ZBA-Dunkin Donuts 2011

8/6/2019 ZBA-Dunkin Donuts 2011

1/6

Back&round

-/l:uu r(~iI{ uL E R K .1 1 J U ~ . J 1 4 ~ M B : 5 2TOWN OF DUXBURY ,

ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL~ U X d U f { Y . j ' r i A S S :DECISION

2011-02Paul L. and Leo MVercollone, Trustees of Verc Realty Trust

June 9, 2011Special Permit Granted, with Conditions

Paul L. and Leo M Vercollone, Trustees of Verc Realty Trust, ("Applicant;'), requested anamendment to Special Permit ZBA No. 1981-01, as amended, under 420, 422, 601, and 906.2 of theDuxbury Zoning Bylaw ("Bylaw") in order to replace the existing awnings of a commercial tenant,Dunkin Donuts, at 5 Chestnut Street. The property is located in Neighborhood Business District 2 ("NB-2") and shown on the Duxbury Assessor's Map as Parcel 19D-772-045, consisting of 17,860 sq. ft. of land.The following is a record of the proceedings of the Board of Appeals ("Board") and the basis for thedecision to grant the Special Permit, subject to several conditions.

The Applicant's property is located at Chestnut Street and Depot Street in Hall's Comer, thetown's primary village business center. Five local streets converge here, including Bay Road, StandishStreet, Washington Street, and the two streets that border the Applicant's corner lot. Hall's Comerincludes a shopping center, a small complex of commercial buildings with retail, food service, andprofessional office tenants, numerous small businesses in low-rise buildings situated along all sides of thecorner, and residences. Itis a busy location, with vehicular traffic controlled by stop signs and a large flagpole, and a considerable amount of pedestrian activity.

The original Special Permit for this property, 1981-01, has been amended several times, notably in1992, when the Board approved an amendment to allow a Dunkin Donuts coffee shop on the premisesand commercial signage in support of that use (ZBA No. 1992-19). At the time, the proposal was highlycontroversial. Many residents spoke against Dunkin Donuts at the Board's public hearings, and 870people signed a petition opposing the project. Due primarily to the efforts of the Design Review Board("DRB"), a compromise was reached that provided for signage at an appropriate scale and design forHall's Corner. Specifically, the Board's decision in No. 1992-19 included the following conditions which.are pertinent to the present application:1. "All exterior advertising, temporary or permanent, on the outside of the building, other than the two

awning edges, shall be prohibited. II2. "The Awning material will be solid, non-illuminating, dark gray and the awning edge lettering will

be 12" high and transparent white in color."On. January 4, 2011, the Applicant's representative, View Point Sign and Awning of

Northborough, MA, filed a Sign Permit Application with the Building Department to; install fivereplacement awnings at 5 Chestnut Street. Specifically, the Applicant proposed five dark brown shedawnings (Sunbrella True Brown #4621) containing valance sign copy in orange, magenta,' and white. Theproposed sign copy consisted of the words "Dunkin Donuts" in the company's trademark fontand acoffee cup graphic placed between the words "Dunkin" and "Donuts" on each awning. On January 21,2011, the Director of Inspectional Services referred the Applicant to the Board because the proposedawnings did not comply with the conditions of SP 1992-19. ' ;,.

A +rue ~) l " tH e 3 1 - : .~~c~~


2/6

2011-02: Decision, Verc Realty Trust, Special Permit Amendment 2

On January 27,2011, the Applicant submitted a request to amend ZBA No. 1981-01, as amendedby Nos. 1982-5, 1992-19, 1995-11, and 1997-18, in order to install the proposed awnings that are the subjectof this Decision.1. Public Hearing, March 24, 2011

The Board referred the application to the reviewing parties specified in 906.4 of the Bylaw andheld a public hearing on the Applicant's request on March 24, 2011. For this application, the Boardconsisted of Scott Zoltowski, chair pro tern; Judith A. Barrett, Dennis A. Murphy, Jill Cadigan-Christenson, and Paul Boudreau, associate member.

The following comments were read into the record:1. The Conservation Commission, through the Conservation Agent, by memo dated February 9, 2011,

said the project is not located within 100 feet of a wetland resource area.

2. The Board of Health, by memo dated March 10, 2011, said it had no comments on the application.3. The Planning Board, by memo dated February 15, 2011, recommended that the Board deny the

Applicant's request.4. The Design Review Board ("ORB"), by memo dated March 9, 2011, did not recommend approval or

disapproval, but voiced many concerns. In its comments to the Board, the ORB described the existinggray awnings with white lettering as "extremely attractive," adding that the dark brown color of theproposed awnings would be acceptable, though not as pleasant. In addition, the ORB objected to thebrightly colored "cartoon-y" letters and expressed a strong preference for keeping the sign copywhite.

Mr. Bill Gavigan, Sales Manager for View Point Sign and Awning, represented the Applicant atthe hearing. He explained that the existing awnings are deteriorating and need to be replaced.Accordingly, he said the Applicant wants to install five commercial sign awnings on the building,including two on the front (facing Hall's Corner) and three on side facing Chestnut Street, where theexisting drive-through facility is located. All of the remaining awnings on the building would be replacedin. the same "True Brown" fabric, but without sign copy. There are seventeen awnings in total on thebuilding, so under the Applicant's proposal, five would function as commercial signage and twelvewould be plain (non-lettered) awnings. Mr. Gavigan displayed color samples of the awnings, sign copy,and graphics, which he described as Dunkin Donuts' current logo. He said that the dark brown awningmatters to Dunkin Donuts because of the color's symbolic reference to coffee.

Residents and past and present members of other town boards attended the hearing to speakagainst the Applicant's request. Mrs. Jeanne Oark, who served on the DRB during the Special Permitprocess for ZBA No. 1992-19, provided background information about the ORB's approach to workingwith the applicants in 1992. Like the present ORB, Mrs. Clark said she favored requiring the replacementawnings to retain the gray fabric with white lettering design imposed as a condition of the 1992 SpecialPermit. Ms. Sara Wilson, former chair of the Planning Board, echoed Mrs. Clark's view. She also notedthat ifDunkin Donuts wants to showcase its logo colors, flower boxes and landscaping would provide asuitable alternative. Finally, Ms. Sarah McCormick spoke on behalf of the ORB. She reiterated that theORB prefers to see the existing awnings replaced with new gray awnings, in the same shade of grayapproved in 1992. She also said the ORB dislikes both the bright colors of the sign copy as well as the"cartoon-style" font.

Mr. Paul Vercollone addressed the Board. He said that while the original proposal wascontroversial, the Town has accepted Dunkin Donuts and the business has done well in its present


3/6


location. He also said that retail businesses change and they need to be able to compete. The proposedsigns, in his view, reflected the changing needs of Dunkin Donuts.

Mr. Gavigan said that if necessary, Dunkin Donuts would agree to substitute. ivory for theproposed orange and magenta lettering. He mentioned that his company had just obtained approvalfrom a New Hampshire community to install brown awnings like those planned for the Duxbury store,but with ivory sign copy. However, he did not have color samples to submit for the Board's view. He alsosaid that when the DRB and Dunkin Donuts negotiated awning colors in 1992, the gray color of theawnings was actually part of the company's logo design at the time. The logo has since been changed,and he said the proposed change to dark brown is very important. The Board voted 5-0 to continue thehearing to April 28, 2011 so the Applicant could provide more information.2. Public Hearing Cont'd, April 28, 2011

When the hearing reopened on April 28, the Applicant was represented by Ms. Rachael St.Germain of View Point Sign and Awning. She brought fabric samples and a photographic representationof the awnings as they would appear at 5 Chestnut Street, and displayed them to the Board and residentsattending the hearing. She also submitted a new sign plan, View Point Sign and Awning, Revision DateApril 6, 2011 ("Revised Sign Plan"), which contains the color, fabric, and dimensional specifications forthe awnings and the proposed sign copy.

Mr. Zoltowski requested clarification that the awnings with sign copy would be limited to five,including two on the front (facing Hall's Comer) and three on the side (oriented toward Chestnut Street),and that no other awnings on the building would contain sign copy. Ms. St. Germain said Mr. Zoltowskiwas correct.

Mr. Zoltowski summarized the key differences between the Applicant's proposal and theconditions of ZBA No. 1992-19, notably the number of awnings originally permitted to have lettering andthe number now proposed, the amount of sign copy, the color of the sign copy and awnings. He thensummarized the differences between the proposal as submitted in the Special Permit application and therevised proposal presented by Ms. St. Germain, notably the changes from multi-color to single-color signcopy. Mr. Zoltowski said he was concerned that the Applicant still sought a change in the awning colorbecause the DRB, while being accepting of a change from gray to dark brown, clearly preferred the grayawnings approved by the Board in1992. Mr. Boudreau noted that the font, while the same as the existingfont, would be reduced in size because more lettering would appear on each awning face.

Ms. Jeanne Clark urged the Board to disapprove the Special Permit. She brought photographs ofDunkin Donuts stores from other communities to show that creative solutions to sign design had beensuccessfully negotiated and implemented elsewhere. Ms. Sarah McCormick (DRB) spoke as well,reinforcing Ms. Clark's statements. Several other residents opposed the Applicant's proposaL

Having determined that no other information would be needed in order to reach a decision, theBoard voted 5- 0 to close the public hearing on April 28, 2011.

FindingsThe Board finds that

1. The Applicant submitted a Sign Permit application to the Building Inspector on January 4, 2011, toinstall five awnings with sign copy.

2. The Building Inspector referred the Applicant to the Board of Appeals on January 21,2011.


4/6

2011-02: Decision, Verc Realty Trust, Special Permit Amendment .4

3. The Applicant applied for a Special Permit amendment on January 27, 2011, in accordance with 906.2 of the Bylaw.

4. The proposed awnings and sign copy thereon comply with the maximum dimensional requirementsat 601.6 of the Bylaw. The Bylaw limits the height of lettering on signs to a maximum of fourteen(14) inches. The proposed lettering is 8 1/4" in height. The Bylaw does not establish maximumawning dimensions, but does require advertising to be "painted on or attached flat against the surfaceof the awning and not project beyond the valance nor be attached to the underside." The Applicant'sproposal meets these requirements.

5. The proposed awnings and the existing awnings do not comply with 601.3(8), which limit businesssigns to one primary sign on the side of the building where the entrance is located and one accessorysign "on any other side of the building in view of a parking area or public way."

6. The proposed awnings are substantially different from the awnings approved in 1992; therefore, theApplicant requires an amendment to the existing Special Permit, ZBA No. 1981-01, as amended.

Decision and RationaleThe Board voted 4-1 to approve an amendment to the Special Permit, subject to all of the

following conditions:1. The Applicant may install up to two (2) replacement dark brown shed awnings with white or off-

white (e.g., ivory) lettering, except that the final color of the lettering shall be subject to review by theDesign Review Board prior to the issuance of a Sign Permit by the Building Department. The browncolor and awning fabric shall be as shown on the Revised Sign Plan. The lettering shall be limited tothe words "Dunkin Donuts," not exceeding 81/4" inches in height, also as shown on the Sign Plan.The awnings shall have no other sign copy elements or graphics. For purposes of this decision, thesetwo awnings shall be referred to as the Commercial Signage.

2. The other awnings (estimated to be fifteen (15 on the building at 5 Chestnut Street shall be replacedwith new awnings that match brown color, fabric, and style of the Commercial Signage, but that nosign copy or graphics shall be permitted, For purposes of this decision, these awnings shall bereferred to as the Non-Cornmercial Awnings.

3. All awnings on the building (estimated to be seventeen (17 shall be properly maintained at all timesand replaced every five years, or earlier if warranted, with awnings that match the requirements setforth in this Decision. Damaged awnings shall be repaired immediately or replaced.

4. Prior to the issuance of a Sign Permit, the Applicant shall submit a colorscaping plan for review bythe Design Review Board and approval by this Board, with window boxes and landscape treatmentsthat integrate the Dunkin Donuts color palette and compatible colors through plantings such asflowers, flowering shrubs, ground covers, or ornamental grasses, all such plantings to be non-invasive species as determined by the most recent "Massachusetts Prohibited Plants List," maintainedby the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture.

5. The Commercial Signage shall not be illuminated.6. All other conditions of ZBA No. 1992-19 that are not in conflict with this Special Permit amendment

shall remain in effect.


5/6


7. The property shall be brought into compliance with this Special Permit amendment within forty-five(45) days of the date of this decision.

The Board determined that by granting a Special Permit amendment with the above-listedconditions, the benefits of the Applicant's proposal will outweigh any adverse effects for the Town and

. the surrounding area, as follows:1. The Commercial Signage is legible, informative, and harmonious with the building, and it will

enhance the streetscape ( 601.4(2.2. The Commercial Signage is limited to the type of business, goods or service offered, and name of the

business ( 601.3(2.3. The Commercial Signage is suitable for the location and use of the property ( 906.2(1.4. The Commercial Signage helps to preserve the diversity of services available locally ( 906.2(a.5. The Commercial Signage is designed to cater primarily to local, not regional, markets ( 906.2(b.6. The Commercial Signage is compatible with the character of Hall's Comer ( 906.2(3)(b.

The Board is concerned that under existing conditions, the awnings at 5 Chestnut Street appear tobe out of compliance with the Bylaw and the conditions of ZBA No. 1992-19. Specifically:1. Sign copy appears on more than two awning edges. The words "Dunkin Donuts" are printed on a

total of four awnings ("Dunkin" on two awnings and "Donuts" on two awnings, for a total of four).2. In addition, Dunkin Donuts advertorial material is printed on a sign kiosk located on the drive-

through lane. Although it makes sense to provide a sign kiosk for customers ina drive-through lane,there is no record of approval by this Board.3. The existing awnings have not beenmaintained properly, as required under 601.11 of the Bylaw.

The Zoning Enforcement Officer should inspect the property, determine whether any zoningviolations exist, and take appropriate enforcement action ifwarranted. .

ConclusionThe Zoning Board of Appeals hereby certifies that copies of this decision and all plaits referred to

therein have been or shall be filed forthwith in the office of the Town Oerk.Any departure from representations made by the Applicant inits application will be cause for

review of this Special Permit if the Board finds, after notice and hearing, that such departure issignificant. This Special Permit and the conditions, limitations and safeguards described herein may beamended, revised, or revoked by the Board, acting on its own motion or at the request of the PlanningBoard, Building Inspector, or of any interested person, after notice and hearing in the manner providedunder MG.L. c. 4OA, 11. This Special Permit shall inure to the benefit of the applicant only and shallnot be transferable to any other person with the prior written permission of the Board of Appeals.

This Special Permit shall expire Unless construction has been commenced within (2) years fromthe date on which the Board's decision was filed with the Town Clerk. Any construction or alterationmust be continued through to completion as continuously and expeditiously as is reasonable.


6/6


For this decision to become effective, a copy of said decision and notice thereof must be recordedat the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds and must bear the certification of the Town Clerk that twentydays have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that if such appeal has been filed, that it has beendismissed or denied. A certified copy of said recording must thereafter be filed with the Zoning Board ofAppeals. Any person aggrieved by this decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals may file an appealpursuant to the provisions of M.G.L. c. 4OA, 17 within twenty days of the filing of this decision in theoffice of the Town Oerk. Ifno appeal is taken within the allotted time, the Clerk will so certify.By the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Duxbury,

Judith A. BarrettChairVoting inthe affirmative:J. Barrett, D. Murphy, J. Cadigan-Christenson, P. Boudreau; in opposition, S.Zoltowski

Copies to:ApplicantDuxbury Planning BoardDuxbury Planning DirectorDuxbury Inspector of BuildingsBoard of Appeals AlternatesDuxbury Board of SelectmenDuxbury Board of HealthDuxbury Design Review BoardDuxbury Water Advisory BoardDuxbury Conservation CommissionDuxbury AssessorsDuxbury Fire DepartmentDuxbury Police Department.Duxbury Town EngineerDuxbury Parks DepartmentDuxbury Highway DepartmentDuxbury Historical CommissionDuxbury Public LibraryDuxbury Housing AuthorityDuxbury Town OerkDuxbury ClipperDuxbury Town CounselPlanning Board of KingstonPlanning Board ofMarshfieldPlanning Board of PembrokePlanning Board of Plymouth

July 7, 2011I hereby certify that the lkisian, Case #2Dll-D2, of the Duxbury Boord ofAppeals has beenreceived and recorded at this office an d no Notice of Appea l was received during the baltydays next after such receipt a nd recording of said Notice.July 7, 2011 ~ C.JlJ411r .

usan c .. Kelley .Duxbury Assistant. Tavn Clerk

ZBA-Dunkin Donuts 2011

Documents

Transcript of ZBA-Dunkin Donuts 2011