SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009  (1)

A regular meeting of the Town of Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 at 8:00 p.m. in the lower level of the Town Office Building.  The following members were present:  John Lee, Chairman (8:07 p.m.); Kevin McCarville, Secretary; Larry Okstein, Walter Newman, Lee Wernick, Seth Ruskin.

Mr. McCarville opened the meeting at 8:00 p.m.

8:00 P.M.             New Hearing:  DiBlasi, 774 Mountain Street, Case No. 1638:  Mr. McCarville read the public hearing notice and letters that were received from the Health Agent, Jim Andrews dated October 27, 2009 and from the Conservation Agent, Greg Meister dated October 28, 2009.

Mr. DiBlasi stated he is proposing to take down an existing porch and put up a new year-round family room that will be 17’x20’.  He will be moving one wall back 3’ and moving out the other way 3’.    There will be a little less square footage with a different configuration.  There is an existing poured concrete patio that he will enclose to be used as a screen porch.  The new room will have heat and a foundation also.

Mr. Newman stated he doesn’t see anything on the plan except a sketch showing the proposed dimensions.  He would like a plan marked up with what is existing and what is proposed.    What is before the board now is descriptive but is not an actual plan.  Mr. Wernick stated that this plan also doesn’t show any setbacks.  He stated that Mr. DiBlasi needs an engineer that will compute those dimensions and setbacks.   Mr. McCarville stated he doesn’t anticipate that will be a problem.  He just needs him to do this in the correct way.  The Building Inspector will require some plans so he can go and view the work to ensure it is conforming.  Mr. Wernick stated Mr. DiBlasi’s engineer needs to update his plan.  He also doesn’t expect any problems.

There were no comments from the public.  Mr. McCarville continued this hearing to December 9, 2009 at 8:00 P.M.

8:20 P.M.             Continued Hearing:  Omnipoint, 213 S. Main Street, Case No. 1626: Mr. Lee updated the board regarding this hearing.  He stated Omnipoint is also on our December 9, 2009 agenda for the Farnham Road site public hearing.  Mr. Pare, the applicant’s attorney, stated they have  a lease with the town and they are here to ask for a decision on the 215 S. Main Street site.   Mr. Lee stated if you grant a continuance tonight on this hearing, it will keep your options open to the DPW site.  If we close tonight, he is not sure how the vote will go.  If you keep it open and pursue the Farnham Road site, you will have more options.  Mr. Pare stated that the Farnham Road site works better for the board.  Mr. Lee stated yes.  He reminded the applicant they are asking for additional height also.  If you keep this open you are not closing any doors behind you.  Mr. Pare stated he doesn’t think he would be closing any doors by seeking a vote tonight.  Mr. Newman stated if you get a negative decision and the Farnham Road site also goes down, you will end up with zip.  You should keep it open and see how everything plays out. 

Mr. Pare stated he respectfully disagrees.  He would like a vote tonight.  Mr. Okstein asked if he could look at the Farnham Road plan.  Ms. Murray, the applicant’s attorney, gave him a copy. 

Mr.  Lee informed the neighbors that the Farnham Road site would still possibly be visible from their houses.  The neighbors acknowledged that.  Mr. Lee stated the applicant is asking for 140’ and the town allows 120’.  Farnham Road area is also a little bit lower.  

SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009   (2)

Mr. Lee stated that the voting members on this application would be Mr. Okstein, Mr. Ruskin and Mr. Lee.  He asked for comments from the public.

Kathy Trager, 15 Flintlock:  stated she understands Mr. Lee’s concerns about moving from one neighborhood to another.  This is not going out of their neighbor either way.  However, it will not be towering over their homes and back yards from the Farnham Road site as it will be over the other side of the railroad tracks.  The people on West Street will see the same view that the people on Flintlock and Muskett will have.  She asks the board to look at it on a map.   Mr. Lee stated he has been to both sites and agrees with her.  Ms. Trager stated they will still see it either way.  Mr. Okstein stated that 160’ could be an eyesore.   They need that though given the lower level of the area.  Mr. Lee agreed it will be high.  Nothing says we need to give them 160’ or anything at all.  Mr. Okstein stated he understands that, but 160’ is pretty tall even in a different location.  Mr. Lee stated it is not as if we are putting 160’ at a high point in town.   We can also determine at what point do they need the coverage.  If he can get coverage at 120’, that would be an option.

Mr. Ruskin asked if we say no at this site, how do we back up.  Mr. Okstein stated we can’t.  Mr. Lee stated we can if the Zoning Board feels Farnham Road is a good site and we vote that and the DPW site is denied.  They can file an appeal.  Mr. Pare stated that would be an option.  Mr. Lee stated that would take time to work through the system.  We don’t want to spend money on a senseless appeal.  That is why we want you to keep this hearing open.  It is up to the Zoning Board to determine if this is an acceptable site.  Mr. Pare stated they need finality.  If Farnham Road is granted, they could drop the DPW site.

Mr. Okstein asked if a lower height would make this a better site.  Mr. Lee stated he is not sure if it is in the Fall zone at the DPW.  Mr. Okstein asked if there is a number that would make the DPW site more appealing or a more reasonable location.  Mr. Newman stated that at the DPW, the whole site is exposed.  The Farnham Road site is covered with trees.  Mr. Lee stated that is a good point.  The DPW site is very open.  Mr. Newman stated that you would primarily see the top of the tower at the Farnham Road site.  Mr. Lee stated that is correct.  The salt shed is in the Fall zone, but not the actual DPW building.

Mr. Lee asked if there are any more comments from the public.  He asked if they understand what Mr. Pare is asking for.  The neighbors agreed they did.  He asked Mr. Pare if he wanted to close the hearing and Mr. Pare stated yes.  Mr. Lee asked the board if they are prepared to vote.  Mr. Ruskin stated he will be voting no as he wants the Farnham Road site.  Mr. Lee again asked Mr. Pare he is wanted to close and Mr.  Pare stated please.  Mr. Lee closed the hearing.

Mr. Okstein moved to approve Omnipoint, 215 S. Main Street, Case No. 1626.  Motion seconded by Mr. Ruskin for discussion.   The board’s secretary reminded the board that they have ninety days on which to vote on a special permit from the date of closing the hearing if in fact the applicant is requesting a special permit.

Mr. Okstein withdrew his motion; Mr. Ruskin withdrew his second to Mr. Okstein’s motion.  Mr. Lee stated that he will put this item on the board’s next meeting agenda in order to make a decision.   Also, he noted that the Farnham Road site is scheduled to be heard that same night.

SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009   (3)

Mr. Lee informed the public that the board has ninety days to vote a special permit from the date of closing the public hearing and therefore he placed this on the December 9, 2009 agenda.  He informed the people present that they will not be re-noticed.

After further review, Mr. Lee stated that the applicant did not file for a special permit, but did, in fact, file for a variance.  Therefore, because the hearing was closed tonight, it was agreed that the board needed to address the variance request tonight.

Mr. Okstein moved to approve the application from Omnipoint, Case No. 1626, requesting a variance at 215 S. Main Street.  Motion seconded by Mr. Ruskin and voted 0-3-0.  Variance denied. 

The board gave the following reasons for the denial of the variance:  1) The Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the height of the proposed monopole (140’) exceeds the height permissible by Section 4625-F-2 of the town’s zoning bylaw; 2) The Zoning Board of Appeals hereby finds that the hardship as presented by the applicant is a self-created hardship as there are other potential sites and feasible locations that presently exist in this area; 3) The Zoning Board of Appeals hereby finds that desirable relief may not be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of Sections 2435, 4620, 4625, and 4627 of this By-Law given that the proposed height of the structure; 4) The location of the proposed 140’ monopole is in a residential district and is not part of the town’s Wireless Communications District.

It was agreed to have the decision reviewed by town counsel before filing with the town clerk.

Other Business: 

Mr. Lee asked that Omnipoint, 2 North Main Street be added to our December 9^th agenda.  Mr. Lee reminded the board that we would not be meeting in November due to Veterans’ Day and Thanksgiving.

It was moved, seconded and voted to adjourn.   The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

                                                                Respectfully submitted,