Zoning Board of Appeals
Business Meeting
August 18, 2004
Present: Bruce Simpson, Robert Garrity, John Burke, Martin Murphy Lorraine Sweeney (7:50 p.m.), Elissa Flynn-Poppey, Michael Kulesza
Absent: No one
The duly posted meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals convened at 7:40 p.m. in room 105C at the Norfolk Town Hall. The first order of business was the signing of vouchers for office supplies and legal advertising.
Mr. Fred Yadisernia (Megor, Inc) was in attendance at 7:45 p.m. requesting and Extension of the Estate Lot Special Permit, Case # 2003-10 located off Mill River Road in the R-2 zoning district. Mr. Yadisernia stated that the Board granted the parcel an Estate Lot status on December 2, 2003. The Special Permit decision states that the decision must be exercised within one year or it becomes null and void.
Mr. Yadisernia stated that he has been incapacitated with various health issues, serious enough to require hospitalization over the past year. At this time he requires physical rehabilitation and is unsure if he can commence his project prior to the expiration of the Special Permit.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Murphy made the motion to grant a one (1) year extension to the Special Permit, Case #2003-10 for the creation of an Estate Lot off Mill River Road. The new expiration date will become December 2, 2005. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Ms. Shayne Gardner was present to discuss the recently issued Special Permit, Case #2004-09, which was granted for a proposed three-season porch at the rear of a non-conforming structure. She stated that she tried recently to apply for a building permit and the Building Commissioner informed her that the Special Permit decision stated a porch with smaller dimensions than what she was requesting. The Special Permit was issued for the construction of a 20 foot by 10 foot three season porch to be located at the rear of the existing dwelling. Ms. Gardner stated that she had requested a 20 foot by 18 foot addition and not a 20 foot by 10 foot addition.
The Board noted that no plans were submitted to show that she requested a 20 foot by 18 foot addition. They noted that there is already an issue with maximum lot coverage on this lot as a result of the 20 foot by 10 foot addition. Ms. Gardner stated that she remembered the discussion of the lot coverage as a result of the new addition and may have missed the fact that the Board was referring to a 20 boot by 10 foot addition. Ms. Flynn-Poppey referred to her notes of the public hearing and noted that the applicant stated that she requested a 20 foot by 10 foot three season porch. Ms. Gardner stated that she presented a sketch of a 20 foot by 18 foot addition to the Board at one of their
Norfolk Zoning Board of Appeals Business Meeting of August 18, 2004
meetings. The Board noted that they did not remember receiving any plans that showed a 20 foot by 18 foot addition.
Ms. Gardner stated that she has enough room at the rear of the dwelling to construct an 18 foot deep three season porch. She noted that she has spent $1000 so far with nothing to show for it. The Board referred to the written calculations of the existing and proposed structure prepared by Paul Cutler of Landmark Engineering of New England. Mr. Burke stated that his recollection was that the increase in the size of the three season porch would not be much more than the existing deck. The Board reviewed the plans submitted with the application.
The Board noted that they never received a detailed set of plans showing the location and size of the new addition. They were relying on oral testimony from Ms. Gardner in an attempt to be helpful. The plans submitted with the special permit application showed the location of the existing rear deck. The Board made its decision on a very limited amount of information in order to help the homeowner and ended up getting burned.
Mr. Burke made the recommendation that the amended decision describe exactly what the applicant was requesting. The decision will reflect that the three season porch will have an outside dimension of 20 feet by 18 feet and consist of a 10 foot by 22 foot enclosed sunroom, an 8 foot by 8 foot enclosed room within the room and an 8 foot by 14 foot deck. These numbers actually match the calculations prepared by Paul Cutler and presented to the Board. Mr. Garrity made the motion to issue an amended Special Permit reflecting the new dimensions. Mrs. Sweeney seconded the motion. The vote on the motions was as follows:
John Burke yes to grant Lorraine Sweeney — yes to grant
Martin Murphy yes to grant
Robert Garrity yes to grant
Bruce Simpson yes to grant
The vote on the motion was unanimous. The Clerk will draft an amended decision. The applicant was advised that the amended decision will have to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds and proof of recording presented to the Building Commissioner.
The Board closed the business portion of the meeting and convened the public hearing for Eastern Development at 8:20 p.m. The public hearing closed at 9:00 p.m.
The Board reconvened its business at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Murphy reported on the zoning bylaw revisions that will be placed on the Fall Town Meeting Warrant. He noted that the Zoning Bylaw Study Committee would be recommending the deletion of Section E.2.g. Temporary Family Apartments. It was noted that Section D.2.c.5. of the Norfolk Zoning Bylaws allows the renting of room to not more than four persons within a home. The Zoning Bylaw Study Committee would also be recommending that Section I.4.a.5.
Norfolk Zoning Board of Appeals Business Meeting of August 18, 2004
Pedestrian Access, and Section I.4.a.6. Streetscape be deleted. The Committee is recommending that "Contractors Headquarters" be an allowed use in the On-Highway area of the C-1 district and "Landscaping Businesses" be an allowed use in the On-Highway area within the C-1 district. The Aquifer Protection Bylaw will be amended to include swimming pools as an ancillary use to residential development and the Wetland Protection Bylaw will be revised to reflect the revisions to M.G.L. section 53G. There will also be a new bylaw exempting a lot from becoming nonconforming with the area, frontage and maximum lot coverage requirements if there is a loss of land caused by a taking by eminent domain by the Commonwealth, the County or the Town for the purpose of establishing or altering a layout of a public way.
Mr. Simpson noted that the Board of Selectmen has been scheduling roundtable meetings including themselves and a member of each board or commission. The roundtable discussion centers on communication between the boards. The purpose of the meetings is to bring issues regarding development to the forefront early in the permitting process. Mr. Simpson noted that a good example of the end result of these roundtable meetings was the Borelli 40B project.
The Board discussed the issue of applicants applying to the Zoning Board of Appeals prior for relief from zoning prior to proceeding through the Planning Board site plan approval process. The applicant's plans may possibly change as a result of the site plan review. The members discussed the Centola filing. The applicant requested a "use" that is allowed by special permit in the C-1 zoning district prior to proceeding to the Planning Board. There were some problems with the filing that required that the applicant move through the site plan approval process first. It was noted that it does present a problem with an applicant going through the site plan approval process if the Zoning Board of Appeals denies the special permit. Daley Service was cited as an example of the applicant not being able to proceed with the Zoning Board of
Appeals process due to ongoing issues with the Planning Board.
The Board discussed the matter of Pine Creek Development. Pine Creek Development filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals before completing the review with the Conservation Commission. Pine Creek did not file with the Planning Board yet. The applicant may have to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for amendments if the Site Plan Review process reveals zoning issues not apparent to the Board or the applicant. Mr. Burke noted that this is the cost of doing business. Ms. Flynn-Poppey questioned if there is a way to get all of the information that the Board requires to make decisions and still meet the needs of the applicant.
The Board adjourned the business meeting in order to conduct the public hearing for Eastern Development at 8:20 p.m. The Board conducted deliberations and voted on the special permit requests of Omnipoint Holdings (9:15 p.m.) and Denise Weaver (9:30 p.m.)
The deliberations and voting on the above referenced cases concluded at 10:00 p.m.
Norfolk Zoning Board of Appeals Business Meeting of August 18, 2004
After the voting, Mr. Murphy made the motion to close the business meeting at 10:00 p.m. Mrs. Sweeney seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
| 
