Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20110209 - 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 RORY WARREN, Chairman WWW.HOPKINTON.ORG THOMAS J. GARABEDIAN, Vice Chairman ZBAChair@Hopkinton.org TINA M. ROSE, Clerk ZBAClerk@Hopkinton.org Minutes of the Board of Appeals Minutes: February 9, 2011 Called to Order: 7:05 PM Town Hall, 2nd Floor Adjourned: 10:15 PM Members Present: Rory Warren, Chairman; Thomas Garabedian, Vice Chairman; Tina Rose, Clerk; Robert Foster; Michael DiMascio; Michael Peirce; June Clark; Kelly Knight Members Absent: David Barnes Others Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning and Permitting; Charles Kadlik, Zoning Enforcement Officer 7:05 PM Administrative Session of the Board of Appeals Minutes The Board reviewed the minutes of December 15, 2010. Mr. Foster moved to adopt the minutes of December 15, 2010. The motion was seconded and passed 6-0-2. The votes were: Mr. Warren: Yes; Ms. Rose: Yes; Mr. Foster: Yes; Mr. DiMascio: Yes; Mr. Peirce: Yes; Ms. Clark: Yes; Mr. Garabedian: abstain; Ms. Knight: abstain Documents Used: Draft minutes of December 15, 2010 Mail Mr. Warren read the public hearing notice regarding the proposed amendments to the Zoning Map. Documents Used: February 8, 2011 letter from the Planning Board 35 Parker Point – Guaranteed Builders Members Voting: Mr. Warren, Mr. Garabedian, Ms. Rose, Mr. Foster, Mr. DiMascio Mr. Warren stated the applicants are seeking a special permit and variances to raze the existing house and build a new one. Mr. Foster moved to find hardship due to the oddly shaped lot and the limited access to the lot. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garabedian and passed unanimously. Board of Appeals February 9, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Foster moved to grant a variance under 210-5E for 13 feet of relief for front setback. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garabedian and passed unanimously. Mr. Foster moved to grant a variance under 210-5D for 60 feet of relief for the frontage of the way. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garabedian and passed unanimously. Mr. Foster moved to grant a variance under 210-128B for an increase over 25% to an extent of 140% on a finding that the proposed change would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garabedian and passed unanimously. Mr. Garabedian moved to grant a special permit under 210-128 for a change to a pre-existing non-conforming structure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Foster and passed unanimously. Documents Used: Uniform Application for Special Permit/Petition for Variance with supporting documents 203 West Main Street – Davis Members Voting: Mr. Warren, Mr. Garabedian, Ms. Rose, Mr. Foster, Mr. DiMascio Mr. Foster moved to find hardship due to the shape and narrowness of the lot and the location of wetlands at the rear of the lot. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garabedian and passed unanimously. Mr. Garabedian moved to grant a variance under 210-128B for an expansion over 25% to an extent of 110% on a finding it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Mr. Foster and passed unanimously. Mr. Garabedian moved to grant a special permit under 210-128 for a change to a pre-existing non-conforming structure in accordance with the plans and the condition of razing all buildings on the attached plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Foster and passed unanimously. Mr. Garabedian moved to grant a special permit under 210-119 for 7 feet of relief from the side setback. The motion was seconded by Mr. Foster and passed unanimously. Documents Used: Uniform Application for Special Permit/Petition for Variance with supporting documents 7:25 PM Applicant of Special Permit 7 Old Farm Road – Germain Andre Germain, Applicant Members Sitting: Mr. Warren, Mr. Garabedian, Ms. Rose, Mr. Foster, Mr. DiMascio Members in Attendance: Mr. Peirce, Ms. Clark, Ms. Knight Mr. Germain stated he is requesting a special permit to construct a storage shed on the side of his property. He stated he is requesting side yard setback relief of 20 feet. Mr. Garabedian asked the size of the proposed shed. Mr. Germain stated it is 14’x12’. Mr. Garabedian asked if there was a reason it couldn’t be 30 feet from the side. Mr. Germain stated it would be too close to the septic and the property slopes back and there are wetlands. Ms. Clark asked if the lot is wooded. Mr. Germain stated yes, and Board of Appeals February 9, 2011 Page 3 of 5 they would have to cut down trees in the back. Mr. Peirce asked if the shed will require a foundation. Mr. Germain stated no, and that the Building Inspector said it would just need to be put on crushed stone. Mr. Warren asked if there were any public comments and there were none. Mr. Peirce asked if the applicant has had any response from the notice. Mr. Germain stated there have been no problems from the few people he has heard from. Mr. Garabedian moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Foster and passed unanimously. Mr. Garabedian moved to grant a special permit under 210-119 for 20’ of relief on a finding of the topography and subject to any applicable restrictions or requirements in the deed and the condition the applicant plant evergreen screening between the shed and the lot line. The motion was seconded by Mr. Foster and passed unanimously. Documents Used: Notice of Public Hearing Uniform Application for Special Permit/Petition for Variance with supporting documents 7:40 PM Continuation of Public Hearing 58-60 West Main Street – Golden Pond Resident Care Corp. Wayne R. Davies, Attorney Kerry Kunst, Applicant Joe Markey, Planning Board Dave Glenn – Fay, Spofford & Thorndike Allen Cloutier – Fay, Spofford & Thorndike Members Sitting: Mr. Warren, Mr. Garabedian, Ms. Rose, Mr. Foster, Mr. DiMascio Members in Attendance: Mr. Peirce, Ms. Clark, Ms. Knight Mr. Warren stated the last meeting ended with Atty. Davies giving his presentation of condition #11. Mr. Markey handed out packets to the Board. He stated this has been a long lengthy process for the applicant but the Planning Board followed the bylaws and did everything correctly. He stated he does not see this as adversarial between the Planning Board and the Zoning Board and stated that both Boards are on team and one Hopkinton. Mr. Markey presented his slide presentation to the Board and concluded that the Planning Board approved the Site Plan with conditions. Mr. Foster stated that he doesn’t see any reference to what the Board of Appeals considered from FS&T on October 14, 2009. Mr. Glenn stated that their January 21st letter to the Planning Board included two memos presented to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Garabedian read from the October 14, 2009 memo and stated that was what was presented to the Board of Appeals and then in August 2010 the Board got another letter from FS&T (which he read a section from). He then stated there is a fundamental inconsistency between the 2 letters. Mr. Garabedian then asked why the information provided to the Board of Appeals was different from the information provided to the Planning Board and asked why on the basis of a single traffic study did the information change from October 2009 to August 2010. Mr. Cloutier stated he doesn’t believe their recommendation changed that much. He stated that with the addition to a left turn pocket the traffic would be essentially non-existent. He stated that after making the recommendations in October they did not get into specifics of what the designs would be. He stated once you start getting into the design you could have different opinions. Mr. Foster asked if the band aid was working at the existing driveway. Board of Appeals February 9, 2011 Page 4 of 5 Mr. Cloutier stated it helps. Mr. Foster asked if that works at the existing entrance then why wouldn’t that work at the other entrance. Mr. Cloutier stated they are just looking at what works best. Mr. Markey stated the DPW raised concerns with the Board of Appeals condition. Mr. Garabedian stated the Board focused on this for months and his expectations are that when there is a single traffic study there wouldn’t be two different recommendations. Atty. Davies stated they went to the Conservation Commission and expressed the opinions of FS&T and they said it was in wetlands and they wouldn’t provide any assurance that what FS&T recommended could be done and that is why the Board of Appeals went to this alternative. Mr. Peirce asked if anyone asked FS&T to give a basic estimate of what this would cost to design. Mr. Cloutier stated he did not believe so. Mr. Markey stated it did come up but the applicant was unwilling to provide specific costs. Atty. Davies stated the traffic study stated that Golden Pond will have minimal impact on West Main Street. He stated that 24 cars turning in a peak hours are not a problem. Mr. Foster stated the question is “what is reasonable”. He stated that yes it would be nice to add another lane but what is reasonable for this applicant. Mr. Markey stated that the Planning Board saw that given the high volume of traffic there would be a safety issue with vehicular movement. He stated they asked the applicant for an alternative plan worked out with the DPW. Mr. Garabedian stated the Board of Appeals based their decision from the comments from FS&T and the numbers were quite small relevant to the amount of traffic. Atty. Davies submitted supplemental submission #7. The Board reviewed the submission. Atty. Davies stated the conditions are not related to the decision criteria even though the decision was written that way. He read condition #1 and stated they suggest the decision fails to provide any facts to support this condition. Mr. Markey stated it is not a condition that hasn’t been seen before with others. Atty. Davies stated they did not hear any facts to support it. Mr. Markey read criterion B and asked how we can inspect for compliance without the Director of Municipal Inspections. Atty. Davies read condition #2 and stated it was unreasonable and not supported by facts. Mr. Markey stated they are trying to find ways to ensure this happens and one way is to state so in a condition that the applicant use reasonable ways. Atty. Davies stated this is vague and ambiguous and the conditions are unreasonable. He stated they have no opposition to condition #3. He stated that his client will comply with condition #4 whether it is in the decision or not but it lacks any factual basis. He stated condition #5 is vague and unenforceable. He stated condition #9 is unreasonable. Mr. Markey stated we have seen this before and it has been upheld. Mr. Garabedian asked if this is covered by the review of the landscaping plan. Mr. Weismantal stated not necessarily. Atty. Davies stated they wouldn’t object if it was based on facts in the record. He stated they do not object to condition #10 but it is already in the Board of Appeals decision. He stated there is nothing in the record to support condition #14. He stated it is in the Zoning bylaws but not in the decision criteria. Mr. Peirce asked if these conditions were ever put in writing before the closing. Mr. Markey stated yes. Mr. Warren stated it was past 10pm and the meeting needed to end and be continued. Mr. Foster moved to continue the public hearing until February 17, 2011 at 7pm. The motion was seconded by Mr. Peirce and passed unanimously. Documents Used: Presentation material submitted by Joe Markey titled “Planning Board Decision of Site Plan Review Supplemental submission #7 dated February 9, 2011 from Atty. Davies October 14, 2009 letter from Fay, Spofford & Thorndike titled “Review of Traffic Impact Assessment” August 26, 2010 memo from Fay, Spofford & Thorndike titled “Justification for Left Turn Lane” Mr. Garabedian moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Board of Appeals February 9, 2011 Page 5 of 5 Meeting Adjourned: 10:15 PM Adina Wright, Administrative Assistant