SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 2012
A regular meeting of the Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Second Floor, Town Office Building. The following members were present: Kevin McCarville, Chairman; Lee Wernick, Seth Ruskin, Barry Barth, Larry Okstein (7:40 p.m.); and Atty. Cindy Amara, Town Counsel.
Mr. McCarville opened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. and wished John Lee a safe return home from Afghanistan.
Mr. McCarville stated he will not return or answer any phone calls that are made to him at his house. He will only answer questions in the public meeting forum.
AT&T, 411 E. Foxboro Street, Case No. 1676 Continued Hearing: Atty. Ed Pare, Brown Rudnick stated he filed some additional materials regarding outstanding questions and issues raised. He sent a letter dated January 6, 2012 from Brown Rudnick. He also included on the plans the approximate location of a water main along the road way as shown on Sheet C-2 of the site plan. This was also given to one of the abutters who asked for it.
Peter O’Cain was also present. Mr. Pare stated the pole will be over-designed at the base so it will bend. One antenna will be 8’ and it will contain remote radio heads and this will allow fiber optics. Mr. McCarville asked if the pole will accommodate fiber optics for four carriers. Mr. Pare stated there will be room on the pole for co-location.
Mr. McCarville stated he had anticipated there would be a vote tonight, but based on a piece of correspondence dated January 6, 2012 from Christopher Heap, Miyares and Harrington, that he just received and in fairness to the abutters, they need some time to read and digest this material and also to obtain input from town counsel.
Atty. Cindy Amara, Town Counsel, stated they received this letter from the abutters’ attorney, Christopher Heap, opposing the location of this tower. We need some time to look at this and to give it the attention it deserves. Atty. Heap stated he appreciates that. Mr. Pare stated they are done with their presentation. Unless there are questions for their team, they won’t be back. Atty. Amara stated there is nothing in this letter requiring technical expertise. Mr. McCarville stated he will welcome any new technical questions.
Craig Collins, 60 Mohawk Street stated that they didn’t have time to say anything at the last meeting.
Joel Stein, 425 E. Foxboro Street asked Mr. Goulet about 250 E. Foxboro Street and how did that fit from an RFP perspective. Mr. Goulet stated that had been evaluated when they did the one for Mohawk Street.
Joseph, 24 Colburn Drive stated that regarding exposure to radiation, a tower has to be 250’ from a house. Mr. McCarville stated we have discussed this before.
Laura Gallagher, 71 Mohawk Street stated this plan is new to Mohawk Street, It has been moved out of the wetlands. She asked how far are the houses from the Mohawk Street site. Mr. McCarville stated that based on the last meeting, Mohawk Street will be looked at if needed. We will address 411 E. Foxboro Street and that may negate the need to look at Mohawk Street.
Steve Kokkotos, 19 Colburn Drive stated they would like an engineering opinion for Mohawk Street. Mr. Pare stated there is no change other than the height of the tower. The plan changed back in November of 2010 at the request of the Conservation Commission.
Kim Kokkotos, 19 Colburn Street asked if Mohawk Street would be opened up again tonight and Mr. McCarville stated no.
Mr. Okstein arrived at 7:40 p.m.
Atty. Amara stated there are no problems, just questions regarding the leasing and disposition of land. Everything has been public record and everyone can see and review whatever has been submitted.
Kim Kokkotos, 19 Colburn Street asked what location we are dealing with tonight and Atty. Amara stated only 411 E. Foxboro Street at the moment.
Atty. Christopher Heap, Miyares and Harrington stated he is representing a group of abutters who live near the 411 E. Foxboro Street area and they would like their questions addressed. In order to allow that to happen, Mr. Pare asked that this be continued. Mr. McCarville continued this hearing to January 25, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Wernick moved that in accordance with the provisions of General Laws, Chapter 44, Section 53G, and the rules of this Board, this Board engage the services of Gelerman, Buschmann & Jeter, P.C. to act as the legal consultant to the Board with regard to the proposed development on property on East Foxboro Street, commonly known as 411 East Foxboro Street Cell Tower at Well #6 (the “project”). Further, the Board engage, in accordance with the provisions of General Laws, Chapter 44, Section 53G, the rules of this Board, the services of consultant(s) to advise the Board on the engineering, traffic, noise, wetlands, cellular transmissions, and related impacts of the proposed project, the cost of such services to be paid by the applicant. Said consultant(s) shall be selected by the Board in its reasonable discretion, and as part of the engagement that the Board determine that the initial sum of $3,000 should be placed with the Town Treasurer to be expended in accordance with the provisions of General Laws, Chapter 44, Section 53G. Motion seconded by Seth Ruskin and voted 3-0-0 (McCarville, Wernick, Ruskin).
7:45 P.M. Senior Operations, 1075 Route 1, Case No. 1688 Continued Hearing: The applicant was represented by Atty. Len Simons, Boston, MA. He stated the purpose of this addition is to house some water equipment that cannot be housed in the main building. They have applied for multiple permits. The original permit was granted through site plan approval in 1981 and they are seeking to modify that. The plan has been reviewed by the fire chief and also Peter O’Cain, town engineer. He believes that they have satisfied all requirements and asked if the board has any questions. Mr. McCarville stated that town counsel will be writing the decision on this.
The board discussed possible conditions of approval: 1) if the fire department has to service this, the lay out need to be available to both the fire and police departments; 2) there will be a inspection of the final installation of equipment; 3) the board wants Peter O’Cain in on the design because they applicant cannot tell us what is being done at this time.
This is viewed as a positive as it is upgrading conditions. This board appreciates the work of Peter O’Cain regarding this project. Mr. Simons stated his client is in a high tech business and he feels Mr. O’Cain’s comments would be in regard to safety. Mr. McCarville stated we just want his questions addressed, but he will not redesign this project. Mr. Simons asked for a brief recess to allow him to confer with his client. Mr. Simons returned and stated they are in agreement with what the board wants.
Mr. O’Cain stated that if there is some glaring safety issue, he would say something. He has no problem with any of his responses. The board is not looking at the actual layout. He doesn’t expect any problems.
Atty. Amara stated the board can vote to approve or not subject to Peter O’Cain’s final approval which shall not beunreasonably withheld.
Mr. McCarville stated that the voting members will be Kevin McCarville, Lee Wernick and Larry Okstein.
Mr. Wernick moved 1) to grant a special permit pursuant to Section 231 to increase the size of the building; 2) a Variance pursuant to Section 6422 for landscaped open space decrease; 3) a Variance pursuant to Section 6222 for Impervious Materials Coverage increase; 4) a special permit pursuant to Section 4532 for use of hazardous materials in the Ground Water Protection District; 5) a special permit pursuant to Section 6323 amendment of site plan approval for projects exceeding 10 acres. Further that the final plans will be submitted to the fire department, police department and engineering and that Mr. O’Cain, Town Engineer, will be involved in the final inspection. Motion seconded by Mr. Okstein and voted 3-0-0 (McCarville, Okstein, Wernick).
Town Counsel will write the decision and will present to the board for their signature.
8:09 p.m. Bay Road Woodland Trust, Case No. 1692, 11 Castle Drive New Hearing: The applicant was represented by Rob Devin, Norwell, MA. He stated he is here as a result of a settlement agreement with the town. He is building a single family house at 11 Castle Drive and he has Conservation Commission approval. Mr. McCarville read the public hearing notice and letters from Jim Andrews and Greg Meister. Mr. Devin stated that previously the board had requested the bounds shown on the wetland. They have no problem with this request. Mr. Okstein asked how big is the house and Mr. Devin stated it is 5 bedroom, 3 car garage and 3 ½ baths. Mr. McCarville stated again we would require markers as to where the wetland is. Mr. Devin stated he will make sure that is shown on the plan in the future. There were no public comments. He asked to close the public hearing.
Mr. Wernick moved to approve the special permit for Lot 11 Castle Drive with the board’s standard conditions and the special conditions of six markers being installed and no further construction into the conservation areas. Motion seconded by Mr. Ruskin and voted 3-0-0 (McCarville, Wernick, Ruskin).
8:23 p.m. Bay Road Woodland Trust, Case No. 1693, 9 Castle Drive New Hearing: Mr. McCarville read the public hearing notice. The applicant was represented by Rob Devin. He stated this will be a smaller house and different plans used. There will be a 3-car garage and 4 bedrooms. He stated the plans in front of the board are wrong. Mr. Waluka stated it will be a 4-bedroom house with a 5-bedroom septic system installed. They are also putting in a 2’ stone wall. There were no public or board comments. Mr. Devin asked to close the hearing. Mr. Wernick moved to approve the special permit for Lot 9 Castle Drive subject to the board’s standard conditions and the special condition of six markers being installed and no further construction into the conservation areas. Motion seconded by Mr. Barth and voted 3-0-0 (McCarville, Wernick, Barth).
It was moved, seconded and voted to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, approved 5/9/12