Minutes of Meeting— October 11, 2007
The Hudson Board of Appeals met in the Selectmen’s Hearing Room, Town Hall, Hudson, Massachusetts. At 7:00 p.m., Chairman Lawrence Norris called the meeting to order.
Present: Lawrence Norris, Joe Peznola, Alan Herzog, James Smith, Sara LaFleur, Dorothy Risser, Christopher Tibbals, Teresa Vickery, Clerk and Jennifer Burke, Town Planner.
Petition 2007-08: 5 Hammond Circle Special Permit Cont.
Present were: David Figueiredo
Mark Leger, Complete Development Corp.
The applicant presented the Board with a new set of drawings illustrating the proposed changes to the exterior of the building as well as the proposed layout of the interior. Mr. Norris noticed that the new set of plans do not show the same parking configuration as the old set. He explained to the applicant that if approved a condition would be added stating that the parking be approved with the configuration of the new plans not the old set of plans.
Joseph Peznola, seconded by Dorothy Risser, made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Sara LaFleur & James Smith not voting)
Mr. Norris did not have any issues with the plan, stating that the applicant had brought all the information that the Board had previously requested.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by Dorothy Risser, moved to approve Petition 2007-08 and to grant a Special Permit under Section 5.2.6, to allow for the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit as shown on the 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-7 Single Family District, and;
The use will not have an adverse effect on present and future dwellings in the vicinity, and;
The use will not create traffic hazards or volume greater than the capacity of the streets effected, and;
All the use and dimensional regulations as defined in section 5.2.6.4(1) of the by-law are met, and;
The petitioner has provided an affidavit stating intent to occupy one of the dwellings.
And with the following conditions:
The parking plan as submitted to the Board on October 11, 2007 and entitled “Foundation Plan” will replace the parking plan furnished with the petition.
The driveway shall be 35.9 feet in width starting at the garage entrance and taper off to a standard width at a distance of 20 feet from the house to accommodate the required parking spaces.
In accordance with section 5.2.6.4(5), upon sale of the dwelling, if the new owner wishes to continue this special permit he/she must, within thirty (30) days, submit a notarized letter to the Building Commissioner stating that they will occupy one of the dwelling units on the premises as their primary residence, except for bona fide temporary absences.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (James Smith and Sara LaFleur not voting)
Petition 2007-06: 22 Winter St., Special Permit
The Board is in receipt of a letter from Atty. Moreira dated October 3, 2007 requesting the public hearing be continued.
Dorothy Risser, seconded by Alan Herzog, made a motion to continue the public hearing for Petition 2007-06 until November 18, 2007 at 7:30 p.m.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Sara LaFleur & James Smith not voting)
Petition 2007-07: 42 Woodrow St., Variance
The Board is in receipt of a letter from Atty. Giannetti dated October 2, 2007 requesting the public hearing be continued.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by Joseph Peznola, made a motion to continue the public hearing for Petition 2007-07, until November 18, 2007 at 7:30 p.m.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Sara LaFleur & James Smith not voting)
Petition 2007-09: 15 Lakeshore Dr., Variance
Present was: Paul Giannetti, Atty. at Law
Lawrence Norris convened the public hearing.
Alan Herzog read the Right of Appeal.
Mr. Norris read a letter from Tom & Elaine Bonica into the record, stating their opposition to the variance.
Mr. Giannetti informed the Board that the applicant, Leila Zulawnik was seeking a variance from section 6.2.1.3 of the Zoning By-Laws to allow the construction of a 16’ X 20” garage 3 feet from the side lot line in an SA-8 Single Family District.
The lot is approximately 5000 sq. ft in area. When the applicant purchased the house in 1991, there was a garage to the rear of the dwelling. Ms. Zulawnik was issued a permit in August of this year. She was incorrectly under the impression that this was all she would require in order to tear down the existing garage and replace it with a new one. The applicant tore down the garage and began construction of new one. She received a cease and desist letter from the Building Commissioner (Jeff Wood) stating that she was in violation of the side lot line requirement.
The major question was whether the structure the applicant is proposing is the same size as the previous garage or is it larger. Mr. Peznola asked Atty. Giannetti if he had any proof that the garage was located where they say. Atty. Giannetti said that getting a definitive answer as to where the previous building was is very unlikely. He went on to say that Thomas Land Surveyors had surveyed the land, however the original garage was no longer standing at this point.
The applicant is proposing constructing the new garage in the same location because the site of the septic tank is unknown.
Atty. Giannetti had several telephone conversations with Ms. Burke where she had suggested to him that the applicant file for a special permit not a variance. There was a discussion regarding which section of the zoning by-laws the applicant should have filed under. Mr. Peznola did not agree and thinks that this does indeed follow the guidelines of a variance. He cited that there is no way to establish if this structure is not more non-conforming. Ms. Burke expressed the need to establish a hardship if it is to be considered as a variance. It was decided that a variance would be sought under section 6.3.1 of the by-laws.
Robert James, 18 Lakeshore Drive informed the Board that Tom Bonica, the previous owner of the property who opposes the variance, had illegally built the garage that Ms. Zulawnik tore down. He went on to say that Mr. Bonica never had approval to build and the applicant simply would like to replace what she had tore down.
Atty. Giannetti stated that the Assessor’s Office does not have the correct square footage of the property. Ms. Risser said that in 1964 a permit granted to construct a 120 sq. ft garage, this may be why the Assessor’s data is incorrect.
Atty. Giannetti stated that the shape of the lot creates a hardship for the applicant, citing that it is narrow. He added that the applicant thought she was following the guidelines and it would be unfair to punish her for attempting to abide by the rules.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by James Smith, made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Sara LaFleur & Christopher Tibbals not voting)
Mr. Norris stated that he believes that the hardship is the fact that the applicant is unsure of the location of the septic tank. He notes that it would be a financial burden to the applicant to locate the tank.
Dorothy Risser, seconded by Lawrence Norris, moved to approve Petition 2007-09 and grant a Variance from Section 6.3.1 to allow the construction of a garage 3 feet from the side lot line where 10 feet is required in accordance with the plan entitled “Proposed Site Plan of 15 Lakeshore Drive in Hudson, MA” as drawn by Thomas Land Surveyors and Engineering Consultants of Hudson, MA dated August 27, 2007 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;
That owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions and topography, in that the property contains only 5,000 square feet and only 50 feet of frontage as well provides limited building area in the rear of the parcel all of which affect this land but not generally affecting the SB zoning district, and;
A literal enforcement of the zoning by-law would involve substantial hardship in that the location of the septic system prevents locating the garage elsewhere in the rear of the property, and;
Relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the by-law in that a garage existed in this same location for over thirty years and was disrepair and removed.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Sara LaFleur and Christopher Tibbals not voting)
Petition 2007-10: 50 Lincoln St., Special Permit
Present was: Paul Giannetti, Atty. at Law
Lawrence Norris convened the public hearing.
Alan Herzog read the Right of Appeal.
Mr. Norris read three letters from abutters into the record. The first letter from Jennifer & Stephen Burney at 53A Lincoln Street, dated October 9, 2007 stated their opposition to the special permit and cited many concerns. Their biggest concern was regarding the ongoing issue they have had with the sewer system. They believe that the new unit would add to an already over taxed system. Mr. & Mrs. Burney also wrote a letter to Tony Marques requesting that he look into correcting the problem. This letter was also read into the record.
The second letter dated October 7, 2007 was from Joan McDonald, 4 Hapgood Street. This letter was also in opposition to the special permit. She included several photos and incidence logs from the Hudson Police Department.
The last letter read was dated October 11, 2007 from Dan Chekan, 59 Warner Street stating his opposition as well. He stated his concern for the character of the neighborhood and also said that he believes this would negatively affect the value of his property.
Atty. Giannetti presented the petition to the Board. The applicant is seeking a special permit under Section 5.1.6.1 of the Zoning By-Laws to allow the conversion of a two family dwelling to a three family dwelling in an SB Single Family District. This home was built in 1900 and has been used as a two family when the zoning was adopted in 1957.
The applicant purchased the house in 1998. The applicant believed the house was a three family dwelling at the time. The basement of the house had been partly converted into an apartment. The applicant completed the conversion and even lived there for a period of time.
On August 29, 2007 Mr. Wood sent him a cease and desist letter. The premises were then vacated and the applicant is now going through the proper channels to obtain a special permit.
Ms. Risser noted that this house may have at one time been abandoned as a two family dwelling, therefore loosing its status as a pre-existing non-conforming status. She would like this to be further investigated.
There is a requirement of eight parking spaces. The applicant will need to pave over most of the landscaped area to fulfill this requirement. The applicant is also proposing the construction of two spaces located on Lincoln Street by relocating a retaining wall. An additional entrance will also be added to fulfill requirements. The proposed location for the entrance is through the front porch.
Atty. Giannetti addressed the abutters’ letters. He stated that there has been no response from the DPW. He also submitted evidence to the Board that the home was a prior 2 family residence.
Atty. Giannetti stated that the property owner had never been contacted by any of the abutters regarding any problems or issues they may have had. Ms. McDonald said that this was untrue, stating that she had spoken with Mr. Santos on several occasions.
Atty. Giannetti informed the Board that the only change to the exterior of the home would be the inclusion of additional parking spaces.
Ms. Risser asked what made Mr. Santos believe that this was a three family dwelling. Atty. Giannetti said that it was simply assumed by the fact that the basement was nearly complete.
Ms. Risser made mention of a right of way that is cited on Mr. Santos’ deed. The deed shows a 10-foot right of way on the western side of the property that this there in order to maintain sewer pipes. However, it is unclear as to whose right of way it is.
Alan Anacheka-Nasemann, 48 Lincoln Street read a letter he had written into the record. This was a favorable letter, stating that the tenants are all very cordial and he had never had a problem with any of them.
Patrick Manzo, 61 Warner Street expressed his opposition to the special permit. He thinks this is an issue of public safety.
Mr. Norris stated that the plans do not show entrances and egresses of the proposed changes, which he would like to see reflected on the plans. He also stated that the issues of parking and the deed would need to be resolved.
Mr. Norris noted that he would like a letter drafted to the DPW and to Chief Braga addressing the concerns regarding public safety and does not want to proceed without a response from both. He would also like the sewer problems addressed to the DPW, as well as a letter from Mr. Marques regarding this issue.
Ms. Burke reminded the Board that one of the conditions of the special permit is that the owner must occupy the property. She also stated that the plans are inaccurate, the parking spaces that already exists are labeled on the plans as proposed.
Mr. Burney asked if the town has a by-law that would prevent homeowners from paving their front lawns. Mr. Norris answered no.
Ms. Risser stated that the two parking spaces on Lincoln Street are crucial to the plans being approved however there is no guarantee that curb cuts will be approved.
Ms. LaFleur noted that there is a street drain directly in front of the area proposed for the parking on Lincoln Street and the relocation of the retaining wall.
Mr. Anacheck-Naseman, after reviewing the proposed plans stated that he would like some more information relative to the parking situation. He also said that he would not like to see more parking on Hapgood Street.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by James Smith, made a motion to continue the public hearing for Petition 2007-10 until November 8, 2007 at 7:30 p.m.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Sara LaFleur and Christopher Tibbals not voting)
Adjournment
At 8:50 p.m., Joe Peznola, seconded by Lawrence Norris, moved to adjourn.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Christopher Tibbals & Dorothy Risser not
| 
