Minutes of Meeting— May 8, 2014
The Hudson Board of Appeals met in the Selectmen’s Hearing Room, 2nd Floor, Town Hall, Hudson, Massachusetts. At 7:00 PM, Joseph Peznola called the meeting to order.
Present: Joe Peznola, Todd Pietrasiak, Darja Nevits, Christopher Tibbals, Jill Schafer, Jennifer Burke, Planning Director and Teresa Vickery Clerk.
Petition 1047 – 10 Franklin Street, Accessory Dwelling Unit
The Board is in receipt of a letter from Atty. Jose Moreira requesting withdrawal of the petition without prejudice. The Board had no issues.
Todd Pietrasiak, seconded by Christopher Tibbals, made a motion to accept the request to withdraw Petition 1047 without prejudice.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous
Petition 1048 - 6 Four Bridges Road, Accessory Dwelling Unit
Present were: Peter Percuoco, Applicant
Lisa Percuoco, Applicant
Joe Peznola convened the public hearing.
Todd Pietrasiak read the Right of Appeal.
Mr. Percuoco explained to the Board that they are planning on demolishing an existing garage and build an accessory dwelling unit on the foundation that will be left behind. The amount of living space will be 700 square feet. There is available parking for six vehicles. The applicant noted that he and his wife will continue to occupy the residence.
Mr. Peznola noted that in her staff report Ms. Burke stated that the ADU by-law does not have a provision for demolition and rebuilding and she asked that they consider how this maintains the character of a single family dwelling.
Sam Wong, Board of Health Agent also noted that the current septic system is approved for four bedrooms, as the dwelling currently has four bedrooms they will need to upgrade the septic system to accommodate the additional bedroom created by the ADU. Mr. Percuoco explained that one of the bedrooms will become part of the kitchen due to an impending remodeling of the kitchen. This will eliminate the need to upgrade the septic as the dwelling with continue to have only four bedrooms.
Todd Pietrasiak, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous
Mr. Peznola does not see any issues regarding the demolition and rebuilding of an existing structure, the Board agreed.
Joseph Peznola, seconded by Darja Nevits, moved to grant a Special Permit under section 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-7 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 y of the street effected, and;
- The petitioner has provided an affidavit stating intent to occupy one of the dwellings.
And with the following conditions:
- Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit the petitioner must satisfy the conditions of the Board of health relative to Title V.
- One of the units will be owner occupied.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous
Joe Peznola, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous
Mr. Peznola recused himself and left the meeting.
Petition 1049 – 38 Harriman Road, Accessory Dwelling Unit
Present were: Christopher Previte, Contractor
Lisa Davidson, Applicant
Darja Nevits convened the public hearing.
Todd Pietrasiak read the Right of Appeal.
Mr. Previte, contractor for the applicant, noted that the applicant has gotten a permit to construct an addition at the rear of her house, however the permit was only for additional living space, a bedroom and a bathroom. The applicant would like to include cooking facilities to the addition and needs a special permit in which to do so.
The total square footage of the addition with the inclusion of the kitchen is 840 square feet. The addition is not visible from the road as it is at the rear of the existing dwelling. The entrance to the addition will also be at the rear of the house. The person whom the addition is intended for does not nor will ever drive. Mr. Previte asked if the Board could grant a waiver for the parking. Ms. Burke stated that it is not necessary and explained that the applicant must show that there is sufficient parking for additional vehicles available to be constructed on the premises.
Darja Nevits, seconded by Todd Pietrasiak, made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 4-0-0, Unanimous
The Board had no issues with this plan.
Darja Nevits, seconded by Todd Pietrasiak, moved to grant a Special Permit under section 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-7 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 y of the street effected, and;
- The petitioner has provided an affidavit stating intent to occupy one of the dwellings.
And with the following conditions:
- One of the units will be owner occupied.
Vote: 4-0-0, Unanimous
Darja Nevits, seconded by Christopher Tibbals, made a motion to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 4-0-0, Unanimous
Petition 1050 – 312 Main Street, Variance
Present were: Tim Sullivan, Barlo Signs
George Danis, Applicant
Darja Nevits convened the public hearing.
Todd Pietrasiak read the Right of Appeal.
Mr. Sullivan explained that the applicant is seeking three variances for the existing signage at the property at 312 Main Street. There are currently two existing signs at either end of the building they are seeking to create more uniform signage at the site.
The first sign is the Boost Fitness sign. The applicant is seeking two variances for this sign one for setback and the other for height. The existing steel pole and base will be reused however this will require a variance for the setback. It is currently non-conforming; however this will lessen the non-conformity of the sign. The building is located very close to the road and if the sign were to be placed at the ten foot setback it would be blocked by buildings in both directions.
The second variance for this sign is for the height. They are seeking to erect the sign at a height of 24 feet instead of the required 20 feet. The goal is to have enough clearance under the sign to allow for visibility from oncoming cars and also to allow them to safely negotiate the turn into the site and still have panel sizes large enough to easily identify the tenants on the property.
The second sign, which is at the other end of the property, also requires a variance for the height.
Mr. Pietrasiak noted that the by-law requires a bottom clearance of 4 feet and this sign has a clearance of 6 feet, he asked is this was due to traffic. Mr. Sullivan believes that due to size of vehicles today 6 feet is better for visibility. There is a design element at the top of the sign that Mr. Pietrasiak noted could be removed and if the bottom clearance was changed to four feet as well the sign would be within the required height. Mr. Sullivan agreed however he noted that aesthetically it would not have the same appeal.
Mr. Pietrasiak stated that while the sign may look better as the applicant is proposing this does not constitute a hardship in any way.
Mr. Danis addressed the Board regarding the height of the sign. He is looking to update the signage and make it more visible to oncoming traffic. He stated that the hardship is in the economics of the building as it is difficult to get tenants because of the lack of proper signage.
Steve Coral, 298 Main Street asked whether the variance addresses the issue of sign brightness. Mr. Sullivan stated that they are within the regulations regarding the brightness of the sign.
Ms. Nevits suggested that the applicant request a continuance in order to come back with further evidence regarding the height variance in order to prove a hardship. Mr. Danis opted to proceed this evening.
Todd Pietrasiak, seconded by Jill Schafer, made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 4-0-0, Unanimous
The Board, as a whole, cannot find a hardship with regards to the height of the sign. Ms. Nevits stated however that the Board does agree to grant a variance for the setback.
Darja Nevits, seconded by Todd Pietrasiak, moved to grant a Variance under Section 6.2.1.4 – Setback to replace existing sign with 8 foot setback based on the following findings:
- The Petitioner has standing to bring the Petition, and;
- The subject property is located in the M-3 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 that the buildings are so close to the road in this part of Town that the sing would be hidden if the 10 foot setback was enforced, 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, and;
- The Petitioner is making the sign less non-conforming by moving the sign in 4 feet to the 8 foot setback.
Vote: 4-0-0, Unanimous
Darja Nevits, seconded by Todd Pietrasiak, moved to deny a Variance under Section 6.2.1.4 – Height to replace an existing sign on the Boost Fitness side of the building with new height of 24 feet based on the following findings:
- The Petitioner was not able to sufficiently prove hardship other than one that was self imposed.
Vote: 4-0-0, Unanimous
Darja Nevits, seconded by Todd Pietrasiak, moved to deny a Variance under Section 6.2.1.4 – Height to replace an existing sign on the Napa Auto Parts side of the building with new height of 24 feet based on the following findings:
- The Petitioner was not able to sufficiently prove hardship other than one that was self imposed.
Vote: 4-0-0, Unanimous
Darja Nevits, seconded by Todd Pietrasiak, made a motion to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 4-0-0, Unanimous
Petition 1051 – 34 Tower Street, Variance
Present were: Tim Sullivan, Barlo Signs
George Danis, Applicant
Darja Nevits convened the public hearing.
Todd Pietrasiak read the Right of Appeal.
Mr. Sullivan explained that the applicant is seeking to erect an identical sign to the two signs in the previous petition. The only variance for this sign is for the height requirement. He noted the fact that the road grades up and the larger trucks that drive along this route would call for relief for visibility purposes.
As the sign is identical to the others the Board feels that the same issues of hardship come up with this petition as well.
Kate McGrath, 28 Bennett Street asked for clarification regarding the location and the lighting of the sign.
Darja Nevits, seconded by Todd Pietrasiak, made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 4-0-0, Unanimous
The Board unanimously agrees that a hardship has not been proven.
Darja Nevits, seconded by Todd Pietrasiak, moved to deny a Variance under Section 6.2.1.4 to replace an existing sign with a new height of 24 feet based on the following findings:
- The Petitioner was not able to sufficiently prove hardship other than one that was self imposed.
Vote: 4-0-0, Unanimous
Darja Nevits, seconded by Todd Pietrasiak, made a motion to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 4-0-0, Unanimous
Adjournment
At 8:15 PM, Darja Nevits, seconded by Todd Pietrasiak, moved to adjourn.
Vote: 4-0-0, Unanimous
Document List May 8, 2014
Document |
Location |
Letter requesting withdrawal without prejudice 10 Franklin Street |
Planning Office |
Petition 1048 – 6 Four Bridges Road |
Planning Office |
Petition 1049 – 38 Harriman Road |
Planning Office |
Petition 1050 – 312 Main Street |
Planning Office |
Petition 1051 – 34 Tower Street |
Planning Office |
Minutes of December 12, 2013 |
Planning Office |
Minutes of January 9, 2014 |
Planning Office |
| 
