Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes
Date: July 12, 2010
Members in Attendance: M Hickey, R Havener, L Godin, S Landgren, T Dooling, C Odunukwe, and K Coughlin
Members Absent: P Mulkerron
Location of Meeting: 3rd Floor School Committee Meeting Room
Time Called to Order: 7:30pm
Time Adjourned: 10:15pm
Time: 7:30pm
Mr. Havener called the meeting to order and opened the public meeting.
Mr. Havener motioned approve the meeting minutes from the June 7, 2010 public meeting, as submitted, reviewed, and amended. Mr. Dooling seconded the motion
Approved by all present Board members 4-0:
Documentation: June 7, 2010 meeting minutes.
R Havener, M Hickey, T Dooling, and C Odunukwe
Time: 7:31pm
Mr. Hickey informed the Board that Mr. Mulkerron is unable to attend tonight’s hearing.
Time: 7:36pm
Petitioner: Star Tower Company, LLC
Petitioner’s Address: 655 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210
Location of Subject Property: 42 Leach Lane
Map and Lot: 54:80
Case #: 2009-007
Documents: Six (6) month extension request letter dated June 8, 2010.
Relief Requested: Six (6) month extension to granted Variance(s).
Audience: None
Voting Members: R Havener, M Hickey, T Dooling and C Odunukwe
Concerns/Discussion: 2009 decision filed with the Town Clerk on July 14, 2009.
Action: Pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 10, Mr. Havener motioned to grant the one (1) time, six (6) month extension as requested. Mr. Dooling seconded the motion.
Vote: 4-0 in favor
R Havener, M Hickey, T Dooling, and C Odunukwe
Time: 7:37pm
Petitioner: Kevin and Karen Johnson
Petitioner’s Address: 21 Oakridge Avenue
Location of Subject Property: 21 Oakridge Avenue
Map and Lot: 29:9
Case #: 2009-017
Documents: Six (6) month extension request letter dated June 15, 2010.
Relief Requested: Six (6) month extension to granted relief.
Audience: None
Voting Members: R Havener, M Hickey, T Dooling, C Odunukwe, S Landgren, L Godin, and K Coughlin
Concerns/Discussion: 2009 decision filed with the Town Clerk on July 14, 2009.
Action: Pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 6, Mr. Havener motioned to grant the one (1) time, six (6) month extension as requested. Mr. Odunukwe seconded the motion.
Vote: 7-0 in favor (all present members)
R Havener, M Hickey, T Dooling, C Odunukwe, S Landgren, L Godin, and K Coughlin
Time: 7:40pm
Petitioner: Kim Keough with Paul and Stacy Spurling of Home Projects, Inc.
Petitioner’s Address: 135 Union Street
Location of Subject Property: 135 Union Street
Map and Lot: 54:23
Case #: 2010-023
Documents: Denial Letter, Application, Certified Plot Plan, Building Plans, Color Photos, Locus Map, Town of Natick Department submittals from the BOH, DPW, ConCom, and Planning Board.
Relief Requested: Chapter 40A, Section 6 Finding
Audience: None
Voting Members: M Hickey, R Havener, T Dooling, C Odunukwe, K Coughlin
Concerns/Discussion: The existing dwelling is non conforming; request is to add an addition that will alter but not increase the existing non conformity. Paul Stacey reviewed the following:
· One story addition to rear of dwelling, no foundation, addition to be constructed on sonotubes.
· Materials of construction will be similar to the existing dwelling.
· Multiple options were reviewed; the location of the addition was determined so as not to interfere with the existing utility lines.
· They have contacted the Board of Health and the Department of Public Works to discuss and address their submitted concerns. The Petitioner agrees to work with those departments, to their satisfaction, for the construction of the proposed addition.
Action: Mr. Havener motioned to approve the request, subject to conditions. Mr. Odunukwe seconded the motion
Vote – 5-0 to approve
M Hickey, R Havener, T Dooling, C Odunukwe, K Coughlin
Time: 8:00pm
Petitioner: James DeLuca, Attorney Richard Glaser, Bob Egan – Egan Associates, Robert Michaud – MDM Transportation Consultants, Joseph Sullivan – MacCarthy and Sullivan Engineering, Dr. Deshang Wang – Carr Research Laboratory and Steve Cosmos – Landscape Architect
Petitioner’s Address: 115 West Central Street
Location of Subject Property: 115 West Central Street
Map and Lot: 41:91, 92B and 92C
Case #: 2010-024
Documents: Denial Letter, Town of Natick Department Submittals from the ConCom, DPW, and BOH, Locus Plan, Existing Site Conditions Plan, Site Development Plan, Grading Plan with Existing Conditions, Grading Plan, Runoff Plan, Utility Plan, Detail Sheet, Siltation Control Plan, Landscape Plan, Lighting Plan, Locus Map, Town of Natick Department submittals from the Planning Board, DPW, BOH, DCR Construction/Access Permit and MasssDOT Highway Division District 3 Permit.
Relief Requested: To raze existing commercial building, construct new two (2) story commercial building, add parking, landscape and streetscape improvements, “appropriate findings as well as grant such relief, including, without limitation, a Special Permit for the Accessory Use (3D.2d), APD and other special permits and waivers necessary to permit the renovation of the site.”
Audience: None
Voting Members: M Hickey, R Havener, L Godin, S Landgren, and T Dooling.
Concerns/Discussion: The existing commercial structure (Nail Salon) will be razed and a new “strip mall” with drive thru accessibility is proposed to be constructed. First floor of the new structure will be commercial retail space and the second floor is proposed for office space use. The Planning Board’s submittal stated the application has insufficient information so they were unable to make comment or specific recommendations to this application. When asked, the representing attorney stated that there are no current tenants, it is the Petitioner’s hope that a bank will utilize the proposed drive thru and the office space will be targeted towards law offices or architect offices or the like. Mr. Havener expressed concern that the drive thru be leased to a fast food chain
and requested affirmation from the Petitioners that the drive thru not be used for a “fast food chain. Mr. Glaser stated that this request did not include the Special Permit required in order to use a drive thru for serving food. Mr. Glaser additionally reviewed:
· History of the site
· Proposal has been in the works for over two (2) years
· It is their understanding that the proposal meets all set back requirements
· 94 Parking spaces are proposed and 94 are required
· 10% Open Space is required and 14.4% is proposed
Mr. Hickey asked the Petitioner for clarification of the submittal from the Planning Board that stated the Application was incomplete. Mr. Glaser stated he was not sure what the Planning Board is referring to, he believes the application to be, “fairly good.”
Joe Sullivan, MacCarthy and Sullivan reviewed the following:
· Existing commercial Nail Salon and two (2) sheds will be razed on the site.
· Accessory landscaping use will have a separate entrance
· Have received permits for the entrances and the exits
· It is their understanding that this proposal meets all dimensional requirements
· Proposal has 94 parking spaces
· The parking requirement was calculated by square footage, 25,000 square feet
· A bank is allowed by right but not the drive thru
Ms. Godin stated that the proposal is not a renovation but rather a redevelopment of the site with a substantial increase in the intensity of the site with a variety of unknown uses. Ms. Godin also stated additional concerns regarding an already horrendous traffic problem in this area and this redevelopment could possibly exasperate the problems. Mr. Dooling agreed that the traffic problems are of real concern.
Bob Egan, Egan Associates, reviewed;
· The proposal is an upgrade to what is currently existing
· 1st floor with have commercial activity, 2nd floor will be office space
· As of yet there are no leased tenants
· The existing landscaping building will be refaced to match the proposed new commercial structure
· Proposal is under the height requirement
Steve Cosmos, Landscape Architect, reviewed the proposed landscaping plan, and he stated that the new site will have exceptional landscaping because the owner of the property is in the landscaping business.
Dr. Deshang Wang – Carr Research Laboratory reviewed briefly the drainage and the renovation and use of the existing large underground tanks.
Mr. Glaser asked to suspend the hearing to move on to a hearing scheduled later in the evening in order to accommodate a Board member who has to leave. Mr. Havener stated that the hearing will have to be continued because although the plan is conceptionally the right move this Board needs additional input from the Concom, Planning Board, DPW, and BOH. Mr. Havener stated the proposal is in the infant stage and he added concerns about rendering a decision without knowing who the future tenants would be as well as the traffic complications. Mr. Hickey additionally added that the majority of the people will be coming and leaving at the same time from this site and that could also possibility exacerbate the existing traffic concerns. Mr. Odunukwe stated this proposal requires a full site plan
review.
Action: Mr. Hickey motioned to continue the hearing until August 16, 2010 at 8:20pm in order for the Petitioner to supply additional requested materials, including but not limited to:
· More specific artistic renderings
· Configuration of proposed office space
· Internal configuration of the entire site
· Site plan depicting the rear of the building and lot
· Additional clarification from the Planning Board
Time: 8:50pm
Petitioner: Roche Brothers
Richard Glaser - Attorney
Frank Killilea – Stratton Development Management
Joseph Persechino – Appledore Engineering
Charles Bromely – Plan B Retail Design and Project Management LLC
Richard Ordway – 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
Documents: Locus map, Town of Natick Department submittals from the Planning Board, DPW, and Conservation Commission, Determination of Applicability, WPA Form 2, Decision # 960025, Draft of letter to be sent to all Roche Brothers vendors in regards to deliveries, Truck turning plan, Operation and Maintenance Plan, 748 series light fixture spec sheet, Lighting plan, Draft of proposed decision (drafted by Richard Glaser), Large rolled plan, and Final set of submittal plans.
Relief Requested: Modification of Prior Decision for parking and landscaping improvements.
Audience: None
Voting Members: M Hickey, P Mulkerron (absent), R Havener, L Godin, S Landgren and alternate C Odunukwe
Concerns/Discussion: Mr. Hickey informed the Petitioners that Mr. Mulkerron was unable to attend tonight’s meeting and Mr. Odunukwe will replace him as the alternate and 5th voting member. Mr. Glaser is in agreement. Mr. Glaser submitted a maintenance plan for the parking lot. Joseph Persechino submitted a draft of a letter to be distributed to vendors for the proper traffic route for deliveries. Ms. Godin and Mr. Landgren were appointed as a subcommittee to conduct a site visit; the site visit was conducted at Roche Brothers on Monday, June 21, 2010 at the Roche Brothers trailer. Ms. Godin reviewed the following:
· The existing signs are by right, the existing signage is appropriate.
· The existing/proposed signage will not include any signs for the commercial entities on Watson Street.
· The 748 black, Colonial Series lighting is preferred by her, Mr. Landgren has a difference of opinion his preference is the Bishop Crook series. The Board was poled and the consensus was to utilize the 748 black Colonial Series lighting.
· Watson Street was viewed and both Ms. Godin and Mr. Landgren stated that it is not in disrepair and doesn’t at this time require repaving.
Mr. Hickey requested a final set of plans with all revisions. Mr. Glaser stated that they have a revised set with today’s date to be submitted tonight, final set of plans are submitted dated July 12, 2010.
Action: Mr. Landgren motioned to approve the decision, subject to conditions. Ms. Godin seconded the motion.
Vote 5-0 to approve
M Hickey, R Havener, L Godin, S Landgren, and C Odunukwe
Time: 9:20pm
Petitioner: Susan MacKenzie and Howard Frutkoff of Homefolks Design
Petitioner’s Address: 1 Zoar Street, aka 28 Edgewood Avenue
Location of Subject Property: 1 Zoar Street, aka 28 Edgewood Avenue
Map and Lot: 52:14A
Case #: 2010-025
Documents: Denial Letter, Locus Map, Certified Plot Plan (existing and proposed), Building Plans, Town of Natick Department submittals from the Planning Board, BOH, ConCom, and DPW, Abutter letters in support of the proposal, and color photos of the existing dwelling.
Relief Requested: Clarification and ruling requested for rear yard set back relief on this corner lot.
Audience: No
Voting Members: M Hickey, L Godin, T Dooling, C Odunukwe and K Coughlin
Concerns/Discussion: Ms. MacKenzie submitted color photos of the existing dwelling and reviewed the following:
· Property is located on a corner lot.
· House is situated oddly on the lot; the side yard is the back yard.
· Unable to build on the opposite side the existing dwelling due to a water problem.
Mr. Hickey referring to the denial letter submitted to the Board, which doesn’t state exactly why the building permit was denied, in his opinion he doesn’t think the relief required is either a variance or a finding, but rather to just overturn the building inspector’s denial. The Board is under that general consensus. Mr. Hickey notes for the record that one of the letters of support submitted is from the direct abutter to the proposed construction.
Mr. Odunukwe motions to approve, subject to conditions. Mr. Dooling seconded the motion.
Action: Mr. Odunukwe motioned to approve. Mr. Dooling seconded the motion.
Vote 5-0 to approve
M Hickey, L Godin, T Dooling, C Odunukwe and K Coughlin
Time: 9:40pm
Petitioner: Kevin and Danielle King
Petitioner’s Address: 22 Pitts Street
Location of Subject Property: 22 Pitts Street
Map and Lot: 51:271
Case #: 2010-026
Documents: Denial Letter, Locus Map, Certified Plot Plan, Building Plans, Town of Natick Department submittals from the Planning Board, DPW, BOH, and ConCom, Submittal from the Petitioners including support letters from abutters and photos of the existing dwelling and surrounding neighborhood.
Relief Requested: Variance and/or Chapter 40A Section 6 Finding.
Audience: No
Voting Members: M Hickey, L Godin, S Landgren, T Dooling and C Odunukwe
Concerns/Discussion: Kevin King submitted abutter’s letters of support and photos of the existing dwelling and neighborhood and reviewed the following:
· Proposal continues the existing non conforming rear dwelling line.
· The existing dwelling is slightly angled on the property.
· Proposed is a one story addition.
Mr. Dooling inquired as to the materials of construction for the addition. Mr. King stated the exterior materials will match the existing dwelling, cedar shingles. Mr. Landgren noted that there is only .2 foot difference between the existing and proposed rear building line. Mr. Hickey stated it was his opinion that the proposal was a good use of the space.
Action: Mr. Hickey motioned to approve the request, subject to conditions. Mr. Dooling seconded the motion.
Vote: 5-0 to approve
M Hickey, L Godin, S Landgren, T Dooling and C Odunukwe
Time: 9:55pm
Petitioner: Heather Dudko, Agent, ICON Identity Solutions on behalf of CVS
Petitioner’s Address: 137 West Central Street
Location of Subject Property: 137 West Central Street
Map and Lot: 41:85A
Case #: 2010-010
Documents: Denial Letter, Locus Map, Plans Legal Parcel Information, Plans indicating existing and proposed signage, Revised Plans indicating changes to the existing submittal, Town of Natick submittal letters from the ConCom, BOH, DPW, Planning Board (2), Decision # 960032 and 2003-070, Written continuances requests (3), and Letter to request to withdraw the application without prejudice.
Relief Requested: Modification to decision #960032 to erect/add additional signage.
Audience: No
Voting Members: T Dooling (Acting Chair), P Mulkerron, S Landgren, C Odunukwe, and K Coughlin.
Concerns/Discussion: The Board had requested a representative from CVS attend this hearing. No representative is in attendance. The Board Members are of a general consensus that the Board has been lenient and patient regarding the review and procedure of this application. It is the Boards opinion that CVS has had a complete disregard for this process and they continue to possess and erect illegal signage. The Board discussed how to proceed and determined that the options are to:
1. Vote to grant or deny the withdraw request, with or without prejudice
2. Deny the application as submitted and revised
3. Deny the application as submitted and revised and impose fines for the illegal signs.
The Board noted that three (3) signs are allowed in the prior decision, 1) monument sign 2) 4 foot sign 3) 4 foot sign. Mr. Odunukwe inquired if the Board grants the withdraw without prejudice can the Board impose conditions on the withdraw. No, conditions and fines can be imposed in a written denial, the withdraw without prejudice is filed solely with the Town Clerk. The Board, reading the definition of a sign from the ByLaws, disagree with the Building Commissioner opinion that signs hung on the inside of the windows are not considered signs, the Board is of the opinion that signs hung on the inside of the windows are indeed signs. The Board again discusses CSV’s unwillingness to comply with the original decision and their lack of cooperation with this application. The Board is of a
unanimous opinion to not accept/deny the Petitioner’s written request to withdraw without prejudice and to deny the application and to impose fines for illegal or non conforming signage.
Action: Mr. Dooling motioned to not grant the request to withdraw the application without prejudice and motioned to deny the filed application. Mr. Landgren seconded the motion.
Vote 4-0 to deny both the request to withdraw the application without prejudice and to deny the filed application.
T Dooling, S Landgren, C Odunukwe and K Coughlin
Meeting Adjourned: 10:15pm
Meeting Minutes Approved: August 16, 2010
| 
