PRESENT: John Danehey, Chairman, Albert Bangert, Agnes Rona, Brian Sullivan and Sara Trezise.

OTHERS: Neil Duggan, Building Commissioner/Zoning Enforcement Officer and Jason Talerman, Town Counsel.

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER:

Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.

Janet Stearns from Stockard, Engler and Brigham, LLC represented the applicant.

Rodrick Gaskell, Alexander Trakimas and Jeffrey Couture from SITEC Environmental were present.

John Danehey opened the hearing at 7:15 P.M. Mr. Danehey addressed the peer review request that was discussed at the previous meeting. After reviewing the proposals from the Town’s consultants, Mr. Danehey requested the applicant deposit between $25, 000.00 and $40,000.00 into the account for peer review.

Janet Stearns- had questions concerning the overlapping costs of both the consultants.

J. Danehey- clarified that Woodward and Curran would handle the environmental aspects and Pennoni Associates would handle the traffic and drainage aspects. He said they may overlap but both consultants would be working together.

Mr. Danehey addressed the request from Jason Talerman, Town Counsel that the applicant wait before going forth with their hearings with the Conservation Commission. He felt that during the zoning process there might be some overlapping of conservation issues. Mr. Danehey felt they maybe putting the cart before the horse.

J. Stearns- explained that her client had been working on the conservation fillings for some time. They felt it would be helpful with the wetlands protections aspect to continue with both hearings. She asked if the Board would be willing to work with them regarding scheduling.

J. Danehey- requested again that the applicant hold off. Mr. Danehey appreciates the open space the applicant was proposing but felt there was a lot of building being proposed for the site. He addressed the issues surrounding the Conservation Agent and the neighbors. Mr. Danehey stated that the neighbors had addressed their concerns with the Board of Selectmen.

J. Talerman- addressed the request that the applicant wait on the filings with the Conservation Commission. He felt that if the Board did not exempt them from the wetlands issues they may need to file an amendment.

J. Stearns- clarified they were not seeking waivers and felt they did not need waivers.

J. Danehey- wanted to know a figure from the applicant on the peer review account. He

J. Stearns- stated she felt the retainer was high but agreed to give $25,000.00 up front.

J. Danehey- explained that from experience once the expert’s started their reviews it was hard to back track and get money from the developers. He stated they would need more than $25,000.00.

J. Stearns- requested to deposit $25,000.00 up front with the condition that when the account fell below a certain amount the applicant would replenish it.

J. Danehey- suggested $10,000.00.

J. Stearns- agreed but stated she would like to review the invoices.

J. Danehey- addressed the Purchase and Sale that was submitted by Ms. Stearns the day before the meeting. He had concerns that Donna Tonelli had only signed one set.

J. Stearns- explained that the buyer had signed the other page.

J. Danehey- addressed the fact that Mass Housing had received the prior Purchase and Sale and the Board was not supplied with this information. He asked if there was a signed P&S at the time they filed with Mass Housing. He explained the Board had sent a request under the Freedom of Information Act to Mass Housing, for this information.

Agnes Rona- had concerns with the “run around”; Ms. Stearns gave at the last hearing regarding site-control.

J. Stearns- stated there was a verbal agreement.

J. Danehey- was “put out” by reading in the paper about the P&S. He noted the P&S had expired nine days prior to the first meeting.

J. Stearns- explained that there were negotiations and problems, which took awhile to sort out.

Sara Trezise- felt the applicant should have provided this information and the Board should not have to go to Mass Housing for it.

J. Stearns- said she was not the attorney that drafted the P&S.

J. Danehey- asked in the future that applicant be forthcoming with the information that the Board requests.

Susan Daileader of 5 Martha’s Lane- felt the applicant might be misrepresenting site-control.

J. Talerman- felt that Mass Housing might not have a high level of diligence and may not pay much attention to site control. He requested a copy of the Project Eligibly Letter from the applicant and also wanted to address the option period. He asked if the applicant would be waiting for all his permits or would he only exercise the options after he gets his permits. He felt the applicant had site control in a very loose interpretation and said the applicant may seek an extension of site-control. He wanted to see the appraisals that supported the $875, 000.00 value stated on the agreement.

J. Stearns- said she would need to go to Mass Housing for the information as well.

Gloria Hollstein of 11 Martha’s Lane- had concerns with site control. She explained that she went on Mass Housing website and learned that part of the application process was to provide site control. She felt the application with Mass Housing might not be valid. She asked the Board postpone the meeting; she felt the applicant had plenty of time to provide the information requested by the Board.

J. Danehey- felt they might have been a P&S at the time of the filing with Mass Housing.

Brian Sullivan- questioned whether the applicant still had site control.

J. Danehey- stated he was going to move forward and work under the assumption that the parties involved had signed documents.

A. Rona- felt the errors could be corrected and wanted to move forward with the hearing.

Albert Bangert- felt harassed by the applicant and said the Board took a risk at the last hearing by moving forward. Mr. Bangert said the Board had “egg on their face” because the applicant was not providing the requested information.

Sarah Trezise- wanted to move forward and also requested copies of all the Purchase and Sales on the properties no matter how far back they went. She requested this information be submitted to the Board earlier than the day before the next meeting.

G. Hollstein- felt they may have to start over with Mass Housing.

Werner Boehl of15 Martha’s lane- wanted to know what would happen if the site control lapsed.

J. Danehey- felt this would be a “curable” problem.

Resident of 67 Hughey Lane- was angry that the Board was giving the applicant so many chances and stated they should be treated like everyone else.

J. Danehey- explained the Board treats everyone fairly and was not giving anyone a free pass. He said if the Board did not continue gingerly, the applicant might end up with exactly what they were asking for.

J. Stearns- requested to move forward and provide the traffic and engineering presentations.

B. Sullivan- felt the traffic study was worthless because they did not take in account the impact of the train.

J. Danehey- wanted to discuss the MBTA traffic study and the fact that the applicant had not touched on it.

Agnes Rona- asked if the applicant would supplement with new information.

J. Talerman- requested that the Fire Chief ‘s concerns with turning radius be addressed.

Edward Hanniford of 2 Cushing Landing- wanted the exact name and address of the applicants and also addressed the trash issue on the property.

Neil Duggan- stated James Motzkin was the owner of the site and had contacted him regarding the condition of the property. He explained that Mr. Motkin asked if he could demolish the house and his contracted came in the week before to obtain a demo permit.

E. Hanniford- asked if Janet Stearns would be the point person for the application.

Janet Stearns- stated she would be the point person.

Werner Boehl submitted photos and expressed that he felt the site was a disgrace.

Neil Duggan- asked if the house would be demolished within two weeks.

Gary Wyrostdic the contractor for the applicant- stated he would be demolishing the dwelling when he received all the appropriate sign offs for the permit.

Dave Donahue of 4 Cushing Landing- asked about fines.

N. Duggan- explained the procedure for fining violations.

Gloria Hollstein- agreed with the Board regarding the traffic study and complimented the Board on their efforts.

J. Danehey- invited the public to review all the documents that had been submitted to the file.

B. Sullivan- felt the traffic study should address turn flows and width of the roads.

The Board decided to wait on the Architectural and Traffic presentations until the next hearing.

Leslie Kilduff of 125 C J Cushing Highway- talked about the traffic situation in front of the Watson land. She had concerns with safety.

Resident of 160 C J Cushing Highway- also had concerns with traffic.

Janet Fairbanks of 129 Neal Gate Street- wondered where the environmental review was that the selectman requested.

Rick Murray- explained that the neighbor’s had come to the Board of Selectmen regarding the Conservation Agents involvement with the project. He stated that he was discouraged to hear the applicant would be continuing with their conservation filing. He was hopeful that the applicant would be aware of the public wanting their concerns addressed and hoped the applicant would address the Board of Selectmen’s requests as well.

Gloria Hollstein- stated the neighbors were very concerned with the look of impropriety surrounding the Conservation Agent. She talked about the connection to the former owner Thomas Doherty who had served on the Conservation Commission. She stated that he did not observed the one-year “cooling off” period after leaving the Board before coming forward with his project. She said that Mr. Kalishes did not recuse himself from all hearings involving the project and said he did not file with the Ethics Commission until July of 2006. She talked about Sitecs connections with other Conservation Commission members and requested that a different Board or another Town’s Board review the Conservation filings.

J. Danehey- stated the Board would not sacrifice the integrity of the town for any person. He explained that is why the Board was sending out Freedom of Information Act requests so they would have all the information they needed. He requested that the public provide any information they may discover along the way. He said the Town’s consultants Woodward and Curran would be reviewing the conservation issues.

Gloria Hollstein- clarified that her concerns lay with the Conservation Commission and not with the Zoning Board of Appeals.

J. Danehey- explained they could not usurp the Conservation Commissions duties.

B. Sullivan- explained that Conservation Commission in the past had put Chapter 40B projects under great scrutiny. He said that the property at 126 Chief Justice Cushing Highway had the soil the developer needed for the septic system and that may be why they are willing to pay so much for the property. He stated that he personally felt that Mr. Kalishes had done nothing wrong but may have made mistakes along the way.

Janet Stearns- requested that she receive the peer review report by the end of February.

J. Danehey- stated that the consultants would not start until the Board received the peer review deposit first.

Susan Daley- had questions regarding the Board of Selectmen meeting.

Bangert moved to continue the hearing until March 22, 2007, seconded by Danehey, all in favor, unanimous.

Bangert moved to adjourn the hearing at 8:35 P.M., seconded by Rona, all in favor, unanimous.

Respectfully Submitted,

Nicole Harris
Administrative Assistant,
Zoning Board of Appeals