Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20091028 - Board of Appeals - Meeting MinutesTOWN OF HOPKINTON OFFICE OF TowffgfHEJVEDBOARD OF APPEALS OPKINTON lOla FEB 2S A 028TOWN HALL 18 MAIN STREET -THIRD FLOOR TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE HOPKINTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01748-3209 (508) 497-0012 THOMAS J. GARABEDIAN, Chairman WWW.HOPKINTON.ORG RORY WARREN, Vice Chairman ZBAChair@Hopkinton.org TINA M. ROSE, Clerk ZBAClerk@Hopkinton.org Minutes of the Board of Appeals Minutes: October 28, 2009 Called to Order: 7:00 PM Town Hall, 2nd Floor Adjourned: 9:50 PM Members Present: Thomas Garabedian, Chairman; Rory Warren, Vice Chairman; Tina Rose, Clerk; Robert Foster; Michael DiMascio (7:20pm); Michael Peirce; June Clark; Stephen Goldstein Members Absent: David Barnes Others Present: 7:05PM Administrative Session of the Board of Appeals 18 Elizabeth Road -Bahri Mr. Peirce stated he dramatically modified a prior decision from another appeal to come up with this draft. The Board reviewed the draft decision. Mr. DiMascio arrived at 7:20pm. Mr. Peirce stated he would update the draft and send it to Ms. Wright to file. Golden Pond Resident Care Corp. Mr. Garabedian reviewed the discussions from the last public meeting regarding Golden Pond for the benefit of Mr. Foster and Ms. Rose. He stated he asked the members to review all the submissions so they would be in a better position to review the findings of fact. He stated the question is whether a variance standard can be met. Mr. Foster stated the hardship has to do with the geometry of the property. Mr. DiMascio stated he still does not understand the applicant having the right to reduce the buffer without going to the Planning Board. 7:30PM Continuation ofPubJic Hearing 50,58, & 60 West Main Street -Golden Pond Resident Care Corp. Wayne R. Davies, Attorney Kerry Kunst, Vice President of Golden Pond Joe Marquedant, Architect Atty. Davies passed out a checklist and gave the Board an update on their status with the Conservation Commission. He also stated they have a courtesy visit with the Planning Board on November 16,2009. 58-60 West Main Street Atty. Davies stated they are requesting a special permit under 210-1 OC, a special permit under 210-119, and a variance under 210-146B.2. Mr. Garabedian asked if the applicant has had follow-up discussions with the abutters regarding the screening. Atty. Davies stated there is no opposition on record to this screening plan. 50 West Main Street Atty. Davies stated they are requesting a special permit under 210-128 and a finding for the protected use. He stated he would like the Board to acknowledge the building permits on file. He stated that regarding phase 2, a change in protected use would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood and that minor changes to a protected use are allowed under 210-128. He stated that regarding phase 3, these are minor changes to similar uses and are not more detrimental to the neighborhood. Atty. Davies then stated they are also requesting a special permit under 210-119 and a variance under 21 0-146B.2. Atty. Davies stated other issues include criteria in the decision of what constitutes exercise of rights under a variance. He then recommended the Building Inspector police the issues of the child care drop­ off/pickup area, the snow removal area, and the dumpster. He asked the Board to address these issues and include them in the decision. Mr. Garabedian asked if the applicant is willing to widen the east lane if the Conservation Commission allows for it and Mr. Kunst stated yes. Mr. Peirce asked if FS&T evaluated the possibility that a number of these uses will occur at the same time and draw different audiences. Atty. Davies stated yes, it was looked at in the traffic study and considered and then concluded that there would not be an impact on traffic. Mr. Foster stated they take the "worst case" and analyze as if all the uses are going on at the same time. Mr. Foster asked to hear the argument regarding the soil conditions. Mr. Marquedant reviewed the detailed plan with all the site features with the Board and stated even though the property is 10 acres, it includes the pond, the boarding vegetated wetlands, and the buffer zones. He stated a great deal of the site is unusable. Atty. Davies referred to supplement #10 and stated the Board just heard testimony that due to the circumstances of the soi I cond itions, shape of the lot, and topography it wi II cause substantial hardship to use the lot as intended under the bylaws. He then stated there would be no detriment to the public good. Mr. Foster asked if the Conservation Commission was going to give a separate Order of Conditions for each lot. Atty. Davies stated no. Mr. Foster stated he thought the Board would be a lot more comfortable if they had a positive statement from the neighbors regarding the buffer. Atty. Davies stated they cannot force them to respond. Mr. Goldstein stated he thinks the issue with totality is not a small issue and there should be a written submission from the engineers of what the hardship is as it relates to 58-60 West Main Street. Atty. Davies stated the Board has heard a lot of testimony but Mr. Marquedant can summarize it in writing if the Board requests it. Mr. Peirce asked is the landscaping plan has a degree of specificity that the Board is comfortable with. Atty. Davies stated they submitted a plan from Western Nurseries but requested to let him know if the Board would like changes. Mr. DiMascio stated the plan has virtually no information, no date, and no author. Atty. Davies stated if the Board would like it to be modified then they will fix it. Mr. Foster suggested it be part of Mr. Marquedant's plan package. Mr. DiMascio stated he spoke with the Mass. Department of Health and they define acute care as a hospital facility. Atty. Davies stated they have asked numerous people and acute care is immediate short term medical care. Board of Appeals October 28, 2009 Page 2 of3 Mr. Garabedian asked ifthere were any public comments. Sandy Altamura, 33 Elm Street stated offices are not allowed in this area with a special permit. She stated acute care is 24 hour around the clock care and this would introduce a new use in this area that is not allowed. She stated if the applicant wants this to be here then the town needs to rezone the area. She also stated she does not think the applicant should have 7 years for phase 3. Evelyn , 35 Elm Street stated when Golden Pond was first built the applicant did everything he said he would do and she appreciated it. She stated the place came out very good and she has had no problems with it. She also stated she feels the extension is warranted and she is not against this at all. Atty. Davies requested a continuation of the public hearing. Mr. Warren moved to continue the public hearing until November 18, 2009 at 7:30pm. The motion was seconded by Mr. Peirce and passed unanimously. Mr. Peirce moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Meeting Adjourned: 9:50 PM Adina Wright, Administrative Assistant Board of Appeals October 28, 2009 Page 3 of3 I