Minutes of Meeting— June 14, 2012
The Hudson Board of Appeals met in the Selectmen’s Hearing Room, Town Hall, Hudson, Massachusetts. At 7:00 p.m., Dorothy Risser called the meeting to order.
Present: Joseph Peznola, Dorothy Risser, Todd Pietrasiak, James Smith, Darja Nevits, Christopher Tibbals, Jill Schafer, Jennifer Burke, Planning Director and Teresa Vickery, Clerk.
Petition 1030: 16 Blaine Street, Variance
Present were: Carla & Patrick Rodrigues, Applicants
Dottie Risser convened the Public Hearing.
Darja Nevits read the Right of Appeal.
The applicant is requesting a variance under section 6.2.2.1 of the Zoning By-Laws to construct a porch closer than the required 30 foot front yard setback in the SB Single Family District.
Ms. Rodrigues explained that she and her husband recently purchased the property from his parents and that they will remain living in the home with them. Mr. Rodrigues mother suffers from a skin condition called vitiligo and they would like to construct a front porch so she can sit outdoors without causing harm to herself. She noted that any type of sun exposure will cause her skin to burn immediately. There is no shaded area in the front yard for her to enjoy the outdoors therefore they are asking to build a wrap around porch in the front of the house.
Ms. Rodrigues noted that nine of the twelve homes on the north side of the road have existing porches.
Ms. Risser stated that the structure is already a prior non-conforming as the current set back is 29 feet. The Board discussed whether they find this to be a unique circumstance as the majority of the other structures on the street have porches.
Tony Ipolitio, 20 Blaine Street spoke in favor of granting the variance to the applicant.
James Smith, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Jill Schafer not voting.
Mr. Petrasiak agreed that this is a unique situation as the majority of the homes have existing porches and this setback would be less than some of the other homes in the vicinity. The rest of the Board agreed.
Ms. Risser noted that the applicant also needed a variance for the side yard setback as well. The Board agreed.
Dorothy Risser, seconded by James Smith, moved to grant a Variance under Section 6.2.2.1 to construct a front porch closer than the required 30 foot yard setback 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, shape and topography affect this land or structure but not generally affecting the rest of the zoning district in that this is one of only 3 homes on the North side of Blaine Street without a front porch, and;
- A literal enforcement of the zoning by-law would involve substantial hardship to the developer in that the petitioner’s mother and children’s caretaker has a medical condition that requires she be covered when outside in the sunlight, 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 the character of the neighborhood is such that covered front porches are common.
And with the following conditions;
- The front porch shall be constructed in accordance with the plans as filed wit the petition specifically the plan entitled “Certified Plot Plan of 16 Blaine Street in Hudson, MA” as drawn by Thomas Land Surveyors & Engineering Consultants, Inc. dated May 17, 2012.
Vote: 5-0-0, Jill Schafer not voting.
Dorothy Risser, seconded by James Smith, moved to grant a Variance under Section 6.2.1.3 to construct a front porch closer than the required 10 food side yard setback 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, shape and topography affect this land or structure but not generally affecting the rest of the zoning district in that this is one of only 3 homes on the North side of Blaine Street without a covered front porch, and;
- A literal enforcement of the zoning by-law would involve substantial hardship to the developer in that the petitioner’s mother and children’s caretaker has a medical condition that requires she be covered when outside in the sunlight, 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 the character of the neighborhood is such that covered front porches are common.
And with the following conditions;
- The front porch shall be constructed in accordance with the plans as filed with the petition specifically the plan entitled “Certified Plot Plan of 16 Blaine Street in Hudson, MA” as drawn by Thomas Land Surveyors & Engineering Consultants, Inc. dated May 17, 2012.
Vote: 5-0-0, Jill Schafer not voting.
James Smith, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Jill Schafer not voting.
Mr. Peznola joined the meeting
Petition 1031: 205 Washington Street, Variance
Present were: Paul Giannetti, Atty. at Law
David Baker, RK Associates
Joe Peznola convened the Public Hearing.
Dorothy Risser read the Right of Appeal.
The applicant is requesting a variance under section 6.2.1.4 of the zoning by-laws to relocate an existing sign to a location which is less than the required ten foot setback in the C-11 Commercial District.
Atty. Giannetti explained this petition is due to issues that have arisen due to the expansion of Washington Street. The right of way plan shows the sign encroaching into the right of way. This is the main sign to the Hannaford’s shopping plaza. The applicant contemplated this issue and therefore a new location for the sign has already been prepared.
The applicant does not want to move the sign further into the parking lot as it would reduce the number of spaces, it would also encroach on the developed plaza as well as it interfere with the straight line flow of traffic along the edge of the plaza. Therefore they are proposing to locate the sign less than the required ten foot setback. If the variance is granted the Building Commissioner has agreed to grant the applicant a temporary building permit before the appeal period has expired. The applicant does not want to got through that period of time without a sign for the plaza. This is being at the risk of the applicant.
The existing sign is approximately 35 feet high when it is moved they will loose the grandfathering for the height of the sign. The new sign will be 30 feet 6 inches high. The applicant is requesting a variance for the height of the sign as well as the maximum height is restricted to 20 feet.
Mr. Peznola noted in his understanding a taking cannot create a zoning violation. The applicant agreed however they believe that applying for the variance would just bring quicker resolution to getting the new signage installed than appealing the decision.
James Smith, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Todd Petrasiak Jill Schafer not voting.
The Board is in agreement this is not a self imposed hardship.
Joseph Peznola, seconded by Dorothy Risser, moved to grant a Variance under Section 6.2.1.4 to relocate and refurbish an existing sign to a location which is less than the required ten foot setback and allow for maximum sign height of 30’6” based on the following findings:
- The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
- The subject property is located in the C-11 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, and;
- A literal enforcement of the zoning by-law would involve substantial hardship to the developer in the Route 85 reconstruction project causing a taking of land and a reconstructed signalized entrance of the shopping plaza and complying with the setback will cause the loss of parking spaces and reduced interior travel lanes, 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 the refurbished sign will be no closer to the new right of way than the existing sign and the refurbished sign will be 4’6” less in height than the existing sign.
And with the following conditions:
- The refurbished sign location shall be no closer than 5 feet from the new right of way location.
Vote: 5-0-0, Todd Petrasiak and Jill Schafer not voting.
James Smith, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Todd Petrasiak and Jill Schafer not voting.
Petition 1032: 234 Washington Street, Variance
Present were: Paul Giannetti, Atty. at Law
David Baker, RK Associates
Joe Peznola convened the Public Hearing.
Dorothy Risser read the Right of Appeal.
The applicant is requesting a variance under section 6.2.1.4 of the zoning by-laws to relocate an existing sign to a location which is less than the required ten foot setback in the C-6 Commercial District.
Atty. Giannetti informed the Board that the applicant is seeking to move the existing sign in front of the Dunkin Donuts further in from the right of way. The existing sign location is right on the edge of the expanded right of way. The parking spaces in front of Dunkin Donuts are now angled in order to accommodate the travel lane. They will come as close as possible to the ten foot requirement. The landscaped island will be moved back approximately four feet.
James Smith, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Todd Petrasiak Jill Schafer not voting.
Joseph Peznola, seconded by Dorothy Risser, moved to grant a Variance under Section 6.2.1.4 to relocate an existing sign to a location which is less than the required ten foot setback based on the following findings:
- The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, 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, and;
- A literal enforcement of the zoning by-law would involve substantial hardship to the developer in the Route 85 reconstruction project causing a taking of land and complying with the required setback will cause conforming interior travel lanes to become nonconforming, 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 the roadway reconstruction is impacting several signs along the corridor.
And with the following conditions:
- The developer will provide a certified plot plan to the Board determining that the new sign location is outside the new right of way.
Vote: 5-0-0, Todd Petrasiak and Jill Schafer not voting.
James Smith, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Todd Petrasiak and Jill Schafer not voting.
Petition 1033: 222 Washington Street, Variance
Present were: Paul Giannetti, Atty. at Law
David Baker, RK Associates
Joe Peznola convened the Public Hearing.
Dorothy Risser read the Right of Appeal.
The applicant is requesting a variance under section 6.2.1.4 of the zoning by-laws to relocate an existing sign to a location which is less than the required ten foot setback in the C-6 Commercial District.
Atty. Giannetti explained that this sign is the Applebee’s plaza sign. This sign is closer than ten feet to the expanded right of way. MassDOT has to build a retaining wall because there is a approximately a 6 foot elevation difference along this part of Washington Street, the wall will help hold back the slope. This wall will go right in the area of the sign. Mr. Baker noted that the sign will only slide back slightly.
The parking spaces and the travel lane are also considerations in the relocation of the existing sign.
Ms. Risser how high the wall will be. Atty. Giannetti noted that it will be about 6 feet high but will most likely not be visible from the street.
James Smith, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Todd Petrasiak Jill Schafer not voting.
Joseph Peznola, seconded by Dorothy Risser, moved to grant a Variance under Section 6.2.1.4 to relocate an existing sign to a location which is less than the required ten foot setback based on the following findings:
- The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, 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, and;
- A literal enforcement of the zoning by-law would involve substantial hardship to the developer in the Route 85 reconstruction project causing a taking of land and complying with the required setback will cause conforming travel lanes to become nonconforming, 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 the roadway reconstruction is impacting several signs along the corridor.
And with the following conditions:
- The developer will provide a certified plot plan to the Board determining that the new sign location is outside the new right of way.
Vote: 5-0-0, Todd Petrasiak and Jill Schafer not voting.
James Smith, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Todd Petrasiak and Jill Schafer not voting.
Minutes
Darja Nevits, seconded by Joe Peznola, made a motion to accept the minutes of April 12, 2012, as written.
Vote: 7-0-0, Unanimous
Adjournment
At 8:30 PM, Dottie Risser, seconded by Joe Peznola, moved to adjourn.
Vote: 7-0-0, Unanimous
Document List June 14, 2012
Document |
Location |
Variance Application – 16 Blaine Street |
Planning Office |
Variance Application – 205 Washington Street |
Planning Office |
Variance Application – 234 Washington Street |
Planning Office |
Variance Application – 222 Washington Street |
Planning Office |
Minutes of April 12, 2012 |
Planning Office |
| 
