Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20141119 - Board of Appeals - Meeting MinutesRoRY WARREN, Chairman G. MICHAEL PEIRCE, Vice Chainnan MARK). HYMAN, Clerk TOWN OF HOPKINTON OFFICE OF BOARD OF APPEALS 1015 SEF 15 A'1 Q: 26 TOWN HALL 18 MAIN STREET — THIRD FLOOR HOPKINTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01748-3209 (508)497-0012 Minutes of the Board of Appeals W W W.HOPKMTON.ORG ZBA@Hopkintomna.gov Minutes: November 19, 2014 Called to Order: 7:10 PM Town Hall, 2"d Floor Adjourned: 9:00 PM Members Present: Rory Warren, Chairman; Michael Peirce, Vice Chairman; Mark Hyman, Clerk; June Clark; John Savignano; Jim Meyer Members Absent: Michael DiMascio; Peggy Shaw Others Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning and Permitting; Charles Kadlik, Zoning Enforcement Officer 7:10 PM Administrative Session of the Board of Appeals Minutes The Board reviewed the minutes of August 27, 2014. Mr. Peirce moved to adopt the minutes of August 27, 2014 with changes. The motion was seconded and passed 5-0-1. The votes were: Mr. Peirce: Yes; Ms. Clark: Yes; Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Hyman: Yes; Mr. Meyer: Yes; Mr. Warren: abstain. The Board reviewed the minutes of November 6, 2013. Mr. Peirce moved to adopt the minutes of November 6, 2013 with changes. The motion was seconded and passed 4-0-2. The votes were: Mr. Warren: Yes; Mr. Peirce: Yes; Ms. Clark: Yes; Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Hyman: abstain; Mr. Meyer: abstain. The Board reviewed the minutes of October 23, 2013. Mr. Peirce moved to adopt the minutes of October 23, 2013. The motion was seconded and passed 3-0-3. The votes were: Mr. Peirce: Yes; Ms. Clark: Yes; Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Warren: abstain; Mr. Hyman: abstain; Mr. Meyer: abstain. Documents Used: Draft minutes from August 27, 2014 Draft minutes from November 6, 2013 Draft minutes from October 23, 2013 Peppercorn Village Realty Trust Mr. Warren stated the Board has received a bill from Fay, Spofford & Thorndike in regards to Peppercorn Village Realty Trust for $1,072.00. He stated the balance in the 53G account is $1,019.32 and then stated the project is not complete so he recommended the Board request an additional $5,000.00 to be deposited into the 53G account. Mr. Peirce moved to request an additional $5,000.00 from Peppercorn Village Realty Trust to be deposited into the 53G account. The motion was seconded by Mr. Savignano and passed unanimously. Documents Used: November 10, 2014 bill from Fay, Spofford & Thorndike 7:15 PM Continuation of Public Hearing 85 West Main Street — Thurloe Kensington Development, LLC Richard Cometta Jr. — Attorney John Cusack — Bohler Engineering Ron Muller — Traffic Engineer Richard Landry — Principle of Thurloe Bill Morgan — Property Owner and Proprietor of Golden Spoon Members Sitting: Mr. Warren, Mr. Peirce, Ms. Clark, Mr. Savignano, Mr. Hyman Members in Attendance: Mr. Meyer Atty. Cometta gave a brief overview from the last public hearing. He then stated since the last public hearing the Conservation Commission has closed their public hearing and an Order of Conditions is probably imminent. He stated they have made several revisions to their plans with input from the Planning Board. Mr. Cusack explained the revised plans. He stated the biggest concern brought to them was a future right turn lane on West Main Street. He stated what they needed to do was to reduce the scale of the development and move some buildings around. He stated they shrunk the retail building by about 10%. He stated they made changes and reviewed them with peer review and he Planning Board. He stated the proposed building will now be about 15.8 feet from the property line. He stated they have maintained full compliance with the buffer zone along West Main Street and Lumber Street except for where the building sticks out. He stated they have looked at parking since the last meeting and it does work. He stated peer review and the Planning Board have reviewed it. He stated the improvements they are making will be a benefit to the Town. He stated the new plans comply with storm water management. He stated the new plans offer substantial improvements from what is there today. Atty. Cometta reviewed bylaw 210-128. He stated the proposed change would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. He stated the new setback from the street line would be located further away. He stated the existing building is not esthetically appealing. He stated the new building will be fully ADA compliant. He stated the new access drive will be "right in right out" only on West Main Street. He stated they are donating 12 feet on land on West Main Street for future use for a turning lane and sidewalk. Mr. Cusack stated there are 38 proposed parking spaces and a study showed that at peak demand it ranged from 31-35 spaces used. Mr. Peirce asked what event would trigger the easement to be granted. Atty. Cornetta stated they would entertain whatever the Board would be comfortable with. Mr. Peirce asked who would be paying for it if the easement needed to be done. Mr. Weismantel stated he believes the major contributor for that should be the Hopkinton Mews project. Mr. Peirce stated he thinks the Board needs to come up with a realistic condition regarding this. He then asked what the closest part is to the street. Mr. Cusack stated if the easement is granting it would be 3.8 feet but it is not affected at that spot by the turning lane. Mr. Peirce asked if the driveway locations have changed since the last hearing and Mr. Cusack stated no. Mr. Peirce asked if the parking spaces have changed. Mr. Cusack stated yes, they went from 39 to 38 spaces. Mr. Peirce asked if parking was considered if the restaurant was full and the patio was full. Mr. Cusack stated the outside patio does not trigger parking because it is seasonal. Mr. Peirce asked how much of a difference in landscaping would there be without the turning Board of Appeals November 19, 2014 Page 2 of 4 lane and with the turning lane. Mr. Cusack stated without the turning lane there is about 4,400 square feet and with the turning lane it will be reduced to about 2,600 square feet. Mr. Warren asked if there were any public comments. John Coutinho, 1 David Joseph Road stated he was hoping it would be 100% better than the existing. He stated there are 50 foot setback requirements for a reason. He stated he would go away along with the reconstruction if that was the only thing. He stated he does not want to sell out just to get some extra landscaping and turning lane. He stated 2 building on the lot just don't work. Mr. Weismantel, Chairman of the Planning Board gave an overview from the last Planning Board meeting on November 3, 2014. He stated the Planning Board views the tradeoff of the land for the turning lane as a good thing. He stated they are awaiting their decision until the Board of Appeals makes theirs. Jeffrey Doherty, Chairman of the Design Review Board stated they have been in hearings with the applicant. He stated they have worked with the applicant and they have met some of the suggestions they made. He stated his is personally opposed to the project. Sandy Altamura, 33 Elm Street stated she is ashamed they aren't going to rehab what is already there. She stated the Board cannot set this kind of precedence. She stated one building would be fine but not two. She stated it is going to be a mess there. She stated the parking lot will not accommodate big delivery trucks. She then asked the Board not to grant a variance. Mr. Peirce stated he would like to talk about a set of conditions that would work for everybody. Atty. Coronetta stated that apparently this turning lane is important to the Town and the best they can do is offer an easement to the Town. He stated they are okay with a condition that no Certificate of Occupancy will be issued until the granting of the easement is approved or some other language. Mr. Landry stated they are fully committed to a turning lane and they have no problem with grating an easement immediately. Mr. Hyman stated he would like to hear the applicant's thoughts about the variance. Atty. Cornelia stated they are looking for appropriate relief and stated the more appropriate form of relief would be a special permit. Mr. Hyman stated he is concerned about which way they look at it. Mr. Peirce stated the totality of the proposal is what the Board has to look at. He stated from his perspective the appropriate request is a section 6 finding. He stated he does not worry as much as some people about setting a precedence. Ms. Lazarus stated the applicant did go to the Design Review Board and did get approval. Mr. Peirce moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hyman and passed unanimously. Mr. Warren stated he thinks a variance would be a stretch. Mr. Peirce stated his perception is you can't take this out of context of what is going on in the area. He stated he supports the concept of a section 6 finding. Mr. Warren suggested tying the easement to the demolition. Mr. Peirce moved to find the proposed is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing, the new building is setback further than the existing, the proposal provides for a turning lane, the approval fully complies with the storm water drainage plan and landscaping, and the redesign of the property will define well defined curb cuts and grant a special permit with the condition that a construction management plan appropriate with the Building Inspector be provided with the building Board of Appeals November 19, 2014 Page 3 of 4 permit and be consistent with the attached plans. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hyman and passed unanimously. Documents Used: Uniform Applications for Special Permit/Petition for Variance October 28, 2014 Letter from Bohler Engineering November 14, 2014 Letter from the Planning Board th supporting documents Mr. Peirce moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Meeting Adjourned: 9:00 PM Adina Wright, Administrative Assistant Approved: August 26, 2015 Board of Appeals November 19, 2014 Page 4 of 4