Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 26, 2010
A regular meeting of the Town of Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 in the Lower Level of the Town Office Building at 8:00 p.m. The following members were present: John Lee, Chairman; Kevin McCarville, Secretary; Lee Wernick, Seth Ruskin, Walter Newman, Larry Okstein (8:10 p.m.).
8:01 p.m. Continued Hearing: Nillni, 40 Pine Grove Avenue, Case No. 1658: Mr. Lee continued this hearing to July 28, 2010 as per request of the applicant.
8:02 p.m. Continued Hearing: Sharon Commons CFII, Case No. 1653: Mr. Lee continued this hearing to June 9, 2010 as per request of the applicant.
8:04 p.m. Continued Hearing: Wang, 11 Col.Gridley Road, Case No. 1654: Mr. Wang submitted a updated plot plan to the board. There were no further questions from the board or the public.
Mr. Wernick moved to approve the application for two Findings and a Special Permit relative to a proposed 2-story expansion to a structure on a non-conforming lot located at 11 Colonel Gridley Road and situated in the Single Residence A Zone within the Groundwater Protection District subject to the board’s standard conditions. Motion seconded by Mr. Ruskin and voted 3-0-0 (Lee, Ruskin, Wernick).
8:08 p.m. New Hearing: Igor Tsinman, 6 Arboro Drive, Case No. 1657: Mr. Lee read the public hearing notice. He stated that an ad was run in the Sharon Advocate and another ad correcting the date was placed in the Patriot Ledger.
Mr. Lee stated that no correspondence was received from the Jim Andrews, Health Agent and Greg Meister, Conservation Agent; however, Mr. Meister was present at the hearing. He informed the board that Mr. Andrews was not at work today.
Mr. Lee asked if they are increasing the number of bedrooms and Paul Scharf, Mr. Tsinman’s architect, stated no. He stated that the application consists of two parts: 1) the addition of a small entryway at the front of the house which will allow expansion of the master bedroom above it; 2) in the back, there will be an expansion of an existing deck that has a sunroom on it. They will take the whole structure down and do it again with a new foundation across the entire back of the house. The old structure was never on a foundation.
Mr. Lee asked if the proposed addition is on the right hand side and Mr. Scharf stated yes. There is an open deck in the backyard that will remain.
Mr. Meister stated this was designed so as not to encroach any closer to the wetlands. He stated he has no particular objections. Mr. Lee stated it will be closer to the lake and asked Mr. Meister if he is okay with that. Mr. Meister stated yes. He also knows that Mr. Andrews looked at this. Mr. Tsinman stated he has already met with Mr. Andrews.
Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 26, 2010 (2)
Mr. McCarville asked if this is a 3-bedroom house and Mr. Tsinman stated no, it is a 4-bedroom house. Mr. Lee questioned the septic system. Mr. Tsinman stated it was replaced in 2001.
Mr. Newman asked if the proposed deck is in the same place as the existing deck. Mr. Scharf stated no, it will be further in the back. Mr. Meister stated it is allowed, but cannot be enclosed. Mr. Lee stated that a condition of approval will be that the proposed deck will never be enclosed. Mr. Lee stated we need a letter from Mr. Andrews. Mr. McCarville questioned a room shown on the plan. Mr. Scharf stated it is actually a bedroom, but labeled “study”. Mr. Tsinman stated it is being used right now as a study. Mr. Newman asked if they have provided dimensional information on the placement of the proposed deck. Mr. Scharf stated it is the same amount as the house on the right side.
There were no public comments.
Mr. Lee continued this hearing to June 9, 2010 as we need a letter from the Board of Health stating this change is okay with them. Mr. Lee stated that two special conditions will be 1) the proposed deck will not be enclosed now or in the future; and 2) the entire site will have no more expansions.
8:20 p.m. New Hearing: AT&T, 68 Mohawk Street, Case No. 1656: Mr. Lee read the public hearing notice. He read a letter dated May 7, 2010 from Joseph Ferraria in support of this request. The applicant was represented by Atty. Michael Dolan of Brown, Rudnick; Dan Delzakian, Tom Endolpho, Real Estate Appraiser; Joe Brett, Radio Frequency Engineer.
Mr. Dolan stated that AT&T is a licensed provider and at this time they are supplying a significant gap in area coverage. This area was canvassed and identified as a good location for the location of this proposed tower. They are proposing a 120’ monopole at the end of the cul-de-sac on Mohawk Street. The abutters, the MBTA, feel this will have a minimized effect on the neighborhood. They are proposing to mount 12 antennas on the tower and there will still be room for four more carriers. They will build a gravel access road to the back corner of the property. There will be several equipment cabinets at the base which will include a cabinet for small GPS equipment.
Mr. Lee questioned the 12 antennas. Mr. Dolan stated yes and they will be mounted at the 118’ level. Mr. Ruskin asked if they lease this property and Mr. Dolan stated yes. Mr. Okstein asked if the antenna protrude out and Mr. Dolan stated yes, they are not flush. He stated he also has an affidavit from Joe Brett, who is an expert in this field even though he is working for the applicant. Mr. Brett explained the current coverage in Sharon and showed the board a color coded map. He stated they are trying to improve their coverage in this area as there are complaints about their coverage now. Mr. Dolan stated they lose coverage because the land slopes down. Mr. Ruskin asked why they have to go up 120’ to get the coverage they want. Mr. Brett stated that although that is a
Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 26, 2010 (3)
reasonable height, they want to put it as high as they can. Mr. Dolan stated the bylaw provides for 120’ and they tried to keep it in line with the zoning bylaw. Mr. McCarville stated he understands that a lot of things have an effect on this; i.e., weather, topo, etc. He asked if this will be desirable to others for co-locating on this pole. Mr. Dolan stated that T-Mobile has already expressed an interest to co-locate and he feels there will be more if this is approved. He also feels this request is people friendly. Mr. Lee asked if they are asking for this because there are no other towers in the area and Mr. Dolan stated yes. The site acquisition people were asked to find a site preferably on an existing tower, but there were none; therefore, they are trying to do this in an area that has the least impact in the area.
Mr. Wernick asked if they looked at the town’s property at Well #6 which is farther away from people. Mr. Delzakian stated they did approach the town, but they were not interested. Mr. Dolan stated that some of the town properties won’t work because if wetlands and topo. Mr. Wernick asked Mr. Meister if they would consider that area at Well #6 to be a viable option. Mr. Meister stated there is wetland there and it could be okay, unless the town said no. Mr. Dolan asked the address and Mr. Wernick stated it is farther south from this location. Mr. Dolan stated the town wasn’t interested. He would have to look at the coverage from that site. They didn’t issue an RFP, so they can’t go forward. Mr. Lee stated it doesn’t matter as this address is before the board tonight and we have to deal with what is before us. Mr. Okstein asked if they have pictures of what this will look like. Mr. Dolan submitted pictures of what the tower will look like from various locations.
Mr. Ruskin asked the distance to the closest home and Mr. Delzakian stated it is less than 500’. Mr. Dolan stated he thinks it is about 475’-480’. The neighbors are concerned this could have an adverse impact on real estate values in the area. Mr. Endolpho stated he did a comprehensive review of what was submitted and then conducted a personal inspection of the subject site. His findings showed that Mohawk Street is a residential area and the site is almost five acres. The monopole would be 130’ away from the rail line. There are three homes within 300’ from the monopole; two abut the railroad and the third is the owner of this property. It is approximately 480’ from the monopole to that particular home. He has conducted reviews in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island as to the affects of a monopole on personal home value. He thinks this proposed location is appropriate because of the existence of the railroad. It will be well hidden and visibility will not be that great. You won’t see this from Coburn Drive. Chase Drive has a view of the tracks and a transfer station. The monopole will be in a compound area surrounded by an 8’ chain link fence. The area will not be lit or generate any noise, fumes, dust. It will be an unmanned facility and would require only a monthly visit by a person. No traffic will be generated. The trees will have a height of 60-75’ which will effectively screen the monopole. Mr. Endolpho stated he feels this proposal will be in harmony with the zoning bylaw.
Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 26, 2010 (4)
It is an appropriate use and doesn’t significantly alter the characteristics of the area which will require only standard electric and telephone utilities and there will be no refuse created. The hardship is due to the significant gap in coverage. If refused, it would cause a hardship.
Mr. Okstein asked Mr. Endolpho how many times he has testified before various boards evaluations of a monopole. Mr. Endolpho stated at least fifty times. Mr. Okstein asked how many times he stated it would affect the surrounding properties and Mr. Endolpho stated he was a proponent of no impact. Mr. Okstein asked if he did find one, would you be here tonight and Mr. Endolpho stated no. Mr. Ruskin asked how the tower would have to be situated to affect the houses and Mr. Endolpho stated the abutting property would need to be 120’ from the fall zone. With respect to location, you don’t want to affect the properties in the area, but any negative impact is already there because of the railroad in the neighborhood. Therefore, the monopole would not have any more adverse affect to the neighborhood. They try to stay away from residential structures as much as possible. The town didn’t offer AT&T any alternative options.
Mr. Ruskin questioned the fall zone, character of the neighborhood and visual affects. He asked if the applicant is saying the neighbors see a train anyway, so what is a tower. Mr. Okstein asked if the tracks weren’t there, would the applicant’s opinion change. Tom Endolpho stated that is a hypothetical question and they need to look at the future affect on the development of the area. If the land could be developed residentially, they would have to think twice. Mr. Newman asked if they have a map other than the one presented tonight that shows the tower and then the residential lots within a ringed area. Mr. Dolan stated that Sheet C-1 shows what he is looking for. Mr. Newman asked if they go out farther than 300’ and Mr. Dolan stated this one is 500’ because of the zoning bylaw. Mr. Lee asked if they are looking for relief from the fall zone requirement because of the railroad tracks and Mr. Dolan stated yes. They feel if the tower came down, it would collapse on itself. Also, the land in the area is undevelopable. Mr. Lee stated there are no structures in the fall zone and Mr. Dolan stated that is correct. Mr. Lee stated the MBTA is within 50’ and they have no problem with this. They are approving these up and down the MBTA corridor. Mr. Dolan stated they are also seeking a special permit as required by the zoning bylaw. The area they need to cover with these antennas has no overlay district available that would meet their coverage objectives. That is why they are seeking a use variance. Mr. Lee asked if there are any commercial areas available and Mr. Dolan stated no. Mr. Newman asked if they had any outreach with the neighbors that are within the 500’ zone and Mr. Dolan stated no. Mr. McCarville asked if the asked for comments from the Police Department or Fire Chief regarding the access road as required by the zoning bylaw and Mr. Dolan stated no.
Mr. Newman stated for background, another company responded to an RFP for a site down the road and it was shown that this was not the best site. They had to go to another site. That may be the case here.
Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 26, 2010 (5)
Greg Meister, Conservation Agent, stated it appears that the whole compound is within the 100’ buffer. He asked how big the buildings are. Mr. Dolan stated the equipment shelter will be 12’x20’. Mr. Meister stated that according to the building inspector, anything bigger than 120’ is to be considered a structure; therefore, this is now a structure and in his opinion violates the 50’ “no disturb” zone. He would like to look more closely at this. There is also a 10’ walking access that gives the public access to the conservation land in the back. He feels approval would set a precedent due to the compound structures and the “no disturb” zone. Mr. Dolan stated they are proposing only one compound. He knows they need to file a notice of intent with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Lee stated we don’t give approval until all other boards have signed off. Mr. Meister stated they need a variance also because of the wetlands.
Mr. Ruskin stated the other towers don’t have shelters and Mr. Lee stated that is correct.
Kim Kokkotos, 19 Colburn Drive stated there she is against this. She has a three and five year old and lives about 500’ from this area. She asked if they are here because Sharon refuses to give them an RFP. Mr. Lee stated we have a letter from the town administrator specifically asking if they can build on this property.
Mr. Dolan stated he has an affidavit from Dan Dalzakian as to why they came up with this particular site. Ms. Kokkotos stated there are also property value concerns. There will be trucks going up and down Mohawk Street. This is a residential area and she doesn’t think this is in the residential nature of their neighborhood.
Bernard Yankowski, 65Mohawk stated he has lived here for 53 years and can show us where lightning has done damage. Also, drainage is a problem. There is an easement, but questions where it drains into. Mr. Lee stated we could continue this hearing in order to get more answers. He asked the approximate width of the road. Mr. Yankowski stated he used to work for town as the Highway Supervisor and also worked for the Water Department. If this is allowed, it will drop the property values in the neighborhood. No one would buy his house if this goes in.
Mr. Ruskin questioned the lightning problem and Mr. Dalzakian stated the poles are grounded. Mr. Dolan stated that regarding the traffic that was mentioned, once this is built there will only be an average of one trip per month.
Judy Levye, 6 Manomet Road: They already have two non-residential uses in this neighborhood, the train and a high-traffic religious institution. Also, she is a real estate agent and knows what the impact would be. The properties would sit and never sell.
Rebecca White, 28 Colburn stated in regard to the real estate appraiser, she disagrees with him. She requested that the board listen to a real estate agent from Sharon. Her property would face the tower. She would see this from her home. Why do we list the requirements in the bylaw if we don’t follow them. She thought the bylaw stated 118’ in
Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 26, 2010 (6)
height. Mr. Lee stated no, cell towers are allowed to be 120’ high. These people would like 200’ towers, but they won’t get that. If approved, these people will put their antennas on it along with other companies. Mr. Okstein stated that we know not everyone will agree with the real estate expert.
Sarah _______, Islamic Center of New England, 84 Chase Drive submitted a plan showing the location of the tower to their buildings. It will be an eyesore as it most visible from their property. They have a large tract of property, about 54 acres, and this would stop them from developing their land. In one of their structures is a school house which has 200-250 elementary students. She respectively requests the board to deny this application and asks them to seek another property. She doesn’t feel it should be across the street from an elementary school. Mr. Dalzakian stated he did contact the Islamic Center by phone and via email and they expressed a strong interest in having a facility on their property.
Dr. _____, Islamic Center of New England stated the distance from the tower to the closest building is less than 200’ where the kids play. They don’t want this near the school. Mr. Lee asked if they entertained the possibility of having a cell tower on this property. Dr.____ stated there are many places away from everybody that would work for the town. This is just too close to the school and the playground. Mr. Lee stated the Islamic Center is within the 500’.
Russia _____, President of the Islamic Center, stated they did approach the Islamic Center last year. They looked at it and denied it because of traffic and health issues. Mr. Dolan stated his client felt it didn’t come together for financial reasons. Dr. _____asked if this is AT&T and Mr. Dolan stated yes.
Laura Gallagher, 71 Mohawk stated she is the closest to the tower and is really concerned about the access road. Who would police it? People come down and watch the trains go by now. If there is a road there, it would permit traffic. Kids drink in those woods now. The town removed the street light in front of her house, so now there is no lighting. An access road would make things worse. She lives right on the train tracks. She went to the Assessors so she gets a tax break. If the tower goes up, will it give her more of a break? Also, the MBTA was going to take her land because there was going to be a third set of tracks, which originally were suppose to be on her land. There is traffic 24 hours a day, seven days a week because of Amtrak. She feels this will make it worse. The town had given them money to plant bushes and they will now be ripped up. There should be houses here.
Mr. Lee stated if she has an issue with the lighting, she should talk to the police. We could condition this with a gate.
Rob S., 21 Mohawk asked if the board had a copy of the town administrator’s comments stating the town has no interest. Mr. Okstein stated there is a copy of an email.
Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 26, 2010 (7)
Mr. Lee stated the abutters can always let the town administrator and selectmen know they don’t like this. Rob S. asked if Farnham Road is shown on the map the applicant submitted. Mr. Lee stated yes and pointed it out. He stated it is about 2 miles to the Farnham Road site. Rob S. stated maybe another location could be considered. Mr. Lee stated that Sharon Country Club is not on the map. Mr. Dolan stated he feels that is outside the search ring. Rob S. thought this was a groundwater area and there are concerns with that. Mr. Meister stated it is the groundwater protection district. Mr. Lee stated we need to look at the amount of coverage. Cell towers are coming into town and the goal of the Zoning Board is to put them in the best locations possible. Maybe this is.
Steve Kokkotos, 19 Colburn Drive stated the road is very narrow. He doesn’t think this would be a good idea. He has two kids that love to look at the trains, but the access road will make for more people in the area. He asked how many trees will they cut down. Mr. Lee stated they have a right to clear the trees on their own property. Mr. Kokkotos stated this is at the end of the lake and asked if there is another place to put this. Mr. Lee asked if this is the community center property and Mr. Dolan stated yes.
Drew Gallagher, 71 Mohawk stated there is an antenna at Ward’s Berry Farm. Mr. Dalzakian stated that is well outside the area. Mr. Dolan asked when they have a search ring, how big is it in diameter and Joe Brett stated about one mile.
Patricia Yankowski Robbins, Mohawk Street stated she has lived on this street her whole lift and thought Mohawk Street was designated a scenic road. She asked why this would be considered in this area. The people on the street are the ones that will have to look out their windows and see the tower. Her family has worked very hard. They have trees behind the house so they don’t see the trains. She doesn’t think it should be discounted that this will only affect two people. She is speaking to the real estate person. Mr. Lee asked her to find out if this is a scenic road. Ms. Yankowski asked if this is, will that stop it and Mr. Lee stated no.
Margery Foster, 9 Colburn Drive stated she is concerned about the health and well being of the children.
Kim Kokkotos asked why Sharon denied the RFP. Mr. Lee stated there could be many reasons. He feels the neighbors should talk to the Selectmen and the town administrator to find out if there are other locations that would be better.
An abutter asked if there is better cell coverage along the tracks and Mr. Dolan stated no, it is just a good area.
Dr. ____ from the Islamic Center knows there are health concerns. Europe has a restriction on hospitals and schools being near these locations.
Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 26, 2010 (8)
Laura Gallagher, Mohawk Street asked if there are any other cell towers in town that lease from a residential property and Mr. Okstein stated there is one in a church steeple. Ms. Gallagher stated that is not residential. Also, if they move after a lease, will they remove the building. Mr. Lee stated yes, there is a revocable clause. Mr. Meister stated everything would be taken out and the area restored.
There were no further comments or questions.
Mr. Lee continued this hearing to June 9, 2010 at 8:00 p.m.
It was moved, seconded and voted to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved: May 11, 2011