MINUTES OF MEETING ASHLAND ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 9, 2017

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF MEETING ASHLAND ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 9, Present: Phil Jack, Chair Brian Forestal Stuart Siegel Smriti Choudhury John Trefethen Also present: Josh Chase, Assistant Town Planner Adam Costa, Town Council Administration 7:01 PM Approval of minutes was the first order of business. No changes were proposed on the minutes from April 4. Mr. Forestal moved that the minutes of April 4, 2017 be approved, with Ms. Choudhury seconding. The motion passed with Mr. Trefethen abstaining as he was absent from the April 4 th meeting. One small change was mentioned on the minutes of April 11, which was agreed to by the Board. Mr. Forestal moved that the minutes of April 11, 2017 be approved, with Mr. Trefethen seconding. The motion passed The Chair read the notice of the reposting of the deliberations and approval of the decision in appeal of the Building Inspector s Decision regarding BP , relative to 23 Washington Ave, and to the Open Meeting Law complaint filed by Steven Morgan, dated March 17, 2017, relative to the Board s action on April 11, Attorney Costa gave an overview of the Open Meeting Law process as well as details of the process that takes place. Specific to the current complaint, Atty. Costa discussed the actual alleged violations, and detailed the proposed response to the two complaints. Atty. Costa s response was that no Open Meeting Law violations had taken place. Atty. Costa recommended the Board reaffirm that the signing of the decision on April 11, 2017 was consistent with the decision originally made. Mr. Trefethen put forth a motion to reaffirm the decision on 23 Washington Ave. as amended on the April 11 th meeting, and that the three signatories so state tonight. Mr. Forestal seconded the motion, and the motion passed The Chair made a motion to approve the response to the Open Meeting Law complaint. The motion was seconded by Mr. Forestal, and the motion passed Eliot St. Special Permit 7:18 PM 1

2 Claudio Alves, owner and applicant, gave an overview of the application, and the reasons he was applying for the special permit, to allow his daughter and grandson to live in the in-law apartment that the applicant thought was legal and proper when he bought the house. Mr. Trefethen asked if there are any proposed changes to the house, to which Mr. Alves stated that there is not. Mr. Trefethen asked if the second floor has its own entrance, to which Mr. Alves answered that there was. Mr. Trefethen asked if the house was on town sewer. Mr. Alves stated that the house was attached to town sewer that day. Mr. Jack asked how large the proposed in-law apartment was. Mr. Alves responded that it was a little more than 500 square feet. Mr. Jack stated that that fits within the bylaw. The Board inquired about the parking. The applicant stated that there are 6 spaces, but only 3 cars would be parked there. Mr. Trefethen inquired regarding the 6 criteria as outlined in Section of the Zoning Bylaws. The Board and the applicant discussed the criteria outlined and no concerns were brought up. The Chair then opened the floor for public comment. Cliff Wilson, 378 Eliot St., stated that there are other rental properties in the neighborhood, and that he had no objection to the proposed Special Permit. The Board decided that Mr. Forestal, Mr. Jack, and Mr. Siegel would vote on the matter. After a brief discussion on the merits of the application, Mr. Forestal made a motion to approve the Special Permit. Mr. Jack seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Trefethen offered that the Board attach the standard conditions the in-law apartment be occupied by a family member, and the conditions as found in Section The Chair asked Town Council if the stated conditions should be spelled out in the decision if they are encoded in the by-laws, to which Atty. Costa stated that it may be prudent as it would give clarity if the by-laws changed in the future Lakeside Dr. Special Permit 7:32 PM Atty. Effren, attorney for the applicants, gave background on the properties in question, the application to construct a 631 square foot addition to an existing single family home that would encroach into the front setback, and gave what he feels is justification for granting the Special Permit. As part of the presentation, Atty. Effren stated that the owners would go before the Planning Board to combine the two lots via an Approval Not Required Subdivision Plan (ANR) before any building permits were applied for. The Board decided that sitting on this would be Mr. Forestal, Mr. Trefethen, and Mr. Siegel. Mr. Trefethen asked if there was any reason that the applicant would have to go before the Conservation Commission. Atty. Effron responded that the addition was designed to not have to go before the Conservation Commission. Mr. Jack asked if the 2005 ZBA decision was relevant to the current case. The question was directed to Town Council if the addition allowed in the 2005 decision gave the current application grounds for being a pre-existing non-conformity. Atty. Costa stated that the applicant is, in a way, modifying the Special Permit granted in 2005, which is allowed, and as long as the new Special Permit complies with today s by-laws. The fact that the 2005 Special Permit may not have been granted if brought before the Board today is not relevant. Tony Lewis, 34 Washington Ave., spoke in support of the application. Page 2 of 8

3 The Board went through the criteria in Section and found no items of concern. The need for demolishing the structure at 37 Lakeside Dr. was discussed and confirmed. The Board discussed the conditions to be attached to the decision. No conditions were added other than the aforementioned condition regarding the ANR previous to issuing any building permits. A voice vote was held to approve the application for a Special Permit with the conditions discussed. The application was approved West Union St. Comprehensive Permit Remand 7:00 PM The Chair gave an overview of the process, the previous decision, and the matter before them. Atty. Costa gave additional details on the process, the mediation between the Board and the developer, and what is before the Board. Attorney Angelo Catanzaro, for the developer, Capitol Group Properties, spoke to the matter at hand, giving background on the process, the mediation, the other lawsuit brought by residents of the town, what the position of his client was, and the potential path forward should the Board not approve the mediated settlement. Peter Lavoie, engineer from Guerriere & Halnon, Inc., gave a presentation on the changes made from to the project. These changes stemmed from the mediated settlement, and were changes from the original proposed plans. The Chair asked if the developer still intended to ask for the parking waiver, to which Atty. Catanzaro responded that they would. Mr. Trefethen asked if the proposed buildings would be 3 or 4 stories, Atty. Catanzaro stated that it would be 4 stories. Atty. Catanzaro continued saying that the waiver applied for was for a height of 56 feet, but the construction height would be less than 55 feet. Mr. Jack asked if Atty. Catanzaro would go through the questions brought up by town staff. He responded in detail, line by line, that all questions had been answered. The Board opened the floor to public comments. Town Council recommended that the Board not ask questions that may cause abutters that reached a settlement to divulge aspects of that settlement that they may not freely offer, if any of the parties are in attendance. The Board agreed. Mark Dassoni, of 49 Hawthorn Rd., spoke to the lack of screening, to the overall size of the project, and implications of the project on the town. Robin Hicks, of 11 Franklin Rd., asked to see the rendering of the project. Atty. Catanzaro gave a little background on the rendering as additional information. Paul Kendall, of 25 Olive St., spoke in opposition to the project, and to the deficiencies of the information supplied by the developer. Jean Young, of 46 Indian Spring Rd., spoke in opposition due to the size of the project. Kenneth Pitard, of 124 Union St., spoke in opposition due to the concerns of traffic. Page 3 of 8

4 Sarah Moorhead, of 60 Frankland Rd., spoke in opposition due to concerns of traffic and loss of natural habitat. Steve Mitchell, of 5 New Castle Rd., spoke in opposition of the project, and, as a member of the Board of Selectmen, read into the record a section of the communication the Selectmen sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals previously. Dale Buchanan, of 7 Denise Dr., asked if there was a rendering of the project with 3 stories rather than the 4 stories shown, and asked if adding another story enhances the community. Atty. Catanzaro responded that there has never been a 3 story project that the applicant had agreed to so there is no rendering of that, and that there is an incremental difference between the 99 unit project and the 120 unit project. Kathy Rooney, of 136 Fountain St., spoke in opposition to the project due to scale of the town, and the strain on town services. Rene Thompson, of 6 Crestwood Dr., spoke in opposition to the project, due to school overcrowding. Judy Margulies, of 53 America Blvd., asked when the irrigation well came before the Board of Health. Atty. Catanzaro responded that he was unsure if the irrigation well had gone before the Board of Health, and questioned whether or not the well had to go before the Board of Health. The Chair asked if the irrigation well was in the purview of the ZBA. Town Council responded that it would be only if the applicant applied for a waiver, which he did not recall that applicant applied for that particular waiver. Cammy Townsend, of 70 Warren Rd., spoke in opposition due to the strain on town services. Joanne Scotland, of 142 West Union St., spoke in opposition due to the scale of the project. The Chair spoke to the subject before them, the mediation, and the original decision the Board rendered, and the responsibilities he felt were before them. Mr. Trefethen gave a more detailed explanation of the mediation process. Mr. Forestal spoke to his experience on the mediation process. Mr. Siegel agreed with Mr. Forestal. Atty. Costa gave detail on the mediation as well, including on the changes in the results on the economic tests on the viability of the different iterations on the project. Mr. Trefethen spoke to his feelings on the project, the process as a whole, and his concerns as to the mediated proposal. He felt the choice before them was to accept the mediated decision, which had some small improvements from the original 132 unit proposal, or does the Board take the chance of going back in front of the HAC and getting the original proposal approved. He also had concerns about the financial implications of appealing the HAC s decision if necessary, but felt that if the Board of Selectmen had voiced their support, as they did earlier in the evening, then he was willing to allow them to do that. He stated that he felt that original decision was correct under the circumstances, allowing for affordable housing to be built in Ashland. He felt that both the 99 unit and 120 unit projects were too big for the site, but if both the Town and the Board of Selectmen were willing to take its chances, he was fine with that as the original decision was proper under the circumstances. Page 4 of 8

5 Mr. Siegel stated that he echoed Mr. Trefethen s comments, and that he would support the 99 units, but not the 120 unit project. Mr. Jack stated that that was where he was as well. He felt that the Town was going to lose at the HAC, but he was more interested in the appeal to that due to questions in the economic test and whether or not that test represents market realities. He said that he was happy to send those questions into the judicial system. He stated that he is opposed to the mediated settlement. Mr. Trefethen put forth a motion to reject the mediated settlement and to affirm the Board s original decision of October Mr. Siegel seconded the motion and the motion passed , 13, and 75 Chestnut Street, and 10, 12, and 13 Brook Street Special Permit 9:28 PM Jerry Effren, attorney for the applicant, stated that the applicant was applying for a use permit only. He gave background on the application, the history of the properties including ownership, and the use of the properties. Atty. Effren submitted a photograph of the lot from 1966 showing cars parked on the lot, and a photograph from 2001 showing the use as a parking lot. He stated that the applicants and the neighbors had met before the application was submitted to try to alleviate concerns the neighbors had. He also stated that the curb cuts onto Chestnut St. would be postponed, and if the applicant moved forward with the curb cuts, they would go thru the proper boards and committees. He then gave an overview of the proposed project. The Chair asked to clarify who is using the lot on the north of Brook St, known as Lot 2. Atty. Effren responded that Lot 2 would be used only by the Connolly Bus Company, and suggested that be included in the conditions. Atty. Effren continued to give details on the proposal, including specifics on fueling of the buses, and environmental concerns. Before the engineer gave his presentation, the Board decided who would be sitting on the case at hand. It was decided that Mr. Forestal, Mr. Trefethen, and Ms. Choudhury would sit. Bert Corey, the engineer from Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc. for the applicant, gave an overview of the existing conditions as well as the proposed plans. Mr. Jack asked for clarification on the number of buses, an increase from 45 to 59 buses in Lot 3, and an increase of 0 to 9 buses on Lot 2 (to a total of 68), and the location of the proposed (and now postponed) curb cuts onto Chestnut Street. Mr. Corey continued to give details on the proposal, including the location of the dumpster, porta-potty, and the location of the snow storage. Mr. Siegel asked what precipitated the increase in buses. Atty. Effren responded that the buses that are currently parked on Homer Ave. would be moved to the location currently before the Board. The Board asked how many of the buses parked at the location in question are Ashland buses. The applicant responded that there are 13 Ashland buses along with 2 spares. Mr. Siegel asked for the orientation on the proposed buses on Lot 2. Mr. Corey responded that the busses would be parked along the northern edge of Lot 2. Mr. Siegel asked for the reasoning of the location of the porta-potty. Atty. Effren responded that it was convenient, but there is room to move it if need be. Amanda Zuretti, attorney for Elaine Kelley of Brook Street and other members of the Brook Street and Columbus Avenue neighborhood, gave detail on the letter that was submitted previously to the Zoning Page 5 of 8

6 Board. There were four main points, which were as follows: 1) suitable fencing and screening, 2) the secession of use of Columbus Avenue and Brook Street by buses from Connolly and Sons, 3) school bus parking be limited exclusively to Lot 3, and 4) cease pushing the snow onto the areas adjacent to the neighbor s property. Also mentioned was moving the porta-potty closer to Chestnut Street and the removal of snow in lieu of pushing the snow to the edge of the neighbor s property. Atty. Zuretti then stated that while she understands that the proximity to the rivers close to the property make the cub cuts onto Chestnut Street more challenging, she felt that it could be done, and should be. Mr. Jack asked Atty. Zuretti to highlight where the residents and the applicant differ. Atty. Zuretti responded that the screening, and specifically the plantings, has not been determined. She stated that the residents are not against the Special Permit applied for, per se, but are asking for workable conditions be applied to protect their interests. The also stated that the residents would like the curb cuts to be a requirement, and that buses be restricted to Lot 3 if feasible. In addition, she stated that if there are protocols being put in place by the bus company, those protocols should be included as conditions. Ray Trainer, of 8 Columbus Avenue, gave detail on the historic use of the two lots in questions. In so far as the impact to the neighborhood, Mr. Trainer stated that backup beepers are between 97 and 107 decibels, at least two times a day. He stated that the buses are obnoxious by design and asked that the buses be backed up to Chestnut St. He stated that he would be against Arborvitae spaced 10 feet apart, but would rather have Emerald Green Arborvitae spaced 4 to 5 feet apart on the properties to be owned by Connolly and Sons. The Chair asked if the applicants would entertain that proposed screening. Atty. Effren responded by giving the reasoning of the vegetative screening on the abutters property, but stated that there is some flexibility in what that screen exactly is. Mr. Trainer was asked about the proposed fence by the Chair. Mr. Trainer responded that he was more concerned about the buffer he felt was required between a commercial and a residential property, and read for the record Section of the Town By-laws. His largest complaint was the noise. Ms. Choudhury asked how many times the buses come back late at night from events such as sporting events. Mr. Trainer replied that the next resident will speak to that. Karen Araya, of 7 Columbus Ave., stated that the buses are tested before every run, and that the buses do not idle for longer than 5 minutes. Mr. Jack asked how that was enforced, Ms. Araya responded that there are signs and a supervisor. She also stated that there is a bus drive that starts at 5:30 AM, but that most of the buses are from 6:00 AM to ten of seven, and come back at between 8:30 and 9:15, there are some other buses in the late morning, and from 1:15 PM to 10 of two. Other times for buses were discussed with the very latest buses coming back at 10:00 PM. Mr. Jack asked if the later buses are less intense than at normal hours. Ms. Araya responded that it was. The highest intensity of noise was in the morning and afternoon. Ms. Araya stated that there have been 3 different bus companies using that lot. She said that one of the largest problems is that there are cars racing down Columbus Avenue on their way to and from the bus lot. Buses do occasionally drive down Columbus Avenue, and Connolly and Sons has asked the bus drivers not to drive on Columbus Avenue. Most drivers did comply. Ms. Araya is asking the bus drivers to respect the neighborhood. In 2009 Lot 2 there was a car dealership that parked cars on the lot, currently it is used by gym users. Ms. Araya advocated for the curb cuts on Chestnut Street. She submitted several photos to the Board as examples of what she was explaining, along with some letters and a list of abutters. Page 6 of 8

7 Elaine Kelley, of 18 Columbus Avenue, stated that not all of the buses have school bus plates and submitted a photo to speak to that, a photo of a bus parked on Lot 2, photos of bus drivers driving down Columbus Avenue, a photo of a bus driving down Columbus Avenue, and a photo of the buses being refueled. Ms. Kelley submitted photos of flooding on her property. Mr. Jack asked to point to her property, which she did. Ms. Kelley stated that pushing the snow up to the adjacent properties would cause flooding problems on her property. Mr. Jack asked if the applicant would accept paving the lot in question (Lot 2). Mr. Corey responded that the water should slope to the east and that minor grading could fix that. Ms. Kelley stated that they had not had a chance to respond to the offer of a stipend for vegetative screening. Mr. Siegel asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals could condition things of this nature, or is it the purview of the Planning Board. Town Council stated that they can. Ms. Kelley stated that the neighbors are only asking for what is in the zoning by-laws. Mr. Jack asked the applicant what the objection was to the 6 foot buffer along the residential properties. Mr. Corey responded that there is a 5 to 6 foot buffer in many places, but there was a turnaround in other places that cut into the buffer. Ms. Kelley stated that she did not want buses in Lot 2. Mr. Jack asked the applicant if they are limiting themselves to 9 buses in Lot 2, or would they be increasing that in the future. Atty. Effren stated that the conditions the applicant has suggested are not in effect currently and if they do not get the Special Permit they would not be in effect. He stated that they put the condition in to have a maximum of 9 buses in Lot 2. He also stated that the stipend for the trees would be in effect only if they were granted the Special Permit, and that his client would rather the trees be on the neighbor s property. Mr. Jack asked what the opposition to the trees on Lot 2 was. Steven Sullivan, of Connolly and Sons, stated that there is no water on the site and that they would not have the means to properly maintain the trees. Mr. Jack also wanted to clarify the location of the fence, which would be right on the property line, and what the buffer would be. Mr. Sullivan stated it would be mulch or crushed stone. Mr. Siegel asked both the applicant and the abutters if there is a problem with traffic flow, and if there was, what possible solutions are. Ms. Kelley stated that the residents would say yes. Mr. Siegel asked her to elaborate. Ms. Kelley stated that the traffic has improved as of late, but Mr. Siegel stated he was asking about the normal traffic flow out and into of the parking lots. He asked if supervision would help. Ms. Araya stated, first that she is an employee of Connolly and Sons, secondly that the bus drivers can do it on their own and said that she thought it would be a waste of the applicant s money. She also wanted to stress the desire for the curb cuts onto Chestnut Street. Atty. Effren stated that the applicant does not use Lot 2 currently. He stated that they thought the traffic would be helped by the use of Lot 2. He also touched on that there are no laws prohibiting the use of Columbus Avenue and Brook Street, but with the approval of this Special Permit, there will be. Anghan Pankajkumar, of 14 Columbus Avenue, stated that he has seen an increase in dangerous traffic on Columbus Avenue. He also stated that the noise of the buses wakes his children in the morning. He also expressed concern about the increase in buses. He submitted a letter and a photo of his back yard. Page 7 of 8

8 Linda Mercer, of 14 Brook Street, asked to submit photos to the Board, and voiced concerns about the noise in the afternoon. She requested the buffer and the trees. The proposed fence was discussed. Atty. Effren suggested that the Board could require the applicant to replace chain link fencing on Brook Street as needed. Ms. Araya stated that they have had discussions with the traffic safety committee, but they could not come up with a solution that could be legally enforced. Atty. Effren stated that there is no section of the by-laws that states the buses have to be used in Ashland. Mr. Trainer stated that Lot 3 drains into the river and voiced environmental concerns regarding the buses. Mark Dassoni voiced support for the process. Judy Margulies asked if the matter will be closed tonight and if there would be input from other boards. Several members of the Board stated that they would not be voting this evening on the matter. Mr. Trefethen asked Atty. Effren about the meeting in front of the Planning Board on January Atty. Effren stated that he did not know. Mr. Trefethen asked of the plans to go in front of the Planning Board or the Conservation Commission if they are granted the Special Permit. Atty. Effren stated that they do not have specific plans at this time due to the changing of engineer involved on the project. He did state that the applicants do want to move forward, but it could not be predicted at this point. Ms. Araya submitted a copy of the agenda from the meeting of the Planning Board regarding the properties in question. Mr. Siegel asked if grading would cause the proposal to go before the Conservation Commission. Mr. Corey responded that it would be considered an existing condition. Atty. Effren stated that he didn t think the work they are proposing would warrant other board s approval. Future scheduling was discussed. Mr. Trefethen put forth a motion to continue the hearing until May 23 rd at 7:05 PM. Ms. Choudhury seconded and the motion passed A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Trefethen at 11:17 and seconded by Ms. Choudhury. The motion passed Page 8 of 8