Local Government Issue Project: Meeting Questionnaire
What is the stated purpose of this Board?
Various names know the zoning board of appeal: the Board of adjustment, the Board of zoning appeals, the Board of bids, the Board of corrections and requests, or merely the Board of variances. Similarly, the forms and roles of change boards differ from state to state, depending on the jurisdiction given to them by the legislature requiring state courts to legislate and interpret the enabling law. The purpose of the functions of the Northborough zoning board of appeal is; Hearing challenges from actions taken by zoning authorities, view ambiguous clauses in the zoning ordinance rule on landowners’ and proposals to approve structures or land uses that differ from zoning regulations.
What is the source of this Board’s authority?
Statutes in the state’s law give the zoning appeal board its power. It all began in New York in 1916 with the first comprehensive public regulation of private property. The rule provides the ability for the Board to hear an appeal that would violate the set-zoning plan, and decide on whether to permit or prohibit the proposed project. The hearing is open to public view, those who wish to contest the program, and those appealing for the plan.
Which issue or issues, at this current meeting, was the most controversial?
The most controversial issue was the Petition of Turnpike Inc. for a Variance/Special Permit to allow the elimination of the condition, which requires the existing subject sign to be the only user on the property located at 1C Belmont Street, Map 109, Parcel 2, in the Highway Business District. The only other issue worth mentioning was the petition of Michael Turco. He appealed for a Special Permit to add a proposed third bay onto the side of the existing two-car garage that will be less than the required 15 feet from a side property line. Thus, on the property located at 275 Hudson Street, Map 35, Page 41, in the Residential C District and Groundwater Protection Overlay District Area 2.
Summarize the issues
Michael Turco submitted a plan to add a third bay to the new two-bay garage and add a workspace to the garage’s rear. The planned bay is nearly eight feet from the side property line. In response to concerns from members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Turco claimed that he should have ample space between the driveway and the property line to access the rear of his property for the potential repair of the septic systems. There is an existing fence between the house and 277 Hudson Street near the property line. Also, the topography cannot get extended to the other side of the house. John and Constanzo Salvucci were against the appeal, stating that it would be too close to their property line, while the precedent being set if the request was allowed concerned Larry Armanini.
- Pember, the attorney for Turnpike Inc., contested the stipulation for only one use of his client’s property. The petitioner, in addition to the current freestanding sign, it decided to add a commercial building to the property. Pember claimed that the initial commercial usage suggested and accepted in 2014 was a used car lot, although approved by this Board. He suspects that the Board may have had some bias against the application, and that is why the Board limited the site to one use only, the car lot or the sign. J. Grenier, PE, the petitioner’s architect, presented a description of the site and the reasons why the petitioner now wants to construct a commercial house.
What group supported the issue?
Mr. Turco represented and supported himself on the appeal for adding an extension to his garage. Their lawyer Mr. Pember argued for the Turnpike Inc. petition alongside the petitioner’s engineer Mr. J. Grenier.
What group opposed the issue?
John and Constanzo Salvucci were against Mr. Turco’s proposed addition to his garage, along with Larry Armanini, who questioned the precedent set by the variance. Board members F. Bakstran and Dick Rand opposed the Turnpike Inc. variance along with residents; Lisa Maselli, Henry Squillante, and Millie Milton.
What was the supporter’s position?
- Turco claimed that it would have ample space between the garage and the property line for any potential septic system repairs to reach the rear of the house. There is an existing fence between the house and 277 Hudson Street near the property line. The extra bay cannot be extended on the other side of the property because of the site’s topography.
- Grenier, PE, the Turnpike Inc architect, presented a description of the site and the reasons why the petitioner now wants to construct a commercial house. The location on route 9 is 3.5 acres, with 700 feet in the end. There is an active septic tank on the property, and well. The planned commercial building, a scale not yet decided, would complement the current retail center at Northborough Crossing. Pember claimed that the initial commercial usage suggested and accepted in 2014 was a used car lot, although being approved by this Board. He suspects that the Board may have had some bias against the application, and that is why the Board limited the site to one use only, the car lot or the signpost.
What was the gravamen of the opponents’ objection?
Under Turco’s appeal, John and Constanzo Salvucci, 277 Hudson Lane, shared concern about the garage being too close to their property line and possibly impacting the health of the trees that form a vegetated barrier between the properties of the area. Their front door is on the side of the house facing the new garage, and they worry about future noise. Larry Armanini, 184 Rice Avenue, is concerned with setting a precedent by authorizing a garage so near to a line of the property. The Board guaranteed him that no precedent would be set if the variance were granted, as is the case with each request before the Board is considered simply on its relative merits.
For the Turnpike Inc. appeal, Lisa Maselli, 13 Maple Lane, challenged the scale of the septic tank and whether it would help commercial development. Also, she noticed that no landscaping was performed in compliance with the previous ZBA decision and why the developer could not meet the requirement, and without understanding what form of a company would be situated there, whether the Board could better determine the effect on traffic. Henry Squillante, Crestwood Road, said the currently underway master plan is promoting growth along Route 9. Millie Milton, 50 Fay Street, asked if there could be some thought on eliminating the sign and instead enabling commercial construction on the property.
Was the position of the Board unanimous?
No, there was no unanimity in both cases.
Summarize the Board members’ positions.
In Mr. Turco’s appeal, he was favored by one member but four opposed, hence the variance did not pass. Turnpike Inc.’s deviation did not receive favor from any member and was therefore not granted.
What was the Board’s decision or resolution in the matter?
In Mr. Turco’s case, the board members addressed becoming conscious of the interference on the abutter property line. The developer was informed that there was a two-car garage on the land when he bought it. Questions over connections to the septic system in the back of the house if the third bay were to be permitted; the present barrier of trees would cover the construction; topography on the other side of the house requires protection from the interference on it.
For Turnpike Inc., Representatives of the board-debated claimant currently appear to have two applications on the property while he had initially agreed to have one use of the land. There is an alternative for the developer to delete the sign and conform to prior ZBA rulings, and instead construct the commercial property. Throughout the public hearings in 2015 on the proposed sign, the developer argued to the Board that the sign was vital to his income because the area was undevelopable. Now the land is developable, but the developer has not presented any additional evidence to the Board to demonstrate that the property should now get built if it could not be in 2015.
Explain the Board’s justification on reaching its decision
Mr. Turco’s variance was denied since it would interfere with John and Constanzo’s property; moreover, it would have a negative precedent to approve of the eight feet encroachment from the property line.
John Grenier, the applicant’s architect, claimed in 2015 that the risks of constructing a commercial building on the property were too high, coupled with the impossibility and expense of delivering water and sanitation to the property. Also, in 2015, the developer and his engineer claimed that they had considered a niche store or restaurant. Still, because of the unwillingness to extend the septic system and the shortage of municipal water and sewage in the region, these considerations rendered it impossible for the site to be used only for the sign.