TOWN OF
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
(508) 234-0819
Fax# (508) 234-0814
Approved
on March 12, 2009
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
MINUTES
This meeting was
called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Thomas Hansson. Other members present were: Sharron Ampagoomian, Diane Woupio, Carol
Snow, William Corkum, Stephen Witkus, and Harold Hartmann.
A motion was made by
Sharron Ampagoomian to approve of the minutes of December 11, 2008, motion
seconded by Diane Woupio, the vote being 6-0 in favor. Harold Hartmann abstained from voting as he
was not present at the December 11th meeting.
No meeting took
place in January.
PUBLIC HEARING: 24-APP-08 – PEGASUS HOLDINGS LLC, APPLICANT
This hearing was
held to consider the petition filed by Pegasus Holdings LLC,
The property, shown
on Assessor’s Map 25 as Parcel 113, is located at
Carol Snow read the
public hearing notice. Assigned to this
hearing by the Chairman were Sharron Ampagoomian, Carol Snow, Diane Woupio,
William Corkum and Thomas Hansson.
Present and
representing the applicant was
The Building
Inspector, Mr. James Sheehan, was present and stated that the argument isn’t
whether education is allowed in a Residential-2 zoning district because clearly
it is. He denied the permit because the
application was not clear. The
application states that the applicant is proposing secondary educational uses,
lecture halls and dormitories. The
application was incomplete in that it did not give enough information as to
what type of educational facility this is going to be. If he granted the permit with the information
that was on the application, it would be like giving him a blank check. A building permit cannot be granted until he
complies with Section 173-12 (Table of Use Regulations) of the Zoning By-laws
and the Massachusetts State Building Code.
The second point Mr.
Sheehan argued is that the applicant has been renting rooms in the facility for
the past 6 months to individuals who are not even students. The web site
doesn’t even mention the word “dormitory”, only that students receive a
discount. These rooms are being
marketed to people who are not even students.
This is a violation of the
building code and zoning and they have been cited and ordered not to do
it. The Massachusetts State Building
Code dictates that any other use group to a residential use group shall comply
with the requirements of the code for new construction. A building evaluation is also required for
compliance with structural, egress, fire protection, energy conservation
systems and ventilation systems.
The third point Mr.
Sheehan brought out is the fact that just because you are a student it does not
make the facility educational. This is
documented in Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Phi Beta Epsilon Corp.
vs. City of
Attorney Lane stated
that he is looking for a determination from the Board as to whether or not
educational uses are allowed in a Residential-2 zoning district. The Building Inspector’s decision is binding
if they didn’t appeal it within the 30 day window. If they don’t appeal it within those 30 days,
they lose their rights.
Chairman Thomas
Hansson stated that Mr. Sheehan is not arguing that educational uses are not
allowed. It appears that the facility is
currently being rented out and not just to students.
Mr. Muner argued that it is not being rented
out, that only his employees are living there. He stated that the web site was set up in anticipation
of the permit not being denied. Mr. Sheehan responded to that by stating that
the permit application was denied on
Attorney Lane again
argued that all they are looking for is a determination from the Board as to
whether or not they can use the building for education purposes. Board member
Mr. Sheehan then
stated that if the Board finds in the applicant’s favor, he will be forced to
issue a building permit.
Mr. Corkum asked the
applicant what the definition of “post secondary education” is.
Mr. Muner added that
it was a building classification whereas the safety requirements are less
stringent for an adult than for a child.
Upgrades to the building would have to be done accordingly.
Mr. Corkum asked Mr.
Muner what his intentions were for the building. Mr. Muner replied that it was going to be a
community oriented market driven facility depending on the interest.
Board member Sharron
Ampagoomian asked if they were listed as a non-profit organization because it
does not state that in their web page.
She went on to state that he provided statements from individuals
thanking him for their stay there back in July, when the building was not even
supposed to be occupied. He just went
ahead and advertised the rooms for rent online. Mr. Muner’s response was that
he is allowed to have so many people stay there. Ms. Ampagoomian reminded him that he
initially stated only people who worked for him stay there. If this is going to be an educational facility
then why can’t he provide the information that the Building Inspector has
requested. Mr. Muner responded that he
had to do the market research first. He
wasn’t renting them yet, just trying to ascertain the level of interest. Her reply to that was that he has to have the
necessary permits before he can allow people to stay there.
Ms. Ampagoomian
stated to Mr. Muner that Mr. Sheehan is the Building Inspector and he has asked
for him to comply with his request for additional information and compliance
with the building code. She then asked
Mr. Sheehan to explain once again what the applicant needed to do to comply
with using this building.
Mr. Sheehan replied
to that by stating once again that an educational use is clearly allowed in a
residential-2 zoning district. If the
applicant came in with a set of architectural plans and documentation that
showed it was an educational use he would have to grant a permit.
Ms. Ampagoomian
asked Mr. Muner why he doesn’t do that.
Mr. Muner replied that he was not doing any construction. Attorney Lane then stated that they could
come in with a plan but it would not be concrete. If the Board needs to see the location of
the classrooms etc. then they can do that.
But that may change as the needs become known. Ms. Ampagoomian argued that she did not
believe that was the point of the whole issue.
The applicant needs to provide documentation that it will indeed be an
educational facility. Without that those rooms could be rented out to anyone as
the web site indicates.
Mr. Sheehan replied
to that by stating that it is very difficult to go into the building and
determine if the individuals there are students, homeless individuals, etc. Mr.
Muner responded by stating that they don’t rent rooms by the night. Ms. Ampagoomian reminded him that it is
advertised as an inn and as such there would be no way to control that.
Board member Diane
Woupio stated that she was an educator and she has no clue as to what he is
attempting to do with the building. The
web page says nothing about education. Mr. Muner responded by stating that they
should think of it like a facility like the
Mr. Sheehan stated
to the Board that the permit was applied for by Pegasus Holdings LLC which is a
full profit real estate holding company.
No where in the application did it state that they were a non-profit
organization.
Andrew Salmon,
administrator of Beaumont Nursing Home and Day Care Center, expressed his
concerns. He has concerns for the 200
adults and 36 children that stay in his establishment. He has serious concerns as to what may go in
there and does not want to put these people at risk.
Jeff Robertson,
Barbara Gaudette,
Mr. Corkum asked Mr.
Muner if he was non-profit and his reply was “no” but he could be one
tomorrow. Attorney Lane then stated
that the statute is very clear and leasing the facility to a non-profit
organization is sufficient.
A motion was made by
Sharron Ampagoomian to continue the public hearing until March 12, 2009, motion
seconded by
PUBLIC HEARING: 01-SP-09 – ROBERT & DIANE MILLER,
APPLICANTS
This hearing was
held on the application of Robert & Diane Miller, 8 Indian Hill Drive,
Sutton, MA for a Special Permit pursuant to Article IX, Section 173-30 (B) of
the Northbridge Zoning by-laws, Extensions and Alterations, in order to replace
the existing rear porches of a six-family structure with enclosed porches. The existing structure is pre-existing,
non-conforming.
The property, shown
on Assessor’s Map 22A as Parcel 75, is located at
Bob and Diane Miller
were present to discuss the application.
Mr. Miller stated that the building was built over 100 years ago. They have owned it for 12 years and have done
various renovation projects over the years.
The open porches and stairs are in need of replacement and they have hired
an architect to solve the leaking flat roof as well as several other problems. The flat roof will be replaced with a truss
roof design eliminating the flat roof.
Also, bathrooms were cut into the kitchens creating limited kitchen
cabinet space. Enclosing the porches
will provide space to update both the kitchen and bathrooms in the future and
will provide laundry space as well as additional storage space. The new
enclosed area will be 12 ft. x 54 ft.
It would not extend beyond the width of the existing building.
Correspondence was
submitted to the Board by Richard Sasseville, Director of Public Works, as a
result of a letter sent to him by the Miller’s regarding the deteriorated
condition of the sidewalk. The
Miller’s insurance company does not like the deterioration of the sidewalk and
asked that they send a letter to the Department of Public Works. The
response to that letter by Mr. Sasseville is that the condition of the sidewalk
in this location is a result of many years of traffic traversing the sidewalk
to access the parking lot at the rear of the property. It is not the town’s responsibility to provide
the access to the parking lot. Ms. Miller stated that they would have no
problem paving over the area with a driveway apron thereby satisfying the
insurance company.
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
Sharron Ampagoomian, the vote being 5-0 in favor.
Board members had no
issues with issuing the Special Permit as it was a pre-existing, non-conforming
structure and enclosing the porches would in no way be detrimental to the
neighborhood but would only enhance the property. A
motion was made by
PUBLIC HEARING: 02-SP-09 – VINCENT OSTERMAN, APPLICANT
This hearing was
held on the application of Vincent J. Osterman,
The property, shown
on Assessor’s Map 7 as Parcel 245, is located at
Mark Anderson,
Heritage Design Group, was present as well as the owner/applicant, Vincent
Osterman. The applicant is seeking to
construct an addition to an existing structure built in 1913. The property was formerly part of the Whitin
Estate and this building was original built as a carriage shed. Later a portion of it was converted to
housing for the caretaker of the property.
A portion of the structure is a garage but the bulk of it is a housing
unit consisting of a bedroom, kitchen, sitting room, and bathroom. The entire property is 5.7 acres and the
building sets back about 375 ft. from
A motion was made by
Diane Woupio to close the public hearing and take the matter under
advisement. The motion was seconded by
Sharron Ampagoomian, the vote being 5-0 in favor.
Board members had no
issues with granting the Special Permit as the structure was pre-existing as a
residence and the extension/alteration will not be more detrimental to the
neighborhood. Ms. Ampagoomian made a
motion to grant the Special Permit to allow the construction of the
addition. The motion was seconded by
Diane Woupio, the vote being 5-0 in favor.
Sharron Ampagoomian
will write the decision.
CHAPTER 40B
13-CP-07
COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT APPLICATION
GRANITE HILLS
This hearing was continued from November 13, 2008. Meetings scheduled for December 11, 2008 and January 9, 2009 were continued at the applicant’s request. Previous meetings took place on August 9, 2007, and October 11, 2007, and September 11, 2008. 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,
Members serving on this hearing and present this evening
were
A request for a continuance was received via email and telephone on February 12, 2009. A motion was made by Sharron Ampagoomian to grant the continuance until the March meeting as requested which will take place on March 12, 2009. The motion was seconded by Diane Woupio, the vote being unanimous.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Attested by,
Brenda M. Ouillette
Administrative Assistant
THESE MINUTES ARE
SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (Approved on March 12, 2009)