Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20150708 - Board of Appeals - Meeting MinutesTOWN OF HOPKINTON OFFICE OF BOARD OF APPEALS 2015 TOWN HALL 18 MAIN STREET — THIRD FLOOR HOPKINTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01748-3209 (508) 497-0012 MARK J. HYMAN, Cbaimman G. MICHAEL PEIRCE, Vice Chairman Minutes of the Board of Appeals Minutes: July 8, 2015 Town Hall, 2nd Floor WPRV.HOPKINTON.ORG ZBA@Hopkintonma.gov Called to Order: 7:15 PM Adjourned: 10:00 PM Members Present: Rory Warren, Chairman; Michael Peirce, Vice Chairman; Mark Hyman, Clerk; Michael DiMascio; John Savignano; Peggy Shaw Members Absent: June Clark Others Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning and Permitting; Charles Kadlik, Zoning Enforcement .Officer; Michael Shepard, Assistant Building Inspector; Raymond Miyares, Miyares and Harrington 7:15 PM Appeal of Administrative Decision 213 Hayden Rowe — Desrocbes, Amanda Mr. Hyman moved to continue the public hearing until August 26, 2015 at 7:15pm. The motion was seconded by Mr. Peirce and passed unanimously. Documents Used: Request for Continuation of Public Hearing Form 7:16 PM Application for Special Permit 201 Hayden Rowe — Perkins Wayne Davies — Attorney William Perkins — Applicant Members Sitting: Mr. Warren, Mr. Peirce, Mr. DiMascio, Mr. Hyman, Mr. Savignano Members in Attendance: Ms. Shaw Atty. Davies stated they are seeking 2 special permits and 2 variances. He stated they have been in discussions with the Town to relocate the house at 9 Church Street to 201 Hayden Rowe. He stated the structure has been identified to have value by the Historic Commission. He stated his client was approached by the town for his aLsistance to save the structure. He stated there is an existing house at 201 Hayden Rowe which is a residential property and the use is conforming. He then read bylaw 210-125 which would allow the existing non -conforming house to be converted to an apartment. He stated a variance from that bylaw is required because the exterior will be altered because it is a different structure. He stated the second special permit is a change to a non -conforming structure because the existing does not meet setback requirements. He stated the historical house will be placed to meet that non -conformity. He stated the second variance is to allow a 3 -family structure to be moved over. He stated the hardship for the first variance is it would be impossible to make the house that is moving look like the existing house and it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. He stated the hardship for the second variance is financial in that his client will not be willing to go forward and move the house unless he can rent these 3 units. Atty. Davies then submitted plans reflecting changes to the building. Mr. Warren stated he would like a little time to digest the plans and would like to continue the public hearing. Atty. Davies stated this is the best alternative to maintain a 3 -family and save the historical structure. Mr. Peirce stated the Board has not seen anything before tonight and he would like to see more specifics. Mr. Warren asked if there were any public comments and there were none. Mr. Peirce moved to continue the public hearing until July 22, 2015 at 7:15pm. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hyman and passed unanimously. Documents Used: Uniform Applications for Special Permit/Petition for Variance with supporting documents May 22, 2015 letterfrom Sarah Duckett of 9 Church Street June 23, 2015 letter from the Hopkinton Historical Commission July 9, 2015 letter from the Planning Board Design Plans dated July 2, 2015 from Mr. House Plans 7:50 PM Application for Special Permit 34-40 Hayden Rowe — RPI Hopkinton LLC Jerry Effren — Attorney for the Applicant Brett Levy — RPI Hopkinton LLC Ron Muller — Traffic Engineer Joe Marquedant — Civil Engineer Peter Quinn — Architect Chuck Joseph - Consultant Eric B. Goldberg — Attorney for Abutters Members Sitting: Mr. Warren, Mr. Peirce, Mr. DiMascio, Mr. Hyman, Mr. Savignano Members in Attendance: Ms. Shaw Atty. Effren stated they are seeking a non -conforming use extension permit. He stated they will still need major site plan review from the Planning Board if this is approved tonight. He stated they are eligible for the special permit because they are changing one non -conforming use to another. He stated the project will be kept in harmony with the intent of the bylaw. He stated they will take some space on the 2nd and 3`d floor of this building and turn it into 17 residential condo units. He stated there will be no change to the exterior, the parking or access to the building. He stated the prior industrial uses will be terminated if relief is granted. He stated this project will allow the property to become fully stabilized as a mixed use building. He stated the Master Plan picked this property in 2007. He stated it will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. He stated Atty. Goldberg's reference to the Cox v. Board of Appeals of Carver case is completely misinterpreted. He stated they are seeking approval to change it to a different more restricted use. Mr. Levy stated they purchased the property a little more than 2 years ago and this would allow them to improve the building. Mr. Marquedant reviewed the site plans. He stated Board of Appeals July 8, 2015 Page 2 of 5 they are proposing an upgrade to the parking area. He stated they don't intend to access the property from Church Street. He stated they are currently approved for 105 parking spaces on the gravel area and they are now proposing 96 with the upgrade. He stated they will maintain the existing pickup and drop off area for Kidsborough. He stated they are proposing a carport for the unit owners. He then reviewed the stormwater plan and stated they have spoken with the Director of the DPW. Mr. Peirce asked if there would be 3 uses now including offices, daycare and the 17 units. Mr. Marquedant stated yes. Mr. Peirce asked if they were now paving everything and Mr. Marquedant stated yes. Mr. Peirce asked if the play area is gone now. Mr. Marquedant stated no that will stay. Mr. Peirce asked if there will be additional site lighting and Mr. Marquedant stated yes. Mr. DiMascio asked the size of the site and Mr. Marquedant stated 2.39 acres. Mr. DiMascio asked how many kids the child care was approved for and Mr. Marquedant stated 130. Mr. Quinn reviewed the plans and stated they are going to change the entry from the back of the building that is primarily used by the offices for the residents. He stated they are proposing to maintain a lot of the existing windows. Mr. Peirce asked how many parking spaces will be dedicated per unit. Mr. Quinn stated 1 per bedroom. Atty. Effren stated 34 spaces are required. Mr. Joseph stated they are very encouraged by the plans. He stated this falls in line with what they are hoping to provide in this area. He stated they are working within the shell and not adding anything. Mr. Muller he was tasked with estimating the change in traffic for the proposed project. He stated they projected it with full occupancy. He stated the change in traffic would be a reduction of 29 trips in the morning peak hours and a reduction of 15 trips in the afternoon peak hours. Mr. Peirce asked if they did actual counts to determine the use presently and Mr. Muller stated yes. Mr. Hyman asked if emergency vehicles would be able to get into the back of the property. Mr. Muller stated there is access for an SU30 vehicle and it was incorporated into their design. Mr. Warren asked if there were any public continents. Atty. Goldberg stated a garden apartment is so grossly out of place on this property. He stated no Board has carte blanche to authorize any use of any scale on any site. He suggested the proposed use is not a non -conforming use. He read bylaw 210-132 and 210-128D(2). He stated the applicant is proposing to change the industrial use to a mixed use over scaled garden apartment. He stated it is a radical change. He stated as wonderful as the proposal may be it does not belong here. He read the garden apartment bylaw (Article XIII). He stated you cannot build this development on this lot under this towns bylaws. Mr. Peirce asked if Atty. Goldberg was saying the Board should determine this as vacant land. Atty. Goldberg stated this is not vacant land. He stated the site is currently being utilized as pre-existing non- conforming uses. He stated the proposal is not a non -conforming use. He stated the applicant is proposing to eliminate a non -conforming use and replace it with something else. Mr. Peirce asked if he was suggesting the Board has less ability to make this kind of change but could permit any kind of use not allowed. Atty. Goldberg stated the applicant is proposing to do something that has controls. Mr. Warren asked if he was suggesting that if the Board issued a special permit for a change to the proposed use that section 210-132 would turn it into a non -conforming use. Atty. Goldberg stated no. Atty. Effren stated they are going from one non -conforming use to another non -conforming use. Jerry Tuite, 4 Price Street handed in a list of opposed abutters. He stated they are here to plead for the Board's protection. He stated they are here to ask the Board to enforce the laws. He stated the property is still Residential A. Claire Wright, 28 Hayden Rowe stated they will be greatly affected by this change. She stated they have lived there for 32 years and this is a quiet peaceful private area at night. She stated the traffic analysis is irrelevant and that this project would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Board of Appeals July 8, 2015 Page 3 of 5 James Gallery, 4 Maple Street stated this is a very quiet neighborhood. He stated this is a great plan but not for that building. He stated it will drastically change what happens in the neighborhood. Paul Wright, 28 Hayden Rowe stated his is opposed to the proposal. He stated it is vastly denser then what is going on there and it will lower their property value. Dorothy O'Neill, 29 Church Street stated she is not a direct abutter and the lighting affects her now through the trees. She stated she can only imagine what it will be like if this goes through. She stated she is concerned about the cumulative effect of the traffic. Tom Terry, 17 Maple Street stated he has issues with the water and sewer, the traffic and the parking. He suggested the Board dismiss the request. Ann Tuite, 4 Price Street stated this will change the character of the neighborhood and their quality of life. Jim Klocek, 44 Church Street stated he feels the same as the previous speakers. Marlo Pohl, 7 Price Street stated this property is their last link to the 19th century era. She stated she would like to see the new design bring in the history. Dave Roberts, 29 Hayden Rowe stated he thinks this is a tough call and he is not in favor of 17 units but doesn't have a problem with condo's going in. John Madigan, 9 Maple Street stated this will be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Shane Leavy, 11 Maple Street stated he is opposed to this radical change and believes the traffic will increase on Maple Street. Jean Madigan, 9 Maple Street stated she is very concerned about the not happen. Doug DeWolfe, 50 Hayden Rowe stated if not condo's it will be problem with this. Mr. Peirce moved to continue the public hearing until August 26, seconded by Mr. Hyman and passed unanimously. drainage and hopes this project does a factory. He stated he has a real 2015 at 7:15pm. The motion was Documents Used: Uniform Applications for Special Permit/Petition for Variance with supporting documents July Z 2015 letter from Jessica Jenkins of 42 Church Street July 2, 2015 letter from Attorney Eric B. Goldberg July 2, 2015 email from Maureen Tumbleton of 49 Hayden Rowe July 6, 2015 letter from the Law Offices ofJerry C. Effien July 8, 2015 signed Petition Mr. Peirce moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Meeting Adjourned: 10:00 PM Board of Appeals July 8, 2015 Page 4 of 5 Adina Wright. Administrative Assistant Approved: October 28, 2015 Board of Appeals July 8, 2015 Page 5 of 5