New Hearing: ( ) 21 Winnmere Ave. Eligible to vote: Ms. Augustin, Mr. Morandi, Mr. Tigges, Mr. Viveiros, and Mr. Mikolinski

Transcription

1 Approved 10/7/14 To Town Clerk MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS BURLINGTON, MA September 16, 2014 Vice-Chairperson Claudia Augustin called the regular meeting of the Burlington Board of Appeals to order at 7:30 p.m. explaining John Alberghini was on vacation therefore she would be running the meeting. The meeting was held in the Main Town Hall Meeting Room, 2 nd Floor, 29 Center Street, Burlington, MA. Present: Vice-Chairperson: Claudia Augustin, Clerk: Joseph Morandi, Charles Viveiros, Jim Tigges and Ed Mikolinski. Absent: Chairman: John Alberghini and Mr. Halloran New Hearing: ( ) 21 Winnmere Ave Eligible to vote: Ms. Augustin, Mr. Morandi, Mr. Tigges, Mr. Viveiros, and Mr. Mikolinski The public hearing notice was posted as required and all abutters, depts., and surrounding towns notified of the hearing. Mr. Viveiros read the legal notice into record. The petition of Thomas and Theresa Sorrentino for property located at 21 Winnmere Ave. as shown on Map 42, Parcel 42 on the Burlington Assessor s Map with applicant seeking to subdivide the property into two lots. Lot A will have square feet of land area and Lot B will have square feet of land area. The By-law requires a minimum of 20,000 square feet of land area. Reason for Hearing: Violation of Article 5, Section Attorney Murphy introduced himself as representing Mr. and Mrs. Sorrentino, the owner of the property at 21 Winnmere which is located on the hill. He stated the couple has lived there for 25 years and they are petitioning the Board to subdivide the two lots. He explained the lot is a corner lot with 21,800 square feet. The two lots would have 100 feet of frontage but neither would have the necessary 20,000 square feet required by bylaws. They are seeking to approve the land split according to the plans to be two buildable lots. Attorney Murphy reviewed the statute requirements and explained: 1) The shape and size of the land is a larger than most in that section of the town. Explaining 95% of the Winnmere section is less than 20,000, because the by-law didn t change until the 70's. It is considered a double lot for this area. 2) The couple s intent is to build a home for her father. He explained he was getting on in years and they would like him to be near family. There would be a financial burden if they needed to find alternative housing for him. Therefore, it wouldn t be derogating to the intent of the bylaw. Board of Appeal Members: Chairman John Alberghini, Vice Chairman Claudia Augustin, Clerk Joseph Morandi, Charles Viveiros, James Halloran, Jim Tigges and Ed Mikolinski

2 3) There would not be a detriment to the neighborhood because this one extra house would not add additional traffic and 10,000 square feet is the norm in the neighborhood and they are looking to stay with the nature of neighborhood. Atty. Murphy added that he completed some research and found that there have been 34 subdivisions approved in that section of the town providing evidence the 10,000 square feet lot is the norm. Ms. Augustin summarized Mr. Murphy s agreement was the shape of the land was a hardship because most of the properties are less than 10,000 square feet and for this area of Burlington this lot is considered a double lot, along with the financial burden. Atty. Murphy added the subdivision plan was developed in the 1900 s at which time there were strips of land used to make the lots, but on the corner lots there was additional land added. Mr. Viveiros stated he was having a difficult time with the hardship because he didn t feel the topography of the land met the criteria for hardship and he felt it was derogating from the intent of the by-law because it is very dense in that area, and he believes the intent of the by-law is to prevent that from happening. Atty. Murphy responded the density of the neighborhood has been that way since the 60 s and doesn t feel it derogate from the intent. He continued to state this situation is different because both houses will have a 100 foot frontage and the intent of the by-law is to allow space between the houses, visually it will not look like they are squeezing two homes onto one and it will not have a congested look. Mr. Tigges asked what year the Sorrentino s had purchased the house and was informed they bought it in Mr. Mikolinski stated he was uncertain of the hardship. He said he doesn t feel it amounts to a hardship under the statute along with not being sure the shape creates a hardship. Atty. Murphy stated he believed the shape of the lot dictates the size, and the applicant has 21,000 feet of land. Because it is a corner lot, the land looks like a vacant lot behind his house. Mr. Mikolinski reviewed the 3 circumstances for hardship and he stated he felt the size and shape are different separate features of the land. Atty. Murphy said according to the statute, topography is one of the circumstances, and they are looking at the shape of the lot. He added that 21,000 square feet in that neighborhood is considered two lots and the best use of the land is to separate it and he believes the size of the lot does create a hardship. Mr. Morandi added that he would like to hear what the neighbors have to say, but wonders why they don t add an in-law apartment on to the back of the house. Meeting opened to public. 2

3 Bob Matarazzo from 9 Overlook Ave stated he was on the Board of Appeals back in 1970 and while he was on it there had been 4 variances granted in that neighborhood. He stated that board members shouldn t always go by the state or town by-laws. He reminded the Board that it was necessary to think of the person and the area when they are considering granting a decision. He added the hardship is for a relative and the space in the back is dead space and he needs a variance to do anything with it. Johnathan Jay, from 25 Winnmere Ave, stated he lives next to the Sorrentino s and explained that he had a similar situation. He also owned a corner lot and feels Sorrentino s lot is going to waste. He added he supported the subdivision.. Elaine Manners, from 18 Winnmere Ave, stated she believes the Board should take in account the individual verses following the rules and regulations. Debra Case, from 7 Hillsdale Ave, stated that the Sorrentino s are great neighbors however she did have some concerns. She stated there are 3 houses on the street with the same size lots and she is afraid that those other home owners will want to subdivide their lots too. Secondly parking is an issue, the driveway is proposed to be across from hers and she feels that will be an issue especially when it snows. She added that if the driveway was at another spot where it wouldn t affect her she would feel better. Mr. Morandi made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Viveiros seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. Ms. Augustin asked if there was any further discussion. Mr. Morandi stated he is having a hard time with the hardship, and feels they can build a large addition on to the back, and cannot consciously overlook the town by-laws. Atty. Murphy stated he understands the dilemma and everyone has their own interpretation of the meaning of hardship. He stated it was not black and white when looking at the statute; however he would submit that the lot of the land looks like a vacant lot and the by-laws changed in the early 70 s. He reiterated the variance does not derogate from that section of the town. He believes there is significant evidence for hardship, because under the current by-laws, it doesn t allow Mr. Sorrentino the opportunity for the best use of the land, in accordance with the nature and character of the neighborhood without the approval of the Board. He also addressed the neighbor s concerns. The three lots she is referring to, two of them are not corner lots so they would not have 100 foot frontage. And the other lot has a house directly in the middle, so he doesn t believe they will go for a variance. Secondly they are willing to work with Ms. Case to reposition the driveway. Atty. Murphy stated he agrees no one should disregard the law; however how the law is applied is a matter of discretion. He believes that in this case it is beneficial for the neighborhood. Mr. Mikolinski stated this is a difficult decision and if he went with his personal and sympathetic side, it wouldn t align with the by-law. He doesn t want to disregard the law and feels approving it would be a stretch. 3

4 Mr. Tigges stated he may be in the minority, but because the neighbors are in favor, he does not feel there is detriment to the neighborhood. He added it was for a relative and wasn t like they were trying to flip a house for profit. Ms. Augustin stated she agrees with Mr. Tigges and agrees the hardship is not a clear cut and it is up for the interpretation. She pointed out that she feels the shape of the lot doesn t create a hardship, however when you compare it to the rest of the neighborhood, the majority are less than 10,000 square feet. She stated the hardship is a gray area. Mr. Viveiros stated he still was having a hard time finding a substantial hardship for this case. Atty. Murphy clarified his interpretation of substantial hardship and added the statute does not state it is necessary to meet all of the criteria. Mr. Mikolinski read the statute specifically states substantial. Ms. Augustin said the issue isn t if it is a substantial hardship or not and pointed out it is a thin line. Atty. Murphy stated he was wrong and apologized for his mistake. Mr. Morandi asked about the age of the father-in-law and if the house was really going to be built for him. He stated he is uncertain if they are going to build a house and sell it to make a profit verses building for the father to move up from Weymouth. He added he was also having a hard time with the hardship. Atty. Murphy responded the father is 79 years old and the intent is to move him here. He acknowledged that you cannot predict the future, and God willing he will move up to be near his family. Mr. Morandi added the neighbor, Ms. Case, who lives across from the property across from him and she has some concerns. Ms. Augustin acknowledged that she understands there are people who would like to speak, however the public hearing is closed. She noted there seems to be a discrepancy between the members. Mr. Morandi asked the council if he wanted to come up with other reasons for hardship. Atty. Murphy thanked him for the option, but he felt it was cut and dry. Mr. Viveiros made a motion to deny the variance for 21 Winnmere to subdivide the one lot into two buildable lots. Mr. Mikolinski seconded the motion. The vote was 3-2 to approve the denial of the variance. Mr. Morandi voted to approve the motion. Ms. Augustin and Mr. Tigges opposed the denial. New Hearing ( ) 52 Second Ave 4

5 Eligible to vote: Ms. Augustin, Mr. Morandi, Mr. Mikolinski, Mr. Viveiros, and Mr. Tigges. The public hearing notice was posted as required and all abutters, depts., and surrounding towns notified of the hearing. Mr. Tigges read the legal notice into record. Notice is hereby given that the Burlington Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 at or after 7:30 PM at the Town Hall Main Mtng Rm, 2nd Floor, 29 Center St for the petition of Kings Bowl of Burlington, LLC for property located at 52 Second Ave. as shown on Map 45, Parcel 22 on the Burlington Assessor s Map. The applicant is seeking to install 6 signs. Sign #1- Wall sign as proposed is 8-10 in height x 10-5 in length to read KINGS BOWL with a logo. Sign #2- Wall sign as proposed is 7-0 in height x 12-1 in length to read KINGS with logos. Sign #3- Marquee sign as proposed is more than the 10 from the face of the building to read KINGS BOWL with a logo. Sign #4- Marquee sign as proposed is more than the 10 from the face of the building to read A Classy Bowling Joint Sign # 5-Wall sign as proposed is 11-0 in height x 22-6 in length to be a color digital print. Sign # 6-Wall sign as proposed is 8-3 in height x 7-10 in length to be a logo.. Reason for Hearing: Signs #1,#2,#5 and #6 are in violation of Section 5 (i) of the PDD By-Law limits a wall sign to 4 in height x 6 in length. Signs #3 and #4 are in violation of Section 5 (vi) limits a marquee sign to be no more than 10 from the face of a building. Mr. Buckley introduced himself as representing the applicant, Frank Stryjewski from Kings Bowl of Burlington LLC., William Whitlock from Whitlock Architects and Todd Fremont-Smith from Nordblom. Mr. Buckley explained they were in front of the Board because on April 13 Kings Bowl had a fire and they are now under reconstruction. He briefly gave an overview of the master plan of the development, and he explained the intent is to create a vibrant pedestrian area. He stated signage is a critical part of the plan. Parking is going to be centralized so it is necessary to have signage to help guide people to the stores and restaurants. He reminded the members when they created the PDD sign by-laws they were not sure who the tenants would be. He informed the Board the sign corridor was designed to have smaller signage off Middlesex Turnpike and gradually get bigger as you go to the back of the development. They also created some flexibility with the understanding they may need to come in front of the ZBA for approval. Mr. Whitlock gave an overview of the site plan, pointing out where Kings is located, in the back left corner of the development. He stated Kings would be a distance back from Middlesex Turnpike to Kings. Mr. Fremont-Smith added there is also a substantial grade change from Middlesex Turnpike to Kings. Mr. Whitlock reviewed all the renderings, Building Main Entry facing Third Ave, Left Corner facing Middlesex Turnpike and Right Corner facing Second Ave explaining where the different signs would be placed. He explained the signs are the size allowed according to the by-laws, it is 5

6 the marques that are larger than allowed. Mr. Whitlock showed the detail sheet with the construction and sizes and the details of the signs. Mr. Tigges asked if the reflective material is part of the sign and if it will be like the signage in Lynnfield. Mr. Whitlock explained it is not part of the sign, it is behind the sign and it will not be as expansive as other Kings. Mr. Tigges followed up asking if they have had any problems with the material especially in windy weather. Mr. Stryjewski responded the wind is what makes it shimmers and they have not had any problems with the material. He stated it is considered a building finish and is the material is durable and they have had no problems with it. He added they scaled it down because of how the Board felt from the previous presentation. Mr. Mikolinski stated he appreciated the presentation but he would have liked to have seen a perspective from the Middlesex Turnpike, and questioned how they arrived at the dimensions. Mr. Todd Fremont-Smith stated when they wrote the zoning for the PDD, the intent was to have a street of smaller shops with Wegmans and Kings being the larger anchor stores. Mr. Whitlock stated basically they were aware they would be reviewed by the Board, so they sized it to what they considered appropriate for the building. He added they are willing to discuss size if necessary. In addition, they had tested it on a previous building and felt it was a proper size. Mr. Viveiros stated he appreciated the reduction in the reflective material. He asked besides the 2 stars shown would there be any additional ones, along with questioning why the sign reading A Classy Bowling Joint was much larger than the original one and if there would be any other sign for Kings. Mr. Fremont-Smith stated they were the only stars and besides the gateway sign, the only other signs would be directional. Mr. Whitlock explained the sign is larger however they are willing to keep it what it was originally. Mr. Fremont-Smith stated the patio signs were the same size because they were able to restore some of the original beams. Mr. Morandi congratulated the team stating this is 100 percent better than the last time. He stated he does have a few questions: 1) Was the mural sign going to be back lit? Answer - is a flat piece of art with lights shining on it from the roof and it would be a subtle. 2) Confirm there would only be the two 2 stars. Answer - yes 3) Lighting in the right corner would be same material. Answer - yes. 6

7 4) Lumens are 132 and the Board generally asks for 90 per square feet. Answer - Mr. Whitlock stated the light source is 132 because it needs to get thru the surface. With coloring the actual light would be less than 90 as measured from the outside. Mr. Morandi explained he wanted to be consistent with previous decisions and questioned if the Bowling Ball would be lite. Mr. Whitlock stated the Bowling Ball is grey so the light coming through will be reduced. Mr. Morandi stated he was glad the stars weren t going to be all over the building and there are no neighbors so he doesn t have any problems with the signs; however he asked Mr. Viveiros for the measurements of the original A Classy Bowling Joint sign and agreed the proposed sign is too large. Ms. Augustin agreed they had made a good presentation. Ms. Augustin opened the meeting to public. No one was present to speak for or against. Mr. Morandi made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Mikolinski seconded the motion, all members voted in favor. Mr. Morandi made the motion to approve the special signage permit for Kings Bowl of Burlington LLC., located at 52 second Ave., to install 6 signs as shown on drawing 1 dated shown to scale with the exception of sign number 4 which reads A Classy Bowling Joint with new dimensions to be 1-5 high and 8-9 in length. All signs are not to exceed 90 lumens as measured from the exterior surface of the sign and no other signs even if by right on the building. Mr. Viveiros second the motion. All members voted in favor. Mr. Morandi made the motion to approve the minutes from September 16, 2014, seconded the motion, all members voted in favor. Mr. Morandi made the motion to adjourn the meeting. All members voted in favor to adjourn. Jo-Ellen Carkin Jo-Ellen Carkin Recording Clerk 7