Town Counsel Jon Witten will consult with the Marion Planning Board to parse out the implications of a zoning bylaw that has Dan Gibbs Jr. at odds with an abutter to his father’s property over the proposed placement of a sign advertising the former’s roofing company.
Daniel Gibbs Sr., the resident at 459 Mill Street, is technically the applicant for a Special Permit to place a sign for his son’s business that was once his own, and before that his father’s. According to Daniel Gibbs Jr., he has permission from his father to place the sign at the property, where he regularly stores “two (dump) trucks and one or two dumpsters.”
The Planning Board held a public hearing on Monday to discuss and potentially determine a judgment on the matter, but a discussion focused on the nature and exact location of the sign itself took a hard turn after hearing from an abutter. Ryan Cusick, a neighbor to Daniel Gibbs Sr., asked for clarification on a stipulation in Section 230-6.4 of the Marion zoning bylaw that states that the owner of the business must occupy the property.
While it was uncertain from the discussion the reason(s) for the stipulation, Cusick sought to find out if the sign should be disallowed on that basis.
“I’m caught off guard here,” said Cusick, referencing the required letter to abutters that omitted the fact that Dan Gibbs Jr., the owner of the business, does not live at 459 Mill Street, but at 4 Derby Lane.
“The business has been at that location for a long, long time,” said Dan Gibbs Jr., whose situation at 4 Derby Lane is not as conducive to visibility as his father’s residence. Dan Gibbs Jr. explained that his father is technically the applicant “because he is the owner (of the property). He gives me access to it.”
Town Manager Gil Hilario reread the zoning bylaw and admitted a lack of certainty as to its implications where it concerns this matter.
“We can review this later if you like… If, in theory, what you’re saying is I could put up a Dunkin’ Donuts sign on my property,” said Cusick.
Chairperson Will Saltonstall said, “I take Mr. Cusick’s point, I’m just not sure how to respond at the moment.”
Planning Board member Eileen Marum agreed, saying, “Mr. Cusick has a valid point.”
Hilario suggested Town Counsel Jon Witten be sought for an interpretation.
Planning Board member Chris Collings was sympathetic toward Gibbs’ predicament, but admitted the board had reached a hard-to-crack nut with the bylaw.
“I get it; it’s been a roofing business worksite for a long time… His site (at 4 Derby Lane) isn’t as visible, and his desire to have a shingle (at 459 Mill Street) is pretty strong, but… I think we need Mr. Witten’s opinion here to define,” he said. “There’s no specificity (in the bylaw)… but I think there’s enough question that we need Mr. Witten. The abutting owner deserves at the very least a professional review.”
Saltonstall questioned if the board previously misadvised Dan Gibbs Jr. based on the incorrect assumption that he lives at 459 Mill Street, the proposed location for the sign.
“Part of the reason I suggested home occupation is because I guess I assumed Dan lived there. I didn’t know he didn’t live there,” said Saltonstall.
Planning Board member Norm Hills said, “We need to talk to Town Counsel and get back to the applicant.”
Asked by Saltonstall if it could be solved by amending the language and not starting from ground zero, Hills answered, “Ask Town Counsel that, too.”
Hilario suggested the case will require a new application.
Saltonstall told Dan Gibbs Jr., “I’m sorry if we misadvised you here, but your neighbor brings up a relevant point and we need to get some advice.”
The proposed sign measures 3×5 feet and would be designed and installed by Village Signs.
Before the discussion shifted to Cusick’s question on the legality of the sign at the proposed address, Marum analyzed the sign and its location and reported to the board after a site visit her concern over a blind spot for drivers exiting Mill Street extension onto Route 6. She also noted that, given the elevation of the sign on two posts topping out over 7 feet high and over 5 feet across, the sign will obscure 38 square feet of driver vision. “That’s almost twice the size of the sign which you’re giving as 20 square feet,” she said.
Hills said location of the sign is covered by the bylaw.
Marum suggested lining it up with the Council on Aging sign. “My concern is there is a lot of traffic that goes through there… Safety should be a prime issue in the placing of that side,” she said.
Collings echoed Marum’s sentiments, asking about lighting of the sign. “I think it needs to be as far back as reasonable as can be accounted for,” he said.
Dan Gibbs Jr. said the ground light can be timed to shut off at a certain hour to accommodate for traffic.
The public hearing was continued to Tuesday, September 8, at 5:05 pm as part of the 5:00 pm Planning Board meeting on Zoom.
Marion Planning Board
By Mick Colageo