2020-06-11-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Ms. Dudko presented the petition. She stated the proposal is for one wall sign facing Route 2. The sign is a 60 square foot non illuminated sign with pin mounted letters. They did have two signs proposed but that was revised. Mr. Archibald stated it is important to recognize this represents the beginning of a good investment in the Town of Lexington for KabaFusion. They have 100 employees and this is long term. As this is an East Coast headquarters the sign is essential. It is an unobtrusive sign in comparison to the Lahey sign. A Board Member, Jeanne K. Krieger, asked what KabaFusion does (Mr. Archibald stated it is a home infusion pharmacy. They provide specialized patient specific medications). A Board Member, David G. Williams, stated there must be a tenant on the first floor and stated the Board should consider their position if they wanted a sign similar to this one. Mr. Clifford this is something the Board should consider. Mr. Clifford asked what is the purpose of the sign (Mr. Archibald stated it is to establish them as one of the medical company leaders in the Lexington area. Many of the neighbors are significant players in the market place). There were no questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Archibald stated He appreciates the Board considering the south facing sign. The shape of the building is odd and makes it non feasible to be positive on either of the other faces. There were no questions or comments from the audience. The Hearing was closed at 7:48 PM (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, James Osten —Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). An Alternate member, Hank Manz, stated he does not see anything out of line. It's placed nicely. Mr. Williams stated it is a plus that it's not illuminated. Mr. Barnert stated the sign does not help to guide anyone to that building its just advertising. The Board has not put advertising along Route 2. Mr. Clifford stated they could hold off on deciding this until the Design Advisory Committee can review it. He stated he is not in favor of that proposal because it is an advisory committee rather than a binding committee. The Board is familiar with what the Design Advisory Committee would say so the question is if they would have followed the advice that the Design Advisory Committee would have given the Board. There were no further questions or comments from the Board. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a waiver request for a certified plot plan (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams—Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes).