15 January, 2015
On Wednesday, January 14th, the Board of Appeals met to discuss Peppercorn Village, 5 Briarcliff Road, and Hopkinton Mews.
First, representatives from Peppercorn Village came before the board requesting a bond reduction. However, modifications to the project as planned were the focus of the hearing. The original plans called for a certain type of drain system, a traffic island at the end of the development, and landscaping. However, the board found that the island was not there, the drain system had been replaced with a French drain system, and landscaping had not been done. The property owner stated, in regards to the island, that the residents of Peppercorn village had complained about bus traffic, and the island had to be removed to accomodate buses coming into the village. He further explained that he had to replace the drain system because pipes were "floating" under the original system. Mr. Peirce asked why neither the engineers nor any board were informed before this new system was put in place. He raised concerns as to whether this system was truly better than the first one, and what this new system's economic impact would be. Peirce and the rest of the board agreed that although there were major flaws with the process of putting in the 2nd drain system, the board was not qualified to measure the potential impact. The issue of the bonds was therefore tabled. The board asked for plans "as built" and an assessment by engineers showing the difference between the two drainage systems. They appointed funds to have this analysis done, and ordered a re-assessment and submission to FST.
The next hearing was for 5 Briarcliff Drive. The homeowners were seeking to put in a pool and garden shed on their property, and sought a variance for private road encroachment. The homeowners said that the proposed location of their pool, while technically close to a road, was bordering a private road and should therefore be treated differently. They said that the other side of their property bordered wetlands, so the pool could not be moved there. They also cited that the abutting street, Brian Lane, was a private lane and more like a driveway for a single property at the end of the street. The board approved the variance, citing the difference between Brian Lane and a traditional, paved road.
Finally, Hopkinton Mews came before the board to submit drafts for revisions and conditions. Among the submitted list of waivers were to bypass the Planning Board again after the addition of the new 30 units, a waiver for soil removal, and a waiver for road access. They also requested permit waivers including a soil removal permit and a separate driveway permit. Concern was raised at one waiver for the Board of Appeals to approve a swimming pool, rather than going through the Board of Health. Mews assured the Board that they would seek the Board of Health's permits for annual inspection and operation, but thought getting the permit to install it from ZBA rather than the Board of Health would speed up their process. Concerns about sanitation and upkeep without the Board of Health's input were raised. The board also discussed permits for occupancy, and what would constitute a "bedroom" in the development. The board was concerned that some rooms (like dens) would end up being used as bedrooms and thus overcrowd the units. Mews representative Debbie Horowitz said that a "bedroom" must have closets and windows, and they would never rent out a unit with space not meant for bedrooms as additional sleeping areas. The board did not take action on the waivers at that meeting, but did agree to a separate meeting on Friday the 16th to discuss what the increase in units means for the waivers. Ms. Horowitz said that most of the waivers were contingent on the board approving the 30 unit increase, so that measure must be taken before the waivers can go through.
The next Board of Appeals meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 28th.
