Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes
Date: June 7, 2010
Members in Attendance: M Hickey, R Havener, P Mulkerron, L Godin, S Landgren, T Dooling, C Odunukwe and K Coughlin
Members Absent: None
Location of Meeting: 3rd Floor Training Meeting Room
Time Called to Order: 7:30pm
Time Adjourned: 11:50pm
Time: 7:30pm
Mr. Havener called the meeting to order and opened the public meeting.
Mr. Havener motioned approve the minutes as submitted, reviewed, and amended from the May 10, 2010 public hearing. Mr. Odunukwe seconded the motion
Approved by all present Board members 4-0:
R Havener, P Mulkerron, T Dooling, and C Odunukwe
Time: 7:35pm
Petitioner: Edmund and Jillian Walker
Petitioner’s Address: 30 Bradford Road
Location of Subject Property: 30 Bradford Road
Map and Lot: 13:121
Case #: 2010-019
Relief Requested: Special Permit – Family Suite
Audience: Farida Hamide - 32 Bradford Road and Sandra Coburn – 26 Bradford Road
Voting Members: M Hickey, R Havener, P Mulkerron, T Dooling and C Odunukwe
Concerns/Discussion: Edmund Walker stated he is requesting to install a Family Suite within the existing dwelling for his wife’s brother, Benjamin T Jackson, Jr. who is visually impaired therefore he does not drive, E Walker submitted an aerial photo of the property and reviewed the following:
· Purchased home in 2009 with the goal to convert a portion of the house into a Family Suite.
· B Jackson is 56 years old and autistic.
· Exiting parking is plentiful with a two (2) car garage as well as four (4) off street parking spaces in the driveway.
· No separate entrance to the Family Suite.
· Small galley kitchen.
· Shared common area with the existing dwelling
· Family Suite has one (1) bedroom with separate bath.
M Hickey confirmed the Family Suite will be constructed internally and not work is proposed to the exterior of the existing structure. R Havener reviewed the Family Suite requirements with E Walker and established the proposed Family Suite is compliant with Special Permit requirements.
Abutter Farida Hamide requested that the proposed work not be conducted into the early evening hours to accommodate an early bed time for an early rising employment. E Walker agreed to suspend work before 8pm each day. Abutter Sandra Coburn expressed concern regarding the possibility of the property being utilized as a two (2) family dwelling. M Hickey stated that the Family Suite can only be occupied by B Jackson, any change in occupant would require review and approval from this Board and additionally if the Family Suite was no longer occupied the stove would have to be removed.
Action: R Havener motioned to approve the Special Permit for a Family Suite, subject to conditions. P Mulkerron seconded the motion.
Vote 5-0 to approve
Yes - M Hickey, R Havener, P Mulkerron, T Dooling and C Odunukwe
Time: 7:55pm
Petitioner: Roche Brothers
Petitioner’s Address: 150 West Central Street
Location of Subject Property: 150 West Central Street
Map and Lot: 41:97
Case #: 2010-020
Relief Requested: Modification to prior decision # 960025
Audience: Chris O’Brien – 111 Speen Street
Voting Members: M Hickey, R Havener, P Mulkerron, L Godin and S Landgren
Concerns/Discussion: Richard Glaser introduced himself and the following:
Frank Killilea – Stratton Development Management
Joseph Persechino – Appledore Engineering
Charles Bromely – Plan B Retail Design and Project Management LLC
Richard Ordway – Roche Brothers
R Glaser indicated on the application that they are requesting a minor modification to the prior decision #960025 to repave the parking areas, install additional landscaping, signage, Special Permit in the APD, and changes to signage. R Glaser reviewed the following:
· The Conservation Commission stated that the proposed work is within the buffer zone.
· Submitted WPA Form 2 which states that they are not required to file a NOI.
· No land disturbance permit is required.
· The proposal is for the maintenance of the site, resurface parking lot and change the shape of the lighting poles.
· Much effort has been put into reviewing the proposed lighting changes.
· There are 331 existing parking spaces; with the additional landscaping the parking will be reduced to 320 spaces, which he believes to be a very minor modification.
· This Board determines if a modification is required, if it is determined that it is a minor modification than no written decision needs be completed.
· A Special Permit in the APD is required. If the proposed change will result in 20% more impervious surface, however, this site already contains in excess of 20% impervious surface; therefore it is up to the Board to make the determination as to whether a Special Permit is required.
Charles Bromley reviewed the following:
· Currently renovating the interior and exterior of the building, major façade changes including the Bank and Walgreen’s as well.
· New lighting will be added within the proposed new landscaped islands, there are two (2) options of lighting poles to choose from.
· Each proposed landscape island will reduce the parking by two (2) spaces
· Additional landscaping is proposed along the outside edge of the property along Speen Street.
· Replacement lights are 27 feet in height with a 3 foot base for a total of 30 feet.
M Hickey reviewing the submitted application asked if there is a lighting plan. R Glaser stated he had only one copy and submitted it to the Board. M Hickey asked for clarification in regard to the definition of the “minor modification” being sought. R Glaser reviewed the changes and stated it is their thought that the proposal is just a minor modification to the prior decision for the proposed changes. R Glaser stated the proposal is (1) reduction of parking space to 320, (2) Special Permit for APD, if required, (3) signage modification which includes monument sign as well the exit and entrance signs. C Bromely stated the monument sign will have a new landscape area with a masonry enclosure at the base; the size of the sign will remain the same 10 x 8 feet. C Bromley
additionally added that the entrance and exit signs will be located in the same locations, though they are proposing to update the signs. M Hickey asked what (if any) relief is being requested for signage. R Glaser stated that they are asking the Board to “bless” the signage due to the fact that there is no mention of signage in the original decision. L Godin added that this site is in the RG zone so the 10x8 foot sign does not conform, the RG zone allows for only a 2 foot sign, this needs to be addressed. M Hickey asked the Petitioner to address the Planning Board memo. R Glaser stated this is his first look at the memo and he stated they will cooperate for the primary use of this site. J Persechino addressed the Board and corrected the parking calculations to an existing 325 spaces which includes 9 handicap spaces, which will be reduced to 302 parking spaces with 9 handicap spaces for a total of 311. J Persechino reviewed the
following:
· Additional 3,000 square feet of green space be added
· Traffic bumps to be installed
· Two additional catch basins to be installed at the rear of the building, existing catch basins will be replaced to upgrade
· A 2,500 gallon grease trap to be installed.
P Mulkerron asked why the proposal does not include the installation of an Aquifer Recharge System. J Persechino indicted that the Conservation Commission did not want to see that much disturbance at the site, the installation of an Aquifer Recharge System would be a much larger and longer disturbance; he additionally added that no one wanted the installation of an infiltration system. P Mulkerron added that the installation of the Aquifer Recharge System would better protect the environment. S Landgren, reading the DPW’s memo, stated that they were requesting the installation of infiltration system. R Havener asked if the existing one way entrance can be modified to make it more difficult for a patron to leave and make an illegal turn. J Persechino stated the plan modifies that entrance but
it can again be reviewed further. R Havener stated the plan is reasonable and we can instruct the Petitioner to pave Watson Street. M Hickey asked who the property owner is of Watson Street. R Glaser stated that the land owner owns the entire site and the Roche Brothers site is there by a long term lease. R Havener asked what are the terms of the lease. R Glaser stated he did not know. L Godin stated the Board can request that information be submitted.
Chris O’Brien – 111 Speen Street, addressed the Board stating concerns regarding trucks entering an exiting the site, he has in the past had trucks damage a portion of his front lawn in their attempts to back into the site as well as maneuver the tight turn exit from the site. The Board had a lengthy discussion with C O’Brien in regards to his concerns. L Godin and S Landgren asked C O’Brien for a suggestion to alleviate his concerns. C O’Brien stated he believed by widening the entrance/exit could alleviate the problem. L Godin stated that the solutions to the problems must be submitted by the Petitioners, it is their responsibility to provide solutions to resolve the problems. S Landgren stated it is the engineer’s responsibility to modify the site plan
to indicate the radius. M Hickey asked for further clarification of the APD. R Glaser responded that that he represents a lot of people on West Central Street, and no one wants more water, the site is already over 20% impervious and will remain the same, Conservation should make the determination of this proposal triggers the granting of a Special Permit. L Godin stated she wants the Conservation Commission to submit in writing what their determination is. The Board along with the Petitioner discusses appointing a subcommittee to do a site visit and further review the proposal before the next hearing. M Hickey appointed L Godin and S Landgren to the subcommittee to work with the Petitioner. Both L Godin and S Landgren agreed. K Coughlin agreed to be an alternate member if warranted. S Landgren and P Mulkerron stated the additional information required is, but not limited to:
· Truck entrance and egress – radius to be indicated on plan
· Lease terms
· Revision of one way entrance
· Pave Watson Street
· Submittal and approval of a Maintenance Covenant
· Which lighting lamp is to be installed
· Conforming signage
Action: M Hickey appointed L Godin and S Landgren to a subcommittee to work with the Petitioner and continued the hearing until July 12, 2010 at 8:20pm
Time: 9:35pm
Petitioner: George Richards on behalf of the Mary Ann Morse Nursing Home
Petitioner’s Address: 45 Union Street
Location of Subject Property: 45 Union Street
Map and Lot: 44:364
Case #: 2010-021
Relief Requested: Modification to Decision # 2009-027
Audience: Jan Phlegar and Robert Vierling – 11 Malden Street
Voting Members: R Havener (Acting Chair), P Mulkerron, T Dooling, C Odunukwe, and K Coughlin
Concerns/Discussion: George Richards introduced:
Allan Mclean – Acting CEO MAM
Rick Killgrew – CFO MAM
G Richards stated they are requesting a deletion or modification of condition #8 of the prior decision which limits the number of beds to 124. G Richards reviewed the following:
· He believed this to be a housekeeping matter or a misunderstanding; he believed this was never discussed in a public hearing.
· The prior decision sough relief to allow for the construction of an addition to the MAM nursing home, they did not request the number of beds to be reduced from the 160 allowed in the original decision. Although they represented at the public hearings that the addition would only net an increase of one (1) bed they did not request and decrease in the bed count. The bed count is regulated by the State.
· Currently licensed by the State for 135 beds.
· Requested clarification on how that condition # 8 became part of the decision, they did not agree to a change in the bed count.
R Havener stated that on several occasions it was represented to the Board that the addition would only increase the bed count by one (1) bed, and based on the abutters numerous concerns in regards to traffic, noise and lighting the Board conditioned the decision to allow for, as represented, 124 total beds. R Havener additionally stated the Board put a lot of thought in the written decision and as the approved minutes reflect condition #8 was discussed at the public hearing on April 5, 2010. T Dooling, L Godin and S Landgren all stated that they distinctly recall discussing the number of bed issue.
Alan Mclean stated that they attended the last hearing knowing they had 160 beds and they didn’t think the bed count was an issue. R Havener stated that the request for an addition with an increase of only one (1) bed was what the Board reviewed with the abutters and based on abutters concerns the decision was conditioned to the number of beds represented and reviewed. R Havener asked what happens if you were to put a 3rd floor onto the building. A McLean stated a 3rd floor could and would never be added. Rick Killgrew stated that each bed represents $75K-100K in revenue.
Jan Phlegar addressed the Board and stated she wanted to remind the Board that the issue if a question of density and to preserve a quality of space. J Phlegar stated that she wants to see a concise written decision; she believes the increase in beds could result in additional traffic and noise. G Richards responded that they did not seek a change in the number of beds. L Godin stated that it was represented the additional would only generate an increase in one (1) bed. G Richards stated it was never their intention to have the number of beds changed. A Mclean stated the State regulates the number of beds. R Havener responded that zoning should regulate the beds. R Havener asked the Petitioners to draft the modification verbiage and submit to the Board for review and
discussion.
Action: R Havener granted a continuance at 10:10pm to allow for the Petitioner to submit a written document with the requested modification verbiage.
Time: 10:10pm
Petitioner: John and Erin Stracuzzi
Petitioner’s Address: 5 Hudson Street
Location of Subject Property: 5 Hudson Street
Map and Lot: 49:38B
Case #: 2010-022
Relief Requested: Chapter 40A, Section 6 Finding to raze the existing single family dwelling.
Audience: Steven Guiney – 9 Proctor Street
Voting Members: M Hickey, P Mulkerron, L Godin, C Odunukwe and K Coughlin
Concerns/Discussion: John Stracuzzi introduced himself, his wife Erin and the representative from the Modular Home Company. J Stracuzzi submitted color photos of the existing dwelling and surrounding neighborhood and reviewed the following:
· Existing dwelling has insufficient heating, new home will be nicer
· Proposed modular home
· They have lived in Natick for approximately 10 years
· The lot is pre existing non conforming as to area and frontage
· New dwelling conforms to all set back requirements
· Proposed house is 2 ½ stories
· There is a mixture of all different kinds of dwellings in the area
P Mulkerron asked what are the existing square footage and the proposed square footage. J Stracuzzi did not know. P Mulkerron and S Landgren do the calculations and although the percentage of lot coverage complies it is over what has been listed on the application. P Mulkerron stated the Board will need revised site plan with that correct calculations as well as the rear yard set back, again it appears to be conforming, but the rear yard set back needs to be depicted on the site plan as well. J Stracuzzi agreed.
Abutter Steven Guiney – 9 Proctor Street spoke in support of the project.
Action: L Godin motioned to approve the request, subject to conditions. C Odunukwe seconded the motion.
Vote 5-0 to approve.
M Hickey, P Mulkerron, L Godin, C Odunukwe and K Coughlin
Time: 10:30pm – Reopened Continued Hearing and Deliberations
Petitioner: George Richards on behalf of the Mary Ann Morse Nursing Home
Petitioner’s Address: 45 Union Street
Location of Subject Property: 45 Union Street
Map and Lot: 44:364
Case #: 2010-021
Relief Requested: Modification to Decision # 2009-027
Audience: No comments from the Board or Public
Voting Members: R Havener (Acting Chair), P Mulkerron, T Dooling, C Odunukwe, and K Coughlin
Concerns/Discussion: The Board read into the record the written verbiage submitted by G Richards. L Godin stated that although she is not sitting on the case that the number of beds was discussed on many occasions but she feels comfortable with the submitted verbiage. R Havener and T Dooling agreed.
Action: R Havener motioned to reopen the continued hearing. P Mulkerron motioned to approve the modification of condition #8 as stated, subject to conditions. K Coughlin seconded the motion.
Vote 4-1
Yes - P Mulkerron, T Dooling, C Odunukwe, and K Coughlin
No – R Havener
Time: 10:35pm
Petitioner: Heather Hopkins Agent for Icon Companies on behalf of CVS
Petitioner’s Address: 2 Phoebe Way, Worcester and 1 CVS Drive, Woonsocket, RI
Location of Subject Property: 137 West Central Street
Map and Lot: 41:85A
Case #: 2010-010
Relief Requested: Modification to the prior decision # 960032 for signage relief
Audience: None
Voting Members: T Dooling (Acting Chair) P Mulkerron, S Landgren, C Odunukwe, and K Coughlin
Concerns/Discussion: Heather Hopkins submitted a revised plan and stated that all the other signs previously requested are no longer requested. CVS is only requesting two (2) 20 square feet “Minute Clinic” signs, one (1) on West Central St and one (1) on Speen Street. H Hopkins additionally reviewed:
· She could not find in the Bylaws how to determine if the existing monument sign complies with the town’s illumination Bylaw.
· She contacted the Building Commissioner and he informed her that signs hanging on the inside window are not considered signs.
The Board read the sign description from the Bylaw and the Board unanimously agreed that signs hung in the windows are indeed signage; therefore CVS must remove all signs in the windows to be in compliance. K Coughlin wanted to make a correction for the record; the sign originally on the rear of CVS has been removed, so noted. The Board and H Heather both express frustration over this request. T Dooling emphasized to the Petitioner that CVS has not been cooperative or compliant. The Board stated that a decision will not be rendered until a representative from CVS attends the July 12, 2010 hearing. The Board states believe they have been more than patient with CVS but CVS needs to address the matter directly, the existing signage, proposed signage, illegal signs, and compliant luminary signs.
Action: T Dooling motioned to continue the hearing until the July 12, 2010 public hearing at 8:30pm requesting the following additional information. K Coughlin seconded the motion.
1. Proof of illumination compliance for front monument sign
2. Proof of compliance of the removal of all non approved illegal signs
3. Clarification from the building Inspector on his opinion if signs are hung on the inside window of the site, if they are considered signs
4. A CVS Representative is required to attend the July 12, 2010 public hearing.
Time: 11:10pm
Petitioner: Thomas White, Andrew Cohen Architects, Property Owner Matthew McGinity and Engineer Bob Drake
Petitioner’s Address: 30 Boston Post Road, Wayland, MA 01776
Location of Subject Property: 9 Mercer Road
Map and Lot: 24-90I
Case #: 2010-014
Relief Requested: Chapter 40A, Section 6 Finding, Special Permit – APD and Site Plan Review
Audience: None
Voting Members: M Hickey, L Godin, T Dooling, C Odunukwe, and K Coughlin
Concerns/Discussion: T Dooling read into the record the newly submitted opinions from the BOH and the DPW in reference to the proposed 3,500 square foot, one story addition. Thomas White reviewed:
· Conservation Commission didn’t have quorum at their last meeting but they will comply with all requirements set by the Commission.
· They are negotiating the O&M with the DPW department; they will finalize record and meet all the requirements of the O&M. The Petitioners will maintain a log at their site to record all maintenance of the site.
· Sprinklers are not required.
Bob Drake, referring to the revised site plan dated 5/12/10, indicated that was the plan to approve. M Hickey stated he was comfortable granting the request with a condition that the Petitioner will have to comply with all requirements set forth by the other Town departments having jurisdiction over this matter.
Action: L Godin motioned to approve the request, subject to conditions. T Dooling seconded the motion.
Vote 4-1 to approve
Yes - M Hickey, L Godin, T Dooling, and K Coughlin
No – C Odunukwe
Meeting Adjourned: 11:50pm
Meeting Minutes approved: _________________
| 
