SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2012
A regular meeting of the Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, March 28, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Second Floor, Town Office Building. The following members were present: Kevin McCarville, Lee Wernick, Seth Ruskin, Larry Okstein (7:12 p.m.) and John Lee (8:00 p.m.).
7:05 p.m. AT&T, 411 East Foxboro Street, Case No. 1676: Mr. McCarville stated that this decision has not been received from town counsel as yet.
7:06 p.m. Sharon Credit Union, 42 Pond Street, Case No. 1698 New Hearing: Mr. Wernick moved to allow the applicant to withdraw without prejudice as the public hearing notice was advertised incorrectly. Motion seconded by Mr. Ruskin and voted 4-0-0.
7:07 p.m. Brian Greenfield, 562 S. Main Street, Case No. 1696 Continued Hearing: The applicant was represented by Atty. Joel Fishman, Stoughton, MA. He submitted a revised site plan showing an 8’ chain link fence with slats and a 6’ cedar fence as requested and also stated the proposed parking and storage areas have been more clearly delineated. Mr. Wernick asked if the proposed parking ara is the entire area shown on the plan and Mr. Fishman stated yes. He also submitted an approved application and permit for the removal of the gas storage tank in the basement of the building with the fuel pump on the outside. It was signed off by the town and disposed of properly. They also spoke to some engineers regarding paving. Mr. McCarville read into the record a lette dated March 26, 2012 from Daniel Mulloy. Mr. Greenfield showed the board where he will be parking trucks. Mr. Fishman spoke to Peter O’Cain. He deals with the worst case scenario. Mr. Wernick stated this is because it is in the Groundwater Protection district. Mr. Fishman stated a leak would be rare. There are spill kits in case this occurs. Impervious material is not favorable in the Groundwater Protection district. Mr. Wernick stated he has an absolute concern in this district and he talked to Peter O’Cain about this also. He would still rather have an impervious surface with collection for a spill. That gives us some control. He wants a specified protection in the manner described by Peter O’Cain in a limited area with a limited number of vehicles. He has a problem with covering most of this lot with parking and no protection in place. Mr. Fishman stated he understands his concerns, but Ward’s has all kinds of trucks and pesticides and all kinds of vehicles in and out. He feels it is unfair to Brian Greenfield to have this protection when no one else does. Mr. Wernick would like a limit on the number of vehicles. Mr. Fishman asked a defined parking area and a limit on the number of vehicles? Mr. Wernick stated this is our job. Mr. Okstein asked if town counsel commented on the number of vehicles and Mr. McCarville stated she thought it would be hard to limit that. Mr. Barth feels we can limit the size of the parking lot instead. Mr. Fishman stated that area comprises 31.75% of the lot. Mr. McCarville asked what about a parking pad in the quadrant. Would that work? That would also address Mr. Wernick’s concerns. Mr. Fishman stated they would need an oil/water separator and then there will be drainage issues. Mr. Wernick stated this is the feeback from the town engineer. Mr. Fishman stated the lighting concerns are also in the packet.
Mr. Barth stated you are asking for a 6x3 or 18 s.f. sign. Is that bigger that what is allowed in this zone? Mr. Fishman stated the sign bylaw is now in the General Bylaws and it comes under the jurisdiction of the Selectmen. Mr. McCarville stated we can kick it back to them. Mr. Fishman stated Joe Kent wants this board to approve an appropriate sign. It wouldn’t need a variance. They can downsize the sign if necessary to 5’x3’ or 15 s.f. Mr. Okstein asked what are the concerns with the sign and Mr. Barth stated it is larger than the others on the street and changes the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Greenfield stated there are bigger signs all down Main Street. Mr. Fishman stated this is a wood crafted sign and it will look nice. Mr. Greenfield has been in business for 20 years. He has 9 trucks and is spending a lot of money to fix this up. To consider limiting the trucks, he needs to be allowed to grow his business. If you are going to limit his trucks and then make him spend $20-30,000 on other changes, he can’t do this. His suggestion is 20 trucks. Mr. Wernick stated he is not opposed to the use. Mr. Barth questioned the access from the end of the driveway to the adjacent property. Mr. Fishman stated it is part of the farm. He asked if they are planting cedars every 5’ and Mr. Fishman stated yes. Mr. Barth stated that Ward’s is more staggered, but Mr. Greenfield feels uniformed would look better. Mr. Barth asked how big the 4’ trees will grow to and Mr. Greenfield stated 6’ or more over time. Mr. Ruskin asked the size of the tanks and Mr. Greenfield stated 50 gallons is the biggest. He can’t have a leaking tank on someone’s driveway. It just can’t happen. Mr. Ruskin asked if there is an absorbent material that would work and Mr. Greenfield stated that gravel slows everything down and allows it to be captured. Mr. Fishman stated vehicles are not maintained on site and the chance of a rupture is remote. Mr. McCarville stated that brake lines can leak. He will defer to Peter O’Cain and Mr. Wernick’s concerns. Mr. Fishman stated there is only one way to do it. Mr. Okstein is against limiting the number of vehicles. He doesn’t think it is our position or job to do that. Mr. Wernick stated this is a special permit and it is our job to limit it. Mr. Fishman stated he doesn’t know if it cost productive to pave the whole thing. If there is a limit of 20 vehicles, that is all his service vehicles. If the board permitted 20, they would design an area where those trucks are most of the time. Mr. Okstein stated if you say 20, it has to be designed for 20 even if there are only 9. Mr. Wernick stated this may not be an appropriate use for this parcel. Mr. McCarville stated if he has nine now, can he pave for nine and for each vehicle he brings in add more pavement? The board could say no and he would have spent all this money for nothing. Once this is engineered, it can only be done once. Mr. Wernick would like to see how they are going to approach this and would like more details. Mr. Okstein asked the last time he bought a truck and Mr. Greenfield stated December and before that three years ago. Mr. Fishman stated he needs the ability to grow. His employees will also be parking on site. Mr. McCarville stated if he can work out something with Peter O’Cain, then it would be okay. Mr. Fishman stated employee vehicles will not be in the paved area, but they would be in the proposed parking area.
There were no further questions or comments from the public. Mr. Wernick moved to continue this hearing to April 11, 012 at 7:00 p.m. Motion seconded by Mr. Ruskin and voted 3-0-0 (McCarville, Ruskin, Okstein).
7:40 p.m. Cumberland Farm, 433 S. Main Street, Case No. 1699 New Hearing: The applicant was represented by Carolyn Parker. They are requesting a new “price” sign and Mr. Kent told her they can’t use an LED sign. They want to remove the “lollipop” sign the is presently there. The existing sign is 60 s.f and the new one is l58.8 s.f. She was told the board can approve this as long as the size is being reduced.
Charlie Hershmann, 438 S. Main Street: he lives directly across the street from this area and his concern is the lighting. For the most part, they are good neighbors. The signing and the exterior of the grounds leave a lot to be desired. Years ago there wasn’t supposed to be anything on the windows or on the outside and it is all there now. The neighbors would like it to be as nice an area as possible and still be a good neighbor.
Dorothy Sweetman, 429 S. Main Street stated she has already seen the sign because she went to the DPW and spoke with Joe Kent and also with the Selectmen. Ms. Parker stated there will be less illumination and the hours of operation will be 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Mr. Wernick informed the abutters if they are concerned about what is being displayed, they can go see Joe Kent and tell him your concerns. Mr. McCarville stated he is the board’s enforcement. Mr. Hershmann stated he doesn’t want to go that route.
Linda Waller, 429 S. Main Street and 19 Walpole Street stated she has no objections to the sign. She has the original agreement from years ago. They have been trying to get them to clean up this property for many years and it hasn’t been done. She sees a lot of litter. She has been calling since 2003 because the litter blows around . Mrs. Sweetman asked by they are picking certain things to change and not other stuff. Mr. McCarville stated the previous board carved out what they wanted. Ms. Parker stated she can’t believe the problem is only with Cumberland Farms and doesn’t think the litter is all from their property.
Ruth McCarthy, Senior Sales Manager stated this is her store and cleaned up the trash which actually came from the jewelry place next door which is where all the trash is. Mr. McCarville stated those conditions although valid are not under our control. We can’t address that.
There were no further questions. Carolyn Parker asked to close the hearing. Mr. Wernick moved to approve the sign modification as presented which is essentially taller but smaller in size. New sign is 58.8 s.f. and old sign is 60 s.f. Motion seconded by Mr. Okstein and voted 3-0-0 (McCarville, Wernick, Okstein).
Mr. Lee arrived at 8:00 p.m.
8:01 p.m. Tedeschi’s, 68 Pond Street, Case No. 1700 New Hearing: Mr. McCarville read the public hearing notice and correspondence from Jim Andrews, Greg Meister and Peter O’Cain. The applicant was represented by Atty. R obert Shelmerdine, Washington Street, Foxboro, MA. He submitted a response dated March 21, 2012 to Mr. O’Cain’s February 28, 2012 letter. Also, present was Jack O’Leary, Engineer, Dae Kunan, Tedeschi’s, William Welch, property owner.
Mr. Shelmerdine stated that Case No. 1086 from December 1991 is tied to this property and its lease. The tenant and owner have applied together for tonight’s request. The current use is a permitted use, but the other current use is not a permitted use under the bylaw. In 1991, Mr. Welch, Case No. 1086, was granted a special permit. Prior to that decision, this property was a gas station and a garage. In 1991, Tedeschi’s wanted to rent this and turn it into a self-serve gas station and convenience store. They would now like to bump out 264 s.f. on the side of the building. It will be accessed only from the inside of the store. Mr. Shelmerdine stated he is applying for 1) an expansion of a nonconforming use and 2) he is here to modify Case No. 1086 which has 18 conditions. After they receive permission for the third dispenser, there will be changes made to the conditions. Mr. Wernick asked if they are therefore expanding a previous nonconforming use. Mr. Shelmerdine stated they are asking to expand it and add another pump and alter the layout and access. He is also looking for site plan approval. He stated that Section 6320 is a site plan approval reviewed and granted by the Zoning Board; Section 6330 is a site plan approval reviewed and granted by the Planning Board in the Business District A. They met with the Planning Board last week under Section 6 330.
Mr. Lee stated that often times the Zoning Board is the last step. This plan might or might not change between now and the end of the process. TheZBA should have a plan that has been worked out by the Planning Board and any other board involved. We want letters from the Board of Health and Conservation stating they are okay with this project. At this point, we have a plan before us that has not been approved by the Planning Board. He feels we shouldn’t address this until we see what the Planning Board does. Mr. Shelmerdine disagrees and stated there is overlapping jurisdiction. He won’t do anything with either board until they get approval from each board. He thinks this should be done together. Mr. Wernick would rather the Planning Board make their decision first. That is our policy. Mr. Lee stated we will then know what the applicant is asking for. Mr. McCarville suggested they continue this until they get a decision from the Planning Board. He asked Mr. Shelmerdine if he wishes to continue this. Mr. Shelmerdine stated he never expected this. Why can’t he address the issues the ZBA deal with?
Ira Dickerman, 76 Pond Street stated he was not noticed by the Planning Board of anything and feels he should have been. Mr. Wernick stated he needs to call the Planning Board. He stated he has an issue with trash and has spoken with the store manager on many occasions and gets no where. That is a problem. He would like to see a fence the whole length of the property to mitigate the trash flyng around. They presently have two dumpsters – one for trash and one for recycles, but he can’t get them in two enclosures. In looking at the area of driveway to be left at the pump island, it is not defined as to how much space is available. He doesn’t understand how cars will be able to get in there. He feels it will create an unsafe situation. Mr. McCarville statd his concerns were noted by Peter O’Cain.
Gordon Hughes, 10 Maple Avenue stated trash is a big concern as there is lots of blow over. 12 Maple Avenue also has a problem. There is a picket fence along the back of the property and it quite a spot to collect debris. There are always broken bottles and it is a hang out spot at night as the back is not lit. Mr. McCarville asked if he brought his concerns to the police? Mr. Hughes stated he hasn’t lived in the house for years. His parents lived there He feels as a neighbor the applicant should take care of the trash issues.
Myron Dickerman, 76 Pond Street stated he owns property with his son Ira and he has called the police when there is a problem. Mr. Shelmerdine stated they have planned on putting in a landscape buffer with a living hedge and chain link fence. He was also not noticed by the Planning Board. Mr. Shelmerdine stated the requirements for site plan review have been met as there is no ad or certified mailing required. A pril 11th is their next meeting night and Susan Price is the contact person.
Mr. Shelmerdine asked to continue. Mr. Wernick moved to continue to May 9, 2012 as requested. Motion seconded by Mr. Lee and voted 3-0-0 (McCarville, Lee, Wernick).
Mr. Lee stated that the regular members of the board are John Lee, Kevin McCarville, Lee Wernick; alternate members are Larry Okstein, Seth Ruskin and Barry Barth. Mr. McCarville nominated John Lee as chairman of the Zoning Board for a year. Motion seconded by Mr. Okstein and voted 3-0-0 (McCarville, Lee, Wernick). Mr. Lee nominated Mr. McCarville as Vice Chair. Motion seconded by Mr. Wernick and voted 3-0-0 (Lee, McCarville, Wernick). Mr. Lee moved to nominate Mr. Wernick as Clerk. Motion seconded by Mr. McCarville and voted 3-0-0 (Lee, Wernick, McCarville).
Mr. Lee stated we will not be meeting during the month of August.
It was moved, seconded and voted to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Accepted 5/9/12