A zoning text change proposed for the B-4 Gateway Business Zone was denied by the Zoning Commission (ZC) in a unanimous 5 to 0 vote on April 16. The amendment, had it been approved, would have added a new overlay zone option for B-4 Zone properties that would have paved the way for a developer seeking to build a fuel and food complex off of I-95 at Spencer Plains Road.

New zoning language would have allowed (with a special exception permit) billboard-size signs to be installed on the commercial parcel at a height of 35 feet and added gas and drive-through restaurant uses to the list of those currently permitted in the zone.

The petitioner for the text change was 52 Spencer Plain Road, LLC, the potential developer of a six-acre site at Exit 66 that abuts I-95 to the north and the Amtrak line train tracks to the south. The property lies within the Gateway B-4 commercial zone.

The B-4 Zone, however, is not limited to this area along Spencer Plains Road. The zone also is on properties near and adjacent to I-95 Exit 67. Had the zone change been approved, it would have applied to B-4 zoned properties along Route One East, in and near the Mariner’s Way focus area.

The ZC closed the public hearing on the proposal on April 2. At the April 16 meeting, the ZC was scheduled to deliberate and act on the proposed amendment.

ZC Chairman Robert Friedmann opened the discussion by reviewing correspondence the ZC received on the proposal. He then proceeded to share his own reaction and views on the proposal and its potential impact.

Friedmann reminded the commission that the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3 to 2, supported the proposed amendment. The Architectural Review Board also recommended approval. The town’s Economic Development Commission, however, recommended it be denied, as did resident Tedd Levy. Town Planner Christine Nelson and Zoning Enforcement Officer Christine Costa noted that the proposed plan is a departure from other adopted rules like those of the pedestrian node in the area and its focus on neighborhood scale.

Friedmann expressed his personal views of the proposal.

“The application would have a major impact on signs. The sign changes are of great concern to me. [Now] signs of greater than 100 [square] feet are prohibited. The 200 foot sign [proposed] is in violation,” said Friedmann.

The town’s current zoning regulations prohibit signs of 100 square feet or greater—considered billboards—to be installed in any zone.

Friedmann was also concerned about the proposed provisions that would measure the sign installation setback from the edge of the I-95 travel lane instead of from the property line and that would allow a sign of up to 200 square feet to be installed 35 feet above the ground. This sign’s height would also be measured from the edge of the nearest building which, Friedmann suggested, could be the off-site Kohl’s Department Store. This would allow the large sign to be installed at a greater height, since the Kohl’s is built on a parcel already elevated above the train tracks and I-95. He also calculated that if the new rule were approved, it would allow a property in the overlay zone to have more signs overall than are currently permitted on any property in any zone.

“I am opposed to adopting any regulation that changes sign rules in this way,” said Friedmann.

The text change would allow two, 100 square-foot signs or one, 200 square foot sign and two added signs on pylons; with the various proposed buildings, the site, if in the overlay zone, could have as many as 10 signs compared to the B-4’s current limit of five signs. Friedmann noted that another provision would exempt lighting from zoning controls.

Other language would have exempted the new Gateway Overlay Zone, once landed on a property, from any other zoning regulations that might be in conflict with its provisions.

“It is really bad policy to have a section that exempts from other regulations if this one is in conflict,” commented Friedmann. “I am not in favor of the ZCgiving up its authority.”

Friedmann noted that ZC Attorney Mark Branse highlighted the issue of the definition of accessory versus principal use in the amendment is an issue as is the bonuses the overlay zone would offer that create additional visibility are not afforded to any other town properties.

Commissioner Madge Fish said, “The applicant has a firm plan for a specific location. I am not comfortable with a change which could be laid down on other B4 properties.”

With no further comments from members, Friedmann moved to deny the text change. The motion was approved 5 to 0.