Minutes of Meeting— September 10, 2009
The Hudson Board of Appeals met in the Selectmen’s Hearing Room, Town Hall, Hudson, Massachusetts. At 7:30 p.m., Vice Chairman Joe Peznola called the meeting to order.
Present: Joe Peznola, Dorothy Risser, Christopher Tibbals, Todd Pietrasiak, Darja Nevits, James Smith, Jennifer Burke, Planning Director and Teresa Vickery, Clerk.
Coolidge Greene
Present were: Niel Fossile
Linda Fossile
The Board is in receipt of a letter from Ms. Fossile dated August 12, 2009 in which she requested an additional extension to complete the 40B Cost Certification for Coolidge Greene. When the Board last granted an extension it did so with the condition that any additional extension requests would require the attendance of a representative of Coolidge Greene.
Ms. Fossile informed the Board that this extension request is due to the fact that some of the required information dates back to 2002 and their accountant simply needed more time to gather all the appropriate documents. Mr. Peznola asked if the accountant has all the necessary information at this time. Ms. Fossile said that he did and he just needed more time to complete the final report.
Joe Peznola, seconded by James Smith, made a motion to approve the extension request to complete the 40B Cost Certification for Coolidge Greene until November 12, 2009.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Petition 1008, 73 Lincoln Street, Accessory Dwelling Unit
Present were: Jose Frade
Sonia Frade
Dana Pratt
Joe Peznola convened the Public Hearing.
Dorothy Risser read the Right of Appeal.
The applicant is requesting a Special Permit under Section 5.2.6 of the Zoning By-Laws to allow the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the Single Family District. Mr. Pratt, speaking for the applicant, stated that there is an existing garage on the property and the applicant would like to add and an ADU above it.
Mr. Peznola asked if the main house is owner occupied. Mr. Pratt said yes it was. Ms. Burked had noted that she had not yet received the required affidavit from the applicant stating that he is indeed living in the house and will continue to do so.
Mr. Peznola read an email into the record from Jeff Wood dated September 10, 2009. In this email he stated that there were some inconsistencies on the architectural plans as well as some building code issues. Mr. Pratt noted that the sole intent of the applicant is to furnish the upstairs area of the garage, no changes are being suggested for the outside of the building.
Mr. Petrasiak asked if there are two egresses. Mr. Pratt said there were not and adding another would not be ideal, however if it is necessary the applicant will do so inside the garage.
Ms. Risser questioned the definition of the by-law, noting that this home is currently a two family home and she believes that the by-law only specifies single family dwellings.
Mr. Peznola suggests that the applicant apply for a permit under section 5.1.6.1 to convert the existing two family to a single family dwelling this would give the petition standing before the Board. Ms. Burke questions if this can be done in a separate structure. Mr. Wood would have to weigh in on this.
Mr. Pratt asked about converting the house back to a single family. Mr. Peznola indicated that it would be ok and then the ADU would be allowed.
After conferring with his client Mr. Pratt asked the Board to continue the hearing to it’s next meeting so that the applicant can consider all his options.
Dorothy Risser, seconded by James Smith, made a motion to continue the public hearing for Petition 1008 to October 8, 2009 at 7:30PM.
Vote: 5-0-0, Todd Petrasiak not voting
Petition 1009, 91 Park Street Special Permit
Present were: Dennis Zilembo, Hudson Lodge of Elks, Manager
William Hopkins, Hudson Lodge of Elks, Secretary
The applicant is before the Board to request a special permit under section 5.2.3.1 (h) of the zoning by-laws to allow the sale of Christmas Trees in a residential district.
The Elks have been selling trees at this location for several years. Ms. Burke noted that there have been no issues at this site in the past.
Mr. Peznola asked if this permit will be good from now on. Ms. Burke stated that it does not expire therefore the applicant does not need to reapply every year. However, a license must be obtained annually from the Board of Selectmen.
There was no input from the public.
Joe Peznola, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to approve Petition 1009 to grant a Special Permit under Section 5.2.3.1 (h), to allow the sale of Christmas Trees in the SB Single Family District 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, and;
- The use will not create traffic hazards or volume greater than the capacity of the streets affected.
And the following conditions:
- A license will be obtained from the Board of Selectmen on an annual basis.
Vote: 5-0-0, Todd Petrasiak not voting
Petition 1010, Highland Commons Drive East, Various Special Permits & Variances
Present were: Carmine Tomas, Atty. at Law, Goulston & Storrs
Jed Hayes, Sullivan Hayes
James Bagloli, Benderson Development
William Hoffman, DeLucca Hoffman
Joe Peznola convened the Public Hearing.
Dorothy Risser read the Right of Appeal.
Atty. Tomas informed the Board that the applicant is requesting several modifications to the previously approved special permits and variances to develop a shopping center with approximately 387,000 square feet of retail space with the associated infrastructure within the floodplain district in the LCI District. Atty. Tomas noted that previously granted relief for rear yard setback and buffer zone are no longer needed.
The previously approved plan called for a 220 room hotel, however the plan has been modified to accommodate more retail space which would allow for a more comprehensive shopping center. The hotel, which was located at the western end of the site, has been replaced by a retail store, a fueling facility and a bank.
The modified plans have already been approved by the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission.
The first special permit requested was under section 6.2.1.4 to allow the placement of the signs to be set back from the road. Atty. Tomas provided a digitally rendered photograph illustrating what signs as well as the vegetation would look like. The applicant is also proposing banner signs which would allow vehicles to see the signs before entering the site.
Ms. Burke asked what the dimensions of the signs were. Atty. Tomas stated that they are 20 feet tall and 5 feet wide and the primary sign would be 900 square feet. Atty. Tomas informed the Board that Jeff Wood had suggested that all signs be treated as off premises signs. The prior condition that Jeff Wood approve the signage prior to occupancy is understood by the applicant.
Mr. Peznola asked that Atty. Tomas explain their hardship. Due to the unique topography and grading the signs can not be located on their property and still be seen from the road. They are however in conformance will all other neighboring signs.
Two variances under sections 7.1.5.4 and 7.1.4.3 relative to parking are being sought. The first variance under section 7.1.5.4 is regarding the number of required parking spaces. Even though with the elimination of the hotel the number of spaces is more compliant than previously the applicant is still in need of a variance. Previously the plan was short 455 parking spaces now the shortfall is only 326. Additional parking will add much more impervious area to the site and will be costly to construct.
The original approval included a restaurant exclusion due to lack of required parking. The applicant is asking that this exclusion be removed and that restaurants be allowed in the shopping center proved that a parking analysis is done to confirm that there would be enough parking on the site. Atty. Tomas stated that if the conditions were to state that as long as the parking was not made any less compliant than approved for with this plan it would be acceptable. Mr. Hayes noted that the parking would overlap into to the Berlin side to the site and be shared amongst all users.
The other variance is under section 7.1.4.3 which would eliminate the need for wheel stops and bumper guards at the head of all parking stalls. The applicant is asking that the location of wheel stops be changed in order to accommodate trash and snow removal, as well as facilitate the flow of traffic. The Board decided to leave this to the applicant’s discretion.
Atty. Tomas asked that it be noted in the record that in the Planning Boards original conditions it is stated that the Board would review parking one year after occupancy. The Attorney asked that this be changed and noted in the record due to the fact that the new conditions do not mandate this, they simply suggest it.
A variance section 7.1.6.1 (a) regarding the number of loading berths that are required is being sought. The requirement is for 61 loading berths, however the applicant is requesting approval for only 25 berths. Atty. Tomas noted that this modification would bring the plan closer to compliance than the original. The previously approved variance stated that if a certain location went from a retail to a non-retail use (i.e. warehouse) that this would make the variance null and void. The applicant is asking that it be under the discretion of the Planning Director whether it is more or less non-conforming.
A special permit is being requested under section 5.3.3.1 under the zoning by-laws to allow the repair and/or storing of motor vehicles on the site. Atty. Tomas noted that there is an existing repair facility in the vicinity of the site and finds that granting this permit is consistent with surrounding uses.
Mr. Peznola asked whether the applicant is referring to the fueling station. Atty. Tomas stated that this request relates to the automotive services center at the membership club that will be erected.
There was a discussion regarding the requirement in the by-law that screening be put in place that is at least 5 feet but no more than 7 feet high. Atty. Tomas noted that due to the natural grading and topography of the site erecting screening would be unnecessary. The site is screened naturally through the landscape.
A special permit is being sought under section 5.7.4.1. The site is located within the floodplain/wetlands district and activity within this district requires a special permit. Mr. Hoffman explained that the applicant proposes removal of an existing culvert, restoration of Hog Brook’s natural channel and associated wetlands replication work. Mr. Peznola asked if this was mitigation brought about by the Conservation Commission. Atty. Tomas stated that is was. Mr. Peznola also noted the past problems/issues with erosion control. Ms. Burke informed the Board that the applicant has been very diligent and gone to great efforts to keep the erosion at bay.
The last of the special permits sought is under section 3.3.10 which would allow for activity within the Watershed Protection District. This permit would allow the construction of a new storm water discharge outlet.
Atty. Tomas asked that it be confirmed in the record that the existing special permit for outdoor sales and store areas and the existing variances from the restrictions on the height of the building signs have been substantially used and are shown on the revised site plans and remain in full effect. Mr. Peznola noted that the building signs are not to exceed the height of the building walls and not to exceed 9% of the height of the buildings.
James Smith, seconded by Dorothy Risser, made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Todd Petrasiak not voting
Joseph Peznola, seconded by James Smith, moved to grant a Special Permit under
Section 6.2.1.4 to amend the existing Special Permit for "off-premises" signs to allow the signs described in Figure 6.10 to be generally located as shown on Figure 6.1 as submitted with the petition and to allow any and all such signs to refer to any uses in the overall project based on the following findings:
1. The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
2. The subject property is located in the LCI Limited Commercial and Light Industrial District, and;
3. The use will not have an adverse effect on present and future dwellings in the vicinity, and;
4. The use will not create traffic hazards or volume greater than the capacity of the streets effected, and;
5. The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning by-law, and;
6. The prior conditions in the Special Permit shall be of no further force or effect.
5-0-0, Unanimous, Todd Petrasiak not voting
Joseph Peznola, seconded by Dorothy Risser, moved to grant a Variance under Section 6.2.1.4 to amend the existing Variance for sign dimension to allow the signs as described in Figure 6.10 to be generally located as shown in Figure 6.1 as submitted with the petition and to allow maximum sign dimensions as follows: Type "A" signs up to 30 feet in height and over 48 square feet in area; Type "B" signs up to 20 feet in height and over 48 square feet in area; Type "D4" signs greater than 48 square feet in area based on the following findings:
1. The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
2. The subject property is located in the LCI Limited Commercial and Light Industrial District, and;
3. 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 the site sits higher than Rte 62 and signs conforming to the by-law would not be visible to motorists, and;
4. A literal enforcement of the zoning by-law would involve substantial hardship to the developer in that without being able to clearly identify the tenants the
developer may experience a financial hardship, and;
5. 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 the area is strictly a commercial area and the proposed signs are consistent with other signs in the area, and;
6. The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning by-law, and;
7. The prior conditions in the Variance shall be of no further force or effect.
5-0-0, Unanimous, Todd Petrasiak not voting
Joseph Peznola, seconded by Dorothy Risser, moved to grant a Variance under Section 7.1.5.4 to grant a Variance under Section 7.1.5.4 of the Zoning By-Laws to amend the existing Variance for parking to allow a reduced amount of parking as shown on the site plan as approved by the Hudson Planning Board on June 2, 2009 based on the following findings:
1. The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
2. The subject property is located in the LCI Limited Commercial and Light Industrial District, and;
3. 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 the site is substantially constrained by the steep grades and the presences of wetland and riverfront area, and;
4. A literal enforcement of the zoning by-law would involve substantial hardship to the developer in that the construction of additional parking would be costly causing a financial hardship, and;
5. 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 there are differences in the peak parking demand times, the possibility of shared parking and the actual parking requirements for the diverse mix of shopping center tenants should be sufficient to serve the needs of the project, and;
6. The prior conditions in the Variance shall be of no further force or effect.
And with the following conditions:
1. Non- accessory restaurant uses will be allowed subject to the determination of the Planning Director that the Developer has provided an analysis by an
appropriate and licensed professional sufficient to confirm that the parking
provided is likely to be adequate to accommodate the anticipated parking
demand generated by said non-accessory restaurant use. At the Planning
Director's discretion, the developer may have to return to the Board for approval of said non-accessory restaurant use.
5-0-0, Unanimous, Todd Petrasiak not voting
Joseph Peznola, seconded by James Smith, moved to grant a Variance under Section 7.1.4.3 to grant a Variance under Section 7.1.4.3 of the Zoning By-Laws to amend the existing Variance for bumper guards/wheels stops to allow the parking area to be constructed with bumper guards/wheel stops to be installed at the Developer's discretion based on the following findings:
1. The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
2. The subject property is located in the LCI Limited Commercial and Light Industrial District, and;
3. 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 the topography of the site prevents the Developer from providing the required parking stops while also maintaining the parking sufficient to service the proposed use, and;
4. A literal enforcement of the zoning by-law would involve substantial hardship to the developer in that the construction of the bumper guards/wheel stops would require additional parking which would be costly to construct causing a financial hardship , and;
5. 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 it will allow safe, unconstrained access to and egress from the spaces.
5-0-0, Unanimous, Todd Petrasiak not voting
Joseph Peznola, seconded by Darja Nevits, moved to grant a Variance under Section
7.1.6.1 (a) to grant a Variance under Section 7.1.6.1 (a) of the Zoning By-Laws to amend the existing Variance for loading berths to allow 36 fewer loading berths than required; the design and locations of said loading berths to be shown on the site plan as approved by the Hudson Planning Board on June 2, 2009 based on the following findings:
1. The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
2. The subject property is located in the LCI Limited Commercial and Light Industrial District, and;
3. 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 the site topography and location of wetlands make is difficult to meet the requirements of the by-law, and;
4. A literal enforcement of the zoning by-law would involve substantial hardship to the developer in that constructing all the required loading berths would be costly and would result in a financial hardship, and;
5. 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 the number of loading berths proposed is sufficient for the retail operations of the site, and;
6. The prior conditions in the Variance shall be of no further force or effect.
And with the following conditions:
1. Subject to a determination by the Planning Director, changes to the shopping
center uses may occur, upon a finding that the uses do not increase the degree of non conformity with the loading requirements and do not involve uses not customarily found in shopping centers. If there is a finding that there is an increase in the degree of non conformity with the loading requirements the developer will be required to return to the Board for additional approval.
5-0-0, Unanimous, Todd Petrasiak not voting
Joseph Peznola, seconded by Dorothy Risser, moved to grant a Special Permit under
Section 5.3.3.1 to grant a Special Permit under Section 5.3.3.1 of the Zoning By-Laws to allow the proposed automotive service center as shown on the site plan as approved by the Hudson Planning Board on June 2, 2009 based on the following findings:
1. The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
2. The subject property is located in the Limited Commercial and Light Industrial District, and;
3. The use will not have an adverse effect on present and future dwellings in the vicinity in that it is part of a large commercial project and is not located near any dwellings, and;
4. The use will not create traffic hazards or volume greater than the capacity of the streets effected in that the traffic has been considered as part of the larger project and the Developer is providing substantial mitigation' and;
5. The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning by-law, and;
6. Given the location and change in elevation, the Board finds that additional
specific screening for disabled vehicles is not necessary.
5-0-0, Unanimous, Todd Petrasiak not voting
Joseph Peznola, seconded by Dorothy Risser, moved to grant a Special Permit – floodplain district under Section 5.7.4.1 to grant a Special Permit under Section 5.7.4.1 of the Zoning By-Laws to amend the existing Special Permit for activity within the Floodplain to allow the proposed grading, removal of an existing culvert, restoration of Hog's Brook's natural channel associated wetlands replication work, subject to compliance with the Wetland's Protection Act within the floodplain district within the floodplain district based on the following findings:
1. The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
2. The subject property is located in the LCI Limited Commercial and Light Industrial District, and;
3. The use will not significantly conflict with the purposes set forth in Section 5.7.1.1 of the Zoning By-Laws, and;
4. The use is designed, placed and constructed to offer a minimum obstruction to the flow of water, is firmly anchored and is not in a floodway, and;
5. The prior conditions in the Special Permit shall be of no further force or effect.
5-0-0, Unanimous, Todd Petrasiak not voting
Joseph Peznola, seconded by Darja Nevits, moved to Grant a Special Permit - Watershed Protection District under Section 3.3.10 to allow activity within the Watershed Protection District including the removal of an existing culvert, restoration of Hog's Brook's natural channel and construction of a new storm water discharge outlet to an existing concrete headwall, subject to compliance with the Wetland's Protection Act within the Watershed Protection District based on the following findings:
1. The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
2. The subject property is located in the LCI Limited Commercial and Light Industrial District, and;
3. The use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this by-law and will promote the purposes of the Watershed Protection District as outlined in the project, and;
4. The use is appropriate to the natural topography, soils and other characteristics of the site to be developed, and;
5. The use will not have an adverse environmental impact on any water body or
course in the district, during construction or thereafter, and will not adversely affect the existing or potential water supply.
5-0-0, Unanimous, Todd Petrasiak not voting
And the following findings:
Joseph Peznola, seconded by Dorothy Risser, moved to approve Petition 1010 and to find that the Variance shall be deemed to include the following additional condition: upon the recording by the Owner of a consolidation plan which eliminates the lot line of record separating the subject premises from the abutting land located in the Town of Berlin, then the lot lines for the Premises shall be as shown on said consolidation plan, the Variance shall no longer be required for the development of Retail “C,” and any conditions to the Variance shall be of no further force or effect. Said finding is based upon the following:
- The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition; and
- The Premises are located in the LCI Limited Commercial and Light Industrial District; and
- In 2006, the Petitioner proposed to construct a shopping center and a hotel on the Premises, with a proposed building labeled Retail “C” to be located 7 feet from abutting residentially-zoned land located in the Town of Berlin; and
- By decision dated September 25, 2006, filed with the Town Clerk on October 10, 2006, and recorded with the Middlesex County Southern District Registry of Deeds in Book 48429, Page 44, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a Variance from Section 6.4 to allow for the construction of Retail “C” as shown on the 2006 plans, subject to certain conditions; and
- In 2008, the abutting land was rezoned to permit commercial development, and;
- The Petitioner now intends to expand the shopping center onto the abutting land and to record a consolidation plan eliminating the lot line of record which separates the subject premises from the abutting land located in the Town of Berlin, and the Board acknowledges and agrees that, upon such recording, the lot lines for the Premises shall be as shown on said consolidation plan.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous, Todd Petrasiak not voting
Joseph Peznola, second by Dorothy Risser, moved to approve Petition 1010 and to find that the Variance shall be deemed to include the following additional condition: upon the recording by the Owner of a consolidation plan which eliminates the lot line of record separating the subject premises from the abutting land located in the Town of Berlin, then the lot lines for the Premises shall be as shown on said consolidation plan, the Variance shall no longer be required for the development of Retail “C,” and any conditions to the Variance shall be of no further force or effect. Said finding is based upon the following:
- The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition; and
- The Premises are located in the LCI Limited Commercial and Light Industrial District; and
- In 2006, the Petitioner proposed to construct a shopping center and a hotel on the Premises, with a proposed building labeled Retail “C” to be located 7 feet from abutting residentially-zoned land located in the Town of Berlin; and
- By decision dated September 25, 2006, filed with the Town Clerk on October 10, 2006, and recorded with the Middlesex County Southern District Registry of Deeds in Book 48429, Page 27, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a Variance from Section 6.2.1.3 to allow for the construction of Retail “C” as shown on the 2006 plans, subject to certain conditions; and
- In 2008, the abutting land was rezoned to permit commercial development, and;
- The Petitioner now intends to expand the shopping center onto the abutting land and to record a consolidation plan eliminating the lot line of record which separates the subject premises from the abutting land located in the Town of Berlin, and the Board acknowledges and agrees that, upon such recording, the lot lines for the Premises shall be as shown on said consolidation plan.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous, Todd Petrasiak not voting
James Smith, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Todd Petrasiak not voting
Minutes
James Smith, seconded by Dorothy Risser, made a motion to approve the minutes of July 9, 2009, as written.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Adjournment
At 10:00 PM, Joe Peznola, seconded by Darja Nevits, moved to adjourn.
Vote: 7-0-0, Unanimous
| 
