and Endicott. So that's the main thing, one of the other main things they're going to study. Is is one of the options to close both of those curb cuts and have another one or it's either one or the other? No, it's it's either a potential shift
or or but but the the the curb cut that's on Endicott that is getting closed that's already happening. It's a question of what's the remainder? What are we going to do with it? Right. There's a lot just flat out there's a lot of friction around that corner. Oh, no. Absolutely. That's why I'm
bringing it up because again and and obviously there aren't as many people going in and out of that complex when it was fidelity as there will be especially during high traffic or about seven or eight times much exactly. So um but you don't envision
there being an issue where we're going to give this signage package and then you're going to have to change it? No. No. Because the signage package is for building mounted signs. Uh, well, I'm talking about like the freestanding, the one freestanding. Um,
it would just be the freestanding sign. They could that's the only thing that would change is the freestanding and I don't think it it will. And we're not asking for uh location relief, it's the size, right? Um, so I I don't think anything that
this board would approve in this sign package would change when the planning board completes its third party peer review. Okay. And and when do you anticipate the construction's going to start? Uh by end of the year. As soon as
possible. Always. Okay. And then what's the anticipated construction time once you get started? Typically about Oh, at the microphone or about four to five months? Four to five months. Okay. All right. And there's no conservation issues in the back of this property, is there?
Yes. Uh there are um because there is a wetland back there. Part of this property is in pe y the entirety of the building is in Danverse. So um there is uh an order of conditions that will be uh
issued by peeody um for that wetland area and it it has already gone through convers. The entirety of the building is in danvers. The entirety of the parking is in pe. So that was a fun parking ratio conversation that we had. Yeah. Um but no, it's gone through concom.
Yes. Good luck with the PE conservation commission. Um it's going well. Nothing further. Thank you, Becky. Um I I did drive down to Saras to see what the queue was for the drive-thru down
there to try to get an idea. And my question was about the planning board and our they're approving uh a drive-thru because we've never had a drive-thru at this corner. We've had a restaurant but not a drive-thru. Um
I'm just wondering if the signage would have to be changed depending on the drive-thru and how it ends up. Um it it will not. I mean the the the building isn't going to change. It's a question of whether the curb cuts uh are
adjusted and all that we are talking about again are the building mounted signs and the design of the building. That's not I mean we've addressed drive-thru issues, you know, on High Street. Uh the problems over there and
um Route One, we've been through this many times. Planning for it is giving this due diligence. We and and raising canes did its due diligence in advance. putting money complete traffic report um that was
prepared uh by a a traffic consultant for the the planning board's uh site plan submission and then it went out to a third party uh traffic consultant hired by the town paid for by the applicant and that's the process
we're in now. Okay. All right. I will reserve my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Becky. Um, Brian, can you blow this up a little bit? Uh, attorney McCann, can you just uh highlight for me where the freestanding uh freestanding
sign is on this J? J. And that is uh Endeott Street. Yep. Okay. So, it's the corner of Endicott and Silva basically. Street Grill with their great big sign
right over there. That's BB. They don't care about PBD. That's why they have video signs. Okay. Uh thank you for that. And um uh was it Melissa? If you can you go up to the microphone. I just had a couple of questions. Uh you said there's four uh
no sorry to be 10 locations in Massachusetts. We're trying to we're in the in one in one level of process or another with different jurisdictions. Okay. And uh they all um uh set up in this nature with the the
mural and the red dog and the one love and the four building signs and the freestanding sign. So this isn't this is our unique to dams. This is the cookie cutter approach for all the canes. Yes. And can I actually just ask a question? You had mentioned that you were at the SGUS location. Did you
happen to go through the drive-thru and see the mural that was there? because the one that we're proposing is basically the exact it's very very similar to that. I just want to know she ordered the chicken too. I did too the last time I was through the drive-thru. Um
very very very busy. Yeah. So um again I know we're here on the sign package but I because this board does have a lot of experience with um drive-throughs and queuing. So what what uh is the amount of cars that can be queued on this site in its current
design? for you. Since we are talking about signs, I did not bring my Do you had to count? Can I count from your little picture here? 23. 23. So, attorney McCann, I guess this goes
back those signs, though. So, is there any concern that um you know, you've got a potential customer? Uh well, I guess so. So, there is an entrance on Endicott. So if they miss it on Silvin, they're gonna pull in on end
card. Correct. Okay. And I think what Kareem was getting to is a little bit of a concern. It sounds like once you've queued and then gone to the pickup that these might start to back up depending on how busy
you are with people entering from either Silven Street or Endicott Street. You know, again, this is what the traffic consultants are confirming that that will not be an issue. Um, Canes has had this design. Again, I think I told you
900 locations uh in the United States, but Danvers is doing its due diligence through its site plan review and third party peer review and uh Okay. It should not impact the signage. Uh what what are the hours of operation
or proposed hours of operation? Uh 9:30 to 3 30 9:30 to 3:30 a.m. Yes. So that sign will be on till 4:30 a.m. Yes.
Okay. Um I don't think I have any other questions. Board members, any follow-up questions? I I just have one. May I ask Brian? Yeah, sure. Go ahead, Mr. Chair. Um, getting back to what you were talking about, they're going to check the
traffic lights. Is that because you're afraid you're coming out of the queue and you want to take the right onto Endicott because people are going to be taking a right from um Silven Street and then people on the other side are going to be taking a
left. They could be potentially not a gap for you to be able to get out of the parking lot. Is that the potential issue? This is it's kind of it's an onion. You start peeling back the layer. So you're like, "Okay, well, what's happening right now?" There's no there's no condition
from Silven Street that prevents you from turning right on red. You can just do it. There is not a no turn on red. There's no red light. So what happens when there's a green left from Silvin and they're going on to Endicott? There's nothing preventing that that
that problem. So that's like one that's one little thing in terms of what's happening what's happening with the people going right. Then you also want to make sure that no one from Silven Street is going to try to make a left in. So that's another big problem. So
let me see if I can here if you can see on my So the idea is like well maybe there's some like flex posts or something like that that so that because we really do not want people coming south on Silvin and then making a left into there. Right. that's we're trying to prevent.
So like that's one very specific movement that we don't want to happen. There's probably three or four of those movements that need to be light synchronization and you know maybe there's a curb cut change like something like that. So those are the concerns. We had a we had like you know an an an
initial meeting with the peer review. I when are you in front of the planning board again? 20 at the end of this month. Yes. The 28th of October we will have the peerreview study. it has not come back to us yet. That will be um that
will be all fleshed out between the our consultant and the peerreview consultant and we'll be presenting this to the planning board. The planning board is very cognizant of the issues that you're raising very cognizant and they want to
make sure uh because quite honestly and we presented this entire layout and there were no other concerns. It was all about the traffic. So they are all on top of that. And um it's also gone through traffic
review impe. So um it's being well reviewed by the board that reviews traffic. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Uh one more question for you, Melissa. Um, so out of your Massachusetts locations, um, how many are located on a
corner as this one's proposed? I would have to double check on that. Um, I believe that there is at least one other one that we have done locally uh, that has an option for the Do you know Do you know what town? I would have to look it up. I know for a
fact that we likely do have one because that's pretty standard. We do like to try and get real estate that's on the corners. Okay. All right. Um, I'm going to We're all set on the board here. I'm going to open it up public comment on this was uh 200
and a god street, correct? Yes. 200 and cut street. Yeah. Go ahead. Hi there, Linda Pulcari, Pine Street. So, there's a road or a large driveway that runs behind that and I'm assuming
that's Pebb's property. Um, but who owns that? And did anybody try to access that area instead since this building is both Peody and Danverse? Maybe that would lighten up some of the congestion there. Well, I I will say it this way. I think
that might be more for the planning board because we're not here on that. We're on Okay. We're here on the sign package. Oh, okay. Sorry. Yep. But uh I can I mean perhaps Attorney McCann you can try and respond to that. Okay.
Well, isn't that where the curb cut is? The one on Silvin or is there another driveway behind you? You're talking it's it's behind the entire site. You see where my Oh, I see. I see. It's the There's this behind the whole site there's like a connecting driveway. Is it a service road or something? It runs behind Yeah.
I I think that's Isn't that where like the conservation area is? Yeah, that's all concom. I mean, it's already paved over, but y but yeah. Okay, thank you. They're not saving much, but Okay. Um, with that said, uh, I'll close the public portion and we will, um, go
and deliberate. Uh, Kevin, I believe it started with you. Uh, looking forward as much as anyone else to this bylaw being uh, corrected. I'm looking forward to those thousand square foot murals on the square where
the setbacks uh used used to be after the second floor. So that'll be that'll be great. Um nothing further for me. Thank you. Thanks, Chris. I will be voting in favor of this. Um my children will also thank you as well.
Thank you. Uh Ken, I'll also uh vote vote in favor for this. It's only what 50 approximately 50 square ft more than uh what is uh by law right. So vote for this.
Very good. Uh Ken Scholes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I've been on this board quite a long time and I've never seen a project get blown up for a traffic study. So we know that's not going to be an issue at all. Um,
I agree with the planning board. Looking at the photos of these with these sign this signage, it seems very very minimal. So, I would vote for this. Very good. And Karine, um, I would vote for this. I I think the signage is um I actually think it's a
nice package and I know that for most of these it's all about branding and that certainly is the case here. So, I will vote yes. Thank you. and Becky. I'm not voting on this, but uh I think my issues are with the drive-thru and uh um I'm sure it'll be a wonderful
addition for the town. Thank you, Becky. Uh, I too uh see this sign package as pretty standard. Although I I I agree with uh my counterpart here, Kevin, that this uh hopefully we can get this rectified
because I feel like um it just makes it a little confusing, I think, both for staff and for this board. So, and I'm assuming applicants as well and for applicants. Yes. So, uh it's a mess for all of us and um hopefully we can get that away. With that said, I would vote in favor of
this package. And with that, um, could I get a motion, please? Um, motion to grant a a variance waiver under section 37-3-3 to allow one freestanding sign, wall signs that are larger than allowed by
right, in aggregate 128.56 feet where 91.3 feet is allowed, and a mural on the first floor of the building. and that this condition does not affect other properties or structures in the same zoning district. A literal enforcement of a zoning bylaw
would involve substantial hardship to the applicant. Granting this variance will not create a sub a substantial detriment to the public good and will not nullify or dergate from the intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw. I will second that. I got a motion and second. Any further
discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Great. Um, attorney Cam, before you go, uh, one more thing I just wanted to bring up on 103 Newberry Street and, uh, maybe go out to Brian on this. The, uh, letter from town
engineering also stated that that, um, unit would require water and sewer permit. Are you aware of that? And is that accurate, Brian, that they would require that? That's what the engineering letter says. So, I'm just pointing that out. Yeah, I mean they they definitely would require a
water and sewer permit for a new unit, which I'm assuming you don't have currently on that particular unit. I believe we do because there is someone living there. Yeah. Okay. So, you already have the permit. I certainly hope so. I can at least check to make sure that they
it got executed. Okay. Right. But all right. So, that's it. I just want to I had made a note and forgot to bring it up. So, thank you very much. We were we were hoping for some samples. Yes. Ah, that would have been nice. That would have been awesome. Um, Brian, do you have anything else for
the board? Um, no. I think what we're going to do is we're going to reuse the binders for the the new version of the bylaws. We have the new one that is freshly minted as of this morning, right? Um,
so that that will that we'll have that for next time for sure. Okay. And with that said, uh, could I get a motion to adjurnn? Oh, sorry. Could you go to the mic, please? Oh, yeah. I don't think it's this. Yes. Give that hand out. I just uh want I know there was some
discussion about the November hearing dates. Oh, yes. And whether that you do plan on meeting on the Monday of Thanksgiving week. Yes. Or you are going to do that? Well, we we haven't decided yet. I think we're going to wait and see what the application load is. So, it could
potentially be that we only have the November 10th meeting only in November, but we have not made that decision yet. The only other option would be it's either cancel the 24th and that's it or we move it up to the 17th and we meet on the 10th and the 17th
in favor of the move up. Um, but I would strobe the board as well, but I think it's either we're canceling the 24th or we're having the 24th. Okay. But we're gonna probably make that decision by that's the one thing that we can talk about through email. So we can at least pull everybody and see and see what's
going on. So we'll see if that works. I think it would, you know, if there's a light load for cases in November, I think we would be okay with the one meeting. Can I pull the board and see if it is on the 24th as planned? So Thanksgiving week, is everyone here?
Becky, yes. Green, I am here. Unfortunately, I can see sadness in her face. I am here. Um, you check. I am. You are. I wouldn't be available for the 17th if we did change it. I'd be okay for 21. As of right now, I'm good.
So, it looks like we would all just curious. Very good. Thank you for bringing that up, too. Okay. So, we can make that decision in the 20th meeting, October 20th. Okay. And with that said, I'll make a motion to adjurnn for somebody can make a motion, please. Motion to adjurnn. And a second.
Second. All in favor? I. Good night, DS. Okay. Sorry to to what about it's not to become a regular. You're going to have to sit back there with Bill