SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2009

A regular meeting of the Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 at 8:00 P.M. in the Lower Level of the Town Office Building.  The following members were present:  John Lee, Chairman; Larry Okstein, Seth Ruskin, Walter Newman.

8:00 P.M.        Peter Blumenthal, 11 Leonard Road, Case No. 1625:  Mr. Lee read the public hearing notice and also letters from Jim Andrews dated May 27, 2009 and Greg Meister dated May 26, 2009.  There were no issues with what is being proposed.

Mr. Blumenthal stated the proposed addition will be for his kids and grandchildren as their house is really small.  There will be a family room, a bedroom with a sitting room and a bathroom being added.  He stated that the non-shaded area on page 1 of the plans is what is existing and what is shaded is being proposed.  They will be removing a tree in the back and the septic system is behind that.  The leaching field will be to the right of the proposed addition. 

Mr. Lee stated the setback is 20’.  Mr. Blumenthal stated the issue is the lot size is smaller than what is allowed.  Mr. Lee stated they need 40,000 s.f. and the addition will not be greater than 20’. 

Mr. Blumenthal stated that page 2 of the plans show the existing garage and next to it is the dwelling itself.  They are pushing the existing dining room back a few feet and also the existing kitchen.  They are putting in a breakfast area that is now part of the existing family room.    The family room on the plan is part existing and part new.  The addition will be the bathroom, bedroom and sitting room.

Mr. Okstein asked when you leave the sitting room, will there be back steps?  Mr. Blumenthal stated no, there will be a ramp.  He asked what they are proposing between the sitting room and the bedroom and Mr. Blumenthal stated just a doorway.  Mr. Lee stated we are concerned that it could be turned into a separate apartment.   Mr. Blumenthal stated no.  Mr. Lee stated that is not the applicant’s intent, but we would like it designed so it can’t be turned into a separate apartment in the future.  Ms. Blumenthal asked what would prevent that and Mr. Lee stated the second entrance raises some concerns as that could allow someone to have it as a separate apartment.  Mr. Lee asked about the breakfast and dining area and Mr. Blumenthal stated it is all open.  Ms. Blumenthal stated that the water hookups and kitchen facilities are all separate.  The breakfast area is simply for a table and chairs.  Mr. Lee stated that the breakfast area cannot be closed off.

Mr. Newman asked the s.f. of the existing house and Mr. Blumenthal stated it is 24’x40’ approximately and that is existing.  Mr. Lee questioned the new addition and Mr. Blumenthal stated approximately 32’x32’.  It is all in the back of the house and is not visible from the front.

There were no public comments.

Mr. Newman stated this is not readily splittable.  He would like the total s.f.  The addition is about 32’x32’ or 1,000 s.f.  The existing house is 27’x44.5’ including the single car garage.  The existing floor space is 1200 approximately, so they are almost doubling the size of the s.f.  Mr. Lee stated that based on the neighborhood, it is not right on the lake.  Mr. Newman stated he is okay with this as long as the setbacks are met.  Mr. Okstein asked how many grandchildren and Ms. Blumenthal stated so far 3.

Mr. Blumenthal asked to close the public hearing. 

Mr. Lee stated that Mr. Lee, Mr. Ruskin and Mr. Okstein will be voting.

Mr. Lee moved to approve Case No. 1635 as shown on plans dated May 6, 2009 with the board’s standard conditions.  He stated that the current house is 1200 s.f. and the proposed addition will be 1,020 s.f.  Motion seconded by Mr. Okstein and voted 3-0-0.

8:25 P.M.        Tran, 25 Meadow Road, Case No. 1631 Continued Hearing:  Mr. Lee continued this hearing to June 10, 2009 at 8:00 P.M. as per request of Tracy Sharkey on behalf of Mr. Tran.

8:28 P.M.        Omnipoint, 2 N. Main Street, Case No. 1628 Continued Hearing:  Mr. Lee stated that Mr. Lee, Mr. Okstein and Mr. Ruskin will be voting on this petition.

The applicant was represented by Joseph Giammarco, Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye, Boston, MA.  He submitted maps to the board and stated that Page 3, is what is presently existing for cell coverage.  Mr. Newman questioned the Upland water tank and stated he thinks it is a very high elevation.  Mr. Heffernan stated it is higher than the place they are proposing.  Mr. Newman asked what is surrounding that site and Mr. Giammarco stated it is mostly wooded.  Mr. Newman stated that if you put a monopole next to the tank you would achieve some good coverage.

Mr. Heffernan stated they have to consider the footprint of the foundation of the proposed monopole and also the underground pipes and utilities.  Mr. Lee stated there might be space for a monopole out there, but that is not what the town put out there.  Mr. Ruskin stated there is no RFP for this application because it is attached to the church.  Mr. Newman asked what is involved with attaching something to the tank itself and Mr. Heffernan questioned if he means something substantial and Mr. Newman stated yes.  Mr. Heffernan stated if it is over 10’, you would be getting into a whole other set of questions and it would become very tricky because of the structural integrity of the structure itself.  A fairly intensive analysis would have to be done.  Mr. Giammarco stated that he also submitted a 3-year plan with the maps.  Mr. Heffernan stated they are also doing a search ring.  Mr. Lee questioned that.  Mr. Heffernan stated that is a focus area within the gap that they know exists.  It could mean that a structure has been identified that could possibly be used and is a designated area, but not in use at this time.

Mr. Ruskin asked what carrier will actually be in the steeple and Mr. Giammarco stated T-mobile.  Mr. Ruskin asked if there is anyone else and Mr. Giammarco stated not at this point.  They don’t own the steeple, so the church could get another company.  Mr. Newman asked why there isn’t any shading around the church area on the maps they gave the board and Mr. Heffernan stated this is a 3-year over view and they wanted to see what areas are anticipated over the next three years.  Mr. Newman stated that the only shading shown on the map are those places where they have something existing.  Mr. Heffernan stated that is correct.

Mr. Giammarco stated the last matter concerns the independent expert.  They were told this report is a few weeks away.  They would ask the board to contact Sideband to see if they could hurry the report along.  Mr. Lee stated that last Thursday they received an email that Omnipoint was willing to pay for the services to be conducted at the request of the Zoning Board.   At that time, Mr. Lee contacted Jack Davis at Sideband Systems, who said they do that type of work.  Omnipoint sent them over some information and Sideband said they would do it for $4500. They asked Sideband if the information could be ready for tonight’s meeting, but the holiday came into play. 

Jackie Murray, an attorney who works for Omnipoint, stated she spoke with Sideband and a conservative estimate was that it would be a few weeks before the report would be completed.  Mr. Lee stated that the Zoning Board wants to see this report.  Sidebank will review the cell towers at the both the DPW and the church steeple.  Even though Omnipoint is paying for this report, Sideband is working for the Zoning Board.

Paul Mende, 9 Pleasant Street:  when the report comes in could it be put in a public place so the residents could review it.  Mr. Lee stated absolutely.  Further, we want it to be a good thing for the town.

Valerie Gundlah, 22 N. Main Street:  how is the survey done?  It would have to show that there is no coverage by any carrier.  Mr. Lee that that is her interpretation.  He knows right now that just because there is some coverage in an area, the individual carriers say they need coverage.  That is based on past ZBA experience.  We ran into that at the country club with Sprint.  The ZBA denied it in part due to coverage.  It was quickly pointed out to us that the carriers are individually entitled to coverage.  Ms. Gundlah stated because it says they have to show an evidence of need, that the existing facilities do not provide adequate coverage. The zoning bylaw says he has to say that these other sites won’t work and the applicant has never said that.  Mr. Lee asked if she has evidence to say it can be done?  Ms. Gundlah stated that is not up to her.  It is in the bylaw that the petitioner has to show that.  Mr. Lee stated it is a 52’ tank and the applicant has provided information that what they have right now won’t work.  Ms. Gundlah stated this is a burden of proof that has never been done.  Mr. Newman stated we could have the consultants look at this and make a recommendation. Mr. Lee stated we asked them to look at this to see if they are providing the coverage they need.  He is not interested in modifying what is already out thee.

Paul Mende, 9 Pleasant Street:  Isn’t the proposal to show this necessary for their needs?  Mr. Lee stated yes.  Paul Mende stated that is not what you said.  Mr. Lee stated we can’t re-engineer sides for additional antennas.  We deal with what is being proposed.  One of the best spots in town would be the fire tower on Moosehill Road.  Applicants have asked for that and been denied.  Paul Mende stated that of the two sites, one is unnecessary.  Mr. Lee stated that is what we are going to find out.  We have asked the peer review to look at what is being proposed and tell us whether or not this provides the coverage they need.  Also, what can be done to reduce this – do they need two towers?

There were no further questions from the board or the public.

Mr. Lee continued this hearing to June 10^th at 8:00 P.M.

 9:02 P.M.       Omnipoint, 215 S. Main Street, Case No. 1626 Continued Hearing:  Edward Pare, Esq., represented T-mobile.  He is awaiting the same report as the application for 2 North Main Street.

Scott Heffernan stated the goal is to have continuous coverage of the entire railroad line and also good coverage outside the railroad tracks.  Mr. Ruskin stated the pole doesn’t need to be 45’ high.  He asked how far the pole is from the closest house and Mr. Pare stated over 200’.  It is also a fall zone.  Mr. Lee stated we thought the MBTA would have a problem with this, but they didn’t.  This is an effort to provide service up and down the entire railroad corridor.  They have towers being set up all over the train route.  The MBTA did ask that an Amtrak flag person be used for safety during construction.  He had a call from Ben Puritz after the Board of Selectmen’s meeting regarding alternative sites.  Mr. Pare stated the board asked them to look at Farnham  Road.  He will, therefore, do a site visit but feels it is a wash. 

Mr. Lee stated we will continue this hearing as we have to wait for a report.   He asked the people present to talk to the Selectmen and Mr. Puritz as there may be a better site. We will deal with the case before us, which is at the DPW site.  They have a lease on the DPW site.  Mr. Pare stated it is a long-term lease.  They have already had these discussions with the town administrator, but have made no commitment.  They will ask this board for a decision.  They have also agreed to the peer review and asked Mr. Lee to call Sideband about rushing the report.  Mr. Lee stated he will call Sideband tomorrow.  We want the best for everyone.  Mr. Pare stated they plan to use the next two weeks to examine the site and any maps that are available.  They expect to wrap everything up at the next meeting.

There were no questions from the public.

Mr. Lee continued this meeting to June 10, 2009 at 8:00 P.M.

Sharon Residences:  Mr. Lee stated that regarding the decision we approved, the way the applicant read it was they could sell 14 units of which only two have to be affordable or 14%.  They will backload the other units.  Mr. Ruskin stated he thought that Kevin McCarville was very clear on this.  Mr. Lee stated he was.  Also, Mass Housing is very clear on this.  That was not how it was stated in the decision.  He thinks that Mass Housing will have a problem with this also.  We told them a minimum of 20% and we are getting 14%.  Mr. Lee told Mr. Houston to go back and address this issue with the applicant.  Mr. Ruskin stated he agreed with what Kevin McCarville said.  Mr. Okstein asked if the applicant had said it would be delayed for one year?  Mr. Ruskin stated they told him they are extremely close, but they are looking up supermarkets.  They are looking at Wegman’s, Roche, and Hannaford.  They said they are going to sign Target right away.

It was moved, seconded and voted to adjourn.  The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.

                                                Respectfully submitted,

Accepted 7/8/09