Minutes of Meeting— February 12, 2009
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, Joe Peznola, Dorothy Risser, Christopher Tibbals, Todd Pietrasiak, Darja Nevits, Sara LaFleur, Jennifer Burke, Planning Director and Teresa Vickery, Clerk.
Petition 2008-07, 7 Crestview Drive Special Permit
Present were: Brian Grossman, Atty. at Law
Muhammad Ibrahim, RF Engineer
Atty. Grossman explained that Omnipoint is seeking to install a wireless communications facility in an SA-5 Single Family District. The tower would be a 100 foot flagpole style monopole with a generator that would be located within the fenced area. The outstanding issue from the last meeting was that the pole did not meet the fall zone requirements of the by-law. However, Atty. Grossman argues that the tower needs to be located there due to the threat of blocking/shadowing by locating too close in proximity to the existing tower.
Omnipoint’s hesitancy comes from the fact that if they do in fact locate too close to the other carrier and some interference does occur it will be Omnipoint will be responsible to remedy the situation. Atty. Grossman stated that Omnipoint feels that this is an appropriate location to erect their tower, however they do need some flexibility in order to ensure that interference does not occur.
Atty. Grossman informed the Board that due to the confusion as to who was actually located on the existing tower he had contacted Raymond Crews, Regional Manager, AT&T Towers. Mr. Crews explained that the only height available on the tower is at 66 feet. AT&T, Sprint and Verizon are located at 96, 86 and 76 feet, respectively. Atty. Grossman submitted an email to that effect.
Mr. Ibrahim told the Board that the tree height at the site is between 80 and 90 feet and that locating at 66 feet simply would not work because the locator needs to be above the tree line. There will be three antennas all pointing in different directions, one which will be blocked by the water tank and yet another by the shadow of the adjacent hill.
Mr. Peznola asked whether the previously submitted radio frequency maps are still accurate. Mr. Ibrahim said yes and that there is a 1 mile gap between the Saratoga and Crestview maps.
Mr. Peznola stated that he couldn’t understand why the coverage maps on Murphy Road have more coverage to the north. He feels it is excessive to grab an increase in northern coverage by getting higher to the south while overlapping the coverage for the east and west. Mr. Peznola wants to engage peer review by the Towns RF Engineer in order to give the applicant an opportunity to explain this.
Mr. Peznola would also like that the engineer address the issue regarding the 75 feet that the applicant states in necessary in order to not impact the existing carriers. The Boards goal is to see if there is any potential to get a shorter height and not sacrifice the coverage.
Ms. Risser asked that Ms. Burke confirm the three carriers that are currently on the existing tower.
Mr. Norris noted a letter from William Wade dated February 12, 2009 which referred to a letter dated September 16, 2008 and read it into the record. In this letter Mr. Wade states his objection to the tower and asks that Board deny the petition. He sites his reasons for his objection and makes mention of an easement off of Crestview Drive. He writes that the easement is not granted to wireless communications companies. Mr. Norris asked him if he was a grantee of this easement. Mr. Wade said that he was along with his neighbor, Mr. Monero and he went on to say that the abutters will pursue this if necessary.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by Joseph Peznola, made a motion to continue the public hearing for Petition 2008-07 until March 12, 2009 at 7:30 PM.
Vote: 7-0-0, Unanimous
Petition 1003, 177 Broad Street, Variances
Present were: David Baker, RK Associates
Forest Lindwall, Mistry Associates
Paul Giannetti, Atty. at Law
Michelle Ciccolo, Director of Community Development
Mr. Norris Convened the Public Hearing.
Dorothy Risser Read the Right of Appeal.
Mr. Norris explained that the applicant is seeking variances from sections:
- 6.2.2.1 to allow a setback of 13.3 feet from Broad Street and 22.4 feet from Washington Street instead of the regulated thirty (30) foot setback.
- 7.1.4.1 to allow construction of a bank building with an unpaved maintained area less than ten (10) feet in yard depth for the street line.
- 7.1.4.2 & 7.1.4.5 to allow the construction with a twenty-four (24) foot tow-way interior travel lanes.
- 7.1.4.3 to allow construction with the elimination of wheel stops at the head of each parking stall.
The property is located in the C-6 Commercial District.
Atty. Giannetti explained that Washington Square was developed as three parcels which are made up of Applebees, CVS and Dunkin Donuts. There is also a fourth parcel on which the bank is located. Town Counsel has given a legal opinion which stated that each building does not have to require its own parcel. All four of the parcels are owned by RK Associates, this is the first time these parcels have had one owner. RK has completed an ANR Plan to combine all the lots.
The existing building is a 1,332 square foot building, however, that applicant states that in order to provide a full range of banking services that building needs to be at least 3,000 square feet. The applicant went before the Internal Traffic Committee and on October 31, 2008, they unanimously approved the site plan. One November 18, 2008 the Planning Board also approved the site plan and unanimously voted to forego peer review.
Mr. Lindwall informed the Board that even though this proposed building is much larger than the existing building it is still further away from the road on both sides. The applicant is proposing three drive-thru aisles consisting of one lane that widens into three. The interior drive aisles would be 24 feet wide instead of the required 30 feet for two-way traffic. The parking will be in the front of the building as part of the driveway reconfiguration. The utility pole on the Broad Street side will be relocated.
The Planning Board and the Internal Traffic Committee recommended that a sidewalk be connected to the existing sidewalk further north. A roundabout will be constructed in the same general vicinity as the lights at the intersection of Washington Street and Broad Street. Ms. Ciccolo added that roundabouts are superior to the signals because the signals stop the cars where the roundabout slows the speed of the vehicles but keeps everyone moving. Another advantage is that because the cars keep moving it lowers the amount of emissions in the atmosphere.
A full landscaping plan was submitted, however, Mr. Lindwall stated that it will change when the road is widened. Mr. Norris asked if there will be takings. Mr. Lindwall said that a small corner will be donated to MassHighway.
Mr. Norris then asked Atty. Giannetti to explain the reason for some of the variances. Atty. Giannetti began by explaining that if the building is moved back parking is taken away from the existing tenants. The size of the bank made sense back in 1982, however now it does not make sense it is simply too small. The benefit of this variance will make the entire parcel work.
Atty. Giannetti then explained that the rest of the plaza does not have wheel stops at the end of each parking stall and it would look better to keep the whole plaza the same. Another reason he cited was the nuisance they cause when removing or plowing snow.
Mr. Norris stated that he has issue with the variance for the set back. The variance is only for two feet and he doesn’t understand why the applicant will not simply move the building back the two feet. Atty. Giannetti argued that the variances that are in place for the separate parcels should be in place to encompass it all as one parcel. He feels the applicant should be allowed the relief that was granted to the prior owners. The hardship in this case is the location of the parcel, it may not be a corner lot, however, its location is a difficult one. Mr. Norris thinks that this hardship is self-imposed because the applicant bought the property with full knowledge of the issues. Mr. Baker feels that some of the hardships have been imposed by the Planning Board as well as MassHighway. Mr.
Norris does not agree that the building cannot be moved slightly in both directions.
Mr. Norris asked how many parking spaces would be lost in order to comply with zoning regulations. Mr. Lindwall stated that three CVS spaces would be lost; this would take them out of compliance with their lease with RK Associates but not with zoning.
Ms. Risser noted that back in 1982, when the first building was erected on this parcel a condition stating that snow would be removed was part of the approval. She went on to say that the plans reflect two snow storage areas, but she feels there is no room to store the snow on the lot. Mr. Baker explained where the snow would be stored. There was a discussion about removing the snow. RK has asked the Planning Board to monitor the snow removal for one year before imposing conditions.
Mr. Peznola asked for clarification regarding the drive thru aisles. Mr. Lindwall explained that there are three drive thru lanes. Two of them are traditional service windows and the third is an ATM aisle. They are all nine foot aisles with a two foot concrete island between them.
There was no input from the public.
Dorothy Risser, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Sara LaFleur & Todd Petrasiak not voting
Ms. Nevits believes that the true hardship in this case is that the applicant does not know the effect the construction on Route 85 will have when the widening occurs. Mr. Norris states that the lot is unique and probably unprofitable in its current state.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by Dorothy Risser, moved to grant Variances under sections 6.2.2.1 to allow the construction of a bank building at 177 Broad Street, with a setback from Board Street of 13.3 feet and a setback from Washington Street of 22.4 feet, section 7.4.1 to allow an unpaved, planted and maintained area less than 10 feet in yard depth, section 7.1.4.2 and 7.1.4.5 to allow a twenty-four foot two way interior travel lane with the width of the interior travel lane shown on the approved site plans as submitted with petition and section 7.1.4.3 to all the exclusion of wheel stops at the head of each parking stall based on the following findings:
- The Petition has standing to bring the Petitions, and;
- The subject property is located in the C-6 Commercial District, and;
- That owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape and topography affect this land but not generally affecting the rest of the zoning district in that it is a corner lot, and;
- A literal enforcement of the zoning by-law would involve substantial hardship to the developer, 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.
Vote: 5-0-0, Sara LaFleur & Todd Petrasiak not voting
Lawrence Norris, seconded by Dorothy Risser, made a motion to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Sara LaFleur & Todd Petrasiak not voting
Petition 1000, 10 Pheasant Trail, Variance
Present were: Edward Whittamore, Atty. at Law
William Trivell, Architect
Terrance Corrigan, Home Owner
Mr. Norris Convened the Public Hearing.
Dorothy Risser Read the Right of Appeal.
Mr. Norris explained that the applicant is seeking a variance under section 6.2.1.3 Table 1 Intensity Schedule to allow the construction of a porch 8.2 feet from the side lot line in the
SA-7 Residential District.
Atty. Whittamore stated that the variance is for 1.9 inches that the porch would be over the required setback of 30 feet. The Atty. cited the odd shape of the lot as a hardship. The proposed location of the porch is placed in the only suitable area in which young children can play with adult supervision. There is not a detriment to the Town or to the abutters; he also noted letters of support from some of the abutters.
Ms. Nevits noted that she did not see a hardship. She went on to say that it is not a right to have a porch. The neighbors may have a porch but they did not need a variance to construct it. Mr. Corrigan stated that changing the dimension of the porch would not fit with the style of the house. Moving the porch closer to the shutters by 2.2 feet would not be symmetrical. Mr. Norris agreed with Ms. Nevits and said that the hardship is hard to see.
Ms. Risser suggested that the applicant work something out with the owner of lot ten. Even though the lot lines may look crazy on a plan, by paying the neighbor for a bump of land it may eliminate the need for a variance. Ms. Burke said that the applicant could negotiate with the neighbor for an even swap of land.
Mr. Peznola feels that this lot should never have been approved by the Planning Board and for this reason finds a hardship.
There was not input from the public.
Dorothy Risser, seconded by Sara LaFleur, made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Christopher Tibbals & Todd Petrasiak not voting
Ms. LaFleur does not see a hardship in this matter, nor do a majority of the other Board members. Mr. Norris suggests that the applicant withdraw the petition without prejudice. He then asked the applicant if he were willing to do this, after consulting with his attorney he agreed to withdraw the petition.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by Dorothy Risser, moved to withdraw Petition 1000 for 10 Pheasant Trail without prejudice.
Vote: 5-0-0, Christopher Tibbals & Todd Petrasiak not voting
Lawrence Norris, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Christopher Tibbals & Todd Petrasiak not voting
Petition 1001, 1 Mildred Circle, Special Permit
Present were: Doug Wilkins, Atty. at Law
Ben Oricihi, RF Engineer
Andy Candiello, MetroPCS
Mr. Norris Convened the Public Hearing.
Dorothy Risser Read the Right of Appeal.
Mr. Norris noted a letter dated February 5, 2009 from MetroPCS which included a copy of a letter from Valmont Structures dated January 30, 2008 regarding the structure of the tower.
Atty. Wilkins informed the Board that a lease for a portion of the parcel has been signed. The southwest portion of the parcel and a portion slightly northwest of the water tank. He stated that DPW selected the area. The closest house to the proposed tower is 121 feet from the pole. The pole will be 169 feet northwest and 161 feet south of the other homes. The applicant feels that with all considerations taken into account the tower is placed in the best spot.
The applicant is seeking a variance for the required setback, it would be 88.7 feet to the south, 44.1 feet to the west and 70 feet to the south. The entrance to the tower is to the north using an access easement that was worked out with the DPW. All the cables are on the inside of the pole. Security fencing will also be installed.
Atty. Wilkins provided photographic simulations which showed various views of the site with the tower erected on it by using a balloon.
The public safety aspect was discussed. A report from PHD which analyzed the radio frequency levels of the tower were referred to. The tower would emit less and 1/10 of a percent of the 1 percent that is acceptable by its guidelines.
Valmont Structures evaluated how the tower would react in the rare event of a failure. Because the tower is over designed at the bottom it would bend at a certain point and fall into itself. Therefore, the applicant believes that the 100 foot fall zone requirement could be waived. The fall radius is 66 feet which is well within the parcel except with respect to the east, which is well away from all the homes and private property.
Mr. Orichi showed the Board several radio frequency maps. One illustrated what the coverage is like today and others which showed what the coverage area would be with the existence of the proposed tower. Mr. Peznola asked if the coverage at this site is better than the other proposed site at 43 Broad Street. Mr. Oricihi said it was.
Mr. Peznola then asked if the coverage was studied at a lower height elevation. Mr. Candiello said that the tower needs to be a certain height because the by-law requires co-location. Mr. Peznola agreed, however he also stated that the by-law also requires that the height of the tower be supported by the lot dimensions. He asked again if considerations have been made to decrease the height of the tower. Mr. Orichi said that the tower must be 10 feet above the tree height to be viable and the height of 100 feet is due to the requirement of co-location.
Mr. Norris asked why the tower is set at 96 feet instead of 100 feet. Mr. Candiello explained that the ITC requires that 4 feet of public safety antennas be installed on top. Ms. Burke added that this is a standard requirement. She went on to say that there is currently one on the top of the other tower, however in case anything happens to the tower they want the opportunity to locate there as well.
Erik Antelman, 34 Feltonville Road expressed his concern for the value of his property as well as the health effects this may cause. He stated that erected the tower in the front of the lot as opposed to the back side of the lot is much less aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Peznola asked why the tower cannot be moved. Atty. Wilkins reiterated his earlier statement that this site was recommended by Mr. Marques of the DPW. Mr. Peznola understood, however he explained to the applicant that the DPW is not the special permit granting authority, he would like to discuss this with Mr. Marques. Atty. Wilkins is willing to go back to Mr. Marques and see whether they will agree to move the tower.
Mr. Peznola questioned whether or not RFP’s should be sought for property that cannot areas that cannot meet the 100 feet radius.
Mr. Peznola asked that the applicant come back with the following information. He would like to see coverage maps that illustrate the coverage at a reduced height. He also asked that the applicant supply the Board with the level of interference that would be caused between the carriers if the tower were to be moved closer than they are currently proposed.
Dorothy Risser, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to continue the hearing for Petition 1001, 1 Mildred Circle to March 12, 2009 at 7:30 PM.
Vote: 5-0-0, Christopher Tibbals & Todd Petrasiak not voting
Petition 2008-04, 43 Broad Street, Special Permit
Present were: Doug Wilkins, Atty. at Law
Ben Oricihi, RF Engineer
Andy Candiello, MetroPCS
Mr. Candiello is asking for a continuance on the basis that the applicant would prefer to locate its tower at 1 Mildred Circle. However, if that petition were to be denied Mr. Candiello would like the opportunity to state his case for 43 Broad Street before the Board without prejudice.
Dorothy Risser, seconded by Lawrence Norris, made a motion to continue the hearing for Petition 2008-04, 43 Broad Street to March 12, 2009 at 7:30 PM.
Vote: 5-0-0, Christopher Tibbals & Todd Petrasiak not voting
Petition 1002, 145 Main Street, Variance
Present were: Richard Frias, Sicilian Realty Trust
Stephen Poole, Architect
Mr. Norris Convened the Public Hearing.
Dorothy Risser Read the Right of Appeal.
Mr. Frias is seeking a variance under section 7.1 of the zoning by-laws to allow the construction of a parking lot with an interior driveway width of 22 feet in lieu of the required 30 feet for two way traffic and to allow stacked parking within a portion of the parking lot with restrictions and controls in a C-1 Commercial District.
Mr. Norris explained that in reading the petition he feels that the applicant does not need a variance because this section of the by-law does not apply in the C-1 District. Ms. Risser cited that the applicant did not have standing in bringing forth this petition. Mr. Poole expressed his concern for possible appeals.
There was no input from the public.
Dorothy Risser, seconded by Lawrence Norris, moved to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice a Variance under Section 7.1 to allow the construction of a Parking Lot with an Interior Driveway width of 22 feet in lieu of the required 30.0 feet for two way traffic and to allow stacked parking within a portion of the parking lot with restrictions and controls, as noted on the Site Plan based on the following findings:
- The parking requirements are not applicable to this property because it is located in the C-1 Commercial District as stated in section 7.1.3.1, “These regulations shall not apply to the Commercial District C-1.”; therefore the variances requested are not required.
Vote: 5-0-0, Christopher Tibbals & Todd Petrasiak not voting
Minutes
Dorothy Risser, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to approve the minutes of December 11, 2008, as written.
Vote: 7-0-0, Unanimous
Mailbox
Mr. Norris made note of a letter from CHAPA regarding Knott’s Clearing and The Esplanade. He stated that the Hudson Housing Authority had no further follow up with respect to this issue at this time.
Adjournment
At 10:45 p.m., Joe Peznola, seconded by Lawrence Norris, moved to adjourn.
Vote: 7-0-0, Unanimous
| 
