Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20210623 - 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: June 23, 2021 Called to Order: 7:05 PM Remote Zoom Meeting Adjourned:9:15 PM Members Present:John Coutinho;Clerk;John Savignano;Walter Garland;Jerry Tuite;Ria McNamara; Kevin Baxter Members Absent:Mark Hyman, Chairman; Michael DiMascio Others Present:Michael Shepard,Assistant Building Inspector;Adina DePaolo,Administrative Assistant Mr.Coutinho called the name of each Board member,and each responded affirmatively that they were present and could hear him.Mr.Coutinho then called the names of each staff member who responded affirmatively that they were present and could hear him.Mr.Coutinho also called the names of anticipated speakers on the agenda, Peter Barbieri,George & Rachel Leal, who responded affirmatively. Mr.Coutinho 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.Coutinho 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. 7:05 PM Administrative Session of the Board of Appeals Mr. Coutinho introduced the new member Kevin Baxter to the Board. Minutes Mr. Coutinho tabled the minutes until the next meeting. 7:15 PM Application for Special Permit 84-92 West Main Street – Global Companies,LLC Members Sitting: Mr. Coutinho, Mr. Savignano, Mr.Garland, Mr. Tuite, Ms. McNamara Other Members: Mr. Baxter Peter Barbieri - Attorney Michael Chiverton Kevin Doyle Atty. Barbieri gave a background from the previous hearings when they received approvals in 2018. He stated they submitted revised plans which include revisions to the signage. He reviewed the new plans for signage that were approved by the Design Review Board.He stated the new sign is half of what the original square footage of the approved sign was.He stated they removed the sign facing Elm Street in the back and replaced it with a sign facing Lumber Street. Mr. Tuite asked about what is meant by “above the roof line” and asked if he means above the eaveline and Atty. Barbieri stated yes. Mr. Tuite asked if the original sign had lighting. Atty. Barbieri stated there was no lighting on the back sign originally.Mr. Tuite asked about the height of the original sign.Atty. Barbieri stated it was higher than what they are proposing now. Mr. Doyle stated the top elevation has come down based on the new design. Ms. McNamara stated it looks lower on the roof line on the original plans approved by the Design Review Board. She stated the original approval looked softer.She stated most towns don't allow you to do signs above the eaveline. Mr. Garland asked if our bylaws state it can not be about the eaveline. Atty. Barbieri stated that is one of the requests they have. He stated the Design Review Board has accepted this plan. Deb Fein-Brug, Design Review Board and Planning Board reviewed the decision from the Design Review Board. She stated the Design Review Board does not recommend zoning code. Atty. Barbieri read what was approved by the Board of Appeals before. He stated they carried the same condition with the new sign. Mr. Coutinho asked if there were any public comments. Mary Larson-Marlowe, 256 Hayden Rowe stated she is a member of the Planning Board but is speaking as a member of the public. She stated this is very different from the original sign approved. She stated the Design Review Board approved the design changes but they don’t review the bylaws. She stated the bylaw also stated signs should not be on the parapet wall and it clearly is on a parapet wall. She stated this sign violates several items in the bylaws. Mr. Garland asked Mr. Shepards opinion and Mr. Shepard stated they need relief from 210-180B.1. He stated it has been used before for other applicants and it is primary for signs you can’t do by right. He stated this is the rural business district. Atty. Barbieri stated the setup is under 210-178L. He stated they comply with everything except the sign being allowed above the first floor. Mr. Coutinho stated if the Design Review Board made their changes then all this Board is supposed to look at is the height and that the Board already approved a higher one 3 years ago. Ms. McNamara stated the lettering was lower on the approved one 3 years ago. Board of Appeals June 23, 2021 Page 2 of 5 Ms. Fein-Brug then spoke as a member of the public and stated the Planning Board hasn’t even seen this and she is concerned that it skipped that review about back lighting and other specific things that the Planning Board usually reviews. She stated signage should not be allowed on parapet walls. She stated the calculation of the square footage on the actual document is shown incorrectly. She stated the lighting is still too dominant. She stated the signage on 2 sides of the building is really not necessary.She stated you are coming out of a residence on Elm Street.She then read some of the bylaws. She stated it is not in keeping with Hopkinton and not fair to Cumberland Farms across the street. Amy Ritterbusch, 54 Grove Street stated she speaks in support of not granting the special permit. Atty. Barbieri stated this is Global’s standard and would hate to see a negative vote on this. He stated if that’s the case he would like to hear opinions. He stated he doesn’t want to see this whole project fold just for this. Mr. Coutinho stated that the last signs were higher and were bigger. He stated he understands the limitations of the Design Review Board but they did make recommendations and approve this with the changes. He stated the Board of Appeals approved this 3 years ago with the signs being higher and bigger. Ms. McNamara stated they should be looking at the location and if this building needs this. She stated the Design Review Board members are here because they can not make those decisions. Mr. Coutinho stated he is confused that the Design Review Board just didn’t not approve this. Mr. Savignano stated the majority of the Design Review Board approved this. Ms. Fein-Brug stated everyone was in shock when they first saw the building. She stated they are asking the Board to look deep into the zoning and what will actually be seen on the building.Ms. McNamara stated the Board needs to have a reason if the Board is going to make an exception.Atty. Barbieri read the original design and stated the findings are still applicable. He stated they could come back with the lighting changes on the plans if that's what they need to do for the project to go forward. Mr. Shepard stated the applicant should have the opportunity to continue the public hearing. Mr. Garland moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tuite and discussion followed. Ms. McNamara stated Ms. Marlowe has had her hand up and asked if the Board could please hear from her. The motion failed 1-4. The votes were: Mr. Garland: Yes; Mr. Coutinho: No; Mr. Savignano: No; Ms. McNamara: No; Mr. Tuite: No. Ms. Marlowe 238 Hayden Rowe stated she is a member of the Planning Board but was not a member in 2018 when they reviewed this. She stated she just wanted to clarify she is not a member of the Design Review Board. She stated this plan was approved by the Planning Board with a certain design originally and now has changed dramatically and bypassed the Planning Board. Mr. Tuite asked what the Design Review Board votes were and then stated they approved the plans. Mr. Coutinho stated the Board is supposed to hear both sides and try to come to a win-win situation. Mr. Tuite stated he thinks a continuation is the right thing to do at this point. Atty. Barbieri stated he would like to ask for a continuation but would like some input on some modifications in regards to the signage. Mr. Tuite stated it is not the same thing the Board saw two years ago. Mr. Garland stated if you look at other businesses in that area they have signage above the first story. He stated in keeping with the bylaw it is appropriate to the neighborhood. Mr. Savignano stated his thoughts are in-line with Walter and he has no other comments or feedback for Mr. Barbieri. Mr. Board of Appeals June 23, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Coutinho stated that is the way he has been looking at this. He stated he has no input to it. Ms. McNamara stated the Unibank will never happen again and the bylaws were changed because of it. She stated there needs to be more input from the Design Review Board. Mr. Coutinho stated it is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. McNamara stated she would like more input on the design. Mr. Garland stated the Dunkin Donuts sign is above the first story and so are many businesses across the street. Atty. Barbieri stated they could raise the roof elevations and then the sign will not be above the first floor. He stated the gooseneck lighting is what they have on the rest of the building and is consistent with the architecture of the building and in compliance with the bylaw. Ms. Fein-Brug stated she agrees there is a lot of commercial going on in that neighborhood but the back is in a residential area. She stated this should go back to the Design Review Board. She stated it is not in keeping with the zoning. Atty. Barbieri asked the Board to continue the public hearing. Mr. Coutinho moved to continue the public hearing until July 14, 2021 at 7pm The motion was seconded by Mr. Tuite and passed unanimously. The votes were: Mr. Coutinho: Yes; Mr. Savignano: Yes;Mr. Garland: Yes; Mr. Tuite: Yes; Ms. McNamara: Yes. Documents Used: Uniform Application for Special Permit/Petition for Variance with supporting documents 8:50 PM Application for Special Permit 349 Wood Street – Leal Members Sitting: Mr. Coutinho, Mr. Savignano, Mr.Garland, Mr. Tuite, Ms. McNamara Other Members: Mr. Baxter Gregory Leal - Applicant Rachel Leal - Applicant Mr. Leal stated they are asking for a special permit for an expansion to the garage. He stated he has done construction already and it didn’t occur to him he needed a special permit. He stated he has sewer on the side and a large pool in the back. He stated they ended up boxed into that corner. He stated the existing garage was too close to the property line and they just extended it from that. Mr. Shepard stated the Building Department received a call that someone was doing work on a Sunday and they thought it was the tree operation people. He stated they explained to Mr. Leal he needs a building permit and a special permit from the Board. He stated he told Mr. Leal to hold off on the project and also talk to his abutting neighbor. He stated it is not a big structure and you can’t see it from the street. He stated if someone didn’t call thinking it was the tree people we would probably never even know it was there even though that isn’t right. He stated Mr. Leal has been very apologetic about starting the work. Mr. Tuite asked what the dimensions are on the extension. Mr. Coutinho stated 16 feet by 17 feet and the height is a single floor with a pitched roof. Mr. Coutinho asked if there were any public comments and there were none. Mr. Tuite moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and passed unanimously. The votes were: Mr. Coutinho: Yes;Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Garland: Yes; Mr. Tuite: Yes; Ms. McNamara: Yes. Board of Appeals June 23, 2021 Page 4 of 5 Mr. Tuite moved to find the proposed garage extension is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, and, therefore, grant a special permit under 210-128, providing the applicant the requested side yard and rear yard relief under 210-119 to extend the garage as proposed. The motion was seconded by Ms. McNamara and passed unanimously. The votes were: Mr. Coutinho: Yes; Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Garland: Yes; Mr. Tuite: Yes; Ms. McNamara: Yes. Documents Used: Uniform Application for Special Permit/Petition for Variance with supporting documents Mr.Garland moved to adjourn the meeting.The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.The votes were:Mr.Coutinho:Yes;Mr.Savignano:Yes;Mr.Garland:Yes;Mr.Tuite:Yes;Ms.McNamara: Yes; Mr. Baxter: Yes. Meeting Adjourned: 9:15 PM Adina DePaolo, Administrative Assistant Approved: Board of Appeals June 23, 2021 Page 5 of 5