Franklin Zoning Board Approves Signage and Pool Variances in June Meeting

In a recent Franklin Zoning Board meeting, decisions included the approval of a variance for a 30-foot sign for Muhammad But’s business on Route 27 and a variance for an inground pool installation on Patton Drive, exceeding the impervious surface limitation.

03:35The meeting spotlighted Muhammad But’s application for a variance due to visibility issues caused by his business’s unusual layout, where the entrance faced away from Route 27. But initially sought a variance for a 40-foot sign but adjusted his request to a 30-foot sign, aligning with existing signage regulations. During the discussion, But highlighted the necessity of the sign for business visibility, stating, “If I don’t have a sign there, nobody would know there’s a business there.” The board considered the ordinance specifics, which typically allow one sign per business, with a second sign only permissible if there is an additional customer entrance. But’s situation was compared to past cases where businesses, such as those in a shopping center on Pier Street, were granted signage despite non-traditional layouts. The board found these precedents relevant to But’s request.

11:13After deliberation, the board unanimously approved But’s application, allowing him to proceed with the installation of the 30-foot sign.

12:18Following this, the board addressed Anya James’ application for a variance to exceed the impervious surface limitation to install an inground pool at her property on Patton Drive. James requested a C variance due to her property already being near the maximum allowed coverage. During the inquiry, the board examined the potential removal of existing structures, such as a small shed, to reduce coverage. James clarified that the shed was not permanent, resting on skids without concrete beneath. Discussion also touched on an existing concrete pad leading from her house to the proposed pool, which predated her ownership and contributed minimally to overall coverage.

18:25The board voiced concerns about future property developments potentially breaching coverage limits and advised James to communicate these constraints to her pool contractor. Initially, the approval motion included a condition for the shed’s removal, but this was later retracted after members recognized the shed’s limited impact and its utility for storing gardening tools. The application was approved unanimously without the condition, allowing James to proceed with her pool plans while retaining the shed.

21:35The meeting also addressed ZBA 21009, an application remanded for a review concerning a self-storage facility project. A representative reported compliance with a judge’s directive to support the original project approval. The board approved a new resolution for Capital Holdings, which will be returned to the judge, effectively concluding the board’s involvement in the matter.

Note: This meeting summary was generated by AI, which can occasionally misspell names, misattribute actions, and state inaccuracies. This summary is intended to be a starting point and you should review the meeting record linked above before acting on anything you read. If we got something wrong, let us know. We’re working every day to improve our process in pursuit of universal local government transparency.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:

is discussed during:
in these locations: