Loading...
2017-BACK MEETING MINUTES A-C - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2017 tAb 0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC MEETING October 23, 2017 Members Present: Doreen Prouty—Chairperson Richard Maggi —Vice Chair Gary Geiger—Acting Clerk Members Absent: Aldo Mancini—Alternate Gary Suffriti—Clerk Chairperson Prouty opened the meeting at 6:30 PM-. 1. Approval of October 10,2017 Minutes Motion was made by Chairperson Prouty and seconded by Member Maggi to approve the October 10,2017 meeting with minor changes. All in favor. 2. Discussion and possible vote for an alternate method to approve minutes Board members looked over information that was received by Hanne Rush, Assistant Attorney General, from the Office of Attorney General Maura Healey, Division of Open Government. Since Open Meeting Law does not specify an exact method for how a public body approves minutes, a public body can designate the Chair to approve minutes on his/her own. If a public body wants to approve the minutes collectively, it needs to be done during a posted meeting. Motion made by Chairperson Prouty and seconded by Member Maggi for all minutes of a public hearing to be approved by a auonim, All in favor Motion made by Member Geiger and seconded by Member Maggi to allow the Chairperson to approve meeting minutes that do not include a public hearing. All in favor. 3. New Topics: There were no new topics to discuss. Chairperson Prouty closed the meeting at 7:00 PM Ca ti (;CANNED-!(( 1 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC MEETING October 10, 2017 Members Present: Doreen Prouty—Chairperson Richard Maggi—Vice Chair Gary Geiger—Acting Clerk Members Absent: Aldo Mancini —Alternate Gary Suffriti—Clerk -'` q 4 P. Chairperson Prouty opened the meeting at 6:30 PM: - z 1. Continuation - Case 91968: John G. Kudlie; 33 Highland Avenue Chairperson Prouty re-opened this public hearing. Member Mancini was unable to attend;therefore f a Member Geiger reviewed the materials of the case and the minutes from the prior meeting, signed the Mullin Rule certification, and sat in as the Acting Clerk. Petitioner John G. Kudlic was in attendance along with his attorney, Attorney Gary Liquori, and Sharon Roy with Accurate Court Reporting. Attorney Gary Liquori spoke on behalf of his client, John G. Kudlic, and asked that Mr. Maggi recuse himself from the public hearing. Attorney Liquori stated Mr.Maggi has questioned the shape and topography of the lot and it seems that he is looking for a way to go against his client. Attorney Liquori stated his client is a town guy,was given promises while working with the Town to clean up the property, and could have built on the original foundation. Chairperson Prouty quoted Chapter 180-7 and stated the time period has lapsed to be able to build through a special permit. Attorney Liquori stated he is looking at every aspect for his client, and stated the frontage on Dwight Street could be considered because he has seen the Town use frontage from two different streets to meet a requirement. Attorney Liquori stated his client meets all the conditions for a variance head on, and granting a variance is the right thing to do. Attorney Liquori said those who are opposed to granting this variance have said that a single family home would not be bad,but a single family home could have more residents than a duplex. Attorney Liquori said Mr.Kudlic has proposed a duplex that fits into the area. Attorney Liquori asked again that Mr. Maggi be recused from the public hearing. Chairperson Prouty stated this request has never come before her before. Chairperson Prouty stated Member Maggi has the right to his opinion,even though it does not match that of Attorney Liquori. Attorney Liquori stated Mr. Maggi has never voted in his favor before. Member Maggi stated he bears no allegiance to Attorney Liquori or Mr.Kudlic. Member Maggi said his only allegiance is to the Board. Member Maggi said he does not know Mr. Kudlic, and that Attorney Liquori is a fine lawyer with a fine reputation. Member Maggi said the request for him to recuse himself is beyond him. Member Maggi stated he interprets the law and Town Code as it pertains to each case. Member Maggi stated he is open to hearing what everyone has to say, and said his sympathies are with anyone who wants to improve a property, but he will not derogate from the Town Code for anyone. Member Maggi said he sticks to the Town Code and law as he interprets it, and asked Attorney Liquori to present the facts behind his request. Attorney Liquori stated his biggest issue is that the statute refers to one or the other in regards to soil conditions, shape, or topography. Member Maggi answered saying either way the lot does not have the frontage. Attorney Liquori stated Mr. Kudlic worked with the Town to take down the building that was there. Member Maggi said that Mr.Kudlic chose to wait an inordinate amount of time. The SCANNED l612-5/1-,7 L i=e-I 1 Building Inspector probably told him he could build, but didn't know it would take this long. Attorney Liquori said his client is looking to make a building lot through a variance. Mr. Kudlic changed the design of the duplex to be narrow to fit onto the lot. Member Maggi said he does not doubt that Mr.Kudlic would build a nice building. Attorney Liquori said Mr. Maggi appears to be against it,which is his reason for asking Mr.Maggi to recuse himself. Member Maggi asked what is so unique about this lot versus all the other lots on the street. The law does say the lot has to be peculiar; all the lots on the street are similar. All of the lots have a lack of frontage to today's standards. Chairperson Prouty re-opened the meeting to the public. Kathleen Condron, 58 Highland Avenue spoke about her concerns regarding the lack of correct frontage on any of the lots on the street, and property values being decreased by potential parking conditions. Ms. Condron said that for three out of four meetings, at least half of the neighborhood has shown disapproval of the proposed plan. Ms. Condron stated Mr.Maggi has shown the upmost integrity throughout the meetings. Thomas Hannon, 39 Highland Avenue stated he does not see how this lot is unique because he also has a pie shaped lot. Mr. Hannon also questioned what kind of hardship there could be for the petitioner when it took so long for him to decide to build on the property. Mr. Hannon said the only hardship there has been is the neighborhood dealing with the dilapidated building until it was tore down,and Mr. Kudlic didn't get a demolition permit for that. Mr. Hannon said there is not enough frontage, the time has lapsed to build, this is black and white and would be setting a precedent if approved. David Hadley, 29 Highland Avenue stated Mr. Kudlic has owned the property for a period of time and didn't do anything. Mr. Hadley said there seems to be a lot of neglect in regards to the property. Timothy Morris,59 Highland Avenue said there is a traffic problem on the street,and commented on a school bus that had to stop at the corner because it was unable to drive down the street.Mr.Morris said this is black and white. Christopher Lussier,25 Highland Avenue said that Mr. Kudlic has been building homes forever. He should be familiar with the laws and should not have waited so long. Attorney Liquori stated it's not exactly cut and dry. The property was owned by another individual who went for a special permit and was denied. The elements of a variance are met. All Board members discussed how to address Attorney Liquori's recusal request. Member Maggi stated when there is a judge involved,the judge has the right to decide based on evidence presented. Chairperson Prouty said she is in support of Member Maggi because he is fair and has done a lot of research for this case. Member Geiger asked if the Board should consult the Town Solicitor. Chairperson Prouty stated Attorney Liquori and Member Maggi know each other professionally. Attorney Liquori said that Mr. Maggi is biased against himself and his client, and has been over the top then and now. Member Maggi said he wants everyone to know how thorough he has tried to be with this case. Attorney Liquori asked for the record, were you (Member Maggi) asked to recuse yourself because you were biased by Mr. Suffriti on the Calabrese case. Member Maggi answered that he did not recall any such conversation with Mr. Suffriti. Chairperson Prouty stated unless actual facts are presented to this Board that Member Maggi is biased or has a conflict of interest,he is allowed to sit on this case. 2 Chairperson Prouty closed the public hearing at 7:05 PM and goes into a public meeting. All Board members discussed the findings of the case and each condition of a variance as stated in Chapter 40A Section 10 of the Zoning Act. The first condition is"...circumstances relating to the soil conditions,shape,or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located..." Member Maggi stated he has reviewed the plans and visited the neighborhood. He stated he found nothing unique except that it has inadequate frontage. The lot is similar to many of the other lots on Highland Avenue. Member Maggi said that he has not heard any evidence that lends itself to make this lot unique in some way that presents a circumstance to allow for a variance. Chairperson Prouty is in disagreement with Member Maggi's opinion. Chairperson Prouty stated the piece of property is triangular in shape and has frontage on two streets,which makes it unique compared to the other lots on the street. Both Member Maggi and Chairperson Prouty agree that the topography does not matter in this case. Member Geiger commented that having frontage on two different streets is rare. The second condition is"...a literal enforcement of provisions of the ordinance or by-law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner of appellant..." Chairperson Prouty said she believes this would be a financial hardship for the petitioner. Chairperson Prouty said if we do not allow this we are taking his rights away from him. The property was in use for over SO years;not allowing the petitioner to build would be like doing a taking. Chairperson Prouty also stated its original use, as a social club, would have had a much bigger effect on the neighborhood than a residential structure. Chairperson Prouty commented that a duplex is an allowed use. Member Maggi agreed with Chairperson Prouty that a social club would have created more activity in the neighborhood and that a duplex is an allowed use. Member Maggi said the lot still has value. The lot could have value to the abutters,or it could be used for recreation or a parking lot. Member Maggi does not think the petitioner is dispossessed if a variance is not granted. Member Maggi quoted case Tsagronis v. Board of Appeals of Wareham, 415 Mass. 329, 330 n.4 (1993). Both Member Maggi and Chairperson Prouty have read through that case and expressed different interpretations. Member Maggi stated the petitioner demolished the original building and had an invested interest in a future building. Member Maggi said the petitioner should have known about the issues in regards to the frontage and that cases prohibit self-imposed hardship. Chairperson Prouty asked what if the petitioner didn't know or did not get the correct answer from a knowledgeable source.Member Maggi said ignorance is not an excuse;he does not know what the former Building Inspector, Mr. Urbinati, told him or didn't tell him. Attorney Liquori stated his client could have built on the foundation but was told he could build without. Mr.Kudlic wanted to meet the set back requirements and make it more consistent with the neighborhood. Member Geiger stated he is in agreement with Member Maggi,the petitioner left the property vacant for a long time. The property was also sold; he didn't have to take it back The third condition is "...that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or by-law.:" Chairperson Prouty said there is no question; a duplex is allowed in a Residential B zoned area. Chairperson Prouty stated this is not derogating, it's a residential area. Member Maggi said it does derogate because the zone requires 100 feet of frontage. Member Maggi told Attorney Liquori that he may have more wiggle room and quoted case Cavanaugh v.DiFlumera, 9 Mass. App. Ct, 396. Member Geiger stated the petitioner could have built on the original foundation, and then we wouldn't need to be here. Member Geiger said that 50 feet is a lot of frontage to lack. Chairperson Prouty said this is a variance from the frontage requirement,and that everything else is compliant. 3 Chairperson Prouty asked each Board member for an individual yes or no vote on each condition required to grant a variance. First Condition: Member Geiger— Yes, Member Maggi—No, Chairperson Prouty—Yes Second Condition: Member Geiger—No, Member Maggi—No, Chairperson Prouty—Yes Third Condition: Member Geiger—Yes, Member Maggi—No, Chairperson Prouty—Yes Chairperson Prouty explained the appeal process and called for a vote: Vote: Chairperson Prouty—Yes, Member Maggi—No,Member Geiger-No The Agawam Zoning Board of Appeals, by a vote of two no and 1 yes, decries the petitioner a variance from the frontage requirement in a Residential B zoning district,as allowed under M.G.L., Chapter 40A, Section 10. Motion made by Chairperson Prouty and seconded by Member Maggi to continue the public hearing to Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 6:30PM. All in favor. 2. Approval of July 10, 2017 and September 11, 2017 Minutes. Motion made by Chairperson Prouty and seconded by Member Maggi to approve the July 10,2017 minutes with minor changes. All in favor. Motion made by Chairperson Prouty and seconded by Member Maggi to approve the September 11, 2017 minutes. All in favor. 3. New Topics: There were no new topics to discuss. Chairperson Prouty closed the meeting at 8:10 PM 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC MEETING September 11, 2017 Members Present: Doreen Prouty—Chairperson Richard Maggi—Vice Chair Aldo Mancini—Acting Clerk Members Absent: Gary Suffriti—Clerk Gary Geiger—Alternate Chairperson Prouty opened the meeting at 6:30 PM: 1. Case#1968: John G.Kudlic; 33 Highland Avenue Chairperson Prouty opened this public hearing by reading the legal notice,explaining the procedures of the hearing and introducing the members of the Board. Sitting on this case were Chairperson Doreen Prouty, Vice Chair Richard Maggi, and Acting Clerk Aldo Mancini. Representing the petitioner was Attorney Gary Liquori of Powers & Liquori Attorneys at Law, 84 Park Street,West Springfield MA. Attorney Liquori explained the history of the property and stated Mr.Kudlic cooperated with the Mayor and Building Inspector by demolishing the former structure after receiving notices of its deterioration. Attorney Liquori stated that with a foundation in place, his client could have built on it. Instead, Mr. Kudlic chose to change the location of the proposed duplex so that it will conform to the current front and side yard setbacks and fit in well with the community. Attorney Liquori explained his client is requesting a variance due to substantial financial hardship, the odd topography of the lot due to the triangular shape and slope at the rear of the property, and there being no injury to the Town because the zoning allows for a duplex on this property. Attorney Liquori stated Mr. Kudlic is a lifetime resident and developer in the Town, and has the right to build this home in this district because he meets all of the requirements of M.G.L. Chapter 40A section 10. Chairperson Prouty asked if the original building was still in use when it was purchased by Mr. Kudlic in 2002. Both Attorney Liquori and Mr. Kudlic answered yes; it was still being used as the Victor Emanuel Club when the property was purchased. Chairperson Prouty then asked if the former structure was built to be residence or a club. Attorney Liquori and Member Mancini both answered that the Victor Emanuel Club looked like a residence,but it was always used as a club. Chairperson Prouty asked if Mr. Kudlic had used the property as a club since it was purchased in 2002. Attorney Liquori answered that his client never ran the property as a club. Chairperson Prouty asked if the foundation was removed when the structure was demolished. Mr. Kudlic and Attorney Liquori answered that the footings and part of the foundation may still be intact and may be level to the ground. Member Maggi asked what circumstances make the property so peculiar that the petitioner feels he should be granted a variance. Attorney Liquori answered that they meet all three criteria necessary for the granting of a variance. The slope and shape of the property make the lot unique. Chairperson Prouty stated the topography is not an issue because the petitioner needs a variance for the frontage;all the setback and side yard requirements can be met. The lot became non-conforming in 1955 when the frontage requirement was changed. All Board Members discuss the loss of the property being grandfathered under the Separate Lot Exemption because the original structure was removed over two years ago. Chairperson Prouty opened the meeting to the public. SCANNED 12w5 . 1 Timothy Morris, 59 Highland Avenue commented that 33 Highland Ave. has the least amount of frontage of any of the lots on the street. Mr. Morris said there are already traffic issues that affect resident's safety,and make it difficult for school buses and trash trucks to drive down the street. Mr. Morris said a duplex will bring more cars to the street than it can accommodate,and that this is not a rental neighborhood. Member Maggi asked what the frontage has to do with safety. Mr. Morris answered saying the corner at 33 Highland Avenue is not safe, and increasing the amount of cars parked on street will create and issue. Member Mancini advised the residents that they should make a request with City Council for no parking signs to be placed on the street. Chairperson Prouty said that the Safety Officer did not submit any concerns about the proposed duplex. Attorney Liquori commented that the lot at 33 Highland Ave could accommodate approximately 10 vehicles parked on the property, which would help limit any on street parking. Kathleen Condron, 58 Highland Avenue commented the street cannot handle any additional traffic. Ms. Condron said there are many safety concerns,including no sidewalks for the children that have to walk to elementary or middle school, congestion from on street parking, and a blind spot at the corner near 33 Highland Avenue.Ms. Condron commented that there are eight licensed drivers at the two family home next to her, and that another duplex could bring in more cars than the street can handle. Member Mancini advised Ms. Condron that many of her concerns should be taken up with the City Council, Police Department, Fire Department, and/or Department of Public Works. Christopher Lussier,25 Highland Avenue described the lot at 33 Highland Avenue as being mostly flat,with a slope in the back. Mr. Lussier said that in the winter time,the Town only plows one lane on the street,and usually plow snow from the street onto that lot. He also expressed concern about emergency vehicles not being able to maneuver with vehicles parked on the street. Member Mancini stated it is illegal to plow snow from the street onto private property. Chairperson Prouty said she understands where everyone is coming from, but they should not get mad at the petitioner because the parking is bad on the street. Building a duplex is an allowed use by right in a Residence B district. Mr.Kudlic is before the Zoning Board of Appeals because the frontage of this lot no longer meets current requirements. David Hadley,29 Highland Avenue asked if Mr.Kudlic is a known builder in town,and the former building had to come down,then why he didn't keep the foundation. Chairperson Prouty stated Mr.Kudlic had the right to rebuild where the old structure was,but instead decided to tear it down. Chairperson Prouty then stated if Mr.Kudlic had come to the Board within 2 years, he would have been able to receive a Special Permit. Member Maggi questioned why the petitioner waited so long to build. Member Maggi stated he is in disagreement with the petitioner claiming a financial hardship because he has leisurely decided to build on the property. Mr.Kudlic said that Mr.Urbinati,the former Building Inspector,told Mr.Kudlic that he would be able to build on this property. Member Maggi asked if Mr. Kudlic had anything in writing.Mr.Kudlic did not at that time. Chairperson Prouty said that Mr. Urbinati may have said that to the petitioner,but we do not have any proof. Kathleen Lussier,25 Highland Avenue asked some questions about why the frontage requirement is different now from when the lot was originally created. Chairperson Prouty gave a brief history of 2 .r the Town of Agawam's zoning laws. Thomas Hannon,39 Highland Avenue asked if this would be considered spot zoning. Chairperson Prouty answered no; the petitioner is not trying to change the zone. Duplexes are allowed in a Residence B zone. Chairperson Prouty also stated they cannot ask Mr. Kudlic to build a single family home. Mr. Hannon also believes there is an oil tank buried under ground on the property.Mr. Kudlic stated he has a permit showing the removal of the oil tank. All residents collectively start to discuss their safety concerns about parking and the flow of traffic on Highland Avenue. Chairperson Prouty addressed everyone in attendance, stating the Board is looking at the frontage of the property and if Mr. Kudlic meets the requirements for a variance. Chairperson Prouty said the Board cannot deny the petitioner what is allowed in a zone,but that the Board can set conditions with their decision. Chairperson Prouty advised the residents that they should take their traffic concerns, in regards to the entire neighborhood,to the City Council. No one else spoke for or against this petition. Chairperson Prouty stated she does not want to close the public hearing yet. Member Maggi stated he would like to further discuss the specific requirements needed to grant a variance. Motion made by Chairperson Prouty and seconded by Member Maggi to continue the public hearing to Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 6:30PM. All in favor. 2. Approval of July 10, 2017 Minutes. Motion made by Chairperson Prouty and seconded by Member Maggi to table the approval of the July 10, 2017 minutes to the next scheduled meeting. All in favor. 3. New Topics: There were no new topics to discuss. Chairperson Prouty closed the meeting at 7:45 PM CIQ jr 0 _ a 3 } ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC MEETING July 10,2017 The following members attended the public meeting: Doreen Prouty - Chairperson Richard Maggi- Vice Chair Gary Suffriti - Clerk Chairperson Prouty opened the meeting at 9:00 AM: 1. Continuation: Case#1967: Aleksandr Radionov; 241 and 245 Meadow Street Chairperson Prouty reopened this public hearing.Petitioner Aleksandr Radiunov,Sergey Kaletin and Andre Kaletin were in attendance for the hearing. Chairperson Prouty asked the petitioner if they brought with them proof from the registry that their ANR plan was recorded. Mr. S. Kaletin provided a copy of the receipt from the Registry of Deeds attached to the approval letter from the Agawam Planning Board. The Board members questioned and discussed what the process is for a lot to become individually deeded.Chairperson Prouty asked the petitioner if there was anything else he wanted to submit to the ZBA to review,Mr. S. Kaletin answered not at this time.Andre Kaletin, the petitioner's brother in law,asked why there is a problem with connecting the two homes. Mr.A. Kaletin stated there are already duplexes on Meadow Street,so he does not understand why there is an issue. Chairperson Prouty gave an explanation of how each different zone allows for different types of residences and businesses. There are many different zones on Meadow Street. Chairperson Prouty went on to explain that the homes at 241 and 245 Meadow Street were built before zoning laws were created. Once zoning laws were put in place,the lot became a legally nonconforming lot, and can stay that way forever. However,once there is a change to the lot,for example the change of the size of the lot and lot lines, the property now has to conform to current zoning laws. Mr. A. Kaletin asked why this is happening when they have tried to do everything legally. Chairperson Prouty explained that she believes the Building Inspector did not realize this would happen. In her opinion,a mistake was made,and the petitioner should have come before the ZBA first before doing anything else. Chairperson Prouty told the petitioner he didn't do anything wrong, but since the Building Inspector gave the ok to start building on the new lot, the ZBA is now faced with a dilemma. Mr.A.Kaletin said that he has spoken with a lawyer that said there is nothing wrong with what they are trying to do. Mr. A.Kaletin asked if Member Suffriti was related to the former owner of the property. Member Suffriti stated no,and that his decision for this property is based on the law. The law states that you cannot build a duplex in a Residence A-2 zone. Mr.A.Kaletin asked if they can go for a zone change. Chairperson Prouty answered that they may apply for one, but also explained that it could be considered spot zoning,which is illegal. Chairperson Prouty explained to the petitioner that although the way they were told to go about this was incorrect,there is a solution. Chairperson Prouty explained the duplex on the property would need to be removed to make the lot conforming. No one else spoke for or against the petition. Chairperson Prouty explained the twenty(20)day appeal process,closed the public hearing and went directly into a public meeting. Chairperson Prouty stated she is not in favor of approving the request to combine the two homes. Member Suffriti wants the Board to make sure they do not go beyond the scope of what the petitioner's request is. Chairperson Prouty said that in her experience,a single family home can be altered with an addition or modification to the interior to create a 2nd housekeeping unit. Chairperson 1 SCANNED f10 Prouty stated connecting two existing residential structures with a hall does not seem to be in keeping with the intent and purpose of Chapter 180 Section 23 (B). Chairperson Prouty explained the lot with the two homes on it used to be approximately 2 acres in size,but is now approximately a third of its original size, greatly increasing the nonconformity. The Board members discussed possible ways the smaller lot could be brought into conformity. Chairperson Prouty called for a vote: Prouty—No, Maggie—No, Suffriti—No. Chairperson Prouty stated that with a unanimous vote, petitioner Aleksandr Radionov has been denied a special permit. 3. Approval of June 28, 2017 Minutes. Motion made by Member Suffriti and seconded by Member Maggi to approve the June 28, 2017 minutes. All in favor. 4. New Topics: There were no new topics to discuss. Chairperson Prouty closed this meeting at 10:25 AM Y.