HomeMy Public PortalAbout20150722 - Board of Appeals - Meeting MinutesRECEIVED
TOWN OF HOPKINTON
°1'},{ r.r ;',
OFFICE OF
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN HALL
18 MAIN STREET —THIRD FLOOR
HOPKINTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01748-3209
(508) 497-0012
MARK 1. HYMAN, Chairman
G. MICHAEL PEIRCE, Vice Chairman
Minutes of the
Board of Appeals
Minutes: July 22, 2015
Town Hall, 2"d Floor
Members Present: Rory Warren, Chairman; Michael Peirce, Vice Cha
Michael DiMascio; June Clark; John Savignano; Peggy Shaw
Members Absent:
2VI50CT-II MM 9:49
1
W W W.HOPKINTON.ORG
ZBACHopkintonma.pov
Called to Order: 7:10 PM
Adjourned: 9:00 PM
an; Mark Hyman, Clerk;
Others Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning and Permitting; Charles Kadlik, Zoning
Enforcement Officer; Christopher Heep, Miyares and Harrington
7:10 PM Administrative Session of the Board of Appeals
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of January 28, 2015. Mr. Savignano moved to adopt the minutes of
January 25, 2015 with changes. The motion was seconded and passed 6-0-1. The votes were: Mr.
Warren: Yes; Mr. DiMascio: Yes; Ms. Clark: Yes; Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Hyman: Yes; Ms. Shaw:
Yes; Mr. Peirce: abstain.
The Board reviewed the minutes of March 25, 2015. Mr. Savignano moved to adopt the minutes of
March 25, 2015. The motion was seconded and passed 6-0-1. The votes were: Mr. Warren: Yes; Mr.
DiMascio: Yes; Ms. Clark: Yes; Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Hyman: Yes; Ms. Shaw: Yes; Mr. Peirce:
abstain.
Documents Used:
Draft minutes from January 28, 2015
Draft minutes from March 25, 2015
7:15 PM Continuation of Public Hearing
201 Hayden Rowe — Perkins
Mr. Warren stated the Board received a request to withdraw without prejudice from the applicant.
Mr. Peirce moved to accept the request from the applicant to withdraw without prejudice. The motion
was seconded by Mr. DiMascio and passed unanimously.
Documents Used:
Request to Withdraw Filing Without Prejudice form
7:20 PM Appeal of Administration Decision
36 Fruit Street — Peters
Wayne R. Davies — Attorney for the Applicant
Nancy Peters — Appellant
Angelo Catanzaro — Attorney for the Property Owner
7:20 PM Appeal of Administration Decision
36 Fruit Street — Karg
Members Sitting: Mr. Warren, Mr. Peirce, Mr. DiMascio, Ms. Clark, Mr. Savignano
Members in Attendance: Mr. DiMascio, Ms. Shaw
Atty. Davies stated he is representing Ms. Peters but not Mr. Karg. He stated the Town issued a variance
in 1981. He stated the requirements in 1981 and now require relief be issued if it's not substantially
detrimental to the public good. He stated the use has expanded significantly and now there is substantial
detriment to the public good. He stated Ms. Peters and Mr. Karg have coordinated jointly to save time.
Atty. Davies presented the 1' part of a PowerPoint presentation. He described the 1981 variance and the
agreement allowing access to the site for 5 years. He described the plans showing 1 building approved by
the Board and stated any additional building or changed use would have required approval or
modification by the Board. He stated this appeal is centered on the law and whether the expansion was
lawful. He stated if the accessory was not part of the use when the variance was granted then it cannot be
added later.
Mr. Karg presented the 2nd part of the PowerPoint presentation. He stated he has been a resident since
1995. He stated the primary effect on the neighborhood is the level of noise that emanates from the
property. He stated there are two very distinct areas — the sawmill area and the chip processing area. He
reviewed aerial view photos of the property from 1995, 2001, 2005, 2008 and 2014. He stated there has
been significant land clearing from 2001-2008. He stated the hours of operation often extend beyond
what is allowed.
Atty. Davies presented the 3`d part of the PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed the finding of facts. He
stated he would request the Board overturn the Zoning Enforcement Officer's determination, issue a cease
and desist order and issue an order to remove all buildings not given approval. He then stated that Ms.
Peters is agreeable to a stay of the cease and desist not to exceed 90 days and allow the owner to file a
petition with the Board of Appeals for a modification of the 1981 variance and file for site plan review.
He stated the residents are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their property.
Mr. Warren asked if there were any public comments.
Frank D'Urso, 173 Saddle Hill Rd stated he knows this business pretty well and is here in support of Mr.
Kadlik's decision. He stated he has witnessed the business close up and urges the neighbors to reach out
to JB Sawmill.
Jim Weckback, 273 Wood Street stated he has lived at his address since 1971. He stated the noise is very
annoying and would like to see the noise go away.
Board of Appeals
July 22, 2015
Page 2 of 4
Margaret Mighton, 272 Wood Street stated the noise has become increasingly annoying and constant.
David Goldman, 20 Fruit Street stated he has lived there since 1986. He stated at various times outside
the work hours trucks come and go. He also stated he is concerned about the Asian Longhorn Beatles.
Carol Denver, formally of 282 Wood Street stated she moved from that address 10 years ago but when
she lived there she rarely heard the sawmill.
Nancy Peters, 258 Wood Street stated she has lived there since 1958. She invited everyone to her
property to hear the constant noise.
Michael Shepard, 11 Hill Street stated he is in support of the operation. He stated he hasn't seen any
opposition to the sawmill over the years and that the owners would have been very accommodating to the
neighbors if they had come to them. He stated he has a problem with saying the variance would expire
after 5 years.
Atty. Catanzaro, stated they are here in support of the Building Inspectors decision. He stated he made
the right decision in determining and enforcing the zoning bylaw. He stated Mr. Garner would attest
today that the business is the same now as it was before. He asked what the sense of going into business
is if you're not going to expand. He stated the sawmill business has a lot of accessory uses. He stated his
clients bought the business in 2008 and the property in 2010. He stated before they purchased it his
clients sought the opinion of the Town about the business. He stated wood chipping is allowed in the
Agricultural district. He stated the access was always in the same location. He asked the Board not to
overturn the decision. He stated he does not believe it is in the Boards authority to overturn or issue a
cease and desist.
Amy Peterson, 36 Fruit Street stated they did their due diligence when they bought the property. She
stated they met with Mr. Kadlik many times to make sure the uses were allowed. She stated they have not
done any other uses that the Garner's have not done.
Gary Garner (former owner of the sawmill) stated they have not expanded anything and nothing has
changed. He stated it is a typical sawmill.
Ms. Peterson stated they are certified by the Asian Longhorn Beatle people and they chip the wood where
it is and do not take it to their property. She stated it is not a concern that they are going to infest
Hopkinton.
Mr. Peirce asked if the way the property is accessed now is the same as the roadway that was originally
licensed. Mr. Garner stated it is exactly the same way as it was in 1981. Mr. Peirce asked if they
continuously used the same access and Mr. Garner stated yes. Mr. Peirce asked if Mr. Pyne ever asked
him to stop using that roadway and Mr. Garner stated no. Mr. Peirce asked what the hours of operation
are. Ms. Peterson stated Monday through Friday 7am-5pm and Saturday 8am-1 pm. Ms. Clark asked if
they had a sense of how many employees they have not as opposed to 1981. Atty. Catanzaro stated the
information from Mr. Garner was 4-5 employees in the beginning. Ms. Peterson stated there are around a
dozen now including land clearers. She stated the machines are mobile and go to job sites so they are not
constantly running. Ms. Clark asked if they crush stone and Ms. Peterson stated no. Atty. Catanzaro
stated his clients have said there is no earth being removed from the property except from stumps that
come in. Mr. DiMascio asked what else was being done on the site at the time the variance was issued.
Atty. Catanzaro stated nothing was being done except the use of a mobile sawmill. Mr. Hyman asked if
Board of Appeals
July 22, 2015
Page 3 of 4
all the equipment is portable. Atty. Catanzaro stated the sawmill is portable but it is located in the
building. Mr. Hyman asked if this was the first appeal made to the Board. Ms. Peterson stated she hasn't
come across anything. Atty. Davies assured the Board that many of the neighbors have tried
communications but have failed. He stated the facts are that the access use would expire in 5 years per
the variance. Mr. Peirce stated in his opinion they would have had to come back to the Board if they
changed the location not the amount of time. Atty. Davies stated the Board needs to find what the actual
use was in 1981 and that it cannot be expanded.
Mr. Peirce moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hyman and passed
unanimously.
Documents Used:
Uniform Applications for Special Permit/Petition for Variance with supporting documents
Supplemental Submission #1 from Atty. Davies dated July 14, 2015
Supplemental Submission #2 from Atty. Davies dated July 14, 2015
Supplemental Submission #3 from Atty. Davies dated July 16, 2015
July 17, 2015 Email from Devlyn Coelho
July 21, 2015 letter from David S. Goldman
Supplemental Submission #4 from Atty. Davies dated July 22, 2015
July 22, 2015 Letter from James & Nancy Weckback
July 22, 2015 Letter from Margaret Mighton
PowerPoint presentation
Mr. Peirce moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Meeting Adjourned: 9:00 PM
Adina Wright, Administrative Assistant
Approved: October 7, 2015
Board of Appeals
July 22, 2015
Page 4 of 4