The Zoning Board of Appeals today issued its decision approving the variances sought by the town to construct the proposed public safety building. The variances granted were as follows:
- Section 6.3 for the increase in lot coverage from 54% to 68%
- Section 6.2.3 for construction of a driveway greater than 24 feet
- Section 8.1 for provision of 50 parking spaces instead of the required 60 spaces
- Section 8.3.2.e for construction of an entrance within 140 feet of the centerline of an intersection
- Section 8.3.2.f to provide more than one egress to the site with all driveways exceeding 24 feet in width
- Section 16.8.2 for construction of 40% impervious area on a nonresidential lot
The decision follows:
TOWN OF MEDFIELD
Office ofthe
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN HOUSE, 459 MAIN STREET
MEDFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 02052-2009
(508) 906-3027
(508) 359- 6182 Fax
PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
Instructions following the receipt of a decision;
• Your decision was filed with the Town Clerk on: July I I, 2014
• Your 20 day appeal period ends: July 31,2014
• On August I, 2014 or thereafter you should contact this office for the decision with
original signatures as well as a letter from the Town Clerk that no appeals have been
taken regarding the Board’s decision.
• Take the Town Clerk’s leiter & the decision to the Registry of Deeds in Dedham and
record them. (There is a fee of around $75 according to recent filings.)
Norfolk County Registry of Deeds
649 High St, Dedham, MA
(78 I) 46 I-6 I0 I norfolkdeeds.org
Directions from Town Hall, Medfield:
• Take 109 East to Dedham
• Bear Right on High Street
• Destination will be on the left in approximate Y, mile
• Note: On street meter parking or parking in rear (wi fee)
• Save the numbers they will give you as proof of recording. Call or email the office
and give us the Book and Page numbers. This is a required part of the process!
• When you apply to the Building Department for a permit, you will also give them the
Book and Page numbers.
Sarah Raposa
Town Planner
(508) 906-3027
sraposa@medfield.net
TOWN OF MEDFIELD
Office of the
Board of Appeals on Zoning
TOWN HOUSE, 459 MAIN STREET
MEDFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 02052-2009
(508) 906-3027
(508) 359- 6182 Fax
NOTICE OF DECISION
ApPLICANT: Town of Medfield
DECISION DATE: July 11,2014
DATE OF FILING DECISION: July 11, 2014
DECISION NUMBER: 1209
The Town of Medfield Zoning Board of Appeals, acting in the above referenced malter, grants with
conditions the Application of the Town of Medfield for variances from the following sections of the
Zoning By Law so as to permit the construction of a new public safety building at 114 North Street,
Medfield, Massachusetts:
• Section 6.3 for the increase in lot coverage from 54% to 68%
• Section 6.2.3 for construction of a driveway greater than 24 feet
• Section 8.1 for provision of 50 parking spaces instead of the required 60 spaces
• Section 8.3.2.e for construction of an entrance within 140 feet of the centerline of an intersection
• Section 8.3.2.fto provide more than one egress to the site with all driveways exceeding 24 feet in
width
• Section 16.8.2 for construction of40% impervious area on a nonresidential lot
An appeal of this decision of the permit granting authority may be made by any person aggrieved
pursuant to MOL Chapter 40A Section 17, as amended, within 20 days after the date of filing the notice
of decision in the Office of the Town Clerk.
Copies of the decision may be obtained at the office of the Board of Appeals in person or via email.
Sarah Raposa
Town Planner
(508) 906-3027
sraposa@medfield.net
TOWN OF MEDFIELD
Office of the
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN HOUSE, 459 MAIN STREET
MEDFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 02052-2009
(508) 359-8505 ext. 645
(508) 359- 6182 Fax
No. 1209
July 11,2014
Decision o/the Board 0/Appeals on the petition of Town o/Medfield
Property owned by: Town of Medfield
Location of Property: 114 North Street, Medfield, Massachusetts
Norfolk County Registry of Deeds: Book: 2823 Page: 35
Medfield Assessors’ Record: Map: 49 Lot: 084
Zoning District: RU
By application dated April 2, 2014, which was filed with the Board of
Appeals on April 3, 2014, the Town of Medfield, 114 North Street, Medfield,
Massachusetts 02052 (the “Applicant”) seeks a variance from Sections 6.3 (lot
coverage), 6.2 and 6.3.l.a (height), 6.2.3 (driveway width), 8.1 (parking spaces),
8.3.2.e (entrance distance from intersection), 8.3.2.f(multiple egress) and 16.8.2
(impervious area) of the Zoning By-Law and a Special Permit under Section II of the
Zoning By-Law in order to allow construction of a new public safety building at
114 North Street, Medfield, Massachusetts (the “Property”). Notice of the
Application was published in the Medfield Press on April 25 and May 2,2014 and a
public hearing was held on May 14,2014. Notice of the Application and hearing was
provided to the Applicant, to abutters, to appropriate Town boards and officials and to
the planning boards of abutting towns. The hearing was called to order by
Public Safety Building – page I –
Stephen M. Nolan, Chainnan, on May 14,2014 at 7:50 p.m. The Applicant was
represented at the hearing by members of the Permanent Building Committee
(“PBC”), including one of its co-chairs, John Nunnery.
Mr. Nunnery explained that the Applicant wishes to construct a new public
safety building on the Property (the “Proposed Building”). Mr. Nunnery went on to
explain that the project would require Town Meeting approval and an operational
override. If approved, the project could begin in Spring 2015 and would take 16-18
months to complete; the Proposed Building would be up and operating in 2016,
according to Mr. Nunnery.
Richard Almeida, the architect for the Proposed Building, said the height of
the proposed tower on the Proposed Building would be 51 feet, 6 inches. He said the
top of the clock would be decorative. Mr. Nunnery said the roof beside the tower is
an area they need for mechanical equipment. Mr. Peck inquired about the bulk of the
Proposed Building to which Mr. Nunnery said they were trying to provide an
“anchor” to the downtown district. Architect Almeida indicated that the increased
height is required to use the mechanical units on the roof which otherwise would be
exposed to the neighbors. By keeping them inside, they will not be seen, there will be
less noise and the units will last longer.
Thomas Perry with PARE Corporation, the civil engineer for the Project,
reviewed the variances being sought:
6.3, Lot Coverage: Section allows for 35% coverage but the proposed project is 68
percent.
6.2.3, Driveways: Section prohibits driveways wider than 24 feet, but the proposed
Public Safety Building – page 2 –
driveway is 135 feet in width.
8.1, Off-Street Parking: According to the Applicant’s calculations, the number of
required spaces would be about 100, which is “far in excess” of what the Applicant
needs. There are 50 spaces provided.
8.3.2.e, Center Line Distance: The entrance to the Propeliy is within 140 feet of the
centerline of Dale Street, the closest intersection, though the requirement is 150 feet.
The current building is 85 feet to the centerline, so Mr. PelTY said the Applicant will
be reducing the nonconfolmity.
8.3.2.f, Driveways. Two wide driveways are needed, one to North Street, and one to
Dale Street, although this Section limits each propeliy to one driveway.
16.8.2, Impervious lot coverage. This Section allows for 40 percent impervious in the
Aquifer Protection District, while the Applicant proposes 68 percent, the Current
building is nonconforming at 54 percent.
Mr. Boyer asked what type of outreach has been made to the neighborhood.
Mr. Nunnery said there have been four public meetings and the Chief of Police has
handed out notices to the neighbors. Police Chief Meaney said the feedback was very
good, the neighbors have seen the plans, and he suggests shrubbery to buffer the
building from neighbors.
Mr. Almeida said there will be PVC fence all the way around the south side of
the Property and there will be a landscape tree buffer at the Property line between the
neighbors and the Proposed Building.
Chairman Nolan asked for questions from the public, there were none. No one
spoke in favor of the project or against it.
Public Safety Building – page 3 –
The members of the Board, being very familiar with the Property, elected not
to take a view of the Property. The hearing was closed at 9:40 p.m.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board makes the following
Findings of Fact:
I. The Property is situated at 114 North Street, Medfield, Massachusetts
and is located in the residential urban (R-U) zoning district.
2. The Property is shown as Lot 84 on Assessors’ Map 49. The Propeliy is
located at the corner of North and Dale Streets and is a through lot, the
rear lot line being on Adams Street.
3. The Property cUlTently contains the Town’s public safety building
serving the police and fire departments.
4. The Proposed Building is to be located as shown on plans entitled
“Medfield Public Safety, 114 North Street, Medfield, MA 02052” dated
May 2,2014 drawn by Dore & Whittier Architects, Inc. and PARE
Corporation (the “Plans”), consisting of six sheets.
5. The Propeliy is located in a neighborhood consisting mostly of singlefamily
dwellings.
OPINION
With respect to the issue of height, following are the relevant provisions of the
Medfield Zoning By-Law:
6.3 Table of Height and Bulk Regulations – Maximum height in an RU district
is 35 feet.
Public Safely Building – page 4 –
6.3.1a) Notes to Table of Height and Bulk Regulations – Community facility
and public utility structures, provided that the side yards, rear yards and
setbacks required in the district for the highest permitted principal structure
shall be increased 2 feet in width for each foot by which the height of such
structure exceeds the height pennitted in the district.
6.3.1b) Notes to Table of Height and Bulk Regulations – Necessary
appurtenant structures such as church spire, belfry, cupola, dome, smokestack,
monument, derrick, conveyer, flag pole, communications tower, mast,
antenna, aerial, airplane hangar, roof tank, building service equipment, roof
structure other than a penthouse, chimney or parapet wall, or any similar
appurtenance provided that the side yards, rear yard and front setback be
increased one foot horizontally for each two feet that the height of such
structure exceeds the height permitted in the district.
The Table of Height and Bulk Regulations at Section 6.3 of the Zoning By-Law
requires a maximum height of 35 feet in an R-U zoning district. Under Section
6.3.la), the height of the Proposed Building would be permitted to be 41 ‘-6″. Under
Section 6.3 .1 b), the height of the appurtenant structures, including roof structures
containing building service equipment, would be permitted to be 61 ‘-0″. In reviewing
the plans, the height of the Proposed Building is 59’-7.5″ to the peak of the
ornamental clock tower. If, however, the ornamental clock tower and the roof
structures containing the building service equipment for the Proposed Building are
excluded, the height is less than the 41 ‘-6″ allowed under Section 6.3.la). We believe
it is appropriate to apply the provisions of Section 6.3.1 b) to the ornamental clock
tower and the other roof structures, which contain building mechanical equipment and
to apply Section 6.3.1 b) to the balance of the Proposed Building. Accordingly, we do
not believe a variance is required with respect to height and that portion of the
petition is therefore denied.
As to the requested relief from Section 6.3 for the increase in lot coverage
Public Safety Building – page 5 –
from 54% to 68%, from Section 6.2.3 for construction of a driveway greater than 24
feet, from Section 8.1 for provision of 50 parking spaces instead of the required 60
spaces, from Section 8.3.2.e for construction of an entrance within 140 feet of the
centerline of an intersection, from Section 8.3.2.f to provide more than one egress to
the site with all driveways exceeding 24 feet in width and from Section 16.8.2 for
construction of40% impervious area on a nonresidential lot, we believe that the
requested variances are necessary to proceed with construction of the Proposed
Building. Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 10 governs the power
of this Board to issue variances. The relevant portion of the statute reads as follows:
The permit granting authority shall have the power after public hearing
for which notice has been given by publication and posting as provided
in section eleven and by mailing to all parties in interest to grant upon
appeal or upon petition with respect to particular land or structures a
variance fi’om the terms of the applicable zoning ordinance or by-law
where such permit granting authority specifically finds that owing to
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, a
literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-law would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or
appellant, and 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.
Section 14.11 of the Medfield Zoning By-Law simply notes that the Board’s
power to grant variances is governed by Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
Accordingly, the Applicant cannot obtain a variance in this proceeding unless the
requirements of the statute are satisfied.
Variances are not a matter of legal right. Ferrante v. Board of Appeals of
Northampton, 345 Mass. 158 (1961) and the Supreme Judicial Court has made it plain
Public Safety Building – pge 6 –
that variances are to be granted sparingly. Planning Board of Springfield v. Board of
Appeals of Springfield, 355 Mass. 460 (1969). Thus, this Board must apply
conservatively the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A,
Section 10, which sets fOlih the statutory conditions for the grant of a variance. It is
also impOliant to note that all of the conditions of the statute must be found to exist
before this Board can grant a variance. Blackmon v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable,
334 Mass. 466 (1956); Bottomley v. Board of Appeals ofYallliouth, 354 Mass. 474
(1968).
In our judgment, the Applicant satisfies the threshold requirements of the
statute. The shape of the Property is irregular, with a rather wide portion along North
Street of approximately 260 feet in width, but a more narrow rear half with a width of
only about 190 feet. Furthermore, the shape of the lot is unusual due to the frontage
along three sides on Adams Street, Dale Street and NOlih Street. This unusual lot
shape appears to affect the Property in patiicular and does not affect generally the
land in the neighborhood or in the R-U zoning district in general.
A denial of the requested variance would involve substantial hardship to the
Applicant in that without the relief, the re-use of the Property for a new, updated
public safety building would be prohibited. For instance, without the extra width of
the driveways, the fire apparatus could not safely enter and exit the site. Similarly,
the two means of egress are important to allow safe and efficient circulation of the
fire and police vehicles on the site. As to parking, the site currently includes a
community basketball court and without the requested variance, the court would
likely have to be eliminated. As to the distance of the driveway openings to nearby
Public Safety Building – page 7 –
intersections, this requirement is made difficult by the frontage along three sides of
the Property and the need for two means of egress as noted above. In fact, the
driveways are being moved fUliher from the intersections, so the proposed condition
(140′) is actually less nonconforming that the existing condition (85’). Finally, as to
the impervious area, a strict enforcement of the requirement would mandate removal
of the community basketball court and would interfere with the proper circulation of
fire and police vehicles due to a narrowing of access ways and parking areas.
The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifYing or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of
the Zoning By-Law. The construction of the Proposed Building on the Property will
replace an existing public safety building on the Propeliy with a significantly
modernized and aesthetically improved structure. There was no neighborhood
opposition to the Proposed Building, further supporting our conclusion that the
purposes of the Zoning By-Law are not being violated.
DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Board grants the Application of the Town of
Medfield for variances from the following sections of the Zoning By-Law so as to
permit the construction of a new public safety building at 114 North Street, Medfield,
Massachusetts: Section 6.3 for the increase in lot coverage from 54% to 68%; Section
6.2.3 for construction of a driveway greater than 24 feet; Section 8.1 for provision of
50 parking spaces instead of the required 60 spaces; Section 8.3.2.e for construction
of an entrance within 140 feet of the centerline of an intersection; Section 8.3.2.fto
Public Safety Building – page 8 –
provide more than one egress to the site with all driveways exceeding 24 feet in
width; and Section 16.8.2 for construction of 40% impervious area on a nonresidential
lot. This relief is conditioned upon the following:
1. The Proposed Building will be developed as shown on the Plans.
2. PVC fencing will be placed along the southerly lot line and a buffer of
trees will be planted and maintained along the southerly side of the
Property.
THIS DECISION WAS UNANIMOUS.
RUSSELL 1. HALLISEY, MEMBER AND JOHN J. MCNICHOLAS AND NEAL J.
O’CONNOR, ASSOCIATE MEMBERS DID NOT SIT ON THE BOARD AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THIS MATTER NOR DID THEY
PARTICIPATE IN THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE BOARD OR IN THIS
DECISION.
APPEALS FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHOULD BE MADE PURSUANT
TO GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 40A, SECTION 17, AND SHALL BE FILED
WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK.
Public Safety Building – page 9 –
Medfield02052's Blog 