SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2009
A regular meeting of the Town of Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 8:00 p.m. in the Lower Level of the Town Office Building. The following members were present: John Lee, Chairman; Kevin McCarville, Secretary; Lee Wernick, Seth Ruskin, Larry Okstein (8:14 p.m.).
Mr. Lee opened the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
DiBlasi, 774 Mountain Street, Case No. 1638 Continued Hearing: Mr. DiBlasi submitted a more detailed site plan as requested at the previous meeting by the board. Said plot plan was dated November 6, 2009 and shows what is existing and what is proposed. There were no questions or comments from the public. Mr. Lee closed the hearing.
Mr. Wernick moved to approve a special permit to allow a new year round 17’x20’ family room at 774 Mountain Street. The applicant will be removing an existing porch as shown on a plan dated November 6, 2009 by Pilling Engineering Group, Inc., 1135 Pearl Street, Brockton, MA. Said family room is to be built on a concrete foundation and will be heated. An existing poured concrete patio will be enclosed and used as a screen porch. Said approval is subject to the board’s standard conditions. Motion seconded by Mr. McCarville and voted 3-0-0 (Lee, McCarville, Wernick).
Ronald & Susan Lubin, 12 King Philip Road, Case No. 1625 Continued Hearing: Mr. Wernick moved to allow the applicant to withdraw their application without prejudice as requested in an email dated December 8, 2009. Motion seconded by Mr. McCarville and voted 3-0-0 (Lee, McCarville, Wernick).
Steven and Maria Cushman, 104 Glendale Road, Case No. 1637 Continued Hearing: Mr. Wernick moved to accept an extension of time up to and including February 28, 2010 as per a letter dated December 7, 2009 from Richard Merrikin, Merrikin Engineering, Millis, MA. Motion seconded by Mr. McCarville and voted 3-0-0 (Lee, Wernick, McCarville). Mr. Lee continued this hearing to February 10, 2009 at 8:00 p.m. as per request of the applicant’s engineer, Richard Merrikin.
8:10 p.m. New Hearing T-Mobil, 0 Farnham Road, Case No. 1639: Mr. Lee read the public hearing notice and also correspondence from Jim Andrews and Greg Meister. The applicant was represented by Jacqueline Murray, Real Estate Manager for C. Davis Associates; Michael Dolan, Esq., Brown & Rudnick; and Scott Heffernan, T-Mobil Radio Frequency Engineer.
Mr. Dolan stated the property owner is the Town of Sharon and this site is presently used by the Sharon DPW as a compost area. They are proposing a 160’ monopole to be built to support four carriers, with T-Mobil at the top at 157’. There will be nine antennas and one GPS antenna. There will also be an equipment cabinet on a concrete slab at the base of this facility. All equipment will be within the existing cabinet and surrounded by chain link fencing. They were directed to this site by the town. He stated that the application for 215 S. Main Street is presently in federal court. They are seeking a Use Variance and a Dimensional Variance from the 210’ setback for this site. Photo simulations were previously submitted which show there is minimum visual impact at this site. A peer review was done for South Main Street and it shows a gap in the network. A real estate submittal was also given to the board which showed this facility did not have any adverse affect on properties in this area. Also, here is no hazard to air navigation. It is in close proximity to the railroad line and they have indicated that a telecommunications facility will present to issues to them. The facility will comply with all federal and state guidelines with respect to regulations imposed to such facilities.
Mr. Lee stated they are asking for a 160’ monopole, but the town only allows a 120’ monopole, similar to the one at the country club. Further, does the fact that you are asking for nine antennas mean there will be nine different carriers. Mr. Dolan stated they are for T-Mobil. Mr. Lee asked if 160’ is necessary and why can’t they stay within the 120’ allowed in the bylaw. Scott Heffernan stated 120’ won’t work at this site for them. They are looking to get into the downtown Sharon area. The difference in the height that they are asking for comes from elevation differences. The starting point is 20’ lower at this site. Mr. Lee asked if the towers at Ward’s Berry Farm belong to them. Mr. Heffernan stated that T-Mobil does have something in that area.
Mr. Ruskin asked if they know how high this pole would be above the tree line. Mr. Heffernan stated he is not sure, but usually it is 55-65’. Mr. Lee gave pictures to the abutters that were present. Mr. Wernick asked if the antennas are internal and Mr. Dolan stated no.
Mr. Lee stated if this were to be approved, a condition could be that you drop the other two cases that are being appealed: 2 N. Main Street and 215 S. Main Street. Mr. Dolan stated the church is separate from this discussion. Mr. Heffernan stated that site was predominantly designed for inside coverage. They are still looking to bring that site on. There is a coverage gap that needs to be fixed and the church provides that service. Mr. Dolan stated that if the Farnham Road site was approved, the S. Main Street appeal would go away. Mr. Lee stated the church is the question. It was denied and it is now in federal court. He feels the ZBA needs to think about if they need it as according to the coverage plan that site will provide more coverage than what is needed.
Mr. Heffernan stated that regardless of 120’ or 160’, coverage along Main Street would end in the same area. If the church was not implemented, the next site would probably be somewhere else in the center of Sharon. Mr. Wernick stated his point is that if they are going to insist on the church site, we could keep the height down on this site to minimize the intrusion to the neighbors. Mr. Heffernan stated that once that footprint is reduced, he doesn’t know where the next one will fall. Mr. Lee stated they are asking for 140’ at the DPW site and again the town allows 120’. He feels the applicant has been reasonably fair as they are looking into the Farnham Road site which is what the Zoning Board asked. He feels we could give them 140’ at Farnham Road instead of 160’ because they are dropping down 20’ from the DPW site. Mr. Okstein asked if the church will stay under appeal and Mr. Lee stated yes. It is in federal court right now. Town Counsel is working on a possible settlement with the applicant. Mr. Okstein stated he agrees with 140’ if the church site appeal is staying. He asked if the church location still fits. Mr. Heffernan stated there will be some overlap, but they would still make the connection to the church at 140’. Mr. Lee stated that the high tensions stand at 130’. To protect the town, 140’ would be reasonable. Mr. Heffernan stated the tower could still be designed for four carriers, but doesn’t know if anyone would be interested.
Mr. Wernick stated that 140’ doesn’t put you at a tremendous disadvantage. They are going to look for another site anyway. He agrees with 140’. Mr. Ruskin stated that co-location is an issue. Mr. Lee asked what is more important – leave this at 160’ and not have to deal with another site or go to 140’. Mr. Heffernan stated it depends on the height of additional carriers on other locations. Mr. Ruskin stated if the train is at the lowest place on the pole, they probably won’t care.
Mr. Lee asked for public comments.
Lloyd Palter, 15 Sandy Ridge Circle: asked the compensation to the town and who evaluates that. He feels a 160’ monopole would mean the town is entitled to substantial compensation. He feels it does reduce property values in the area. He would think that people on Flintlock would have stronger objections that those on Sandy Ridge Circle. He feels they will see the 160’ monopole with four carriers due to the lack of foliage. He questioned the lease. Mr. Lee stated we don’t have that information and we don’t take that into consideration. Mr. Dolan stated there is a lot of data out there regarding lease compensation. He feels the town struck a deal that was fair. Mr. Lee asked Mr. Palter what value he was thinking of and Mr. Palter stated ten years ago his company was getting $25,000/year. He feels annual escalation should be built in. Mr. Lee feels those are good questions and he should take them up with the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Palter feels this would reduce property values in the area. Mr. Lee stated we have testimony that says they do reduce property values and also information that says it doesn’t. We also have some correspondence from people on S. Main Street that want the towers.
Mr. Okstein feels we should keep this to 140’. Mr. Lee agreed. Mr. Wernick feels that 140’ is the way to go. He does feel there would be another location further to the south and if so, why do we need to give them 160’. Mr. Palter asked if this location is fixed and Mr. Lee stated yes. The applicant has put this as far away as possible from the residents on Sandy Ridge Road.
Mr. Lee stated we should keep this hearing open and asked the applicant to work with the board secretary on a draft decision keeping the monopole at 140’. He also would like town counsel to look at this because it eliminates the DPW case altogether. He feels we should vote on this on January 13.
Mr. Lee continued this hearing to January 13, 2010 at 8:00 p.m.
8:55 P.M. New Hearing - Dana Carne, 76 Massapoag, Case No. 1640: Mr. Lee read the public hearing notice and also letters from Greg Meister and Jim Andrews. Ms. Carne stated she wants to redo the existing steps on her porch. There are five steps going off the front now. There was a variance issued before. She would like a landing off the first step and then four more steps. The way it is now you have to go up the stairs, open the door and step back down the steps to get in the door. Mr. Wernick asked if she has a plan showing what is proposed and what is existing. Mr. Lee stated he talked to the Building Inspector about this. Previously someone came to the ZBA to get the front porch enclosed and the plot plan shows what was approved. The steps are hard to maneuver. Is a plot plan required for an 8’ porch? Mr. Wernick is concerned about precedent. Mr. Lee stated it is big enough that the Building Inspector sent it to us. The dimensions of the landing from the existing structure will be 4’ out and 10’4” wide as per the plan stamped and dated April 30, 2009. We could address this on safety alone, but it is a variance. This is right across from the lake and we could cite the safety aspect. It is clearly not a living area. It is not a farmer’s porch or a wrap-around porch. It is elevated. The Building Inspector didn’t have a problem. Mr. Lee feels we could reference the architectural and structural plans dated April 30, 2009 and the Building Inspector can use his own interpretation. The area will not be enclosed and it is not a living space, but is a safety issue.
There were no public comments. Mr. Wernick moved to approve the application as presented for a landing. It was agreed that there will be no living space involved. Motion seconded by Mr. McCarville and voted 3-0-0 (Lee, McCarville, Wernick).
9:09 P.M. New Hearing – Jonathan Cohen, 203 Mountain Street, Case No. 1642: Mr. Lee read the public hearing notice and correspondence from Greg Meister and Jim Andrews. He stated that there are four existing structures on the lot now – a main house, a smaller house that should not be inhabited, but is, a barn and a small shed. All of these will be removed and a new house constructed 60’ from the street and 30’ from the side yard line. This will require encroachment on the wetland. Mr. Cohen represented himself and his surveyor was also present. Mr. Lee asked if he has a before and after plan and Mr. Cohen stated yes. Mr. Lee stated that part of the house will be in the 100’ buffer, and asked if the Conservation Commission is okay with that. Mr. Cohen stated yes. Mr. Lee asked how big is the lot and Mr. Cohen stated 5.6 acres. Mr. Lee asked where the only place he could place the septic is where and Mr. Cohen stated in the front yard. Mr. Lee thinks this is pretty clear and asked if the board had any issues. Mr. Lee asked Mr. Cohen if he is the property owner and Mr. Cohen stated no, but is the perspective buyer. The owner is Diane Makar. He would like to build a 3-bedroom house and is scheduled to close in mid-January. Mr. Lee stated the only issue is that he wants to build within the 100’ wetland buffer, but feels what is being proposed will improve the present situation. All structures will be removed. He feels this is a great improvement to the neighborhood.
Mr. Lee asked for public comments.
Ms. Chen, 2 Tisdale Road: stated there is an existing fence between her house and Mr. Cohen’s house. The surveyor said that fence is not the border. It is really in the middle of her yard. She stated that could be the case, but she is not sure. This is also close to her septic system and that is her concern. Mr. Wernick stated we can’t determine property lines. They are what they are. Ms. Chen stated she is here to question the location of the septic system. Mr. Cohen showed her where it is. Mr. Lee stated his is in the front and hers is away from that area. Mr. Cohen stated that Jim Andrews feels it is okay and he was there when they did the perc test. Ms. Chen’s system will be 80-100’ away from his. Mr. Lee stated we want the neightbors to understand where the property lines are. Ms. Chen stated she is not here to disapprove, she just want to know where his septic is. Mr. Lee stated the only relief he is asking for is to build within the 100’ buffer. This is an extremely large lot – 5.68 acres. There will be a conservation restriction on the wetlands. Mr. Wernick stated we are reducing the noncompliance. Mr. Cohen stated they are putting in an artesian well and need to cap the line that goes to town water. Mr. Wernick asked if there is a plan that is more readable and Mr. Cohen stated he has more copies. Mr. Lee stated the building inspector has been out there many times. There was someone living out there in an illegal dwelling. Mr. Lee asked how far this property is from the landfill and an abutter stated ¼ mile.
There were no further questions or concerns.
Mr. Lee stated the following conditions will be added: 1) all structures on the site will be removed; 2) we will only allow a 3-bedroom house; 3) the conservation commission is okay with the variance for house going into the 100’ buffer; 4) there will be a conservation restriction on the majority of the property. Mr. Ruskin asked if we can approve this if he is not the owner and Mr. Lee stated yes. Mr. Cohen stated he can’t purchase this property without going through the boards in town as the bank needs to know it is buildable. Ms. Chen stated she has no further questions and she is okay with what is being approved.
Mr. Wernick moved to grant a variance with the board’s standard conditions and the four previously discussed conditions. Motion seconded by Mr. McCarville and voted 3-0-0 (Lee, McCarville, Wernick).
Continued Hearing, Tran, 25 Meadow Road, Case No. 1631: Mr. Wernick moved to deny this petition without prejudice for non-prosecution so that the applicant can reapply in the future. A new filing would necessitate readvertising the public hearing and renoticing the abutters as a new filing would constitute a new hearing. The applicant would need to comply with everything that needs to be done. Motion seconded by Mr. McCarville and voted 3-0-0 (Lee, McCarville, Wernick).
It was moved, seconded and voted to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,