A considerable portion of the meeting was dedicated to addressing a variance request submitted for a sign at Noria, a convenience store replacing a gas station on Oak Street. The request, presented by Peter Marge of NH Signs, sought relief from height restrictions set by the zoning code. Marge explained that while the sign adhered to size regulations, it exceeded the permissible height limits due to its placement on a parapet wall. Marge contended that enforcing the current zoning code would impose a significant hardship on the petitioner, potentially compromising traffic safety and business visibility.

The proposed sign’s design was a subject of discussion. Grant Michael, also of NH Signs, elaborated on the sign’s architectural integration, emphasizing its custom design tailored to the building’s unique features. The sign’s design aimed to maintain aesthetic consistency with Noria’s evolving brand identity, which Michael highlighted as crucial for the store’s market presence. Despite its compliance with size regulations—16 square feet against an allowable 80 square feet—the sign’s height remained contentious.

Central to the debate was the classification of a “cheerboard” as a parapet wall. Some participants argued that the cheerboard, a thick, deck-like material, served as an architectural feature rather than a structural wall, potentially exempting the sign from height restrictions. The council also grappled with the financial implications of maintaining the store’s visibility. Advocates for the sign emphasized its necessity for establishing the Noria brand within the community, arguing that insufficient visibility could undermine the store’s commercial viability.

Despite these arguments, skepticism persisted regarding the actual need for the sign’s height. Questions were raised about whether the new sign would indeed enhance visibility, especially given that the existing Shell sign had already established a recognizable presence. Some participants suggested that the new branding might not offer additional benefits if the current signage effectively directed customers to the location.

The council’s deliberation also broached the topic of architectural consistency. The existing pole sign at the property already provided a measure of visibility, prompting suggestions that existing features could be leveraged to resolve compliance issues without violating zoning codes. In this context, constructing a full-length parapet wall was proposed as a potential, albeit costly, solution. The council considered whether the economic viability of the business could justify an exception to existing zoning laws.

As the meeting progressed, the council members explored various alternatives for compliance. They suggested that the applicants could redesign the facade to enhance its aesthetic appeal or modify the sign to align with current regulations. These options underscored the importance of flexibility in signage, referencing past applicants who had successfully adapted their designs to meet compliance requirements. The council urged the applicants to consult with the building commissioner to explore feasible options, including the construction of a parapet wall that could eliminate the need for a variance.

Ultimately, the council opted to continue the case to the next month’s meeting, allowing for further deliberation rather than an immediate decision. The applicants requested the continuance, which was granted without incurring a procedural fee. This decision opened the floor to broader discussions about local regulations, with some members noting the outdated nature of Gardner’s ordinances. Updating these regulations was acknowledged as a complex and costly endeavor, yet necessary to prevent setting inconsistent precedents in future cases.