Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20210714 - Board of Appeals - Meeting MinutesTOWN OF HOPKINTON OFFICE OF BOARD OF APPEALS _____________________________ TOWN HALL 18 MAIN STREET – THIRD FLOOR HOPKINTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01748-3209 (508) 497-0012 MARK J. HYMAN,Chairman WWW.HOPKINTON.GOV JOHN COUTINHO, CLERK ZBA@Hopkintonma.gov Minutes of the Board of Appeals Minutes: July 14, 2021 Called to Order: 7:05 PM Remote Zoom Meeting Adjourned:9:50 PM Members Present:Mark Hyman,Chairman;John Coutinho;Clerk;Michael DiMascio;John Savignano; Walter Garland;Jerry Tuite; Ria McNamara; Kevin Baxter Members Absent: Others Present:Elaine Lazarus,Assistant Town Manager;Michael Shepard,Assistant Building Inspector; Adina DePaolo, Administrative Assistant Mr.Hyman called the name of each Board member,and each responded affirmatively that they were present and could hear him.Mr.Hyman then called the names of each staff member who responded affirmatively that they were present and could hear him.Mr.Hyman also called the names of anticipated speakers on the agenda, Peter Barbieri, who responded affirmatively. Mr.Hyman stated that the meeting is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker ’s Executive Order of March 12,2020 and recently amended and extended,due to the current State of Emergency in the Commonwealth due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus.He noted that in order to mitigate the transmission of the virus,the Board is complying with the Executive Order that suspends the requirement of the Open Meeting Law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location.He stated that the Executive Order allows public bodies to meet entirely remotely as long as the public body makes provisions through adequate,alternative means to ensure that interested members of the public are provided reasonable access to the deliberations of the meeting.He noted that for this meeting the Board is convening by video conference via Zoom App as posted on the Town’s web meeting calendar and the Board’s agenda identifying how the public may join.He noted that the meeting is being recorded and attendees are participating by video conference.Mr.Hyman stated that all supporting materials that have been provided to the Board are available on the Town website via the web meeting calendar,unless otherwise noted. 7:15 PM Continuation of Public Hearing 84-92 West Main Street – Global Companies,LLC Members Sitting: Mr. Hyman, Mr. Coutinho, Mr. Savignano, Mr. DiMascio, Mr. Tuite Other Members: Mr. Garland, Ms. McNamara, Mr. Baxter Peter Barbieri - Attorney Mr. Hyman stated both he and Mr. DiMascio were not at the last meeting but they have both viewed the video and submitted their certifications. He stated all full members are now able to vote but he would like to discuss this with the associate members so it is not to stir the decision. He stated he reached out to the associate members and Ms. McNamara & Mr. Tuite stated they would still like to vote. Mr. Garland stated he would still like to vote. Mr. Hyman stated he is proposing a random choice between the 3 associate members. He stated he did a search online for a random picker and he has an app that is all setup to do a random choice but wanted to ask if anyone has any concerns with that approach. Atty. Barbieri stated he is okay with that. All 3 members agreed they have no concerns. Mr. Hyman shared his screen and a random choice was made. Mr. Tuite was selected to be the voting associate member. Mr. Hyman stated they need to grant a special permit in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. Atty. Barbieri stated in 2018 they got approval to replace the existing service station with a new service station including a special permit from the Board of Appeals for signage. He stated there has been a change in corporate branding so they went before the Design Review Board a few months ago and now they are back before the Board of Appeals. He stated the only thing they don’t meet in the bylaws is the location of the sign. He stated they have submitted updated plans and the relief requested is for the sign being above the eave. He stated they are reducing the area of the signage but keeping basically the same location as the plans approved in 2018. He stated the sign doesn't have a negative impact on the intent of the bylaws. Mr. Hyman stated the requesting relief is asking for an amendment to the prior decision. He stated they are asking for relief under 180B and 178D and 178L. He stated the Board of Appeals doesn’t address aesthetics, just zoning issues.Ms. McNamara asked about the sizes of the signs in 2018. Atty. Barbieri discussed the previous sizes and stated they were bigger in the 2018 decision and then gave the current requested sizes. The Board reviewed the sizes. Atty. Barbieri stated it was originally 88 square feet and now they are down to 60 square feet in the front. Ms. McNamara stated there is a collision between the aesthetics and the zoning. She stated she thinks this should have been handled by the Design Review Board but it wasn’t.Mr. Hyman read the standards again. He stated in his opinion a bigger building calls for a bigger sign.He stated the size is within what they can have,it is just the location that needs the special permit. Mr. Coutinho stated that as far as zoning they are hitting all the points. Mr. Tuite stated his concern at the last meeting wasn’t the sign, it was the building underneath.He asked if the building was different from what was approved in 2018. Atty. Barieri stated it is the same footprint and the only change was the facade. Mr.Tuite stated he just wants to do this the right way.Mr. Shepard stated the changes were not that significant which is something the Building Inspector determines. Mr. DiMascio asked about 2 signs going to 1 sign and the total size and even though the square footage is being reduced they are going to have 1 bigger sign rather than 2 smaller signs which is significant. Atty. Barbieri stated it is 50% less than what they are allowed. Mr. DiMascio stated the fact they are above the eave line means they should reduce the size. Atty. Barbieri stated technically they could add another floor and be in compliance. Mr.Garland stated when you consider the setback and the perspective the sign will have while driving down the road it will appear much smaller than it is.He stated it is definitely keeping within the neighborhood.Mr. Savignano stated he agrees with Mr. Garland. Mr. Hyman asked if there were any public comments. Board of Appeals July 14, 2021 Page 2 of 7 Mary Larson-Marlow, 238 Hayden Rowe stated she is speaking as a private citizen and stated she would like to speak on Ms. Ritterbusch’s slides. She stated they keep things consistent and she stated the signage on the Lumber Street side is directed by people coming down West Main Street and is very visible to the people in the Elm Street neighborhood.She stated she thinks that is the most detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Hyman asked about the locations of the other AllTown signs referenced in the slides. Ms. Larson-Marlow stated she did not know.Atty. Barbieri stated those were signs from the old corporate branding. He stated there will be a row of trees on the Lumber Street side and the gooseneck lights will shine down onto the sign. Mr. Hyman stated the use of gooseneck lighting is pretty common in the area. He stated the lighting is consistent with the neighborhood. Deb Fein-Brug, 12 Prestwood Drive stated the square footage of the sign is 100 percent more than what it was originally. She stated they are calculating just the lettering not the backdrops. She stated the applicant said the gooseneck would be providing lighting to the sidewalks. She stated they could be shifted down below the parapet line. She stated they are taking advantage of the signage bylaw. Mr. Hyman stated he doesn’t think that is how they view signs with the background. Atty. Barbieri stated both the original sign and the new proposed are single letters and then he read from the bylaw. He stated they are not trying to hide anything. Mr. Shepard stated Atty. Barbieri is correct. Mr. Coutinho moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. DiMascio and passed unanimously. The votes were: Mr. Hyman: Yes; Mr.Coutinho: Yes; Mr. DiMascio: Yes Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Tuite: Yes. Ms. McNamara stated she is trying to think of a middle point and maybe reduce the size. Mr. DiMascio stated he agrees. Mr. Hyman stated they are requesting 60 square feet and asked about a reduction. Mr. Savignano stated he is good with the way it is. Mr.Coutinho stated he is good. Mr. Shepard stated these new gas stations come with canopies and the people from Lumber Street probably won’t see the sign.He stated the signs are going to pale in comparison from the other things. Mr. Tuite stated he is okay with the sign. Mr. DiMascio stated given Mr. Shepards comments that he agrees with him. Mr. Tuite moved to find the applicant’s proposed change to the building signage will further the purposes of zoning Article XXVII and is otherwise appropriate for the size of the property, any buildings thereon and the neighborhood setting and, therefore, grant the applicant a special permit, under bylaw 210-180B. The motion was seconded by Mr. DiMascio and passed unanimously. The votes were: Mr. Hyman: Yes; Mr. Coutinho: Yes; Mr. DiMascio: Yes Mr. Savignano:Yes; Mr. Tuite: Yes. Documents Used: Uniform Application for Special Permit/Petition for Variance with supporting documents Email and Slide presentation submitted by Amy Ritterbusch on July 14, 2021 Mr. Garland left the meeting 8:30 PM Appeal of Administrative Decision 71 Frankland Road - 71 Frankland Investments LLC Members Sitting: Mr. Hyman, Mr. Coutinho, Mr. Savignano,Mr. DiMascio, Ms. McNamara Board of Appeals July 14, 2021 Page 3 of 7 Other Members: Mr. Tuite, Mr. Baxter Michael Sheehan - Director of Real Estate Mr. Sheehan stated they are seeking a temporary 4 month permit to seek a process they have already begun. He stated how this all became about and the process. He stated the fleet manager put a fleet there and then they received the cease and desist. He stated the chip shortage has held up the shipments and they need a few extra months. He stated the process is usually complete within 60 days but it is taking longer because of the chip shortage. He stated all the work is done inside and only a few vehicles come in per week. He stated he doesn’t think there is a detriment.Mr. Hyman stated this is located in the P district. He stated this use isn’t permitted in this district. He stated there are a few things the Board could do to give him relief. He stated they could uphold Mr. Shepards decision and give the applicant 4 months to fix it or the applicant could ask for a use variance.Mr. Sheehan stated they would be okay with upholding Mr. Shepards decision and allowing them to fix it. Mr. Coutinho explained what was done at that site in prior years and stated he doesn’t think this was outside the realm of things. He stated he is in favor of upholding the decision and giving them the 4 months. Mr. Shepard stated they received a complaint in March or April and when they went there they found they were doing just what Mr. Sheehan described. He stated they were given a cease and desist because the use was not allowed. He stated he knows they want to do the right thing. He stated they do have a lot of empathy for the neighborhood.He stated as long as the Board upholds his decision he is okay with them giving them some extended time. Mr. Hyman asked if the applicant had spoken with his neighbors and Mr. Sheehan stated he had not. He stated he would ask for October 31st as a deadline.Mr. DiMascio asked what the hours of operation are. Mr. Sheehan stated 8am-4pm unless there is an emergency in the building. Mr. Tuite asked about the Feeney brothers business. Mr. DiMascio asked if sound was an issue. Mr. Shepard stated all of the work is done inside the building. Mr. Sheehan stated all the work is done inside and all the doors are shut.Mr. Tuite asked about what the delivery problem was.He stated it seems to him it falls under what is allowed. Mr. Hyman stated primarily what they are doing is vehicle stuff which is more of an intensive use.Mr. Baxter agreed it is an installation and automotive crossover. Mr. Shepard read the bylaws and stated it doesn’t fall under “professional office”. Mr. Hyman asked if there were any public comments. Steve Carbonneau, 68 Frankland Road stated he is the one who called the Zoning Officer. He stated they started to see large construction vehicles going to the site and they would run over his yard. He stated he would go out and fix the mulch but then they took out their own stone wall. He stated he then became concerned about the safety. He stated if it wasn’t for the damage and the constant disrespect they were doing he would have had no problem. Mr. Sheehan stated he is aware of the stone wall and it was a tractor trailer that missed the turn to Weston Nursery. Mr.Carbonneau stated he has seen many other vehicles going in and out of the site that were not from Weston Nurseries. Mr. Sheehan stated there will be no more tractor trailers coming or going. Jon Koeller, 72 Frankland Road stated he echoes Mr.Carbonneau’s comments and is disappointed no one has reached out to them. He stated he doesn’t have a huge problem with specific work being done but he is concerned about precedence and the lack of communication. Board of Appeals July 14, 2021 Page 4 of 7 Ann Karnofsky 132 East Main Street, stated she walks by that building everyday and the roads are too narrow for these trucks. She stated this loop is used by bicyclists and walkers and there is a great safety concern. Mr. Sheehan gave his number to the public. He stated there will be no precedence, this is just temporary and they won’t be back before the Board. He stated he will speak to the companies so they will speak to their drivers. Mr. DiMascio asked about the type of vehicles. Mr. Sheehan stated 17 box trucks and 6 dump trucks which will be driven directly there and not on flat beds. Ms. Karnofsky stated there are no reasons for them to burden the neighborhood. She stated she doesn’t think they need any more time there. Mr. Coutinho moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Ms. McNamara and passed unanimously. The votes were: Mr. Hyman: Yes;Mr. Coutinho: Yes; Mr. DiMascio: Yes Mr. Savignano: Yes; Ms. McNamara: Yes. Ms. McNamara stated it appears as though the type of traffic has changed since May. Mr. Savignano stated he is okay with upholding the Building Inspectors decision and giving them some extra time to comply. Mr. Hyman stated they should condition the amount of trucks and types and the hours of operation and no delivery and use of heavy equipment.Mr. Coutinho stated they don’t condition their use of equipment to fix the stone walls. Mr. Coutinho moved to uphold the decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer dated May 4, 2021 with the condition they have until Oct 30, 2021 to comply,there be no tractor trailers, any damage done by any vehicles be repaired, the hours of operation be 8am-4pm and delivery of trucks from 9am-3pm and the total number of trucks of 25. The motion was seconded by Mr. Savignano and passed unanimously. The votes were: Mr. Hyman: Yes; Mr. Coutinho: Yes; Mr.DiMascio: Yes Mr. Savignano: Yes; Ms. McNamara: Yes. Documents Used: Uniform Application for Special Permit/Petition for Variance with supporting documents 9:30 PM Application for Special Permit 21 Hillcrest Drive - Seekell Members Sitting: Mr. Hyman, Mr. Coutinho, Mr. Savignano,Mr. DiMascio, Mr. Baxter Other Members: Mr. Tuite, Ms. McNamara Kevin Seekell - Applicant Mr. Seekell stated they are proposing to expand the deck in their backyard. He stated they need relief for rear setback and a variance for maximum lot coverage.He stated the existing deck is 13.5 feet by 12.5 feet and they are hoping to expand that to 20 feet by 24 feet. He stated the proposed will increase their lot coverage to 32%. He stated the reason they would like to do this is because they have a 2 year old daughter with some medical issues and the back of their home is a very steep hill and she can’t maneuver that on her own so they are hoping to give her a better flat surface to play on and that would be the deck. Board of Appeals July 14, 2021 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Shepard stated they don’t usually measure for the stairs but these particular stairs have a landing so they need to measure that. Mr. Hyman asked if there were any public comments and there were none. Mr. Hyman asked if they had reached out to the neighbors.Mr. Seekell stated he has not heard anything negative. Mr. Baxter moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Savignano and passed unanimously. The votes were: Mr. Hyman: Yes; Mr.Coutinho: Yes; Mr. DiMascio: Yes Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Baxter: Yes. Mr. Coutinho moved to grant a special permit under 210-119 for 14.5 feet of side setback relief and 10.5 feet of rear setback relief. The motion was seconded by Mr. DiMascio and passed unanimously. The votes were: Mr. Hyman: Yes; Mr. Coutinho: Yes; Mr.DiMascio: Yes Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Baxter: Yes. Mr. Coutinho moved to grant a variance under 210-11B due to the topography of the lot. The motion was seconded by Mr. DiMascio and passed unanimously.The votes were: Mr. Hyman: Yes; Mr. Coutinho: Yes; Mr. DiMascio: Yes Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Baxter:Yes. Documents Used: Uniform Application for Special Permit/Petition for Variance with supporting documents 9:45 PM Administrative Session of the Board of Appeals Minutes Mr. Hyman tabled the minutes until the next meeting. The Board discussed which member would like to be the representative on the Zoning Advisory Committee. Mr. Hyman moved to nominate Mr. Coutinho to represent the Board of Appeals on the Zoning Advisory Committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. DiMascio and passed unanimously. The votes were: Mr. Hyman: Yes; Mr. Coutinho: Yes; Mr.DiMascio: Yes Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Tuite: Yes; Ms. McNamara:Yes; Mr. Baxter: Yes. Mr.Hyman stated that Mr.Warren had submitted his resignation letter to the Select Board.The Board discussed the Vice Chairman vacancy.Mr.Hyman moved to elect Mr.Coutinho as the Vice Chairman and the Clerk.The motion was seconded by Mr.DiMascio and passed unanimously.The votes were:Mr. Hyman:Yes;Mr.Coutinho:Yes;Mr.DiMascio:Yes Mr.Savignano:Yes;Mr.Tuite:Yes;Ms. McNamara:Yes; Mr. Baxter: Yes. Mr.Coutinho moved to keep Mr.Hyman as the Chairman.The motion was seconded by Mr.DiMascio and passed unanimously.The votes were:Mr.Hyman:Yes;Mr.Coutinho:Yes;Mr.DiMascio:Yes Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Tuite: Yes; Ms. McNamara:Yes;Mr. Baxter: Yes. Board of Appeals July 14, 2021 Page 6 of 7 Mr.DiMascio moved to adjourn the meeting.The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.The votes were:Mr.Hyman:Yes;Mr.Coutinho:Yes;Mr.DiMascio:Yes Mr.Savignano:Yes;Mr.Tuite:Yes; Ms. McNamara:Yes; Mr. Baxter: Yes. Meeting Adjourned: 9:50 PM Adina DePaolo, Administrative Assistant Approved: Board of Appeals July 14, 2021 Page 7 of 7