TOWN OF NORTHBRIDGE

 

 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

21 Piedmont Street

Whitinsville, MA  01588

(508) 234-0819

Fax# (508) 234-0814

                                                                                                            Approved on 12/11/08

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

 

NOVEMBER 13, 2008

 

MINUTES

This meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Thomas Hansson.  Other members present were:  Carol Snow, Diane Woupio, Sharron Ampagoomian, William Corkum, Stephen Witkus, and Harold Hartmann.   Also present was Brenda Ouillette, Secretary.

 

A motion was made by William Corkum to approve of the minutes of September 11, 2008, motion seconded by Diane Woupio, the vote being unanimous.  There was no meeting in October.

 

Stephen Witkus abstained from voting on the minutes as he was not present at the September 11, 2008 meeting.

 

PUBLIC HEARING:    20-SP-08 & 21-V-08 – TERRI MORRISSETTE, APPLICANT

This hearing was held on the applications of Terri Morrissette, 24 Highland Park, Linwood,MA for (1) a Special Permit pursuant to Article IX, Section 173-30(B) of the Northbridge Zoning By-laws, Extensions and Alterations, and (2) a Variance from side setback requirements pursuant to Article VI, Section 173-19, Table of Area Regulations, in order to allow a 30 ft. x 40 ft. addition to the existing, non-conforming structure located at 253R Providence Rd. known as Cherub’s Haven.   Cherub’s Haven is an existing child care facility.

 

The property, shown on Assessor’s Map 24A as Parcels 83 & 84, is located at 253R and 259 Providence Rd. in a Business-2 zoning district.   The owner of the property is Terri Morrissette.

 

Carol Snow read the public hearing notice.   Assigned to this hearing were:  Carol Snow, Diane Woupio, William Corkum, Sharron Ampagoomian, and Thomas Hansson.

 

 

Terri Morrissette was present to discuss her application.  She stated that it is her intent to construct a 30ft. x 40 ft. addition to the existing toddler center located at 253R Providence Rd.   There would be no increase in children or staff.  The addition would be one story to be used as a gymnasium for the children.  The area where the addition would be going is currently just a grassy area.  A variance is required because the proposed building will be too close to the abutting property which is owned by her father who was also present at this meeting.   She stated it is her intent to combine the two properties as one as both properties are used for child care.    When asked if she would object to that being a condition placed on the Special Permit, she replied that she did not object as it was her intent to do so anyway just in case some day she decides to join the two buildings.

 

Board member William Corkum asked if it was possible to turn the building the other way so it would not overlap the boundary line and Ms. Morrissette responded that she would then lose the required criteria of 75 sq. ft. per child of outdoor play area for the fenced in area for the existing building.   

 

Ms. Ampagoomian asked Ms. Morrissette how long she has been in business there as a child care center and she replied 27 years.

 

No one spoke in opposition.

 

A motion was made by Diane Woupio to close the public hearing and take the matter under advisement.   The motion was seconded by William Corkum, the vote being unanimous.

 

Board members were in agreement that the lots should be combined as one and agreed that the shape of the lot creates a hardship for the applicant.  Due to the required square footage per child, decreasing the size of the structure was not an option.   The abutting property near the proposed addition belongs to her father. 

 

A motion was made by Carol Snow to grant the Special Permit with the condition that the applicant complete the necessary requirements to combine parcels 83 & 84 as one.   Motion seconded by Sharron Ampagoomian, the vote being 5-0 in favor.

 

A motion was made by Carol Snow to grant the Variance from side setback requirements.   The motion was seconded by Diane Woupio, the vote being 5-0 in favor.

 

Carol Snow will write the decisions.

 

PUBLIC HEARING :  19-V-08 – BOHLER ENGINEERING, APPLICANT

This hearing was originally scheduled for October 9, 2008 but at the applicant’s request it was held over until this evening.

 

This hearing was held on the application of Bohler Engineering, 352 Turnpike Rd., Southborough, MA for a Variance pursuant to Article VII, Section 173-23 of the Northbridge Zoning By-laws, signs permitted in any business district, in order to allow additional building wall signs over what is currently allowed by zoning on a new proposed building and a reader-board on the existing pylon ID sign located at 1190 Providence Rd., known as McDonald’s Restaurant.

 

The property, shown on Assessor’s Map 23A as Parcel 76, is located at 1190 Providence Rd., in a Business-1 zoning district.   The owner of the property is McDonald’s Corporation, 690 Canton St., Westwood, MA.

 

Carol Snow read the public hearing notice.   Assigned to this hearing were:  Carol Snow, Diane Woupio, William Corkum, Sharron Ampagoomian, and Thomas Hansson.

 

Stephen Decoursey from Bohler Engineering was present to discuss the petition.  The project will consist of the demolition of the existing restaurant and associated parking areas and construction of a new 4,075 sq. ft. McDonalds Restaurant.   The project will maintain the general layout of the existing site, while providing such improvements as a drive thru with dual order stations, as well as new parking lot paving, curbing, lot lighting, and landscaping.

 

As part of the proposed rebuild project, the owner and operator of the restaurant hopes to be allowed to reconstruct wall signage reflective of the existing site conditions, consisting of a 40.31 sq. ft. “McDonald’s” sign and 13.87 sq. ft. “M” sign on the southerly building wall, as well as a 40.31 sq. ft. “McDonald’s” sign on the westerly building wall, which faces Providence Rd.  Also, the owner is proposing a 3 ft. x 8 ft. reader-board on the existing pylon ID sign to better inform customers passing by the restaurant.  A variance is required because the proposed signage exceeds 60 sq. ft. and freestanding ID signs are prohibited on the subject site.

 

The argument was that McDonald’s is not a “destination location” but rather derives the majority of its business from impulse decisions as traffic passes by the restaurant.  In the past the red roof of the existing McDonalds’s has been a highly recognizable feature for years, and the new look will be subdued.   As such, brand recognition and informative signage are utmost importance to the success of the business.  Additionally, the site is obscured to southbound traffic on Providence Rd by the natural topography and mature trees of the adjacent property.  Since the southerly building wall will utilize approximately 54 sq. ft. of signage, the westerly wall which faces Providence Rd. would not be allowed to have a sign, further limiting McDonalds’s street presence. 

 

The existing site utilizes a small freestanding sign which will remain under the proposed conditions; however the applicant wishes to add a 3’ x 8’ reader-board panel on said sign to better inform transient traffic of current promotions in a timely manner to avoid sudden stops at the site driveway.  Since an ID sign is not allowed, the reader-board requires zoning relief.   It was noted that the nearby Burger King restaurant has such a sign on their site.

 

Mr. Decoursey stated that they had been through Site Plan Review with the Planning Board.

 

A motion was made by Diane Woupio to close the public hearing and take the matter under advisement.   Motion seconded by Sharron Ampagoomian, the vote being unanimous.

 

No one spoke in opposition.

 

A motion was made by Carol Snow to grant the variance for additional building wall signs as proposed on the plan submitted, as well as the addition of a reader board on the existing pylon ID sign.  The motion was seconded by Diane Woupio, the vote being 5-0 in favor.

 

Diane Woupio will write the decision.

 

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:  7-SP-08 – ALTERNATIVES UNLIMITED, APPLICANT

This hearing was continued from June 12, 2008, July 10, 2008, August 14, 2008, and September 11, 2008 regarding the application of Alternatives Unlimited, 54 Douglas Rd., Whitinsville, for a Special Permit pursuant to Article IX, Section 173-30 (B) of the Northbridge Zoning By-laws, Extensions and Alterations, in order to allow three residential apartment units in an existing non-conforming structure and the construction of two new additional structures, one for two apartment units (2 story) and one for a greenhouse. 

 

The property, shown on Assessor’s Map 4 as Parcel 31, is located at 22 Whitin Ave., Whitinsville in an Industrial-1 zoning district.   The property is owned by Alternatives Unlimited.

 

Due to the absence of one of the voting members at a regularly scheduled meeting on October 9, 2008, the applicant agreed to continue until this evening.

 

The Board received a letter dated November 12, 2008 from attorney Marisa Pizzi, the attorney representing Alternatives Unlimited.  The letter was a request to allow the applicant to withdraw the petition without prejudice. 

 

A motion was made by Carol Snow to allow the applicant to withdraw the petition without prejudice, motion seconded by William Corkum, the vote being unanimous.

 

Extension on Special Permit 5-SP-06

The Board received a written request from Martin Szerlag on October 9, 2008 for a second six month extension on an existing Special Permit that was granted for a retreat lot located on Hill Street shown on Assessor’s Map 13 as Parcel 27.   The property is owned by Martin P. Szerlag Jr. , 1900 Hill St, Northbridge.  The Special Permit was granted and filed with the Town Clerk on March 21, 2006 with an appeal period that ended on April 10, 2006.  A 6 month extension was granted by the Board on April 10, 2008, expiring on October 10, 2008. 

 

Mr. Szerlag requested a second extension due to the economy and the fact that he has been unable to sell the lot.  The Board voted unanimously to grant another 6 month extension, expiring on May 13, 2009. 

 

A motion was made by Carol Snow to grant a six month extension.   Motion seconded by Sharron Ampagoomian, the vote being unanimous.  The 6 month extension will expire on May 13, 2009.

 

 

 

CHAPTER 40B

13-CP-07

COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT APPLICATION

GRANITE HILLS

 

This hearing was continued from September 11, 2008 due to the advance notice of the absence of one of the voting members for the October 9th meeting.   Previous meetings took place on August 9, 2007,  and October 11, 2007.   A meeting scheduled for September 13, 2007 was rescheduled due to the absence of one of the voting members.  Meetings scheduled for November 8, 2007, and December 13, 2007, and January 10, 2008,  February 14, 2008, and March 13, 2008, and April 10, 2008, May 8, 2008,  July 10, 2008, and August 14, 2008 were continued at the applicant’s request.   For the August 14, 2008 meeting, the applicant was given the option of continuing due to the advance notice of the absence of one of the voting members rather than substituting an alternate in his place, and elected to continue the hearing to a date when all voting members would be present.

 

This hearing is being held on the application of Granite Hills Development Corporation, 910 Boston Post Road, Suite 260, Marlborough, MA for a diversified housing project filed pursuant to MGL Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit.   The property, located on Highland Street, consists of approximately 30 acres of land and is shown on Assessor’s Map 15 as Parcel 86.   The proposed project, known as Granite Hills consisting of 124 townhouse style condominium units within a Residential 2 zoning district is shown on a Definitive Site Plan entitled “Granite Hills” prepared by Heritage Design Group dated June 29, 2007, revised February 1, 2008, and March 3, 2008.

 

Members serving on this hearing and present this evening were Diane Woupio, Carol Snow, Sharron Ampagoomian, William Corkum, and Thomas Hansson.   Associate member Harold Hartmann was also present and he has also been present at all of the meetings concerning this issue.  Stephen Witkus was absent from the September 11th meeting.  Also present for this discussion was Attorney Laura Pawle, Town Counsel as well as Bill Richards from Cullinan Engineering, consulting Engineer for the Board.

 

Carol Snow asked Mr. Anderson what the impact of construction would be on the existing roads and how would damages be addressed.  Mr. Anderson replied that it could be a condition of the permit that the builder would be responsible to repair damages.    Mr. Anderson stated that it is a balanced site where the material will be processed on site limiting the heavy equipment entering the site on a daily basis.   The Department of Public Works could do an inspection prior to construction and a post construction inspection.  The roadway will be constructed in three phases.

 

Ms. Ampagoomian stated that Highland St. was a very narrow winding road and she expressed concerns with the school buses during the construction process.   Mr. Anderson replied that the hours that the equipment is brought in could be limited.   For example, limiting construction equipment until after the bus routes have been completed or after 8:30 a.m.   Also, the route of the construction equipment could be limited.  For example, no construction equipment entering Highland St. from Church St.  All equipment would have to come from the North to the South to enter the site.

 

Ms. Ampagoomian asked Mr. Anderson if the traffic study was ever sent to the Board of Selectmen and Mr. Anderson replied that it had.  He stated that he has not received any comments back since the last presentation to the Safety Committee.  

 

When asked if they the units were all two bedroom, Mr. Anderson replied that 15% would be three bedroom units.   

 

Mr. Anderson stated that there is a change on the plans that will be resubmitted to Cullinan Engineering.   That change is that originally the sewer was going to be pumped up into the Hills of Whitinsville project.   They will now be pumping up Highland St. to Rumonoski and gravity from there. 

 

Attorney Pawle suggested that Mr. Richards update the Board on his report dated March 25, 2008 and identify for the Board those items which still need to be addressed. 

 

Referring to the report, Mr. Richards stated that one of the items of concern is the maintenance of the easement for the emergency access.  The owners of the two easements have granted permission to construct the proposed roadway, and that the proposed roadway within the “Marston Heights” development would be maintained by the Marston Heights Homeowners Association.  It may be appropriate to have agreements in place between the two parties, which will guarantee the right to pass/re-pass and to ensure future maintenance of the roadway.  Mr. Anderson commented that there is not going to be a right to pass/re-pass.  It is a gated emergency access only.

 

Attorney Pawle asked if the maintenance of the easement has been addressed yet.   Mr. Anderson replied that the two roads are coming together and each Association will come up to each other.   He did state that there should be some language addressing that issue.   Ms. Pawle stated that the easement would be maintained for the benefit of Granite Hills.  Mr. Anderson agreed to put some type of agreement in place stating that Granite Hills will maintain that section of road.      

 

Another concern is the classification of some of the roadways within the site.   The response letter Cullinan received is that the proposed roadway meets the definition of a secondary road. However, Heritage Design Group indicates that the roadway has been designed in accordance with many other projects in town and maintains that the roadway is acceptable in its current layout.   Mr. Richards stated that it has to do with grading and they have some concerns.    The applicant has requested a waiver to classify all of the proposed roadways as minor streets. Road “A” would appear to collect traffic from neighborhoods, and the estimated average daily vehicle trips is above the 500 average daily trip per day threshold for minor streets.    If this waiver were not granted, Road “A” would not meet the design requirements of a secondary road for minimum leveling area, minimum centerline radius, minimum tangent between reverse cures, and maximum grade. 

 

Mr. Anderson replied that the road complies with subdivision standards for the grading standpoint where 9% grades are allowed.  Mr. Richards stated that their concern is the grade of the road under winter conditions.  The profile of Road “A” includes a 9% grade for 300 feet converting to the standard 7% for only 75 feet, then changing back to a 9% grade.  A combination of steep vertical grades and reverse horizontal curves in this area may cause accessibility problems during winter conditions.  Also, this steep grade in combination with the minimum 110 foot radii, may make it potentially hazardous to exit the site during winter conditions.  Cullinan has concerns regarding fire/emergency access during inclement weather and the design of Road “A” to the minor road standards.  Mr. Richards suggested heating coils under the steep portion of the roadway.

 

 Cullinan Engineering also has concerns with fire/emergency access and delivery vehicle access on Drive “F” which serves 12 units and extends 430 feet beyond the end of Road “C” without a turn around provided at the end.  There does not appear to be sufficient space for turnaround maneuvers of emergency, delivery vehicles, and waste collection vehicles.  Heritage Design states that the 20 foot driveway will provide acceptable passageway.  Cullinan maintains their concerns related to turn around maneuvers.  With vehicles parked in the individual driveways, wheel path maneuvers for the largest emergency vehicle should be shown on the plans.  

 

Mr. Anderson replied that he met with the Fire Chief and Chief Nestor does not have a problem with 12 houses on a dead end beyond the cul-de-sac but he would like it to be shown that there is not going to be any obstructions along that roadway.   Mr. Anderson stated that a detail of that section of the roadway will be shown on the revised plans.

 

The proposed plans show large ledge cuts along Road “A” and Road “B”.  There is insufficient information provided on the plans to evaluate the design, and to demonstrate how surface runoff and groundwater will be handled.  A typical section of the rock cut and roadway should be provided for review.  Also, the plan specifies that the rock cut will be supplemented by retaining walls.     Mr. Anderson responded by stating that soil borings have been done in that location to a depth of about 20 feet and he will send Mr. Richards that report.

 

Mr. Richards stated that the Board should still be provided with a report from a geotechnical engineer as Heritage Design agreed to previously.    The geotechnical engineer would be looking at how the cuts are going to relate to the actual construction of the roadway.  Mr. Anderson argued that this was not a requirement anywhere in town that he is aware of and after reviewing regulations and past experience in Northbridge, he does not feel that this is necessary.   Mr. Richards maintains that the plan should be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer.  Mr. Anderson stated that this issue needs to be addressed further and he will discuss this issue with Mr. Richards to try and resolve it.

 

Mr. Anderson stated that granite curbs would be used on corners, steep portions of the roadways, and areas with a certain radii and cul-de-sacs.  

 

Ms. Ampagoomian stated she would like more information about the use of heating coils under the roadway.

 

Mr. Anderson did state that a bus shelter will be built for the children.

 

Mr. Hansson stated that the Board wanted to review a description of the project’s 3 phases and the completion dates for each.  Mr. Anderson agreed to provide this. 

 

A motion was made by Sharron Ampagoomian to continue this hearing until the next scheduled meeting on December 11, 2008.  The motion was seconded by William Corkum, the vote being unanimous.

 

Items to be discussed on December 11th  will be traffic, safety and civil engineering issues.  The January meeting will encompass waivers and conditions.

 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M.

 

Attested by,

 

 

 

Brenda M. Ouillette

Secretary

 

THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS  (These minutes were approved on December 11, 2008)