TOWN OF NORTHBRIDGE

 

 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

21 Piedmont Street

Whitinsville, MA  01588

(508) 234-0819

Fax# (508) 234-0814

 

                                                                        Approved on April 9, 2009

                                                           

 

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

 

MINUTES OF MEETING

 

MARCH 12, 2009

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,  Stephen Witkus, and Harold Hartmann.  Also present was Brenda Ouillette, Secretary.

 

A motion was made by Carol Snow to approve of the minutes of February 12, 2009, motion seconded by Diane Woupio, the vote being unanimous. 

 

William Corkum was absent from this meeting.

 

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:  24-APP-08 – PEGASUS HOLDINGS LLC, APPLICANT

This hearing was continued from February 12, 2009 and is being held to consider the petition filed by Pegasus Holdings LLC, 6 Cedar Hill Rd., Grafton, MA appealing the Building Inspector/Zoning Official’s decision to deny a building/occupancy permit for a proposed educational use of the premises to be located at 2356 Providence Rd., Northbridge, formerly known as Northbridge Nursing Home.

 

The property, shown on Assessor’s Map 25 as Parcel 113, is located at 2356 Providence Road in a Residential-2 zoning district.   The property is owned by Pegasus Holdings, LLC. 

 

Assigned to this hearing at the February meeting were Sharron Ampagoomian, Carol Snow, Diane Woupio, William Corkum, and Thomas Hansson.  Stephen Witkus replaced William Corkum who was absent this evening.  Mr. Witkus was present at last month’s meeting and heard all the testimony regarding this issue.  Mr. Hansson did bring this to the attention of the applicant and Attorney Henry Lane.

 

Attorney Henry Lane presented a floor plan of the facility and a letter. He stated that Pegasus Holdings anticipated leasing the facility to one or more non-profit organizations for mixed educational uses.  He anticipates classroom and laboratory space, conference facilities, and  facilities for cultural exchange programs including temporary housing for foreign exchange students.

 

James Sheehan, Building Inspector, was present and Mr. Hansson asked Mr. Sheehan to again outline why he denied the building permit.   Mr. Sheehan responded that he denied the building permit because he had insufficient information to determine that this is an educational use.     There was no information provided and Mr. Sheehan stated that he has no idea what the applicant is trying to do there.   There is also a residential component to this permit.  A dormitory is defined under Massachusetts General Laws as a lodging house.   Without a clear educational use it would have to be classified as a lodging house and a lodging house is not allowed in a Residential-2 zoning district.  There is still insufficient information provided to date that will allow him to make that determination.  He has an application that says educational use and a floor plan that shows proposed uses, but it is still insufficient information.   Mr. Sheehan stated that the applicant is free to go back to the Building Inspector as many times as he wants, but he needs to provide sufficient information documenting it is indeed an educational use.  The Board is here to determine if he was justified in making that decision based on what was provided to him in the initial application.

 

Sharron Ampagoomian asked about the significance of the “ American Red Cross” being on the floor plan.   She asked if he had something in writing from the American Red Cross and Mr. Muner replied that he did not.   Ms. Ampagoomian asked him why he would indicate it on a floor plan when he didn’t have any documentation from them indicating such.   Mr. Muner responded by stating that they come in and run seminars.  Ms. Ampagoomian replied that she understands that but he has nothing in writing stating that the American Red Cross will be doing that.  

 

Mr. Lane spoke up and stated that they cannot commit to anyone until they have permission to use the building.   Ms. Ampagoomian replied that the American Red Cross is not just a general category, it is an organization.   They are identifying it as an organization that will be using the facility when in fact they have no documentation to back that up. 

 

Todd Helwig, the attorney for the abutter Beaumont Nursing Home, asked for an opportunity to speak.   He stated that the only thing the Board is here for is to determine if the Building Inspector made the right decision or not based on what was presented to him in the original application.  The Building Inspector is charged with interpreting the Zoning By-laws.  The Building Inspector received an application; he looked at it and had to determine what use category this fell under based on the information given to him.  He determined that it fell under the lodging house category and that use is not allowed in a residential-2 zoning district so he denied it. 

 

Attorney Helwig stated that there was some discussion earlier by Mr. Lane of putting in the record that an educational use is allowed there.   The By-law speaks for itself as to what is allowed and what isn’t.  The Building Inspector  interprets what the Zoning By-law allows.   The By-law states “ Educational purpose which is religious, sectarian, denominational or public”.  He doesn’t know what that means as none of those definitions are defined in the By-law so the Building Inspector has to make that determination.  He as an attorney does not  know if the proposed use falls under this category based on what was submitted so he wouldn’t  want to see the Board make that determination when in fact it is the Building Inspector’s job as the Zoning Official.  They are here to either support his decision or not.  He also stated that in order for something to be an educational use it has to be the primary component.   The primary component in this case is residential and the Board should view it as such.

 

Mr. Sheehan stated that his worst fear is that they rent out 30 rooms and have one computer class for one hour a week or one other class for one hour a week.   The people who may be staying there may not even be connected to those classes.   He won’t be able to tell if those people are going to class or just renting the rooms.   There has to be some way for him to make that determination that they are renting our rooms for the educational aspect which would then make it an accessory use to the educational use and not the primary use which would then classify it as a lodging house.   He added that all he is looking for his documentation that this is an educational use.

 

Jeannette Peterson, 386 Rumonoski Dr. spoke on the issue.  She stated that after listening to the comments tonight it appears that the issue is pretty clear cut.  The application that was submitted was not complete.  There is no need for debate.   She would not feel comfortable for the Board voting on something that is not their determination.   The application was rejected by the Building Inspector because it was not complete and it needs to be resubmitted to him.  The Board should support that decision.

 

Mr. Sheehan stated that the original application was received November 19, 2008.  The applicant has had ample time to resubmit an application with the necessary documentation.  

 

A motion was made by Sharron Ampagoomian to continue the public hearing until more information can be provided.     The motion was not seconded.    

 

A motion was made by Carol Snow to close the public hearing and take the matter under advisement.   The motion was seconded by Diane Woupio, the vote being 4-1.  Ms. Ampagoomian opposed. 

 

Board members agreed that the Building Inspector was justified with his decision to deny the building permit due to insufficient information provided.  

 

A motion was made by Carol Snow to deny the appeal to reverse the decision of the Building Inspector.   The motion was seconded by Diane Woupio, the vote being 5-0 in favor.

 

Tom Hansson 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, and February 12, 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, 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,  March 3, 2008, and January 21, 2009.

 

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. 

 

Mark Anderson was informed via email on March 11, 2009 that Board Member William Corkum would not be in attendance this evening.  He requested a continuance via email until the next scheduled meeting.   A motion was made by Diane Woupio to continue the meeting until April 9, 2009; motion seconded by Sharron Ampagoomian 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.  (Approve on April 9, 2009).