Present:        Scott Wyman, Chair, George Turner, Andrew Black, Adrien Kendall,
Absent: Mike Martin    
Staff:                 Pam Bosarge, Clerk

The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m.

1.      Variance - Interpretation                    DST Realty, LLC
                                                  Cumberland Business Park
                                                  Cumberland Foreside, ME 04110
                                                  Tax Assessor Map R02D, Lot 1A
                                                  Northern Office Commercial District

Mr. Kendall presented background information as follows: DST Realty, LLC, Jim Guidi requests variances of seven (7) square feet from the twenty-five (25) square foot maximum size and increase the allowable number from one (1) to three (3) and an interpretation to allow signage on lot 8 for signs advertising Rockwood Senior Housing (lots 11 - 15) on Thomas Drive Map R2D Lot 1A in the Office Commercial District.

The applicant is requesting additional signs for the advertisement of units for sale, signs larger than that permitted by the ordinance and locating a sign on an undeveloped lot in the Cumberland Business Park.

It was the Code Enforcement Officers interpretation that the requested signage does not exempt temporary signage for the sale of a single-family residence as allowed in section 424.1.1.  The advertising is for the sale of sixty-six single-family residences.  Section 424.3.7 states that "Temporary signs for the sale of real estate other than a single-family residence shall not exceed twenty-five (25) square feet in area and a renewal permit shall be required after the expiration of the first six (6) months that such a sign is posted; such renewal permit shall be valid for up to six (6) months.  A sign permit has been issued for a twenty-one (21) square foot sign located at sign #2 on the property map provided by the applicant.  The applicant would increase the size if the variance were granted.

The ordinance requires that No advertising or identification sign, whether permanent or temporary, shall be erected on any premises other than the premises where the activity to which the sign pertains is located, other than those permitted under Section 424.3.2, or Section 424.15.  (Amended 10/28/97).  It is the Code Enforcement Officers interpretation that, due to the Planning Board subdivision and site plan approval, lot 8 is not the same premises as lots 11 through 15 where the senior housing is being constructed.  Assessing records indicate that all the lots remain in the ownership of DST Realty, LLC.
Three signs are allowed on any lot in any zone; therefore, a variance to increase the number of signs is not required.

The variance request must comply with the undue hardship definition found in Section 104.138.

Mr. Guidi, applicant stated he was requesting a 4' x 8' sign because it was necessary for visibility.  He was requesting to have three signs due to the size of the project.  The Rockwood Senior Housing is being completed in Phase I and II.  He would like a sign at the end of the cul-de-sac for Phase II.

Mr. Wyman asked if there was any common land at the entrance of the Business Park.

Mr. Guidi stated no.

Mr. Copp asked if the signs would be removed after the sale of the condos.

Mr. Guidi stated the sign would be replaced with a permanent sign.

Mr. Wyman asked if all three signs would be 4' x 8'.

Mr. Guidi stated no, he would be happy with the 25 square foot allowance for the other two signs.

Mr. Manahan asked why the picture of the condos was necessary.

Mr. Guidi stated it was typical to have a picture or a site plan on the sign.

Mr. Kendall asked what was the size of the Flintlock Ridge sign.

Mr. Guidi stated he did not know however, a 4' x 8' sign is typical.

Mr. Wyman asked for testimony from the public in support of the application.  There was none.  Mr. Turner asked for testimony that was in opposition, neutral, or informational.  There was none.  The public portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Manahan stated he did not think the applicant was able to meet the undue hardship criteria in the ordinance.  He stated the Board was tasked to interpret both requests.  Section 424.3.7 states that Temporary signs for the sale of real estate other than a single-family residence shall not exceed twenty-five (25) square feet in area and a renewal permit shall be required after the expiration of the first six (6) months that such a sign is posted; such renewal permit shall be valid for up to six (6) months.   Mr. Guidi will be selling single family dwellings, although he is marketing sixty-six single-family dwellings.  He felt it was within the Board's authority to allow a sign over twenty-five (25) square feet.  He also stated the Board could interpret that a sign would be allowed on lot # 8 of the Cumberland Business Park, as lot # 8 is in the contiguous ownership of DST Realty and considered the same premises.

The Board discussed the intent of Sections 424.1.1 and 424.3.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Kendall read 424.3.7 stating a temporary sign used to provide directional instructions to a single-family residence that is for sale shall not exceed four (4) square feet in size, shall be limited& Temporary signs for the sale of real estate other than single family residence shall not exceed twenty-five square feet&  If they are having a sign other than to provide direction, which arguably it is not.  Then the second restriction only makes sense if temporary signs for other than a single-family residence providing direction.

Mr. Black stated other than a single-family home, why would you authorize an unlimited size for a single-family home.  

Mr. Manahan stated it is quite clear in Section 424.1.1&The ordinance does not apply to temporary or permanent&and temporary signs for the sale of a single-family residence&.  Section 424.3.7 refers to temporary signs for the sale of real estate.

Mr. Turner asked if the Board was in agreement that the undue hardship criteria applies for a sign.

The Board agreed that they would review the application under the undue hardship criteria in Section 104.138.

Mr. Kendall and Mr. Turner stated that Mr. Guidi could have three signs on one lot, which would be unattractive.  They were in favor of the single larger sign.

Mr. Copp agreed he would not be in favor of three signs in one location.  
  
The Board agreed that the sign would advertise for single family dwellings and that a sign placed on lot # 8 would be allowed, as the lots were one premise owned contiguously by DST Realty.

Mr. Manahan moved to find that the 4' x 8' sign proposed on lot # 8 by the applicant DST Realty, LLC is not subject to the twenty-five (25) square foot area limitation stated in Section 424.3.7, as long as the sign is limited to 4 x 8 thirty-two square feet, and only one sign can be placed on lot # 8.

Mr. Turner seconded.                                

Mr. Manahan asked Mr. Kendall what size limitation would apply to this type of sign.

Mr. Kendall stated Section 424.3 says no individual sign shall contain more than twenty-five (25) feet, except in the Highway Commercial (HC) district where no individual sign shall exceed forty (40) square feet.

Mr. Manahan stated Ms. McPheters didnt think it applied, because she interpreted the sign to be for real estate other than for a single-family dwelling.

Mr. Kendall stated the issue is the same, and Mr. Manahan is proposing an interpretation.  The sale is for elements of a development.

Mr. Turner asked Mr. Kendall is the interpretation that single-family residences could have a sign that exceeds the 25' square foot maximum.  It doesn't make any sense, is the logic that it covers non-permanent signs on single-family residences.  

Mr. Kendall asked why the Ordinance would exempt at all; maybe it is a first amendment question.  Maybe the division is private speech verses public speech.  The exemption does not make any sense.  If .7 applies, Mr. Kendall said he interprets the sale of Rockwood Senior Housing as a development, and not single-family homes.

Mr. Manahan stated the Ordinance stated Sections 424.1.1 and 424.3.7 should be read together, which address the requirement of a sign permit limit of six months.

Mr. Black stated Section 424.7 requires a sign to be on the premises, the language talks about no advertising or identification signs.  It is reasonable because the Ordinance talks about directional real estate signs.  That this pertains to billboards.

Mr. Manahan stated this is not a directional sign.  

Mr. Manahan moved to amend his motion to include that the applicant shall be issued a sign permit for a period of six months with one renewable period of six months, a total of one year of signage.

Mr. Manahan moved to find that Section 424.2.11 does not prohibit the sign from being located on lot # 8 as proposed by the applicant.

Mr. Kendall gave an update on Ordinance changes.  Natalie Burns, Town Attorney will be drafting changes related to setbacks and right-of-way issues that will be presented for the review in the near future.  Andy Fillmore, Town Planner will be drafting the remaining changes that will be presented in July or later.

Mr. Wyman requested that the Board discuss at the July 11, 2202 meeting the issue of the Board of Appeals changing its start time from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

A TRUE COPY ATTEST:



__________________________                    ____________________________
R. Scott Wyman, Board Chair                   Pam Bosarge, Board Clerk