The new Cumberland Farms at the intersection of North Road and Southampton Road recently opened for business. (Photo by Frederick Gore)
WESTFIELD – The Planning Board unanimously rejected a special permit petition to allow a flashing electronic sign erected when Cumberland Farms Corporation constructed a new convenience store at the intersection of North and Southampton Road.
The Planning Board approved a different sign presented as part of its review and approval of the corporation’s site plan and special permit application last March. The 4,500-square-foot convenience store is located on 1.17 acres of land zoned for Business B use.
The corporation decided to change the style of sign to the flashing electronic type but Building Superintendent Jonathan Flagg cited the corporation for violation of city ordinance. The municipal code does allow flashing electronic signs in the Business and Industrial zones with a special permit issued by the Planning Board.
Project Manager Patrick O’Leary, P.E. of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), the consulting engineering firm retained by Cumberland Farms Corporation, presented details of the sign last night as part of the corporation’s special permit petition.
O’Leary said the sign swap was due to miscommunication between the engineers and corporate officials when the site plans were being originally presented to the Planning Board.
“I did not pick up on the fact that this was an alternate flashing sign, that it is not compliant because it flashes, alternating between gas prices and the club price for smart pay patrons,” O’Leary said, adding that the flashing message changes every six seconds.
The corporation is converting to the electronic flashing sign at all of its store location and substituted the new style for the Westfield store under construction without knowing that it violated local zoning regulations.
Carlo Vincent, a recently appoint member of the Planning Board, but who attended all of the permit sessions last year when representatives of Cumberland Farms appeared before the Planning Board, City Council and Conservation Commission, asked if the electronic sign could not be converted to display just the same information as the sign approved by the board at its March 20, 2013 meeting.
“The corporation decided to put up a different sign without any notification to the city,” Vincent said. “The Building Inspector notified you that you did not have the required permit for that sign.”
Board member Jane Magarian was more pointed in her comments to O’Leary. “How can a corporation the size of Cumberland Farms put down an edict that all of their stores have this type of flashing sign when they know local zoning prohibits it?” she asked.
Several residents spoke in opposition to the flashing sign petition.
Joan Corell of 1277 Southampton Road said that intersection has been the scene of many serious motor vehicle accidents and that both commercial and residential development have increase the volume of traffic at the “dangerous corner” as well as the density of businesses in that area .
“That sign is a distraction and is visible from inside my house,” Corell said. The store is on the southwest side of the intersection, Corell’s residency is on the northeast side, “catty corner” to the store.
Kate Pighetti of 16 Margerie St., she said that end of Southampton Road has a rural character.
“We don’t need a carnival atmosphere in that area,” Pighetti said. “They have no competition so I don’t understand the need. It’s abhorrent that they didn’t pay any attention to the (original sign) permit from this board.
“I really don’t think we need to ruin that part of town,” Pighetti said. “Do we need to take the urban sprawl of East Main Street and put this ‘uck’ up there? I don’t think so.”
Ward 4 Councilor Mary O’Connell said the corporation sign swap “is a slap in the face to this board. Cumberland Farms put up this sign. Why was it not darkened when they were told by the building inspector it was not compliant? I don’t like the corporate culture behind this.”
Ray Rivera, who was a member of the Planning Board which approved the original site plan and special permit and who now serves as a Municipal Light Board commissioner, said that he “feels they put up the sign knowing it was not what we voted for, then kept it up there.”
“The sign is not what we wanted up there and shouldn’t be there,” Rivera said.
The board’s motion to disapprove the flashing sign special permit was passed on a 6-0 vote.
