ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MAY 17, 2006
PRESENT: Bruce Simpson, John Burke, Lorraine Sweeney (8:30 p.m.), Martin Murphy, Robert Garrity, Elissa Flynn-Poppey, Michael Kulesza
ABSENT: No one
The duly posted public meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals convened at 7:35 p.m. in room 105C at the Norfolk Town Hall.
The Board previewed applications to be heard for a June 21, 2006 public hearing.
Mary Swantak - 9 Ware Drive – Special Permit Preview:
The applicant Mary Swantak was present. The application for special permit was received on May 11, 2006. Mr. Simpson noted that the applicant had previously requested a Variance for an addition at this address, which was denied by the Board of Appeals. It was suggested by the Board at that time that if the addition were modified that the applicant would be able to apply for a special permit instead. The application is for the construction of a 14 foot by 18 foot porch/mudroom to an existing non-conforming structure in accordance with Section F.4.a. of the Zoning Bylaws. The addition would not encroach further into the front setback than the existing structure. The applicant submitted all required information for the acceptance of the application. Mrs. Flynn-Poppey made the motion to accept the
application and schedule the public hearing for 7:35 p.m. on June 21, 2006. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Appointment with Attorney Adam Braillard – representative for Cingular Wireless (Dean Street locus) at Dean Street. Mr. Braillard stated that he attended last months meeting to request whether the Zoning Board of Appeals had any problems with the changes and modifications being proposed for the proposed Cingular Wireless Communication Facility on an existing Boston Edison transmission tower located off Dean Street. He noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals had requested that Mr. Braillard check with the Norfolk Conservation Commission on whether the proposed modifications to the plan would meet with their approval.
Mr. Braillard presented a plan depicting the proposed modifications. The plan shows that the footprint of the equipment pad is much smaller and the installation of the equipment was located under the tower rather than adjacent to the tower. The impervious surface has also been reduced. The prefabricated concrete pad would be changed to a steel grated platform that would be pervious. The Conservation Commission had drafted a memorandum, dated May 2, 2006, stating that the new location design would cause no additional cumulative impacts to the wetland values and interests within the 100 foot buffer resource. No amended Notice of Intent would be required for the requested modifications to the project.
Mrs. Flynn-Poppey asked why the applicant was changing the concrete pad to a steel grated platform. Mr. Braillard stated that the proposed change had been approved by the operations department and N-Star and he did not believe that the change was due to any safety concerns. Mr. Simpson noted that the only concern of the Board at last months meeting was if the Conservation Commission had any concerns. The memo from the Conservation Commission indicated that they had no additional concerns with the project modification. There were no other questions from the Board. Mr. Murphy made the motion to close discussion on this matter. Mrs. Flynn-Poppey seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The Board will later vote on the matter and notify Mr. Braillard.
Mark Brady – 44 Miller Street – Application for Special Permit. Mr. Brady was not present. Mr. Simpson noted that the plot plan submitted with the application had originally been prepared for Bruce Simpson in 1986. He noted the plan had probably been prepared in preparation for a septic plan. He noted that the property had been owned by his mother and father and he has no financial interest in the property. He noted that the Simpson family sold this property several years ago to Mr. Brady. He noted that if the Board felt or if he found out from an official ruling that there is a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict he would recuse himself. He noted that he would ask Mr. Garrity to conduct the preview of the application in light of the situation.
Mr. Garrity noted that the application is for a special permit in accordance with Section F.4.a. to enlarge a nonconforming structure. The only information missing from the packet is an abutters list, which was being prepared at the time of this preview. The proposed addition would violate the side setback requirement but to no greater degree than what exists. There were no questions from the Board members. Mr. Murphy made the motion to accept the application and to schedule the public hearing for June 21, 2006 at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
CEI Boston - Shire Industrial Park – There was no one present to represent CEI at this preview. The special permit requested is in accordance with Section J.7.a.2.B. for outside storage of more than three (3) commercial vehicles in the C-1 zone. The company is a construction entity with multiple vehicles. Mr. Simpson noted that CEI- Boston was the subject of a round table review several months ago and their requested project was discussed. He noted that there was a discussion on signage for the company but the Zoning Board of Appeals no longer is responsible for the issuance of special permits. The only issue before the Board is the outside storage of vehicles. The company is purchasing three lots within the Shire Industrial Park. The company is purchasing three (3)
contiguous lots within the Shire Industrial Park. Mr. Murphy made the motion to accept the application and to schedule the public hearing for June 21, 2006 at 7:55 p.m. Mrs. Flynn-Poppey seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
The next order of business was an appointment with Ms. Jill Onderdunk, a private consultant for affordable housing projects. Ms. Onderdunk’s company is located in Westwood, MA. She noted that she works closely with CHAPA and the housing
community development. She stated that she follows the regulations that were drawn up by CHAPA and the state regarding affordable housing lotteries. She noted that CHAPA is usually the monitoring agent for affordable housing projects.
Mrs. Onderdunk stated that she has drawn up a draft application information packet and flyers that will be mailed to applicants. The information packet gives instructions on when the lottery will be drawn and notifies the applicants of their standing in the lottery. She noted that this lottery will be slightly different from others that she has conducted. She noted that there are two parts to the Norfolk Condominium development; a family housing section and a 55 and over housing section. Seven units were set aside for family housing and 4 units for 55 and over.
Mrs. Onderdunk stated that she feels the best way to handle the lottery is to have one drawing for the 55 and over and a second lottery for the family housing units. She noted that a single person or a family consisting of two persons is possible but not likely to get one of the three bedroom units. She noted that CHAPA and the state are pretty adamant that the three bedroom units go to single people or a two person family. She noted that usually there are 100 applications for the affordable family units. She stated that she felt that the prices of the affordable units were reasonable.
Mrs. Onderdunk stated that the marketing plan calls for advertising of the units for 60 days. She will be advertising in the Norfolk Boomerang, the Sun Chronicle and the Milford Daily News and several other newspapers. The applications will be available at the Town Hall and the Norfolk Public Library. She noted that most towns are receptive to putting the application on their website. CHAPA will also put the application on their website. Mrs. Onderdunk stated that all applications will be sent to Mrs. Onderdunk and her staff will input the applications into a data base. The lottery is drawn by number not by names. Mrs. Flynn-Poppey suggested that the advertisement be placed in the Country Gazette. She asked how the residents of the town would get first preference if
only numbers are assigned to the applications. The current residents in the Town would get first preference followed by children or parents of a current resident and the last category is for Town Employees. The length of time of residency in the Town is not a factor. Mrs. Onderdunk stated that a local preference category in the data base will be created. Out of the 11 affordable units, 8 will go to local preference applicants. If applicants don’t get chosen under the local preference they will then be placed in the general lottery.
Mr. Simpson noted that Mrs. Onderdunk was also recommended by the Norfolk Town Clerk who also had experience working with Mrs. Onderdunk’s company. The Housing Authority had researched lottery agents and also chose Mrs. Onderdunk. Mr. Borrelli had chosen another person and the Board convinced Mr. Borrelli to interview Mrs. Onderdunk as well. Mrs. Onderdunk will be working under the Zoning Board of Appeals purview rather than the Housing Authority. Mrs. Onderdunk stated that it is unusual for Housing Authorities to work with lotteries that were ownership based and not rentals.
Mrs. Onderdunk stated that she needs permission from the Zoning Board of Appeals to proceed. Mrs. Onderdunk stated that applicants apply even though they know that they are over the maximum income levels. She noted that getting a low number in the lottery does not mean that their chances are greater than anyone with a higher number. The applicants would still have to qualify for the ownership of a house.
Mr. Kulesza questioned if there is waiting list or a back up list of applicants. Mr. Onderdunk explained that at the night of the drawing all of the numbers are drawn and the applications are reviewed according to qualifications. Everyone will have a ranking. The process would take between 6 weeks to 2 months. Mrs. Onderdunk stated that not all banks, especially mortgage lenders, are willing to accept affordable lending. She stated that she encourages the developer to work with a bank that finances the construction to also participate in the affordable lending to applicants.
Mrs. Onderdunk will contact the Administrative Assistant tomorrow for contact information.
Mr. Garrity made the motion to have Mrs. Onderdunk commence with the lottery for the Norfolk Condominium project. Mr. Kulesza seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
The Board adjourned at 8:10 p.m. to conduct the Variance public hearing for Frederick Souza of 40 Priscilla Avenue. The Board also conducted the public hearing for Little Pine Realty Trust (8:30 p.m.) and Norfolk Landing at 9:30 p.m.
The business meeting reconvened at 9:50 p.m. It was noted that Attorney Talerman came into the meeting at 8:30 p.m. and presented a marked up copy of the marketing plan that he reviewed for the Board. Mr. Talerman stated that there were some flaws in the plan and the plan lacked clarity in a couple of areas. Mr. Talerman stated that there were also several typographical errors. Mr. Talerman will make a copy of the marked up copy and will submit it to the chairman. Mr. Simpson asked if Mr. Talerman would speak to Mrs. Onderdunk directly.
The Board discussed the proposed modification to the Cingular Wireless Communication Facility plan proposed for the Dean Street site as presented by Attorney Adam Braillard. The Board determined that there was a diminimus change to the plan. A letter will be drafted to Cingular Wireless c/o Mr. Braillard to allow them to proceed with the proposed modification. A new plan will have to be submitted, which will be cited in the letter.
The members signed vouchers for office expenses.
The Board reviewed several letters that were forwarded by the Building Commissioner.
The Board deferred review of the Michael Iantosca Conservation Commission filing.
The Board reviewed the correspondence from Town Counsel regarding an appeal from Denise Weaver of the Superior Court decision which favored the Town. It appears that Town Counsel responded to the appeal of Ms. Weaver and also petitioned the court for legal fees on behalf of the Town. Mrs. Flynn-Poppey will pursue the correspondence further.
Mr. Murphy made the motion to close the business meeting at 10:30 p.m. Mr. Garrity seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
______________________________,
Robert J. Garrity, Clerk
File:zba.may17.06
| 
