May 1, 2014
Minutes of Meeting
In Attendance: PD, JS, AP, JD, BS, BW and JJ
Absent: LR
7:00
PD opened the meeting.
Continuation – Brisson Street (87/31A) – Thomas Ginand
Request for a Variance
Sitting In: JS, PD, AP MarioC and JD
PD read an email from the applicant to request the hearing and decision until the June 5, 2014 meeting.
JS motion to continue as requested.
AP second.
All in favor to continue as requested.
Continuation – 870-874 South Main Realty, LLC – Robert Chimeno
Special Permit for more than one principal use
Sitting In: JS, AP, JD, MC and BS
Continuation– 870 - 874 South Main Street, LLC - Robert Chimeno
Variance to allow more than 2 principal uses
Sitting In: PD, JS, AP, JD and BS
Attorney Sack stated the last time they elected to continue the Special Permit request and the Variance request was new. PD read the notice and stated the same members were sitting in, with BS replacing MC.
*(This was not new as the variance request was opened in April)
Attorney Sack stated the applicant is seeking a variance, section 2570, with no new construction. They had consulted with the abutters after the last meeting to discuss what would work best for the neighborhood. The applicant is seeking to divide the 9000 town line power in rear; the front would be 2 residential apartments, one at 1300 square feet – 2 bedrooms, and the other 1800 square feet – 3 bedrooms. He stated it was a B1 district. The parking maximum required are 48 and they currently have 75. The layout is shown and they did consult with the BOH to show there is capacity for these uses. (Letter presented to the board) The existing structure is already a 2 family, which is their home. The apartments would be the new use. JS stated this would be under, other multi-family, footnote 10
(reading) JS questioned this as it states “if it could not be used for any other purpose.” JS stated it was a mixed use. A 2 family house is a stand-alone. This would be an apartment complex, not a 2 family dwelling. PD asked if they looked at other uses. Attorney Sack stated they did look at commercial uses and they were not requesting that because of the residential area and traffic concerns. They felt that this is the best plan to fit into the neighborhood. This is B1 but surrounded by residential. JS stated that a 2 family is not a permitted use here. JS stated that for a Special Permit they have to demonstrate that the structure could not be used for any other permitted use. PD stated that it is not used as a dwelling and the applicant is trying to use it as a 2-family dwelling. The board felt the applicant must demonstrate it cannot be used or altered for any other permitted use in order to seek the use they are asking for. The existing warehouse cannot be
divided up for a 2 family. It is considered “other multi-family”. You cannot use the building for town line power and other multi-family uses. This is not allowed. It is a unique configuration. The board felt after reviewing the bylaw the applicant needed to demonstrate why the property could not be used for other uses. They suggested the applicant put together a concrete plan and come back with that request. They would also like to get advisement from Town Counsel. The applicant asked for a continuation to June 5, 2014.
PD motion to continue to June 5, 2014.
AP second.
All in favor to continue the variance request. (Variance and Special Permit)
AP motion to continue the Special Permit request to June 5, 2014
PD second.
All in favor to continue the Special Permit request to June 5, 2014.
Continuation – 1210 Pulaski Blvd. – New Cingular Wireless
Special Permit for wireless communication facility
Sitting In: PD, JS, AP, JD and BS
George Hall (GH) for applicant. There was a balloon test done in April, results handed out. GH stated the board asked for alternatives to the design of the antenna array, close mounted. The design had 12 antenna and we do need all those for coverage. We are proposing a mono-pine. It would simulate a pine tree, which could be blended in to this property (see report sheet 2) This does still allow the width but does not change the use. It is more expensive. The location was discussed. The majority of the board members felt that location 3 would be the best choice. JS felt original location would be best choice due to seeing pole for only a minute, at location 3 the houses would see it on a constant basis. There was concern of how close it was to the tree line. GH was noted that there were
some errors within the diagrams. The board asked that they submit a revised photo showing the actual pole, blended and at location 3. GH stated the landlord has to agree to the lease and they must make sure there are no construction issues at this proposed site. GH stated if location 2 was chosen, they could possibly need a variance and he would look into that. The pole would be galvanized steel, 100 feet, with a 50 x 50-block building, equipment shelter 11.5 x 16, with an attached porch to hold the generator. The generator will run ½ hour once a week, typically middle of the day. JS stated they have gone through section 240-144 and the criteria, discussed what is permitted and what is not in detail. BS stated he would still like to see a peer review if the majority of the board agrees. JS stated the decision is based on their own expertise and if they feel the need for something more then they would ask for the peer review. GH asked for a
continuance stating they would have the revised drawings for site 3 with an actual mono-pine, discussing the lease with the landlord and any construction issues.
AP motion to grant the continuance.
PD second.
All in favor to continue to June 5, 2014.
Discussion
Lakeview Estates – 40B
James –Benchmark Engineering, representing the applicant. At the last meeting there were a number of questions. He stated they submitted a package of information that documents all of the items raised at the last meeting. (LR needs copies) and the board was going to check with Town Counsel regarding the models. The plans have been approved by DPW. He electronically approves and we have provided that. We also provided the house styles for the models and the mitigation agreement, which was signed by the applicant and BOS, the Order of conditions from DEP for the overall site and we did apply for and receive 4 out of the 5 sites that were within 100 feet of wetlands on Geordan Ave. PD stated he spoke to Town Counsel. He did state we could entertain what you are asking for. AP asked
for locations of the 5 model homes. (The applicant showed/highlighted on plan.) The larger lot is available for off street parking. One sign would be at primary model location, lot 9, and sales type sign. And all sign regulations would comply. The normal real estate hours would be heavier on weekends, late afternoon, early evening during week. One main condition unmet would be the MA Housing and that is in the process. We are asking to get the model homes up and running while that is in the works. The applicant is asking for that be waived for just these 5 model homes. JD stated that town counsel felt if the board agreed then it would be okay. JS asked that JD put together a list of the conditions that were highlighted showing that the applicant had met the 7 of the 8 and the evidence was provided. JD agreed to do that before the next meeting. JS stated that this is not a public hearing and it would be best if the board document what
was taken in. PD asked the applicant return at the meeting on June 5, 2014. The applicant asked that a vote be taken to confirm what was discussed. The board agreed it would be best to have it in writing. JS stated he would take it to town counsel after JD put it together. PD said he would meet with Town Counsel once list was put together. This is administrative and it may be able to taken care of before the next meeting.
Discussion - Taft Estates – 40B
Applicant not in attendance.
Minutes
April 3, 2014
PD motion to accept the minutes.
JS second.
All in favor to accept as presented.
Meeting Adjourned 10:00 pm.
Approved 6/5/2014
| 
