Loading...
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