Minutes

Board of Appeals · from the Town's website · 5 pages · 383 KB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗

Town of Winthrop

Zoning Board of Appeals i
One Metcalf Square, Room 5 RECEIVED
Winthrop, MA 02152 1020 AUG -3 A 2u:

617-846-1742/617-539-0812 fax
roWN CLERK
NINTHROP, MASS.
Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals
Thursday, June 25, 2020, 7:00 pm

Via Zoom
Item No. Appl. # Applicant Address Appeal Voting
1. Chairman opens hearing:
Old Business
2; #021-2019 JB Capital, LLC 130-140 Shirley Variances Chapters ID/TC/MC
St. 17.12.130 Con, To 06/25/2020
17.16.030
17.20.060
Non compliances with setbacks,
distance, height, off St. parking
3. #034-2019 Dan Mclnnis 283 Shirley St. Lot | Variance Chapter 17.12.130 DB/TC/MC
1 Table Use Regs, 17.16.030 lot
requirements and setbacks, Cont.to 06/11/20
frontage, 17.20.060 off St
parking
4, #033-2019 Stephen Babine 191 Court Rd. Variance Chapter 17.52.030 ID/FG/TC Cont. to
Table of Uses, 17.20.060 Req off | 06/25/20
St parking
Bi New Business: Shirley Goodwin 45 Birch Rd. Chapter 17.49 Special Permit for
#005-2020 TL
6. #006-2020 Todd Green 90 Highland Ave. Special Permit Chapter
17.20.050 D. 3 Design Off St
Parking
Tas #007-2020 Winthrop Hosp, LLC 312-318 Shirley St | Special Permit to convert hotel
c/o Heath Properties into apt bldg. Chapter 17.20.050
8. #008-2020 Steve Holgersen 88 Locust St. Variance Chapter 17.16,020 J, 1
Minimum side yard setback

In Attendance: DB/ID/TC/MC/JD
Daren Baird opened meeting at approximately 7:06 pm

#008-2020, Steve Holgersen, 88 Locust St. not being heard today due to newspaper’s
lack of posting. Meeting rescheduled to July 30, 2020

#034-2019, 191 Court Rd, Steven Babine, continued to July 11, 2020
#021-2019, JB Capital, 130-140 Shirley St.

In Attendance: Atty. Richard C. Lynds

Sitting: ID/TC/MC
DB: Opened, gave introduction, turned over to Irene Dwyer to Chair.

ID: Continued case from previous May 28, 2020 meeting. Has updated plans sent on
line.

Atty. Richard Lynds: Newest plans shown on screen, last month slightly modified plan,
changes and options. 10 ft buffer between rear portion of property, not existing today,
improved condition. Bldg. not currently sprinkled, we did make adjustment to create
buffer space between buildings, and sprinkle bldg., setting back on Vet Rd side.
Changes based on comments. Site plan discussed, shows 14 parking spaces, shows
access from Vet Rd, shows setbacks and buffers, asked architect for 2nd options,
include trash area front corner of bldg., mechanical and utility area, lift shown.

Next slide, alternatives, 12 ft to 10 ft, right side of bldg., maintain and preserve buffer,
different configuration, bike storage, small amenities. Showing layouts, not many
changes, 4 story to 3 story won’t change much, total units 10 vs 14. Schematics,
height for 3 stories, no variance needed, West elevation from Shirley St separation in
rear, addressed by providing space between bldgs. for concerns. Rendering showing
designs, 12 parking vs 14. Footprint, overlay of existing bldg., rear deck, moves
further away, modified height, pitched roof, bldg. below total overall height.

That addresses concerns from previous meeting. Questions from the Board.

ID: Open up for public comment, anyone want to comment.

Robert Carroll, 10 Beach Rd: Submitted a letter yesterday, reads letters. Wants Board
to reject request.

Kinsbury family, 10 Brach Rd: Agrees with Bob Carroll. Concerned with proposal.

Lisa Alberghini, 79 Quincy Ave.: Concerned with precedent. No unique condition of lot.
Wants variances denied.

Steven Hines, Beach Rd: Against this development. Zoning change needs community
input.

Lisa Alberghini: Did BOA determine economic hardship, and was opinion from Town
attorney?

DB: Part of deliberation is to get to finding, 2 land use attys on Board and use own
knowledge of land use, under 40A section 10, would not seek outside counsel unless
novel and not seen before the Board.

ID: Anyone wish to speak 3xs. Hearing none, public comments sect closed

Motion: MC Close Public comment

Second: TC

Voted: All in favor

RL: Zoning codes are rigid and have ability to grant variance, do best to come up with
neighbors and developer. Concerns we addressed a lot, but not all, have PENC on NC
lot, any project will have variances. Board has digression and do so without fear of
precedence for granting same relief for other projects. Safety impacts - proposing is in

scale with height, changes to address concerns, not any project that the neighbors
would support. Lowers height, units, separation & setback addressed that too. What
becomes of this site, intent of code? Not let property fall into disrepair. No defined use,
multi families, and others. Asking Board to allow it to be utilities. There are other uses
by this one, and neighbors would be less inclined. This is more compatible and ask to
consider petition.

ID: Res B?

RL: Correct, other comment about economic opportunity, point out asked not to include
commercial interest and a consensus appeared not to have retail use but asked not to
have that. Trying to respond to what we heard.

MC: What reason for no commercial use?

RL: Concerned of owner’s other business ventures for cannabis.

ID: Any questions from Board?

TC: Appreciation compromise to abutters. No longer midrise apt now garden apt

RL: Drop to 3 story has impact.

TC: Garden apt 3 or more families, not exceed 3 stories, regard to requested variances.
Must determine what exactly new relief is. Speak to concerns of abutters. Appreciate
options for parking, option 1 out to Veterans Rd, no left turn. Must be looked at by
someone with expertise or option 2 out to Shirley St.

DB: When need a variance, is something unique of soil, shape, topography of lot, is
literal enforcement would create substantial hardship on owner, now balance equity, is
substantially more detriment to neighborhood, safety, health, welfare, after 1st physical
aspects of property hardship.

Put something meaningful on property.

ID: Appreciate dramatic decrease number of units and height & parking. For a bldg this
big to almost to lot line is overwhelming, and number of variance requests should be
addressed.

TC: Look at this and compare to existing, abutting 2 other structures, separation of
bldg., increase towards Veterans Rd, section on last page on corner of Veterans &
Shirley.

ID: On overlay, see cut at straighter angle and more buffers, concerned with front and
rear sides, question is what you're bldg. Put a use where not permitted and have
variances, going way over. Always concerned of appeal and get bounced back.

RL: The Board considered whether can be sustained on appeal not appropriate, Board
acts in statutory powers, Board has depression to grant variances and stand on
decision.

ID: If we can work out with neighborhood thats what Io was saying.

DB: Under 40A Sec 10, whether equities fall in balance as evidence, for or against, due
to physical characteristics of site, doesn’t matter whether they like to or not.

ID; Is a variance permissible here, definition, statue, parcel of dirt, elevation allowable
use too difficult.

DB: In general, all agreement, does not make site undue, is site unique? If neighbor
think it's great, we don’t automatically grant.

TC: Question is how is parcel unique?

RL: Fact that lot is under 7500 sq ft, analysis is same, NC not unique no other NC lots,
Board has to go thru analysis. Address concerns and reduction of units and heights.
Its unique to consider to grant variance on site, it’s a PENC lot & structure, we are
improving site, what's there now more of concern, than what’s proposing. Same
analysis, Board has to exercise that regardless, and make determination. We do have
set back on Veterans Rd and are addressing issues, unique corner lot and not same set
up for a bldg., to require greater rear yard, no impact to adjoining property. Real
focus, how to deal with bldg., in relation to other properties 10 ft separation meets
code of what it requires.

ID: Start with SP, is this a permitted use, then go to variance? Also, a change of use,
units and store to garden apt. Don’t we start with change of use.

RL Don't think you get SP unless you get variance. If we were proposing mixed use,
only asking for variance. SP only available for mixed use.

DB: Atty Lands analysis is spot one. Reach question of variance first, Board has less
digression, don’t reach question of S P before variance.

RL: If Board grants variances, without those there is no SP without variances.

DB: Make motion to move or continue.

ID: Not ready to make decision. Changes made, have a cleaned-up application for
relief and still need, where on the Bldg. the variance occurs, cleaner application before
voting and confused about what's being asked.

RL: Happy to provide memo. Think notice is sufficient, made modification, operating
within scope for all encompassing and happy to supply men of what remains for relief,
if Bd wants to further continue.

TC: Stuck on parking and egress of paring and like expert opinion on that.

RL: Traffic study?

TC: Someone understands traffic patterns.

ID: Egress line of site and cars turning, need to be sue sure plenty of room to turn,
rough study of trips per day, many civil engineers can do this.

RL: Went through site committee, DPW, fire might have information or position but no
specific issue with design, traffic analysis, number of vehicles is below threshold can ask
vendors to provide.

DB: More about turning radius or number of trips, compared to old dry cleaner, not a
traffic study, but turning radial.

TC: Ingress and egress proposal, extending curb cut beyond stop sign and could exit
onto intersection.

RL; Will provide information that is requested, maneuverability for more insight.

ID: Set back, pushed back more and affect sight coming out of a garage, putting them
into bottleneck.

RL: Engineering analysis, memo of remaining relief within scope of public hearing,
relative to new plans.

DB: Board heading to continuance. IS there anything Board needs before we meet
again.

ID: Don’t feel I would want more than that.

TC: Ask Atty Lynds look at the size of parking spaces and aisle width and m ay need

relief for larger aisle, level of service and feasibility of operating garage without aisle
width.

RL: My understanding the width was residential was 20 ft.

ID: Common space will require variance?

RL: Not including to make mixed use bldg. in variance territory and look at change from
midrise to garden.

TC: In a Bus A district.

DB: Variance perceptive if granting from NC that’s a higher standard and if SP required
for use, can certainly accomplish with variance. Can lump into variance granted and
take it all up at once.

RL: Request to continue and agree to waive interim.

DB: Next regular schedule meeting July 30, 2020.

Motion: TC - Cont. to July 30, 2020 meeting allow applicant to provide zoning
information and parking lot analysis.

Second: MC

Voted: All in favor

DB: any other general business meeting for the Board?

ID: I need to put in letter to Board, what do I do?

JD: Email letter to me.

TC: Did you have walk through hotel?

DB: Yes, has one already and will have another on in July on a Zoom with the public.
Motion: TC Motion to adjourn meeting

Second: ID

Voted: All in favor

Meeting adjourned at 8:43 pm

[34 2020
Darren wotillce > £ Dated

Respectfully submitted by: Joanne M. DeMato. Clerk