Hudson Board of Appeals
Town Hall
Hudson, Massachusetts 01749
Minutes of Meeting— October 13, 2005 page 1
Minutes of Meeting— October 13, 2005
The Hudson Board of Appeals met in the Selectmen’s Hearing Room, Town Hall, Hudson, Massachusetts. At 7:30 p.m., Chairman Lawrence Norris called the meeting to order.
Present: Lawrence Norris, Alan Herzog, Tony Pinto, James Smith, Joe Peznola, Darja Nevits and Dorothy Risser
Jennifer Burke, Town Planner
Dorothy Risser recused herself from the Board.
Petition 2005-08: 261 Central Street
Present: Paul Giannetti, Atty. at Law
Dave Zanca, Zanca Land Surveyors
Atty. Giannetti updated the Board on the status of the petition. Due to discovery of wetlands on the site, the addition has been changed from the original proposal. It has been reduced in size to 18’ x 24’. It is now located on the side of the existing house and the interior shows 1 bath instead of 1 ½.
Mr. Zanca reviewed the plan with the Board. He noted that most of the lot is wetland. Eight parking spaces are shown. Seven and a half are required. In addition, the parking area is configured so that vehicles will not back onto Central Street.
Mr. Smith noted that his main concerns have been addressed. Mr. Norris asked the units will be duplex style. He was told yes. Mr. Peznola asked about the interior drive width at 24’. This will require a variance from the Board as the requirement is 30’. He asked if the project had been filed with Conservation yet and if any issues were anticipated. He was told no to both questions.
Mr. Peznola asked the Applicant about owner occupancy. Atty. Giannetti indicated that this is an income property. Mr. Peznola noted that the Board has conditioned owner occupancy in the past referring to section 5.2.3.1(i), which requires owner occupancy for conversions of single to double units. He noted that this helps to maintain the single-family nature of the neighborhood. He asked if the Applicant had considered condominiums for the units. He was told its not cost effective. Atty. Giannetti stated that the capital investment improves the property and adds value to the area.
There was no input from the public.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by James Smith, moved to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits not voting)
Mr. Smith stated that he likes to read section 5.1.6.1 in conjunction with 5.2.3.1(i) and require owner occupancy, however, the area has to play a role. This is clearly a more industrial area.
Mr. Pinto stated that he likes the parking layout. He noted that the area has a few multi family units already. In addition, the owner lives in Hudson so he is not concerned with the property being well maintained. Mr. Herzog agreed.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by James Smith, moved to approve Petition 2005-08 and grant a Variance from section 7.1.4.5 to allow a 24 foot internal two way drive based on the following findings:
The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
The subject property is located in the SB Single Family District, and;
The shape of the lot and the topography of the lot are unique in relation to lots within the district, and;
Enforcement of the by-laws would impose substantial hardship on the Petitioner, and;
Relief of said hardship could be granted to the Petitioner without substantial detriment to the public good.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits and Dorothy Risser not voting)
Lawrence Norris, seconded by James Smith, moved to approve Petition 2005-08 and to grant a Special Permit under section 5.1.6.1 to allow the conversion of an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling as shown on the plan entitled “ Proposed Concept Plan 261 Central Street Hudson Massachusetts” as drawn by Zanca land Surveyors of Stow, MA dated September 7, 2005 and the building plans as submitted with the petition, based on the following findings:
The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
The subject property is located in the SA-8 Single Family District, and;
The use is in harmony with the intent and purpose of the by-law, and;
The use will not create traffic hazards or volume greater than the capacity of the streets effected, and;
The use will not have an adverse effect on present and future dwellings in the vicinity.
And with the following condition:
The approval is contingent upon Conservation Commission approval.
Vote: 4-1-0, with Joseph Peznola opposed ( Darja Nevits not voting)
James Smith, seconded by Alan Herzog, moved to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits not voting)
Dorothy Risser returned to the Board.
Petition 2005-14: 3 Bonazzoli Avenue
Present: Adam Braillard, Atty. at Law
David Ouellette, RF Frequency Engineer for Tmobile
Mr. Braillard updated the Board on the status of the petition. Since the previous meeting, he has researched the availability of the overlay district. He submitted a letter from Cingular stating that there is no availability to collocate on the pole at Pope’s Hill. He again noted that there is a permitted site at Saratoga. He showed the Board the RF propagation with Saratoga on line. It appears that attachment at 3 Bonazzoli Ave. will still be necessary. Saratoga is included for construction in Tmobiles 2006 budget. He then stated that the Murphy Road water tank does not cover the area needed.
Mr. Norris asked how many calls are being lost in the area. He was told approximately 20%, but it is a very subjective number.
Ms. Risser noted that the lease with the Town on Saratoga has expired. In order to construct this pole and new lease and a new Special Permit will be required.
Ms. Burke asked if the Applicant had investigated constructing his own monopole on Pope’s Hill under the new RFP that was issued. He indicated that they did investigate the possibility but the site still would not meet the necessary coverage. He also indicated that he did not think an additional pole would be feasible for the Town.
There was no input from the public.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by James Smith, moved to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits and Dorothy Risser not voting)
Ms. Risser stated that she is convinced it will fill in the gaps in coverage. She also indicated that she likes the look of the attachment. Mr. Peznola stated that the petition on 81 Apsley Street defined the pathway for these types of approvals.
Joseph Peznola, seconded by, James Smith, made a motion to grant the special permit under section 5.9 to allow the installation, operation and maintenance of a wireless communication facility in accordance with plans and details supplied by the applicant based on the following findings and facts:
The applicant has proven an effective prohibition from providing coverage within the overlay district and that there is a substantial gap in coverage. Refer to the correspondence contained in the record including:
The letter from Cingular Wireless dated September 1, 2005
The affidavit from David Ouellette dated May 20, 2005
The supplemental RF diagrams submitted to the Board on October 13, 2005
The structure would be a legal non-conforming one and there will be no additional height over 30 feet 2 inches above existing grade outside the building at 3 Bonazzoli Avenue;
The Board of Appeals has concluded that there is a conflict between the overlay district restrictions and the requirements of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Based on section 5.9.6 of the by-law entitled “Preemption”, it would be appropriate for the Board to preempt the restrictions of the overlay district based upon the restriction presented;
The Board finds that no use variance is necessary to grant the relief sought;
The Board finds that the duty lies with the applicant to find the least obtrusive site possible to meet their gap in coverage. Omnipoint Holdings has done that for this petition.
And with the following conditions:
Site plan approval must be obtained from the Planning Board.
Vote: 5-0-0 Unanimous (Darja Nevits and Dorothy Risser not voting)
Alan Herzog, seconded by James Smith, moved to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits and Dorothy Risser not voting)
Petition 2005-17: 26 Cherry Street
Present: Robert Dionisi, Atty. at Law
Mr. Norris read into the record a letter from the residents at 46 Cherry Street objecting to the petition and asking some specific questions. He also read into the record a legal opinion from Town Counsel.
Atty. Dionisi stated that he disagreed with Town Counsel. He noted that the Building Commissioner has allowed Commercial uses in and Industrial District before. He asked the Board for a straw vote in order to decide how to proceed.
The Board agreed that they are not willing to go against Town Counsel. There was also concern that Site Plan Review had not been done.
The Applicant requested a withdrawal without prejudice.
Alan Herzog, seconded by James Smith, moved to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits and Dottie Risser not voting)
Ed Morgan, 46 Cherry Street, submitted additional names to the previous letter in opposition of the request.
Petition 2005-19: 312 Main Street
Present: Paul Giannetti, Atty. at Law & Jim Reilly
Lawrence Norris convened the public hearing.
Alan Herzog read the Right of Appeal.
Atty. Giannetti reviewed with the Board the type of business proposed. The Applicant removes and refurbishes parts from 1980’s sports cars. There will be no car repairs and no auto body on site. All sales will be via the Internet or telephone.
Atty. Giannetti also stated that the use is allowed by Special Permit in a Commercial District; therefore, allowed by Special Permit in an Industrial District.
It was noted that all disabled vehicles will be in the building. There will be no outside storage of vehicles. Atty. Giannetti argued that the main thing the by-law is set to protect is the outside storage. He feels the Applicant has met that condition.
Mr. Peznola asked how many parking spaces will be needed. Mr. Reilly indicated that the landlord has offered 1-3 spaces and that should be adequate.
There was no input from the public.
James Smith, seconded by Tony Pinto, moved to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits and Dorothy Risser not voting)
Joseph Peznola, seconded by James Smith, moved to approve Petition 2005-19 and grant a Special Permit under section 5.5.1.4 to allow the operation of a motor vehicle repair facility based on the following findings:
The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
The subject property is located in the M-3 Industrial District, and;
The use will not have an adverse effect on present and future dwellings in the vicinity in that the district is an industrial district, and;
The use will not create traffic hazards or volume greater than the capacity of the streets effected.
And with the following conditions:
There will be no outside storage of motor vehicles.
There will be no auto repair service, auto body service or direct retail sales offered or performed on the premises.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits and Dorothy Risser not voting)
Alan Herzog, seconded by Tony Pinto, moved to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits and Dorothy Risser not voting)
Dorothy Risser recused herself from the Board.
Petition 2005-20: 12 Wheeler Road
Present: Tom McCarthy, Lloyd Geisinger & Don Springhetti
Lawrence Norris convened the public hearing.
Alan Herzog read the Right of Appeal.
Mr. Norris read into the record letters from the Board of Health, the Planning Board and an email from Lloyd Geisinger.
Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Geisinger reviewed the changes to the original approval and the implications for the Town. There is an overall 23% reduction.
Mr. Springhetti distributed a comparison sheet to the Board.
Ms. Nevits asked about the selling prices of the homes. Mr. Geisinger indicated that similar projects have sold for $400,000 - $475,000.
Mr. Pinto asked why the changes were made. Mr. Geisinger indicated that the new design better depicts his company’s philosophy of residential development.
Mr. Peznola asked if the Planning Board had conducted peer review. He was told not on the new design. He then asked about stabilizing the slopes in the backyards. He was told that anywhere there is a 1:1 slope, the developer plans to construct a minimum of 4-foot high fence. Mr. Norris inidcated that he would prefer 6 feet. Other slopes will be stabilized with vegetation. There will be an onsite geotechnical engineer during all heavy earthwork. Mr. Peznola also asked about the construction schedule.. The Applicant stated preparation for remediation will begin in the spring with remediation continuing through the summer. They expect model homes to be open by the end of 2006.
Arthur Gordon, 100 Tower Street, asked if the ZBA was aware of a memo from the Board of Health. He was told yes, that it was read into the record at the beginning of the meeting. He asked how close the nearest unit will be to Hudson Light & Power. He was told a minimum of 190 feet.
Glen Davis, Grove Street, asked about the proposed enhancements to the soccer field. He was told irrigation, a landscaped terrace, a tot lot and an extension of the walking trails.
Mr. Gordon asked again about the Board of Health memo. Ms. Burke indicated that the Board of Health could not identify specific state or federal regulations the plan was not in compliance with.
Mr. Peznola asked about traffic mitigation. He was told that the developer had worked with the ITC to come up with an acceptable solution. They are proposing stripping and limited signage.
James Smith, seconded by Tony Pinto, moved to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits not voting)
Lawrence Norris, seconded by James Smith, moved to approve Petition 2005-20 by modifying the existing Special Permit under section 5.8 for Petition 2004-6 by striking the following language “revised through April 28, 2004, drawn by Quinn Engineering” and adding the following language “entitled, “ Modification to Hudson Hillside Retirement Community” dated June 21, 2005 revised through August 24, 2005”
And with the following additional conditions:
The site work authorized under the terms of this approval shall commence within two years of this amended approval and work shall be completed within five years of the date on which the first occupancy permit is issued for the development.
Upon completion, a certification that construction has been completed in compliance with the plans must be submitted by a registered professional engineer.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits not voting)
Alan Herzog, seconded by James Smith, moved to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits not voting)
Dorothy Risser returned to the Board.
Petition 2005-21: 29 Worcester Avenue
Present: Rich Jussaume, Atty. at Law
Lawrence Norris convened the public hearing.
Alan Herzog read the Right of Appeal.
Atty. Jussaume reviewed the petition with the Board. His clients would like to construct a garage to house their vehicles and boat. Currently the boat sits outside and is open to the weather and the animals. He indicated that he feels this will be a benefit to the neighborhood as it will take the vehicles out of the front yard of the house.
The garage must be constructed in the front yard due to the topography and the location of the septic system. He argued that this condition is similar to others in the area.
Mr. Peznola asked if the intent was to tear up the existing drive. He was told yes.
There was no input from the public.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by James Smith, moved to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits and Dorothy Risser not voting)
Ms. Risser noted the previous lawsuit filed by an abutter and expressed surprise that no one was present from the neighborhood.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by James Smith, moved to approve Petition 2005-21 and grant a Variance from section 6.3.1 to allow the construction of a garage in the front of the house and within the side yard setback requirement based on the following findings:
The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
The subject property is located in the SB Single Family District, and;
The shape of the lot and the topography of the lot are unique in relation to lots within the district, and;
Enforcement of the by-laws would impose substantial hardship on the Petitioner, and;
Relief of said hardship could be granted to the Petitioner without substantial detriment to the public good.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits and Dorothy Risser not voting)
Tony Pinto, seconded by James Smith, moved to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits and Dorothy Risser not voting)
Dorothy Risser recused herself from the Board.
Petition 2005-22: 478 Main Street
Present: Paul Giannetti, Atty. at Law & David Zanca
Lawrence Norris convened the public hearing.
Alan Herzog read the Right of Appeal.
Atty. Giannetti reviewed the petition with the Board. Mr. Zanca presented a plan to the Board showing the wetland locations. He reviewed the Planning Board decision. He noted the location of the 25-foot buffer under the Watershed Protection District.
Atty. Giannetti noted that the Conservation Commission had issued and Order of Conditions and have provided no additional comments.
The plan minimizes the disturbance. The lot is tight.
Mr. Norris asked why there is a turn out. He was told that the Fire Chief had requested it.
There was no input from the public.
Alan Herzog, seconded by James Smith, moved to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits not voting)
Lawrence Norris, seconded by James Smith, moved to approve Petition 2005-22 and grant a Variance from section 3.3.10 to allow certain work to be performed within the buffer zone based on the following findings:
The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
The subject property is located in the SA-8 Single Family District, and;
The shape of the lot and the topography of the lot are unique in relation to lots within the district, and;
Enforcement of the by-laws would impose substantial hardship on the Petitioner, and;
Relief of said hardship could be granted to the Petitioner without substantial detriment to the public good.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits not voting)
James Smith, seconded by Alan Herzog, moved to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits not voting)
Dorothy Risser returned to the Board.
Petition 2005-23: 49A Lincoln Street
Present: Paul Giannetti, Atty. at Law & Glen Davis
Lawrence Norris convened the public hearing.
Alan Herzog read the Right of Appeal.
Atty. Giannetti reviewed the petition with the Board. There was a recent petition to convert the building to office space. That deal fell through. His clients have purchased the property and intend to convert to residential. They feel it is a better use of the property and that it fits better in the neighborhood.
Atty. Giannetti stated that the only issue he is having trouble with is whether the change of use has already taken effect. It is his contention that the use is changed when the rights are exercised not when the permit is granted. His clients are willing to waive their rights under the old permit.
The existing septic passes Title V and is OK to be maintained for residential use.
Ms. Risser expressed concern regarding the maintenance of the access road. Atty. Giannetti stated that it would be the responsibility of the last person. He said that they may use an agreement but ultimately it would be his client’s responsibility.
Mr. Peznola stated that he was glad to see the use of greenspace in this proposal. He would recommend conditioning the approval on receipt of final architectural plans solving the egress issues.
There was no input from the public.
James Smith, seconded by Tony Pinto, moved to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits and Dorothy Risser not voting)
Lawrence Norris, seconded by Joseph Peznola, moved to recognize that the outstanding special permits were not exercised and the Board finds them null and void.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits and Dorothy Risser not voting)
Lawrence Norris, seconded by Joseph Peznola, moved to approve Petition 2005-23 and grant a Special Permit under section 5.2.3.1 (j) to allow the conversion of the existing structure into multiple dwellings based on the following findings:
The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
The subject property is located in the SB Single Family District, and;
The use will not have an adverse effect on present and future dwellings in the vicinity in that the district, and;
The use will not create traffic hazards or volume greater than the capacity of the streets effected.
And with the following conditions:
Prior to issuance of the building permit, final architectural plans showing a second means of egress must be approved by the Building Commissioner.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits and Dorothy Risser not voting)
Alan Herzog, seconded by James Smith, moved to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Darja Nevits and Dorothy Risser not voting)
Discussions
The Esplanade
The Board is in receipt of a letter from David Zanca, 270 Main Street expressing concern regarding the acquisition of the Saarsfield land and the subsequent construction of the additional parking area. He is concerned that the grading of the lot may cause flooding on his property. He has attempted to discuss his concerns with the developer. However, the work has progressed and Mr. Zanca is not satisfied that the issue has been adequately addressed.
The Board asked Ms. Burke to write a letter to MP Development asking them to clarify their position on the issue and to provide the Board with a copy of the plans for the additional parking area.
Minutes
Lawrence Norris, seconded by James Smith, moved to approve the minutes of August 11, 2005 as written.
Vote: 7-0-0, Unanimous
Adjournment:
At 10:30 p.m., Dottie Risser, seconded by Jim Smith, moved to adjourn.
Vote: 7-0-0, Unanimous.
| 
