Zoning Board of Appeals
Business Meeting of August 16, 2006
Present: Robert Garrity, John Burke, Lorraine Sweeney, Bruce Simpson, Elissa Flynn-Poppey
Others: Attorney Daniel Hill (Anderson & Kreiger)
Absent: Michael Kulesza, Martin Murphy
The duly posted business meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. in room 105C at the Norfolk Town Hall. Mssrs. Paul Borrelli and John Glossa were present this evening. Mr. Glossa passed out a letter and copies of photographs. He noted that the approved plans for the comprehensive permit for Norfolk Condominiums show concrete curbing in all locations within the condominium complex. He noted that he feels that this could be a mistake that the town could regret in the future. He noted that he took photographs of the Shawmut Business Park that show concrete curbings. He noted that plows tend to bump against the concrete curbing and break it. The road salt gets into the concrete and then the rebar gets exposed. It will take a lot of money to replace concrete curbing.
Mr. Glossa explained the process for the replacement of concrete curbing. He noted that in one case in the photographs, the concrete curbing was replaced with asphalt berm. He noted that within the Norfolk Condominium complex there are tight turning spaces. Mr. Glossa noted that he also took photos of the curbing at Rockwood Road/Boardman Street and Main Street east of the Fire Station to show the style of the Cape Cod berm that they would like to install within the Norfolk Condominium complex. He noted that the advantage of having Cape Cod berm is that the snow plows can ride over it without dislodging it from the pavement. The Cape Cod berm is easy to replace if damaged. Mr. Glossa stated that he feels that this would be a much better edging for the road in the 40B complex. Mr. Glossa
stated that Mr. Borrelli is requesting the comprehensive permit be amended to allow the Cape Cod berm instead of concrete.
Loraine Sweeney asked if there are areas where the sidewalks are located adjacent to the proposed areas for the Cape Cod berm. She noted that she would be concerned with pedestrian safety on the sidewalks. Mr. Glossa and the Board reviewed the approved Comprehensive Permit plan. Mr. Glossa noted that the only place where there are sidewalks with the proposed berm style would be along the access drive that comes in off of the cul-de-sac. There were two or three other areas where the sidewalk and the proposed berm would meet. Mrs. Sweeney noted that anywhere there would be sidewalks she would be concerned with the Cape Cod berm. Mr. Simpson noted that the concern that a car could easily jump the Cape Cod berm and endangering pedestrians. Mrs. Sweeney stated that a vertical curb stops
the tires of a vehicle. Mr. Glossa stated that he is not proposing to change the curbing along Meeting House Road. The only curbing that are proposed to be changed would be within the complex itself.
The members stated that they would not have any objections to having the Cape Cod berm instead of concrete berms within the Condominium complex. The traveling vehicles will not be accessing the areas where the berms are proposed. Mr. Glossa stated that the sidewalks are also proposed to be asphalt and there could be modifications made to the berm to expose a six inch reveal vs. the usual 3 or 4 inches associated with a Cape Cod Berm. All berms within the complex would be maintained by the condominium association. Mr. Glossa stated that the Cape Cod berm would be less expensive to maintain than the concrete curbs.
Mr. Simpson asked if the applicant would have a problem with providing a vertical obstruction where the sidewalks abut a traveled way. Mr. Glossa stated that he would not have a problem but the berm could be constructed differently. There is only a binder coat of asphalt in the complex. The Board stated that they would not have a problem with the requested change.
Mr. Garrity made the motion to amend the Comprehensive Permit by allowing the installation of Cape Cod berm on the interior roads of the Norfolk Condomium complex with a six inch vertical bituminous berm where it abuts the sidewalks. Mrs. Sweeney seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
The Board adjourned the business meeting at 7:50 p.m. to conduct the first public hearing session for Pine Creek Development.
The business meeting reconvened at 8:00 p.m.
There were no applications to preview for a September hearing.
Vouchers for office expenses and consultants were signed
8:05 p.m. Norfolk Landing LLC – review of draft comprehensive permit decision. The Board and Special Zoning Board Counsel, Attorney Daniel Hill, discussed the most recent draft decision for Norfolk Landing LLC. Also present was Sarah DelMastro, the project’s neighborhood representative. Attorney Hill passed out color copies of the decision with changes highlighted. Attorney Hill noted that the public hearing for the comprehensive permit closed on June 21, 2006. Attorney Hill noted that the applicant has consented to another extension for the Board to issue the decision. The decision will be issued no later than October 2, 2006 to allow the applicant an opportunity to have Mass Housing review the decision before it becomes final. Attorney Hall stated that Mass Housing
review is becoming very common. Mass Housing will review the draft decision to see if it complies with their own policies and to head off any problems. This is a policy of Mass Housing and not at the request of the Applicant. The Board expressed concern that the Mass Housing review be finished in time so that the Board can issue the special permit prior to October 2, 2006.
Attorney Hill noted that Fannie Mae has recently approved a perpetual deed rider document.
Attorney Hill stated that this current draft could be the final decision of the Board. He noted that he has not received any feedback from the Board members and does not foresee any more changes. Mass Housing will then review the document and if they do not have any problems with the decision the Board will be able to sign the decision. Attorney Hill has already spoken with Butch Vito on the changes relevant to the Department of Public Works. The Board could vote to accept the changes this evening for the purposes of the Mass Housing review and then vote to accept the final document in September. Attorney Hill reviewed the revisions with the Board. He noted that a final lotting plan is still required. The applicant will be asked to provide this plan. Some of the revisions were administrative
in nature. Some changes were as follows:
1. Construction times including truck traffic - (7 AM – 7PM – Monday through Fridays and 9AM to 4PM on Saturdays).
2. Deletion of any reference to a “homeowners association”
3. Recommendation that a friendly “taking” to acquire easements in the roadways to eliminate any encumbrances on the property or title disputes
4. Timing of mitigation work (prior to occupancy)
5. All offsite mitigation is to be completed before occupancy of the units
6. Lakeshore Drive intersection alignment to be completed prior to occupancy
7. Final landscaping plan to be submitted
8. Upon completion the Applicant will submit as-built and easements to DPW then reviewed by Town Counsel—Board of Selectmen hold meeting and vote to accept the public ways – Planning Board review and acceptance
Attorney Hill stated that Mass Housing has changed its regulatory agreement document. In the past the town has always been a party to this contract. Mass Housing has decided to eliminate the town’s involvement in the process. Town can no longer conduct their own audits. Mass Housing will conduct its own auditing. Attorney Hill noted that CHAPA formerly conducted the project’s audit. Mass Housing will allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to impose a condition that a subsequent audit by the town can be conducted after Mass Housing. The cost of the audit will be limited to one half the cost that Mass Housing charges and the review documents will be limited to only those documents reviewed by Mass Housing. If the town finds any problems or discrepancies, the final
decision defers to Mass Housing’s final audit figures. Mr. Garrity stated that Mass Housing is out of bounds on this matter and noted that towns should object to this policy. Attorney Hill stated that Mass Housing will win any lawsuit on this matter. The HAC will always defer to the Mass Housing. It would take a unique challenge to turn this policy around. Ms. Flynn-Poppey stated that the towns should ask their state representatives to change the laws on this matter. Attorney Hill stated that he feels comfortable on Mass Housing doing a fair review especially since this is a friendly 40B.
The Board discussed who should be the monitoring agent and the lottery agent. The Board noted that the Norfolk Housing Authority appears to be reluctant to take on these functions. It was noted that the lottery agent would work for the developer but someone needs to oversee the work of the lottery agent. The Board noted that they would like to be the monitoring agent for this project. Attorney Hill will revise the decision to reflect this change.
After a brief discussion on other administrative changes, Mr. Burke made the motion to accept the revised draft decision for the purpose of sending it to Mass Housing for their review. The Board will vote to accept the final decision at the September 20th public hearing. Mr. Garrity seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous (Flynn-Poppey, Burke, Garrity, Simpson, Sweeney). This discussion closed at 8:55 p.m.
The Board noted that two more abutters to the Pine Creek Development project were present in the audience. The Board informed the abutters that the applicant had requested an extension to October 18th at 7:45 p.m.
The business meeting reconvened at 8:55 p.m. with a review of the monthly correspondence. The Board reviewed a draft letter to the Conservation Commission requesting that information received from the Commission’s wetland consultant be shared with the Zoning Board of Appeals on the matter of Pine Creek Development’s proposal to construct a wetland crossing and replication area on the former Boy Scout property. The Board approved the letter.
Mrs. Sweeney questioned if an article had been placed on the Town Meeting warrant allowing permit granting boards the latitude of having members miss one or two public hearing sessions and still be allowed to vote on a permit. The Administrative Assistant stated that a reminder had been sent to the Town Administrator for inclusion of such an article for the Fall Town Meeting.
The Board adjourned the business meeting to deliberate and vote on IBite (8:55 p.m.), Lance Reagan (9:00 p.m.), Douglas Burks (9:05 p.m.)
The Board reconvened at 9:15 pm.
The Board discussed the Zoning Bylaw Study Committee membership. Mr. Garrity was the previous appointee from the ZBA. Mr. Garrity stated that there was a quorum of members for the first meeting of the year but they lacked a quorum at the last meeting. The committee’s last meeting was not properly posted and therefore they could not meet. They cannot submit any articles for the Fall Town Meeting.
Mrs. Flynn-Poppey noted that she has a concern with information being disseminated to the Zoning Board about fait accompli recommendations. She requested that the committee communicate issues sooner in the discussion process rather than after decisions are made. Mr. Simpson noted that Mr. Garrity has expressed his desire not to be the ZBA appointee to the committee any longer. The original appointee was Mr. Murphy and Mr. Garrity had taken his place. Mr. Burke was asked if he would like to take over the position. Mr. Burke stated that he has not given this any thought and he had been an appointee in the past. He stated that he would be the appointee if the Board could not get a member. Mrs. Sweeney stated that she does not have the time. Mrs. Flynn-Poppey stated that she
would be interested in being appointed to the Zoning Bylaw Study Committee. Mr. Garrity made the motion to appoint Elissa Flynn-Poppey as the Zoning Board of Appeals appointee to the Zoning Bylaw Study Committee. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Mr. Garrity made the motion to close the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
________________________________,
Robert J. Garrity, Clerk
| 
