0:28The primary focus of the meeting was a proposal concerning signage for a business previously approved by the planning board. The business, which aims to provide training and services for individuals with special needs, required a variance due to the proposed placement of an upper sign exceeding the height restrictions set by the zoning ordinance. The placement of this sign above the doors on the right side of the building was a central topic. The architect, Anio Scalise, was sworn in to present the design and explain the reasoning behind the proposed changes.

Scalise argued that the raised sign would fill a large empty space on the building’s plain facade, which was described as off-white and lacking significant architectural detail. The visibility of the sign from a distance would be advantageous for attracting the intended clientele, who might rely on public transportation or family members for visits.

The design included a transition in the logo from a “robot guy” to a more representative cup of coffee with a gear, aligning with the business’s offerings. The board deliberated on the aesthetic implications of the sign’s location between windows, ultimately agreeing that it would provide a visual enhancement to the otherwise flat facade. It was noted that none of the signs would be internally illuminated; instead, they would be lit by gooseneck lights, with illumination turned off between 10 PM and 7 AM as per suggestions from a review memo.

18:18Concerns were raised about the potential impact on the aesthetics of the ordinance if the sign did not align with the building’s horizontal band. However, it was argued that the proposed placement would not only create visual interest but also improve safety by making the sign more recognizable. The board also addressed the procedure for future logo changes, confirming that if the size remained consistent, no additional approval would be required. This flexibility was seen as beneficial for the business’s branding needs.

The discussion touched on the ordinance’s stipulations about window coverage, with clarifications made that the 20% coverage rule should be assessed by individual window panels rather than cumulatively. The board considered the practical aspects of sign placement, contemplating whether the proposed height would maintain visibility while adhering to zoning regulations. Previous signage configurations were referenced.

The meeting concluded with the board reviewing conditions under which they would consider approval of the application, including adherence to representations made, compliance with housing requirements, and the necessity of obtaining all required permits. The inclusion of additional logo elements within the window glass was also discussed. The process ended with a motion to approve the signage application, which was met with unanimous support.