Minutes of Meeting— April 14, 2011
The Hudson Board of Appeals met in the Selectmen’s Hearing Room, Town Hall, Hudson, Massachusetts. At 7:30 p.m., Lawrence Norris called the meeting to order.
Present: Lawrence Norris, Joe Peznola, Dorothy Risser, Todd Pietrasiak, Christopher Tibbals, Patrick Manzo, Jennifer Burke, Planning Director and Teresa Vickery, Clerk.
Petition 1019: 258 Washington Street, Special Permit
Present were: Paul Giannetti, Atty. at Law
Matt Smith, Bohler Engineering
Edward Hogan
Atty. Giannetti updated the Board regarding the status of the land transfer for the widening of Route 85. There have been several meetings with MassDOT and Michelle Ciccolo to determine the proper layout. MassDOT has determined that the land should be transferred directly to them and not the Town. Michelle Ciccolo has provided a memo to the Board outlining this process. Mr. Norris questioned what he considers a sudden change in the disposition of this matter. Ms. Burke explained that the right of way has changed many times and MassDOT has the ultimate say regarding process of land takings. She indicated that the Town has no real option but to process as discussed.
Mr. Norris convened the public hearing.
Ms. Risser read the right of appeal.
Atty. Giannetti explained that the applicant is seeking a special permit under section 5.3.3.1 under the zoning by-laws to allow auto repair in the M-6 Industrial District.
Hogan Tire is a family owned business with six locations throughout Eastern Massachusetts. Their business is comprised of approximately 75% tire and 25% light automotive work. Hogan Tire does not do any auto body work nor do they paint. The light automotive work is for changing oil, brakes, exhaust and alignments.
Vehicles will be repaired and leave soon after arrival. There will not be any vehicles left overnight at the facility.
The traffic will not be significantly impacted. When the preliminary traffic calculations were done all three parcels were considered. There are currently two parcels being utilized on the property. The traffic will actually be less than the calculations show as they were intended for a coffee shop. The tire store will generate less traffic and most likely it will be off peak hours.
Mr. Smith stated that the building will be 4,500 square feet. The sales area will be 900 square feet and the remainder of the space will be for six bays located on the side of the building.
The traffic patterns/flows within the site are what had previously been approved. The plans show 14 parking spaces.
The drainage on the site has been decreased as this plan incorporates more green space and less paved area allowing for an increase in natural drainage. The foundation, septic, drainage and retaining walls have all been installed. The existing foundation will need to be replaced as it was constructed for a much smaller building. Mr. Smith noted that the Planning Board conditioned that an engineer be on site during the excavation around the retaining walls. The septic and the underground detention system will be reconstructed as well.
Mr. Peznola asked if there would be any cross parking. Atty. Giannetti referenced the deeds for the Walgreen’s parcel as well as the subject parcel noting that there is some confusion regarding the interpretation of whether cross parking is allowed. Atty. Giannetti noted that the parking for Walgreens is grossly underutilized and there is a lot of space available. However, it was not considered when detailing the parking plan for Hogan Tire. There was a brief conversation regarding the number of spaces and whether or not the bays are to be counted as parking spaces. While Mr. Peznola expressed concern that the proposed parking did not comply with the by-law requirements. Mr. Smith showed how the project could meet several different guidelines regarding the number of parking spaces. Mr. Hogan
noted that other shops of this size have similar parking and do not have any issues.
Mr. Norris asked where the fluids are store with regards to the oil changes and fluid flushes. Mr. Hogan explained that they are stored in double hulled above ground tanks. There are no floor drains as regulated by Title V due to the septic.
Thomas Doerr, 2 Vernon Drive stated that there are at least two other tire stores in Town and many other repair shops. He asked that the Board not approve the special permit.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by Dorothy Risser, made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Mr. Norris would like a condition added that no cars are to be stored outside of the building overnight.
Mr. Peznola would like that no snow storage be allowed within the delineated parking spaces or access ways. The owner must remove the snow from the property if there is excess accumulation. He also wants employee parking to be relegated to the north/northeast end of the lot and the spaces be signed for employee parking.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by Christopher Tibbals, moved to grant a Special Permit under Section 5.3.3.1 to build a 4,500 square foot building for the sale of tires and light auto repair based on the following findings:
- The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
- The subject property is located in the M-6 District, and;
- The use will not have an adverse effect on present and future dwellings in the vicinity, and;
- The use will not have create traffic hazards or volume greater than the capacity of the streets effected, and;
And with the following conditions:
- Any vehicles left overnight for repair must be stored in the building.
- There shall be no snow storage within the delineated parking spaces or access ways. If it appears that the snow accumulation will overflow, the owner will be required to remove the snow from the site.
- The 5 northern most spaces shall be designated and signed as employee parking spaces.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Mr. Manzo not voting)
Lawrence Norris, seconded by Dorothy Risser, moved to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Petition 1020: 26 Ontario Drive, Accessory Dwelling Unit
Present was: Susan Mace, Applicant
Mr. Norris convened the public hearing.
Ms. Risser read the right of appeal.
Mrs. Mace informed that Board that she has an existing ADU and would like to obtain a special permit for it to make it legal. The ADU was built back in 2001. Her mother currently resides in the unit. The Board questioned whether all the proper permits were granted for the extension of the water and the electric. Ms. Burke stated that all the permits are in the Building Commissioners files.
Dorothy Risser, seconded by Lawrence Norris made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Mr. Peznola noted that the owner occupancy condition be added. He also wanted to confirm that the affidavit was on file.
Dorothy Risser, seconded by Lawrence Norris, moved to grant a Special Permit under 5.2.6 based on the following findings:
- The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
- The subject property is located in the SA-8 District, and;
- The use will not have an adverse effect on present and future dwellings in the vicinity, and;
- The use will not have create traffic hazards or volume greater than the capacity of the streets effected, and;
- The petitioner has provided an affidavit stating intent to occupy one of the dwellings.
And the following conditions:
- One of the dwelling units will be owner occupied as required by the zoning by-law.
- The notarized affidavit stating the intent to occupy must be recorded at the Middlesex County South Registry of Deeds.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Patrick Manzo not voting)
Dorothy Risser, seconded by Lawrence Norris, moved to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Petition 1021: 62 Packard Street, Special Permit
Present were: Richard Braga, Chief of Police
John Blood, Fire Chief
David Stephens, Police Captain
Mr. Norris convened the public hearing.
Ms. Risser read the right of appeal.
Chief Braga is seeking a special permit under section 5.9 of the zoning by-laws to construct a 911 tower at the rear of the Police Headquarters building. He informed the Board that the Planning Board approved the plans on March 22, 2011.
The tower will provide 911 services for the fire and police departments for the new dispatch center at the police station which will merge both police and fire 911 calls.
Chief Braga noted that because of possible future expansion of the building the tower is going to be located on the north side of the property. Even though this is not in the middle of the property the fall zone is sufficient.
The existing towers height is 72 feet and the proposed tower will stand at 80 feet with 6 feet of antennas making it 86 feet. It will be placed on a 9 X 9 foot concrete pad that will be located approximately 2 – 3 feet from the building. Bollards will be installed around the pad to protect the base of the tower.
In order to ease the visual impact for the abutters along the property line behind the first two homes on Shawmut Ave. the Planning Board conditioned that six foot arbor viteas be planted at three foot increments.
Mr. Peznola stated that the police station is in the SA-8 district and not the wireless communications overlay district (WCF). Chief Braga noted that there were no sites within the WCF that would accommodate the needs of the tower. The tower must be located at the dispatch center.
Mr. Peznola then asked why the tower needs 80 feet of height. Chief Blood explained that the tower will operate on a line of site (UHF) and due to the trees and the hills in the area it needs to be this high.
The wires for the tower are above ground and will remain as such. The Board will view this as an existing non-conforming issue.
Dorothy Risser, seconded by Lawrence Norris made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Ms. Risser would like to include a finding that the regulation for the tower to be in the center lot be waived as the fall zone is sufficient.
Joseph Peznola, seconded by Dorothy Risser, moved to grant a Special Permit under Section 5.9 to construct a 911 communications tower at the rear of Police Headquarters based on the following findings:
- The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petitions, and;
- The subject property is located in the SA-8 District which is not part of the Wireless Communications Overlay District (WCF); however, the public safety needs of the community can not be met within the WCF due to the requirement that the antenna be on the same site as the dispatch center.
- The use will not have an adverse effect on present and future dwellings in the vicinity in that the wattage is low enough that it will not impact the resident’s use of personal electronic equipment and the Planning Board has required a landscaped bugger along the residential property line, and;
- The use will not create traffic hazards or volume greater than the capacity of the streets effects, and;
- The project meets all the conditions of section 5.9.3 except that the tower is not located in the center of the lot, which the Board waives seeing as the fall zone encompasses the lot and if the tower falls it will remain on the lot.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous (Patrick Manzo not voting)
Lawrence Norris, seconded by Dorothy Risser, moved to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Westridge, Modifications & Extension Request
The Board is in receipt of an email from Mr. David Eastridge of Thornkdike Development requesting a continuance to the Boards next meeting.
Joe Peznola, seconded by Patrick Manzo, made a motion to continue the meeting with Westridge until May 12, 2011 at 7:30 PM.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Coolidge Greene
Mr. Penzola updated the Board regarding an issue that has recently arisen regarding the comprehensive permit for Coolidge Greene. The monitoring agent is the Hudson Housing Authority. Mr. Barrell along with his consultant Dick Heaton has reviewed the cost certification and has surmised the certification is inaccurate and that Mr. Fossile has taken in approximately $774,000 above the allowed profit margin. The Housing Authority has hired an Attorney, Dan Hill. Atty. Hill has issued a demand letter for the excess profit.
There was discussion regarding the lack of involvement of the ZBA. The Housing Authority has indicated that the ZBA has no regulatory authority. Citing this as the reason for not keeping the ZBA apprised of the situation. The agreement with Mr. Heaton and Atty. Hill is that they will receive 30% of whatever is recovered from the excess profits. Mr. Peznola felt that he wanted to make the Board aware of what was happening. Under the monitoring agreement the ZBA has the authority to revoke the monitoring agent. The Board took no action at this time. Mr. Norris asked for copies of all the paperwork regarding the situation.
Minutes
Dorothy Risser, seconded by Christopher Tibbals, made a motion to accept the minutes of March 10, 2011, as written.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Adjournment
At 9:30 PM, Lawrence Norris, seconded by Todd Pietrasiak, moved to adjourn.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Document List April 14, 2011
Document |
Location |
Special Permit Application, 258 Washington Street and Plans |
Planning Office |
Special Permit Application, 26 Ontario Drive and Plans |
Planning Office |
Special Permit Application, 62 Packard Street and Plans |
Planning Office |
Minutes of March 10, 2011 |
Planning Office |
| 
