SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2012

A regular meeting of the Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Second Floor, Town Office Building.   The following members were present:  Kevin McCarville, Acting Chairman; Lee Wernick, Larry Okstein , Seth Ruskin, Barry Barth, and Town Counsel Cindy Amara.  

Mr. McCarville opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. welcomed back John Lee who has been serving in Afghanistan.

7:04 p.m.             AT&T, 411 East Foxboro Street, Case No. 1676 Continued Hearing:   Mr. McCarville read a letter dated March 14, 2012 from Ms. Blair.  Mr. McCarville stated he is not opening up tonight’s meeting to the abutters as per advice from town counsel.   Mr. Pare stated he has no further evidence on behalf of AT&T and wishes to close the hearing for 411 E. Foxboro Street.

Atty. Christopher Heap, on behalf of the abutters, stated he would like to comment on the letter he submitted back in January.  Mr. McCarville stated that with all due respect this board has exercised quite a bit of understanding and has given every opportunity to all the abutters and also to the subject matter experts.  He stated there is nothing more to be said.  Every one has been to the site and therefore he is respectfully declining Mr. Heap’s request.  Mr. Wernick stated that town counsel  Mr. Heap’s letter and has given us her interpretation and we are comfortable with proceeding tonight.   Mr. McCarville stated he understands we cannot make everyone happy and that our hands are tied with regard to the location.  We can only deal with what is before us. 

Mr. Wernick moved to close the public hearing for Case No. 1676 as requested by the applicant’s attorney, Ed Pare.  Motion seconded by Mr. Barth and voted 3-0-0 (McCarville, Barth, Okstein).

Mr. Wernick moved to approve the application as presented at 411 E. Foxboro Street at the location that is farthest away from Well #6 and to authorize town counsel to draft a decision in accordance with the board’s vote.  Motion seconded by Mr. Ruskin and voted 3-0-0  (McCaville, Ruskin, Wernick).

7:15 p.m.             AT&T, 68 Mohawk Street, Case No. 1656 Continued Hearing:  Mr. McCarville continued this hearing to June 1, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. as per request of the applicant’s attorney,  Ed Pare.  Motion seconded by Mr. Barth and voted 3-0-0 (Wernick, Barth, McCarville).

7:20 p.m.             Senior Operations, Case No. 1688:  Mr. Wernick moved to endorse the site plan as presented for Senior Operations.  Motion seconded by Mr. Ruskin and voted 3-0-0 (McCarville, Wernick, Ruskin).    The  board endorsed the decision as voted on February 8, 2012 and prepared by Cindy Amara, Town Counsel.

7:25 p.m.             Brian Greenfield, 562 S. Main Street, Case No. 1696 Continued Hearing:   Mr. Greenfield was represented by Atty. Joel Fishman, Stoughton, MA. Mr. McCarville read an email dated March 14, 2012 from Peter O’Cain, Town Engineer requesting   stating his concerns with the containment of gas and oil on this site and the addition of a paved pad with an oil/water separator that overflows to an infiltrator.   Mr. Fishman stated that even if an area is paved, the trucks won’t be on it all the time.  Also, there are other businesses nearby that don’t have this restriction.  They were told by the sellers that the tank in the building was up to date and permitted.  He found out that it was not and it was determined by the fire department that it should be removed and that is being done tomorrow.    They were going to request that the board consider permitting them to allow them to put a tank inside the building for diesel fuel for the equipment, but they realize it is not allowed in the resource protection area.  Mr. Greenfield stated he was never going to fuel vehicles off the pump.  Mr. Wernick stated that regarding this use and this site he is being sticky and is leaning toward Mr. O’Cain’s suggestions.  Mr. McCarville stated he is glad the gas pump is being removed.  We did ask town counsel if we can provide some verbiage that has teeth to allow us to limit the vehicles and she said yes.  If there is no tank on site, there is no refueling on site.  Mr. Wernick stated that any car or truck can have a gas tank break.  He would like a berm around the pad for protection and that way the leaks would be contained.  This is an agricultural area and he is concerned with what we are allowing here.  Mr. Fishman stated  agricultural areas have machines and trucks.  Mr. Okstein stated he doesn’t know how we can limit the number of vehicles.

Mr. McCarville asked if there is any type of vegetated blind that can prevent the abutters from seeing the trucks.  Mr. Fishman stated there is already a good vegetated buffer, but it is not solid.  Mr. Ward wants an 8’ chain link fence with green slats.  He spoke to Joe Kent, but anything over 6’ is considered a structure, so the board may need to grant a variance.  Mr. McCarville checked the ad and there is a catch all phrase.  Mr. Barth feels there should be a visual barrier.  He would prefer a row of shrubs similar to other abutters that should be 8’ tall.  Mr. Fishman stated that is really tall.  Mr. Barth stated it should be a shrub barrier and that would make it more consistent with the character of the neighborhood.   Mr. Fishman stated they are suggesting the front fence be a 6’ cedar fence and pointed out on the plan where that will be going.   Also, the fence people that  Mr. Greenfield met with suggested black 6’ vinyl fencing is less obtrusive.  It will be 120’ off the front property line.  Mr. McCarville doesn’t want to stifle Mr. Greenfield’s business.  He agrees with Mr. Okstein.  He doesn’t want to limit him being allowed to grow his business, but he agrees with Mr. Wernick that he doesn’t want this to become a parking lot.  Mr. Barth said you can see the entire back of the property from Wolomolopoag.  Mr. Greenfield stated the back bottom corner of the property is already treed.  Mr. McCarville suggested an 8’ fence on Mr. Ward’s side and 6’ on the other sides.  Mr. Okstein stated he feels it should all be the same.  Mr. Wernick agreed it might look odd to have two different heights, but shrubs should help.  Mr. Fishman submitted some pictures to the board.  Mr. McCarville stated the board would find it okay to grant relief for the 8’ fence.  Mr. Fishman stated that is really high and the only place they are putting slats is on Mr. Ward’s side.  Mr. Greenfield said that he spoke with three fence companies and all agreed black is better.  Mr. Okstein stated the applicant can decide between black and green fencing.  Mr. Fishman stated they will be planting some bushes also.  Mr. Wernick stated that will make it look more natural.  Mr. Greenfield as if it can be random plantings outside the fence and Mr. McCarville stated yes, but asked that it be some type of plant that the deer won’t eat.  He suggested 4’ pines every 6’ and Mr. Wernick feels they are too long and lanky.  Mr. Greenfield suggested cedars.  Mr. McCarville asked if the cedars could be  4’ and placed every 5-6 feet.  Mr. Fishman stated they will break it up visually.  Mr. Greenfield asked about the treed area in the corner.  Mr. Barth asked if he is proposing a part of this to be a nursery and Mr. Greenfield stated down the road.   Mr. Fishman submitted a picture of the signs and stated they would like them to be 6’ high.  Mr. McCarville stated okay.  Mr. Fishman stated the board had questioned the lighting, but there will be no lights at night, only motion lighting.  Mr. Wernick asked where they will be pointed  - inside or outside.  Mr. Greenfield stated inside.  Mr. Fishman stated there will be three lights in the back that go up only 15’.  It is 180’ from the back of the building to the back of the property line and no one is out there.  There will be a normal house light over the door.  Mr. Wernick stated any lights installed are to be angled downward.  Mr. McCarville asked if the sign will be lit and Mr. Greenfield stated no.  Mr. Fishman stated the red barn will be repaired.  Mr. McCarville asked the plans be updated to show three lights and cedar trees.  Mr. Fishman stated they will be 4’ high every 5’ other than in the treed area.  Mr. McCarville stated he would like Mr. Fishman to craft some verbiage on lighting.  Mr. Barth stated he would like to know if the board if granting a variance on the sign and would like to see a copy of the sign.  Mr. McCarville asked the color and Mr. Greenfield stated dark green.  Mr. Barth stated it needs to be consistent with what Ward’s and American Landscaping have.

Mr. McCarville asked the hours of operation.  Mr. Greenfield stated 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. unless it snows as they will then have to go out at any time.  Mr. Fishman stated the only issue that is not clear is the spill containment.   They don’t want to put in an infiltrator.  Mr. Wernick stated then restrict where you park.  Mr. McCarville asked them to show on the plan where the vehicles will be parked when not in use and Mr. Fishman agreed.  Mr. Wernick stated we are leaving it up to you to deal with spill issues as per Peter O’Cain.  Mr. Okstein stated there are no pads at Wards and Mr. Fishman stated there are none at American Landscape either.  Mr. McCarville stated it would be difficult for them to do.  He doesn’t want to impose an unnecessary hardship on Mr. Greenfield.

There were no comments from abutters or the public.  Mr. Fishman asked to continue this hearing.  Mr. Wernick moved to continue Case No. 1696 to March 2, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.

8:20 p.m.             Mank, 164 Beach Street, Case No. 1694 Continued Hearing:  Mr. McCarville read the public hearing notice.  He read letters dated January 24, 2012 and March 13, 2012 from Jim Andrews, Health Agent stating he issued a permit.   The applicant was represented by Atty. Joel Fishman, Stoughton, MA.  He stated they met with the Board of Health on March 5 and it was determined this was not new construction under Title V regulations.  Mr. McCarville asked if he has a letter to that effect and Mr. Fishman stated no, but Mr. Andrews’ comment letter stated a permit was issued.  Mr. McCarville also read a letter dated January 23, 2012 from Greg Meister, Conservation Agent.   Mr. Fishman submitted new plans and stated they are putting an addition on the existing building, but they will not be razing anything as stated in the public hearing notice; however, what they are doing is less so they can move forward.

Mr. Fishman stated he is representing Davind and Bonnie Clamen, principals of Mank, LLC.  Also present is Edward Yeomans, their architect.  He stated they have lived in Sharon since 1992 and this property has an Order of Condition issued by the Sharon Conservation Commission.  They also own 166 Beach Street and they plan to rent this property. That property is not affected by this addition.  Mr. Fishman stated that three streets converge at this location, Beach Street, Beach Road and E. Foxboro Street.  It is a neighborhood, but not many contiguous properties.  They are proposing an open deck addition.  The current house if 86’ from the wetlands and the open deck is 76’ from the wetlands and nothing will infringe further.  T he garage will stay where it is and will be renovated. The footprint from the street will not change as all the addition is in the back. It is a 3-bedroom and will remain a 3-bedroom.

Mr. Clamen, the owner, showed pictures of the view from the street.  He stated they will be adding a dormer over the garage, so the roof lines will change.  They are basically going from a bungalow to a two story home.  The porch will not be enclosed and one deck will have a roof.  Mr. McCarville stated he won’t be in favor of taking away a view from an existing home.  Mr. Fishman stated the Clamen’s own the home next door.  Mr. Clamen stated no one’s view will be impacted.     Mr. Bath asked if the abutting house is directly on the lake and Mr. Clamen stated yes.  He showed the board the foundation footprint and stated the existing garage footprint will not change but they will be building on topo of the garage.  There will be a bedroom on the first floor with a full bath that is handicap accessible.  They have a son that is handicap so this can accommodate his needs.  Mr. Okstein asked the square footage of the house and Mr. Clamen stated they will be adding 1373 s.f. so the total is 3630 s.f.  They will be adding a dining room, great room kitchen, laundry and full bath.  There are also two bedrooms on the second floor.  The space over the garage will be unfinished and used for storage.  There will be a total of seven rooms.  A lot of space is not useable as it is small and is based on the pitch of the roof.  They will be adding a dining room, great room kitchen, laundry and full bath.  There are also two bedrooms on the second floor.  The space over the garage will be unfinished and used for storage.  There will be a total of seven rooms.  A lot of space is not useable as it is small and is based on the pitch of the roof.  The basement is  currently 700 s.f. and will not change.  It is semi-finished and they do not intent to finish it further.

John Lee, 509 Old Post Road stated an improved septic system is required which we will defer to the Board of Health.  If they are okay, then we are as that is sufficient for the Zoning Board.  If the applicant owns the adjacent property are you seeking relief based on dimensional requirements?  The two properties could be combined.  Mr. Fishman stated they don’t want to do that.  Mr. Okstein stated they may not want to sell one down the road.  Mr. Wernick stated we can’t grant relief if it is not under our jurisdiction.  The court will make a determination if necessary.  Both properties are in the name of Mank, LLC, so they are already merged.  Mr. Fishman stated there are existing houses on those lots and you can’t have two houses on one lot.  They are held under common ownership, but they are two separate houses on two separate lots.  Mr. Wernick disagreed and stated they are merged.  He doesn’t think we have jurisdiction to grant relief.  Mr. Fishman asked what if they transfer this property into their own names tomorrow, then what?  Mr. Wernick stated we will leave that answer up to you.  Mr. Okstein stated it doesn’t impact what you are doing today and Mr. McCarville agreed.  Mr. Lee asked if they are seeking dimensional relief can they get that relief by combining lots?  Mr. Fishman stated it is still nonconforming.  Mr. Lee asked if they are seeking setback relief and Mr. Fishman stated no.  They are seeking a special permit because it is a nonconforming lot.  Mr. Ruskin stated we approved another one like this also on the lake.  There are several in the neighborhood  that are going this way. 

Ken Hyman, 49 Beach Road stated he has livedon Beach Road for 11-12 years.  The street and the neighborhood are both better off for their improvements and this will be a great improvement.

Jamie, 11 Beach Road agrees this is a huge improvement for the neighborhood.

There were no further comments.  Mr. Fishman asked to close the hearing.  Mr. Wernick moved to approve the special permit with the board’s standard conditions.  Motion seconded by Mr. Okstein and voted 3-0-0 (McCarville, Wernick, Okstein).

Mr. Wernick welcomed Mr. Lee back from his tour in Afghanistan and thanked Mr. McCarville for running the meetings in his absence.

It was moved, seconded and voted to adjourn.  The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

                                                Respectfully submitted,

Accepted 5/9/12