Canton, Massachusetts · Saved source text

Min-20180615094650

CCPC · Source year folder: 2017 · Record 58744

Saved text from 12 of 12 source pages. Transcription and OCR may contain errors; verify figures and wording against the original.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 
MEMORIAL HALL 
801 WASHINGTON STREET 
CANTON, MA 02021 
TEL: (781) 575-6589 FAX: (781) 575-6574 
Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2018 
PRESENT: Paul B. Carroll, Chairman 
Gregory L. Pando, Vice Chairman 
Gary E. Vinciguerra 
Charles J. Armando 
Also Present: Tamra Stock, Recording Secretary 
Not Present: John R. McCourt 
Meeting Held in the Salah Hearing Room, 2nd floor, 801 Washington Street, Canton, MA 
Chairman Carroll opened the meeting at 7:00 pm and reads the agenda. 
Ponkapoa2 Civic Association —17 Greenbrair Road—16-18-ENCU-Mod SPA -SP -V 
Chairman Carroll opens the hearing and reads the petition. Mr. John Davis of 480 Sherman 
Street, President of the Ponkapoag Civic Association along with Ms. Jennifer 
Giannacopoulos of 26 Hemlock Drive, neighborhood relations for the Civic. Chairman 
Carroll asks the petitioner what this request is for. Mr. Davis explains the Ponkapoag Civic 
has had a liquor license for a long time and they would like to expand it. It was brought to 
their attention the current liquor license was only good for the building. It didn't include 
the dining area or the pool area. Mr. Davis states the previous Chairman of the Board of 
Selectmen Bob Burr brought it to their attention a couple of years ago so they restricted the 
alcohol consumption to just the building. There have been some concerns and complaints 
from the abutters regarding parking and things like that. Mr. Davis explains the Civic has 
eliminated a lot of the outdoor activities they used to have for the children including a 
movie night to help with the neighborhood concerns. They did apply for three one day 
events to have outside events to have alcohol outside. Going into the summer of 2017 they 
expanded the one day events to Thursdays and Fridays to allow for people to go out and 
enjoy the summer time. This worked out well and they have made a lot of progress with 
the neighbors. They addressed concerns around the dumpster area. They erected a fence at 
the entrance to cover the area and they also changed some lighting in the parking lot by 
working with the Building Department. They are trying to become better neighbors with 
the abutters. Mr. Davis states they have not had any issues with noise within the past two 
seasons. One of the things they would like to do is get back to surety for the neighbors to 
prove they were going to be good neighbors. As well as surety for the town and their 
members that they have the ability to enjoy a beverage outside. Mr. Davis states the Civic 
opens on Father's Day weekend and they close on Labor Day weekend. The bar is open 
from 4PM-8PM. It is usually only open on the weekends. They do not operate the bar 7 
days a week. The Civic itself closes at 8PM during the summer hours. The first couple of 
weeks of August it closes between 7PM and 7:30PM depending on the sunset. They are 
not asking for a full blown alteration. Mr. Davis states they did send in some pictures to the 
Board and the only areas they are asking for are the pool deck, nder the awning, and the

Zoning Board of Appeals 
Minutes of April 12, 2018 
Page 2 of 12 
picnic table area. Chairman Carroll states he is quite familiar with the facility and it is a 
highly respected facility. He was aware there were some issues with noise and so on and he 
understands the petitioner worked with the Board of Selectmen. Chairman Carroll states it 
seems like they have been some changes to better the neighborhood. It is a tight 
neighborhood with houses close by. Chairman Carroll asks if the pool area is included in 
this request. Yes, the pool deck. Chairman Carroll asks about glass bottles being by the 
pool area. Mr. Davis confirms everything is served in plastic. Chairman Carroll asks if 
there have been any conversations with the neighbors regarding this. Mr. Davis explains 
some of them area here and once a quarter they invite the neighborhood representative to 
the Board meeting to have discussions with them. They had a discussion about this last 
year. They are very open with the plan. A lot of the people in the area are members. This is 
a natural extension of the past two summers. They have done a good job policing issues the 
neighbors had. Mr. Gregory Pando would like to hold his comments until the abutters 
speak. Mr. Gary Vinciguerra concurs with Mr. Pando. 
Mr. Larry Ransford of 19 Greenbriar Road explains he lives right next door to the Civic. 
He states they have made significant strides with the Civic and have addressed several 
issues. He states there are still more issues to be dealt with. Mr. Ransford reads his letter 
into the record. Years ago the Civic was a quiet neighborhood pool club and then six or 
seven years ago it became a loud club. This all started when they began to drink outside. It 
has been like living next to a fraternity house. They have also been problematic issues such 
as weekly beer deliveries trucks that block fire hydrants. There is excessive noise and 
dumpster issues. There is a rancid smell and rodent issues with the dumpsters. They come 
to empty the dumpsters very early waking his family. There is a lot of noise from the 
bottles and flipping the lids. The amount of cars that overflow the parking lot. Parking on 
lawns of neighbors and parking in front of mailboxes. Mr. Ransford states that Mr. Davis 
mentioned they upgraded the lighting but there are still issues with security lighting. Mr. 
Ransford states this is not an exhaustive list but just some issues that now make this 
neighborhood hard to live in. Mr. Ransford explains last summer was peaceful but they 
believe this was due to them dropping parties and the drinking was only on Friday and 
Saturday nights. They also had to be on their best behavior in order to come before this 
Board. Mr. Ransford states for the following reasons this request should not be granted. It 
will be detrimental to the neighborhood and it would be out of character for what the Civic 
was originally intended for with a clubhouse and a swimming pool for children. As past 
President Mr. Chris Gillis for the Civic used to say this is a pool club with a bar not a bar 
with a pool. There are no parallels to similar grants by the Board of Selectmen to Blue Hill 
Country Club, Milton Hoosic, and Wampatuck County Club. They have far more acreage. 
Also away from neighbors. Mr. Ransford states he understand the argument to get the 
alteration is because it is costly and timely to get one day permits. If this is granted it will 
only escalate the frustration of the neighborhood.

Zoning Board of Appeals 
Minutes of April 12, 2018 
Page 3 of 12 
Ms. Jenny D'Ol 1Mpia of 15 Greenbriar Road explains she would like to second everything 
Mr. Ransford just said. She would also like to add that it only takes one person to drink 
one too many drinks to run over a small child in the neighborhood. She explains if the 
Board came to take a look at the neighborhood you would see how tight it is with cars 
parked along both sides of the street. She explains she doesn't allow her children to go out 
and play when the Civic is open. The only way to decrease consumption is to decrease 
availability. There have been many studies done on this. Ms. D'Olympia states she has a 
list of signatures for some other abutters that could not be at the meeting tonight. She 
explains when someone is parked outside there is no way to even get a fire engine down 
the street. 
Mr. Brian Dervan of 7 Shepard Way explains he lives in the Ponkapoag neighborhood and 
he is an abutter. He explains he is in support of the Civic. They have been a great neighbor. 
He believes the Civic is focused on children. All of his children have learned how to swim 
there. Mr. Dervan explains he is in favor of the expanded license. Mr. Dervan explains it is 
rare there is more than 30 people at the Civic. The Civic has gone to great efforts to be 
good neighbors. From his perspective no one can speak on the behalf of the whole 
neighborhood. It is all individual voices that need to be heard. Chairman Carroll states 
when this first came up a couple of years ago there was a lot of discussion of what was 
going on down there. The Board of Selectmen has jurisdiction over the liquor license. I am 
proud of what the Board of Selectmen has done thus far to solve the issues. There have 
also been great efforts from the Civic. It seems there are a lot of fans of the Civic but we 
do need to make sure there is no tragedy. Mr. Dervan explains the greatest risk of an 
accident is speed down there. People who live in the area are very mindful. 
Ms. Jenny D'Olympia of 15 Greenbriar Road states she would like to list the names of the 
other abutters who have issues with cars parked in front of their houses. She also asks Mr. 
Dervan if he ever has issues with cars parked in front of his house. No. She reads the list 
for the record. 
Mr. Chris Connolly of 4 Robinwood Drive speaking on behalf of the Board of Selectmen 
explains they did allow the one day liquor licenses last year and it went well. There were 
no complaints. Chairman Carroll states the Board of Selectmen did take a good effort to 
help resolve the issues. 
Chairman Carroll explains the Board is familiar with the area and asks the other members 
if they would like to go back down there. Mr. Pando and Mr. Vinciguerra state they would 
like to go see the site. Mr. Vinciguerra explains the Board has a document from the 
Ponkapoag Civic asking for alcohol to be allowed on the pool deck, under the awning, and 
the picnic area. It also states the hours are 4PM to 8PM. Mr. Vinciguerra explains the letter 
is asking for a seven day a week license. Mr. Davis states right now they have a seven day 
a week license but just in the building. They are just asking to take that outside as well.

Zoning Board of Appeals 
Minutes of April 12, 2018 
Page 4 of 12 
They don't typically use the license seven days a week it is usually just a couple of days. It 
is also weather dependent. They would like the flexibility for holidays and such. This isn't 
a summer music pool place. We don't play music outdoors. The Civic closes at 8PM it is 
still light out when it closes. He explains they have been very good neighbors. What we are 
asking for now we had two summers of no issues. Chairman Carroll states they haven't 
had liquor outside. Mr. Davis explains they actually did with the one day licenses. Mr. 
Davis explains they don't want to do one day events anymore where it is the "one party" of 
the summer and it is super busy. They want to be good neighbors. The idea is to smooth 
out the traffic pattern. The first couple of weeks of summer it is busy with kids out of 
school then it quiets down. The bar isn't open every day. This isn't some spring break 
environment. Mr. Davis states he could see if there were always live music and night time 
events for the kids. Chairman Carroll asks if they have an entertainment license. Ms. 
Giannacopoulos states they have a bazaar license. Mr. Davis states Mr. Ransford 
mentioned issues with the dumpster companies picking up early. That doesn't have 
anything to do with the liquor license. They also have signs posted everywhere to not park 
on lawns or in front of hydrants. This is a major cut through neighborhood. Civic members 
are very aware. Mr. Pando states there are several issues Mr. Ransford has with deliveries, 
dumpsters, cars, and security lighting. Is there some lighting shielded and some not? Ms. 
Giannacopoulos states they have worked with Mr. Ed Walsh on the lighting. This is the 
first they are hearing that the lighting is not acceptable. Mr. Pando states he would like to 
go down and take a look at the lighting. Mr. Pando asks how much trash is generated on a 
daily basis. Ms. Julie Young states over the summer the dumpster is emptied three times a 
week. It is a four yard dumpster. They have it emptied frequently to avoid the smell. Mr. 
Pando asks how many trash bags a day. Ms. Young states maybe four. Mr. Pando states he 
is trying to figure out if there is an alternative way to get rid of trash. Dumpsters are a mess 
and do cause animal issues. Mr. Pando mentions that dumpster companies do create issues 
because they pick up early. The general By -Law is 7:30AM but it is hard to enforce. Mr. 
Pando states maybe the Civic could get creative and maybe someone could haul the trash 
to another dumpster. Get an agreement with a company and let you throw the trash in their 
dumpster. Mr. Pando states seven days are a little much. He would be more inclined to 
issue a Thursday, Friday, Saturday license with holidays. Then the petitioner could come 
back to another meeting to see how it is going. Mr. Pando states whatever the Board 
decides they will reserve the right to amend, modify, or revoke the decision. Mr. Pando 
states on behalf of the deliveries there is not much the Board can do about it. It is what is 
going to happen. Mr. Pando states he has seen it when there are cars parked on both sides 
of the road. Back in the 1940's it was assumed everyone would walk. Mr. Pando would 
like to go on the record to say he knows the efforts the Civic has made and it has made a 
world of a difference. He states he is not opposed to some of the request but would like to 
proceed cautiously. I would like to see this continued so we can review everything. 
Chairman Carroll confirms the opening date of the Civic. Chairman Carroll confirms the 
Board would like to go down and take another look at this. Mr. Pando states he would like 
to see if there is any security lighting that sticks out. Mr. Vinciguerra states the liquor

Zoning Board of Appeals 
Minutes of April 12, 2018 
Page 5 of 12 
license has been issued periodically. Now they are asking for seven days. This needs to be 
reviewed. Mr. Pando states this is valuable for the Civic to have the liquor license and 
management has this under control. This isn't the Wild West anymore but it needs to be 
looked at. 
Chairman Carroll has continued the matter to April 26, 2018 
Chairman Carroll dismisses himself and asks Mr. Charles Armando to hear the next cases. 
Lisa M. Brown —16 Walnut Street—14-18-ENCB-SP-V 
Acting Chairman Pando opens the hearing and reads the petition. Chairman Pando reads a 
letter from the Building Commissioner Mr. Edward Walsh for the record regarding an 
unsafe structure. Ms. Lisa Brown explains she lives at 221 High Street but her and husband 
own 16 Walnut Street. It has been owned by her husband's family since it was built. She 
explains it started off as a four family house but since her and her husband took it over 
they made it a two family. They put roughly 150 thousand dollars into it and gutted the 
inside. The house is weather tight and she has put a new lock on the hasp. Ms. Brown 
states the last ten years of her husband's life he was very sick so they were not thinking 
about this house. They did hire someone to take care of the landscaping but they were not 
doing a great job. A year ago we heard from Ed Walsh she immediately got someone to go 
out there and clear out the land and her and her husband intended to sell the property. Her 
husband has since passed away. She has gone through the grieving process and is now 
ready to sell the property. She has some offers for people to buy it but people who want to 
buy this house want it to be a two family. Mr. Walsh stated at this point it is not a two 
family. I now have a Purchase and Sale but with a provision it can be a two family with the 
neighbors. They do not want to change the exterior but they want to go in and finish the 
interior and get it into working order. Ms. Brown states there are many two family homes 
in the area. Chairman Pando asks for the GIS maps to get a sense of where the lot is on 
Walnut Street. Mr. Vinciguerra refers to Section 5.6 of the Canton Zoning By -Laws and 
reads the Section for the record. He explains this By -Law gives the authority to this Board 
to issue a Special Permit. Chairman Pando asks if the house is on the left. Yes. The second 
house on the left. Ms. Brown confirms the stream is between her property and the property 
on the corner of Washington Street and Walnut Street. Mr. Charles Armando states he 
visited the site today and for a two family house you would need to have four parking 
spaces. Yes. Mr. Armando asks how you would get the parking on the site. Ms. Brown 
states you would need to angle them. Mr. Armando states they would need to be careful 
working within the brook area and adding impervious material. 
Mr. Wojchiech Bankowski of 437 Washington Street states him and his wife own the 
house right next to this property on the corner of Washington Street and Walnut Street. 
They are looking to buy the property from Ms. Brown. The house has been empty for quite 
some time. He explains they never had a problem with the neighbors before it became

Zoning Board of Appeals 
Minutes of April 12, 2018 
Page 6 of 12 
empty. It is empty now and looks a little rough. He states they can accommodate four cars 
in there with no problem. Mr. Armando asks what the square footage of the lot is. Mr. 
Armando states he would like to see a plot plan for the property. Without one it is hard to 
comment on a lot. Chairman Pando confirms the lot is 9,745 square feet. Mr. Vinciguerra 
states he also believes it would be helpful to have a plot plan. Chairman Pando states either 
a plot plan or a mortgage survey plan would be sufficient. 
Ms. Mary Levreault of 44 Walnut Street explains she would like to see the property line as 
well. Ms. Brown had the land cleared and when they removed them they pushed it all onto 
her property. She states she is glad something will be done with it because she is tired of 
looking at it. 
Chairman Pando states he doesn't have any issues with this but the Board would like a plot 
plan so we will continue this once. Mr. Vinciguerra states this is a home with no garage so 
the Board needs to see the ability to park four cars. 
Chairman Pando has continued the matter to April 26, 2018 
Sharon Johnson — 75 Dunbar Street—17-18-ENCB-SP-V 
Chairman Pando opens the hearing and reads the petition. Ms. Sharon Johnson explains 
she has an existing garage that needs to come down and be rebuilt. She states she needs to 
extend the house to provide living space for her father. Six months ago her parents became 
ill. Her Mother passed away so her father is selling his home in Canton to move in with her 
for more care. It is a ranch style home and she would like to keep the style. She has a 
revised plot plan from the builder. They are now asking for relief on both sides of the 
house. She states she doesn't want to go any closer to the neighbors just further back and 
make the garage two stories. Chairman Pando states if he is hearing this correctly they 
have a mortgage survey plan showing 7.5' on the westerly property line and 9.5' on the 
easterly line. You are going to maintain that distance going back on both sides. This is 
within an area that is already non-compliant so you need relief for an extension of a non- 
conforming lot. This Board doesn't require a brand new certified plot plan but the Building 
Department will obtain that for permitting. The relief will be granted under Section 5.5.4 
for single and two family structures. A Special Permit can allow an extension or alteration 
of it is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Vinciguerra states the existing 
conditions are pre-existing non -conforming. He has no issues with the request. Mr. 
Armando has no issues. 
Mr. Arthur Widberg of 68 Dunbar Street states Ms. Johnson has been a very good 
neighbor. Her Dad is very sick. This is not a problem on his account and very happy to 
have her as a neighbor. Mr. Armando asks if the petitioner has talked to the other 
neighbors. Yes, they are all waiting for her to do it because it will upgrade the roof and 
siding.

Zoning Board of Appeals 
Minutes of April 12, 2018 
Page 7 of 12 
Chairman Pando makes a motion on behalf of Sharon Johnson of 75 Dunbar Street to grant 
a Special Permit under Section 5.5.4 to extend the pre-existing non -conforming dwelling in 
general conformity with the plans submitted to the Board titled exhibit A. Mr. Vinciguerra 
moves the motion. Mr. Armando seconds. Vote 3-0 approve 
Chairman Pando makes a motion to amend the previous motion to include a certified plot 
plan to update the dimensions for the file. Mr. Vinciguerra moves the motion. Mr. 
Armando seconds. Vote 3-0 approve 
George Piekerin2 — 30 Bullens Way—18-18-SP-V 
Chairman Pando opens the hearing and reads the petition. Attorney Matthews explains she 
is here representing Mr. George Pickering. She explains Mr. Pickering is in the process of 
purchasing and building a single family dwelling on Bullen's Way on lot 3 on the 
subdivision plan. This is an odd shaped lot and there is a significant drop on the 
topography. There is a buffer zone for the wetlands. He is seeking to put a retaining wall 
that will vary from 4' to 16'. Chairman Pando confirms this is the new road off of Dedham 
Street. Yes. Attorney Matthews states the Zoning By -Laws under Section 6.4.6 states that a 
retaining wall shall be constructed to a maximum height of six feet. If site conditions 
require elevation changes of greater than six feet, retaining walls shall be terraced and 
landscaped. Retaining walls facing residential districts shall be solid fieldstone or 
fieldstone veneer or other similar material. Unless used within the Industrial districts, 
vertical cast in place concrete blocks shall not be permitted. This is a lot divided between 
Limited Industrial and Residential so doing one varied wall instead of terraced or two 
walls is it will provide for an additional six feet for a driveway. The lot is very large but 
the buildable area is very small. Attorney Matthews explains this lot looks over Shawmut 
Road. It has natural landscaping with very large trees. It is going to be a split faced wall 
not just a flat concrete wall. Chairman Pando states it appears the visual appearance for the 
retaining wall will be all of the Limited Industrial area and wetlands. There will be no 
visual impact to any abutter. Correct. Mr. Vinciguerra states he has no issues with the 
request. Mr. Armando has no issues. Mr. Armando asks if the petitioner will need to apply 
with the Conservation Commission. Chairman Pando asks the petitioner if he is within a 
100' buffer zone. Mr. Pickering states they are but it was already approved and now they 
are just adding a second tier to the wall. Chairman Pando states it is just a Special Permit 
for the height of the wall you need relief for. Attorney Matthews states she would also like 
to make sure since the By -Law is vague there is no other relief needed for building 
materials being used. Chairman Pando reviews the Section and believes the request meets 
the intent of the By -Law. This By -Law is more for walls facing residential areas. Chairman 
Pando states the relief is just on the height. Attorney Matthews states they also need a 
Variance for the wall to not be terraced. 
Chairman Pando makes a motion on behalf of George Pickering of 30 Bullen's Way under 
Section 6.4.6 to grant a Special Permit to allow construction of a retaining wall in excess

Zoning Board of Appeals 
Minutes of April 12, 2018 
Page 8 of 12 
of 6' of height as required completing the proposed retaining wall on a plot plan by Strong 
Point Engineering dated March 7, 2018. Mr. Vinciguerra moves the motion. Mr. Armando 
seconds. Vote 3-0 approve 
2 Meetinghouse Road Realty Trust/Donald McNeice — 2 Meetinghouse Road — 19 -18 - 
SPA -SP -V 
Chairman Pando opens the hearing and reads the petition. Attorney Matthews states she is 
here on behalf of Kathleen Hughes, Trustee of the property and the purchaser Mr. Donald 
McNeice. Site Engineer Mr. Paul Brodmerkle is also here. Attorney Matthews explains 
they were in front of the Board a short time ago on an informal basis. This lot is in a 
Business district and pursuant to the Table of Use regulations a multi -family dwelling is 
permitted in the Business district. This is a 25,000 plus square feet so that provides for the 
construction of a six unit multi family dwelling with a combination or a store or retail use. 
This is allowed by right with Site Plan Approval. There is no other zoning relief that is 
needed other than approval for the Site Plan. Mr. Paul Brodmerkle states just for 
clarification the petitioner proposed three two family dwellings. The parcel has a single 
family dwelling that will be razed. They are allowed to have six units by right. This plan 
was not liked by the neighbors. If the petitioner had stuck with this plan a Special Permit 
would have been needed because they separated the dwellings into three buildings. Mr. 
Brodmerkle states from the comments they received from the neighbors they have gone 
back to the drawing board and came up with a six unit dwelling with a store or a 
commercial use. This is permitted as of right but need Site Plan Approval. We want to 
make sure everyone understands this is what the By -Laws allow. Chairman Pando would 
like to make it clear to everyone that this property is in a Business district and he states he 
has driven down Meetinghouse Road thirty times in the past two weeks. It is a small road 
with all single family dwellings. It is a quiet area. It is zoned Business and it has been for 
the past fifty years. Chairman Pando states what is in front of the Board is the applicant 
wanted to build a few residential units. The consensus from the neighbors was it was too 
busy with too many units on the lot that only has a single family dwelling on it now. With 
that being said the applicant has come back and brought this plan with a store and 
residential town houses. This is a permitted use. They do not need the Zoning Board 
approval to do it. They do need this Board for Site Plan Approval. This would cover the 
performance standards which controls the turning radiuses, the amount of pavement, etc. It 
will be reviewed by the Planning Board and then come to us. Attorney Matthews concurs 
with Chairman Pando. 
Mr. Chris Connolly of 4 Robinwood Drive explains he walks this street every day. They 
have filed a petition for Site Plan Approval yet they didn't file a formal Site Plan. This 
goes to show this layout isn't really what the petitioner wants. He states he isn't sure if this 
is some sort of posturing or bait and switch. The neighbors came here for an intelligent 
discussion on the Site Plan Approval review and there is no site plan. He thinks a lot of the 
neighbors will talk about traffic. It is a narrow road. He welcomes the Site Plan Approval. I

Zoning Board of Appeals 
Minutes of April 12, 2018 
Page 9 of 12 
hope the petitioner will commit to this. He also states he would like to correct Attorney 
Matthews. This is only five residential units with one retail. Mr. Connolly states they 
welcome a full site plan review process. This is subject to performance standards. If this is 
what the petitioner is serious about then let's go for it. Mr. Connolly states they don't want 
to play games. No more posturing or bait and switch. 
Mr. Luigi Eleuteri of 32 Blackman Road explains he lives right behind where this building 
will be. There is another abutter who lives right behind it who is here tonight. Mr. Eleuteri 
states the way the land abuts his and he is concerned about the lighting and dumpsters. 
They already have issues with the building at the corner of Edward Street and 275 
Turnpike Street. The dumpsters get emptied very early in the morning. The Blackman 
neighborhood is a very busy cut through area. They petitioned years ago for sidewalks. 
The town came back and put in stops signs. People go right through the stop signs. Mr. 
Eleuteri explains getting into traffic on Randolph Street is awful. He works off of 138 five 
miles away and it takes him 35 minutes to get to work at 8AM because of the volume of 
traffic in the town. We are now going to have another development with 25 parking spaces. 
Some of this is going to be residential. If there are five units with two cars that is another 
ten cars we are adding. The town is gridlocked every day and now we are adding more. 
Mr. Eleuteri states he has been in this town since 1985 and it was a nice small town. We 
didn't have these issues then. God forbid there is a traffic back up on Route 128 everything 
gets backed up in Canton. Mr. Eleuteri states we are taking_a residential home that is 
existing and knocking it down and putting in more commercial and residential units. This 
is a small lot. He states his lot is 9,000 square feet the proposed lot is only 25,000 square 
feet. He states he walks Meetinghouse and you need to move over for a car because there 
isn't enough room. 
Chairman Pando states he believes what is being done and what he senses from the 
applicant that although they have a right to do this but when they first came in they were 
proposing two or three duplexes but the neighborhood didn't like that. Now the applicant 
has come back and said fine we will just do what is permitted as of right. Chairman Pando 
asks if the neighborhood has any interest to work with the applicant to find a good 
solution. Chairman Pando states traffic is traffic. Per the Supreme Judicial Court in the 
Commonwealth the Board cannot deny a project based on traffic. They also cannot deny it 
because of the width of Meetinghouse Road. He uses the example of Wall Street and how 
narrow that street is. The Board can control fire circulation within the site. The drainage. 
The lighting. The hours of operation. This is all done under Site Plan Approval. He 
believes the neighborhood and the applicant need to work this out to decide what gets 
done. Mr. Eleuteri states he understands what Chairman Pando is saying. This 
neighborhood was built in the 50's. He doesn't have a problem with someone coming in 
and take the existing down and adding a two family and doesn't think that will upset the 
neighborhood but something like the proposed does upset the neighborhood. Chairman 
Pando states this could be a Site Plan Approval for a NAPA Auto Parts. Mr. Eleuteri states

Zoning Board of Appeals 
Minutes of April 12, 2018 
Page 10 of 12 
he understands and he sat here for the 275 Turnpike Street hearings and you said the same 
thing that it could be a Burger King. He agrees and the office building has been a great 
neighbor. They are there when the residents are at work and not there on the weekends. 
Mr. Eleuteri states he is speaking as a neighbor and he would like something to come in 
there that is respectful of the neighbors as we are respectful of them. The more we build 
the worse the traffic gets. Chairman Pando states it is important to get a sense of how the 
neighborhood feels. This also provides information to the applicant. He needs to make a 
decision on what he wants to do. Mr. Eleuteri states he is not against the project totally but 
coming into Meetinghouse Road from Route 138 is next to impossible so it will just filter 
the traffic through the other parts of the neighborhood. Chairman Pando states there is no 
question traffic is horrific. There is no easy solution. Mr. Eleuteri states yes there is. Don't 
build anymore. He states everyone has a right to make a living but have some 
consideration for what is there now. 
Mr. Joseph Hurley of 17 Louise Street states he would like more detail before any 
movement is made on this project. Mr. Hurley states he is sure the Fire Department will 
have a say in this and if they can do it they can do it but let's make sure there is nothing 
underlying issues. Chairman Pando states there will be no decisions made this evening. 
Mr. Michael Rodenhiser of 6 Meetinghouse Road explains he is the most impacted abutter. 
Tonight is the first time they got to see this new plan. He states it was interesting to listen 
to the Ponkapoag Civic hearing with the dumpster issues. They have those same issues. He 
is concerned as to how the proposed site is going to be graded. They have water run off 
issues. There is a natural sink hole at the end of his yard. These are the things they should 
be able to see on the site plan. Mr. Rodenhiser also states he doesn't see any fencing or 
greenbelt between the properties. Where would the parking be? Is it going to face his 
house? He would welcome working with the applicant to find a solution that will work for 
everyone. 
Mr. Richard Susi of 30 Blackman Road explains the Chairman commented that this can be 
done by right. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is fair. He would like to come to 
some conclusions that are fair and reasonable. We abut 275 Turnpike Street and they 
empty the dumpsters and shake the foundations of our homes. There is a one story ranch 
there now that has been there for sixty years and now you want to add five units of 
residential and one commercial. That is five times the parking. Let's have a dialogue to 
figure out what is fair. 
Chairman Pando states he is starting to get a sense that a neighborhood meeting would be 
beneficial. Attorney Matthews states that is something we can do. They understand where 
some of the comments are coming from. They tried to get the use of this property with the 
first plan and make it look like a residential area. This would be similar to the Bolivar 
Street homes that are being built now. She understands people want a single family home

Zoning Board of Appeals 
Minutes of April 12, 2018 
Page 11 of 12 
on this lot but it just isn't going to happen here. Chairman Pando suggests we carry this 
over until you can organize a neighbor meeting and really get input and incorporate what 
they say. It would be great if you can come to a common ground. This is a solid 
neighborhood. 
Mr. Vinciguerra explains we all know this is a Business district. The five residential units 
and one commercial meet the requirements of what is allowed but he concurs and believes 
there should be a neighborhood meeting. Chairman Pando states that is a good point and he 
also suggests if there are other properties zoned this way that the neighborhood feels 
should be residential you can go meet with the Town Planner and she will assist you in 
getting the zone changed. Mr. Armando asks where the zoning line is. Mr. Brodmerkle 
states it runs along the rear and demonstrates it on the plan. They border a residential 
district. Mr. Armando asks why they petitioner wouldn't have to do with the setback of 
Section 4.2.1 of the By -Law. Chairman Pando asks what the width of Meetinghouse Road 
is. Mr. Brodmerkle states Meetinghouse Road has no bearing on the setback they need to 
follow. Mr. Armando asks why. Mr. Brodmerkle states they are set back from 
Meetinghouse Road. Mr. Armando asks what the width of the road is. Mr. Brodmerkle 
states it is 33'. Mr. Armando states that is important to have on a plan. The residents 
disagree with Mr. Brodmerkle. Mr. Brodmerkle explains to the residents that the actual 
paved road is not the full width of the street. Mr. Armando and Mr. Brodmerkle discuss 
what the setbacks should be. Chairman Pando states the setback issue is something the 
Planning Board will work out with the petitioner. The Zoning Board purpose is what we 
can do to protect the neighborhood and the applicant rights as well. 
Mr. Chris Connolly of 4 Robinwood Drive states we are talking about a Site Plan review 
process. The petitioner put this plan here that doesn't even show dimensions. He states Mr. 
Armando is asking intelligent questions and the petitioner is not answering. This is the 
second time they have been here and they have not heard from the petitioner. The 
petitioner filed for Site Plan Approval with no real site plan. Can the Board deny this now 
since they did not provide the Site Plan? Attorney Matthews states they provided the plans 
required by the Board. Chairman Pando states the issue is the petitioner has filed for Site 
Plan Approval and plans have not been submitted to the Planning Board as of yet. This is 
the first opening of the hearing. They have to follow through with this and then file a 
complete set with the Planning Board. This is how the process gets started. Chairman 
Pando states he is trying to continue this and if the petitioner would like to proceed on Site 
Plan Approval the applicant needs to go through the engineering. In the course of this 
maybe the applicant and the neighborhood can get together and come up with a different 
idea. He doesn't know. Short of everything that has been said he expects to see full plans 
going to the Planning Board. He would like to put this over to May for an update. Mr. 
Brodmerkle states they need more time for the plans. Chairman Pando states he would like 
a progress update in May. Mr. Connolly states the neighbors are at a disadvantage without 
full plans. He states he was on the Planning Board for ten years. There are provisions.

Zoning Board of Appeals 
Minutes of April 12, 2018 
Page 12 of 12 
They can't negotiate without them doing what they are supposed to do. Chairman Pando 
concurs and states we will just continue this to a July hearing. 
Chairman Pando has continued the matter to July 12, 2018 
Mr. Joseph Hurley of 17 Louise Street asks if they have to go through this process anyway 
why not do it then meet with the neighbors. Chairman Pando states when they come back 
in July they will just be getting the plans to the Planning Board. 
Mr. Vinciguerra makes a motion to accept the minutes of the March 22, 2018 meeting. Mr. 
Armando seconds. Vote 3-0 approve 
Chairman Pando reads the continuations at a later date 
Chairman Pando welcomes a new member of his family Miss Abigale Nancy MacDonald 
this morning. He is looking forward to having a lot of fun with her. Congratulations to the 
MacDonald and Pando families. 
Chairman Pando states the next meeting is April 26, 2018 
Mr. Vinciguerra makes a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:58PM. Mr. Armando 
seconds. Vote 3-0 approve 
Respectfully submitted, 
Gregory L. Pando 
Acting Chairman