Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1047 FALMOUTH ROAD/RTE 28 (8) /o V7 FdeonoC4 { I 1 1 r� N O d' oCD to m as Id .b io' o m m m m m.. N PA `d t3 oft co 0 9 �. V o Q r sop Plop _ tr. .. w. ® A .� 941FID rbfa W& gre lit 610 Iola pt -elk ' .o p � .Ot e� o' a� wCD w , $- to 0tam a�°d 0i t�! 2-. to Ile so "I . Z to pit 1p Koo UPS evo ib 0 is a o ca 0 nold fD all �. A a ' ' log ft a ry tr I;' fs tr fy a ro tv m as arIff r`�.. tf q*-o o th 19 oo jr b . W' .. m ,A to G O f Na tv 40-100,048 04 09 am ID 44 01, cnu c f ro, a ? � �, • w obffi 4 : ffi%UP e� a' o .cr ® KO �" -0 o two . . � � w:�In. ® m 1 �$ too 0 0 �� vo.O.0 m ro Ong aa ,to o �. � � � �� � � gr gr ISO at 0 is to O ffi � too g �f ffi Isoil Ila QV 41*go o r so a ®. Ho 40 00 Q&" 0 :a ft, , go,@4 ew 0 ccis wa m �` 0 Woo ft w INa lm&ON k- AAA ffi -0A ffi � � � ffi � go, iv Id �n Nor 1� .. fa 11- ..! i ffi ffi ya K IN "40 e-0.fa ezi-, 0 a to 0 19 boo Is .0 0 i — IS o ® st woo ►i;0 o ° MO ffi 40, ry � t r, h O CI ab Sr' • .� �a. ,, ®' cr th cs Pei 66 to 06 Dew to tc 9r o ® 9126, 9 m ®• 8 let tit P as AD: � : eel 4, $ °' '° ° O r {\ r ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF OPEN AND PUBLIC MEETING March 29, 2000 A regularly scheduled and duly posted hearing for the Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, March 29,2000 at 7:30 PM in Barnstable Town Hall, 367 Main Street, Hyannis,MA. Zoning Board of Appeals Members: Zoning Board of Appeals Alternate Members: Emmett Glynn, Chairman , Thomas DeRiemer Ron Jansson, Vice Chairman Ralph Copeland Gene Burman, Clerk Daniel Creedon Gail Nightingale Richard Boy The hearings were called to order by Chairman Emmett Glynn at 7:30 PM. Ralph Copeland was absent. All other Board Members were present and a quorum was met. Also in attendance was Debbra S. Lavoie,-Secretary. Summary New Business: Appeal Number 2000-24 Childs Granted with Conditions Appeal Number 2000-25 Skalsky Denied Appeal Number 2000-26 Conlin Granted with Conditions Appeal Number 2000-27 Egan Granted with Conditions Summary Old Business: Appeal Number 1999-147 Sprint Sprectrum,LP Continued to 04/26/00 @ 7:30 PM Appeal Number 1999-148 Sprint Sprectrum,LP Continued to 04/26/00 @ 7:30 PM Appeal Number 1999-24 Cumberland Farms, Inc. Continued to 05/10/00 @ 7:30 PM Appeal Number 1999-25 Cumberland Farms, Inc. Continued to 05/10/00 @ 7:30 PM Appeal Number 2000-12 Sydney Withdrawn - 1 1� Z.B.A.Meeting—March 29,2000 OLD BUSINESS: Appeal Number 1999-147 and Appeal Number 1999-148 Sprint Spectrum,LP At the start of these hearings,Chairman Emmett Glynn read a letter from Attorney Edward D. Pare,Jr.dated February 29,2000 which states[in part], "....Sprint Spectrum respectfully requests that the public hearings...be rescheduled to the next hearing date..." Upon request of the applicant,these appeals are continued. [Note: Attorney Pare signed an extension agreement.] Appeal Number 1999-147 and Appeal Number 1999-148 are continued to April 26,2000 at 7:30 PM. NEW BUSINESS Appeal Number 2000-24 Childs Board Members hearing this appeal were Richard Boy, Gail Nightingale,Gene Burman,Dan Creedon,and Chairman Emmett Glynn. Attorney Bruce Gilmore represented the applicant,Randy Childs,who was present. Reld Corporation, Inc.,the Real Estate Corporation, is the title owner to the property in issue. This is a third generation family-owned company. Attorney Gilmore reviewed the appeal before the Board. The current uses on the site include a bookkeeping business,Briggs&Heino Plumbing&Heating,a chiropractor,and the Child's Companies which include Associated Alarm System,Inc. There has been a chiropractor use on site since 1976. As to the history of the site,-in.196 8,a.Use.Variance was granted for an electrical contracting business and rental offices. In 1971,a"second relief'was granted which allowed for the construction of an addition to the existing building to be used for 4 additional offices and storage. There is a discrepancy between the Decision in Appeal Number 1971-23 and the legal notice. The Decision states that a Special Permit was granted for the expansion of a nonconforming use whereas the legal notice states it was an appeal of the Building Inspector as well as a request for a Variance. In any event,the work commenced in 1973. By 1974,the rental units were unoccupied and in 1975, the applicant was granted a Variance in Appeal Number 1975-93. This allowed for two retail uses on the site. However,the bookstore use granted in that appeal,never came to fruition. The only retail use on site at that time was the lighting store(which remained until 1984). That retail use has been discontinued and the only use in that unit has been office.use. There has been no retail use on this site since 1986. Since the applicant did not use"the relief ranted in 1975 the were under the impression that the could revert back to the relief anted in 1968 and g Y P Y Z� 1971 for the office use on site. The applicant is before the Board tonight to legitimize the uses currently on the site. The relief granted in Appeal Number 1975-93 was never utilized. The applicant is agreeable to a condition that when the chiropractor use moves out,that space would revert to non-medical office use. The applicant is seeking to"convert"the 1971 Special Permit to a Variance since the language is unclear,and is seeking to legalize the uses on site. Public Comment: Mr.Botsford,a direct abutter, spoke in support stating they are good neighbors with no problems. No one else spoke in favor or in opposition to this appeal. FINDINGS: Richard Boy With reference to Appeal Number 2000-24,the following are the findings of fact: 1. The Applicant,Randy Childs, is seeking to modify the Special Permits/Variances granted to the property located at 1047 Falmouth Road/Route 28,Hyannis, MA as shown on Assessor's Map 250,Parcel 004. The site is located in the RD-1 Residential D-1 Zoning District and the GP Groundwater Protection District. 2. The property consists of a 0.83 acre lot that is improved with an office building of approximately 5,611 sq. ft. and a 115 foot radio tower. 3. The existing building consists of two levels; a finished basement and a first floor level. 4. This request for a modification came about as a result of an application for a radio communications tower by Sprint Spectrum LP(another appeal before the Board). Upon inspection of the building, it was discovered that the existing uses were not consistent with the relief previously granted. 2 Z.B.A.Meeting—March 29,2000 5. The applicant is seeking to modify the conditions previously granted in the Special Permits and/or Variances to permit four(4)office units to include a bookkeeping office,a plumbing&heating office,a chiropractic office, and Childs Electric/Associated Alarm System,Inc. 6. This relief would be a modification of those applicable sections of Appeal Number 1968-105,Appeal Number 1971-23 and Appeal Number 1975-93. 7. The 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 Ordinance. Seconded by Gene Burman VOTE: AYE: Gene Burman,Richard Boy,Dan Creedon,and Chairman Emmett Glynn NAY: Gail Nightingale MOTION: Richard Boy Based on the findings of fact,a motion was made to grant the relief being sought in Appeal Number 2000-24 subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. There shall be no more than 4 office suite located within the building. No medical offices that receive or give patients care are permitted except that,the existing chiropractic office shall be allowed to operate until it moves . or ceases. At that time,the space shall revert to an office use only and shall not be reused for chiropractic medical care. 2. Within one year of the issuance of this modification,the site shall be improved as represented to Site Plan Review and as shown on a plan titled"Comprehensive Site Plan"for Reld Corporation,drawn by Clough, Harbour&Associates.and as approved by the Site Plan Review Committee dated February 24,2000. 3. There shall be only one sign permitted on the site that shall not exceed 36 square feet. Seconded by Gene Burman VOTE: AYE: Gene Burman,Richard Boy,Dan Creedon, and Chairman Emmett Glynn NAY: Gail Nightingale Mrs.Nightingale stated she voted in the negative because she felt there were no variance conditions and that the applicant has gone beyond what was allowed in Appeal Number 1975-93. ORDER: Appeal Number 2000-24 has been Granted with Conditions. OLD BUSINESS: Appeal Number 1999-24 and Appeal Number 1999-25 Cumberland Farms,Inc. Board Members hearing these appeals were Gene Burman,Gail Nightingale,Ron Jansson,Tom DeRiemer, and Chairman Emmett Glynn. Alternate Board Member Dan Creedon was present and has heard all the testimony and can replace any Board Member if necessary. Attorney J. Douglas Murphy represented.the applicant. Present were Michael Kelly, General Counsel for Cumberland Farms;Richard Boyle, Regional Sales Manager for Cumberland Farms,and Robert Vanasse,PE of Vanasse&Associates,Inc. These appeals were last heard by the Board on February 2,2000. Attorney Murphy submitted a memorandum to the Board which summarized these appeals. Included in the memorandum is a chart(Exhibit H)which documents the relief needed with respect to what is there and what is allowed. This was reviewed in detail by Attorney Murphy. Also briefly reviewed was the history of the project (from 1997 to date)which included several Site Plan Review meetings,and a peer review by Earth Tech. There was a brief discussion about the curb cuts on Route 132 and Bearse's Way. There will be one curbcut on Route 132 that will be right-turn only when existing(rather than the two curbcuts that are currently there),the north curbcut on Bearse's Way to be right turn exit only,and the south curbcut on Bearse's Way to be both egress and ingress. Those two curbcuts have been redefined and narrowed. The Building Commissioner reported the applicant has Site Plan Review Approval for this latest plan. 3 Z.B.A. Meeting—March 29,2000 a Public Comment: No one spoke in favor or in opposition to these appeals. Some Board Members felt they would like to take all the information submitted under advisement and continue these appeals one last time. The Board decided to continue Appeal Number 1999-24 and 1999-25 to May 10th. Appeal Number 1999-24 and Appeal Number 1999-25 are continued to May 10,2000 at 7:30 PM. NOTE: Board Member Richard Boy stepped down. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal Number 2000-25 Skalsky(Loving Care Assisted Living) Board Members hearing this appeal were Gene Burman,Ron Jansson,Gail Nightingale,Dan Creedon,and Chairman Emmett Glynn. Attorney David P.H.Leitner represented the applicant,Francisca Laura Skalsky,who was present. Board Member Dan Creedon disclosed that he tried a case in his private law practice with the applicant's attorney however,that case is over now and Mr. Creedon did not feel this represented a conflict.Both PP Y P the Board Members and Attorney Leitner agreed that this disclosure would not constitute a conflict. A memorandum was previously submitted to the file by Attorney Leitner and all Board Members have received it. Attorney Leitner explained the applicant owns the property in issue and about two years ago opened up an assisted living center for the elderly. She did not understand the zoning process and was unaware that she could be violating zoning. When Ms. Skalsky applied to the Commonwealth's Executive Office of Elderly Affairs("EOEA")to become licensed,she found out she was in violation from a zoning perspective. As background,Ms.Skalsky has worked with the elderly for the past 15 years-only recently in her home. The residents that live there are in their 80s or above and some have advanced stages of Alzheimer's. They need constant care with food,clothing,laundry,etc. Although not licensed,Ms. Skalsky is under the guidance of the "EOEA"and meets almost all their guidelines-she needs a handicapped ramp and approval by the Town before she can get approval from the"EOEA". If someone houses more than 2 elderly people in their home,they need a license from the State which is why Ms. Skalsky applied to the"EOEA"for a license. The applicant was before Site Plan Review on December 30, 1999 and the site plan was found approvable subject to certain conditions. Those conditions are: (1)compliance with Title V based upon number of bedrooms, (2)submit the plot plan delineating the parking stalls,(3)submit a floor plan with scaled dimensions,(4)provide a written estimate for the installation of a fire suppressant system and hard wire smoke alarms. All those items were done and submitted to the Building Department. Ms. Skalsky took the food handlers training course offered by the Town. She failed the written exam but is scheduled to retake the test and course on April 2nd. The new food code will go into effect on October 1,2000 and a food service permit holder will have one year to comply with the new regulations. This testing is required by the Town and by"EOEA".. Attorney Leitner reported that Ms. Skalsky and her son run the facility and they are both licensed by the state to give care to the elderly. There is a LPN that comes to the home twice daily to administer medication. If medical care is needed,the resident would be transferred to a nursing home. From the outside,the house looks like any "regular"home with no outward signs that an assisted facility exists. There are,and will be,no signs posted. The only minor change to the outward appearance to the house will be the installation of a ramp for handicapped access and egress. This situation is very unique. There are very few small assisted living facilities licensed by the state. Generally, assisted living facilities are large buildings-not personal small homes. Ms. Skalsky is providing a service to local residents of the community. Ms. Skalsky and her staff treat the residents like members of their family and provide a nurturing and familiar environment 24 hours a day. There is a great benefit in that the residents are close to their family who can visit them regularly. 4 Z.B.A.Meeting—March 29,2000 fi The applicant is seeking permission to house three residents in this three-bedroom home. One bedroom would be occupied by the owner,one bedroom would be for a single use,and the last bedroom would be for a double occupancy. While the Board felt sympathetic and understood the need for,and the reason behind,the Variance request-the Zoning Board of Appeals must adhere to MGL Chapter 40A. They asked Attorney Leitner to substantiate those conditions unique to this lot that justify the granting of a Use Variance. Specific conditions pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 10 must be demonstrated before a Variance can be granted. Attorney Leitner told the Board that affordable assisted living is not that available in this town and to fail to grant this use would be to fail the senior citizens in this town. This use is limited and does not detract from the neighborhood. These are local people who lived in the community and need some place to go while still living in a home-like environment. Ms. Skalsky treats the people in this home like a member of her own family. The locus is located in the RC Residential C Zoning District which does not allow the renting of rooms. A lodging house use is not allowed. The Board told Attorney Leitner that he should be approaching the Town Council to try to change the zoning in this area since they are the legislative branch of government for the Town and only they can change the zoning. The Zoning Board can not change the zoning district. There are strict criteria for the granting of a Use Variance and those criteria have not been met. If Ms. Skalsky limits her facility to two people,she would not need to be a licensed facility by the State under "EOEA"Regulations,however, she would still need a license from the State to give the care. She would still need zoning relief for the-renting of rooms. - Building Commissioner Ralph Crossen addressed the Board. He visited the facility and found the"primary use"is the assisted living use with the single family use being secondary. From the outside, it does appear to be a single family home but inside the assisted living use takes over. Most of the operation happens on one level so there no issue as to separate floors. This situation came to the Building Department's attention when Ms.Skalsky asked for a sign-off on the"EOEA"forms from the state. The Building Commissioner would not sign the paper work because, in his opinion,the assisted living use was the primary use and that use would need a Variance. The building code allows for renting of rooms in a single family home,but the Zoning Ordinance does not allow renting of rooms in this zoning district. As far as cars and/or parking on site. There are a limited number of cars on the site on any given time. Usually, there is only the owner's car and maybe one or two visitors. The residents do not drive or own cars. Public Comment: Ted Silva,an abutter,reported there are always cars in the yard. Although he understands there is need for this type of housing,he is afraid the grant of this Variance would set a precedence. John Petercuskie lives next door and stated that Ms. Skalsky is a wonderful person and would not mind this one home but is worried that this will change the area to a commercial area..This is a quiet residential area. Plus,he indicated there is a parking problem. Lloyd Archibald reported that his wife,Edith,is a resident in this house where she is getting loving care from a kind person and he would not like to see the home closed down. Elaine Rautenberg,a direct abutter,questioned if this would affect the value of her property. She also stated that there are cars in the yard all the time. No one else spoke in favor or in opposition to this appeal. FINDINGS: Gene Burman With reference to Appeal Number 2000-25,the following are the findings of fact: 1. The applicant is Francis L. Skalsky. The property address is 94 Monomoy Circle,Centerville,MA, as shown on Assessor's Map 190,Parcel 194. The site is 0.35 acres, located in the RC Residential C Zoning District and the AP Aquifer Protection Overlay District. 2. The applicant is seeking a Variance to Section 3-1.3(1)Principle Permitted Uses-Single Family Dwelling-to allow an assisted living facility,"Loving Care",for three Alzheimer patients. 3. The facility has submitted an application with the Commonwealth's Executive Office of Elderly Affairs "EOEA"that requires the applicant to comply with local zoning which is why the applicant is seeking this relief before the Board. 4. The property is located within a single family neighborhood. 5 f� Z.B.A.Meeting—March 29,2000 5. The site is developed with a one story dwelling having three bedrooms and 2 full bathrooms. 6. The applicant was before Site Plan Review on December 30, 1999. The site plan was found approvable subject to the following conditions: • Compliance with Title V based upon number of bedrooms. • The applicant shall delineate parking stalls on a plot plan. • The applicant shall submit a floor plan with scaled dimensions. • The applicant shall provide a written estimate for the installation of a fire suppressant system and hard I wire smoke alarms. 7. The use of this property as an assisted living facility would be unique in that the rest of the neighborhood is all single family and this is something that is needed in the area. 8. The 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 Ordinance. 9. No reference is made to Variance Conditions pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 10. Seconded by Gail Nightingale VOTE: AYE: Gene Burman,and Chairman Emmett Glynn NAY: Dan Creedon,Ron Jansson,and Gail Nightingale MOTION: Gene Burman Based on the findings of fact,a motion was made to grant the relief being sought in Appeal Number 2000-25 subject to the following conditions: 1. Use of the dwelling is limited to an elderly assisted living facility housing no more than three(3)persons at any one time plus the owner's family residing there in. 2. The facility must have and maintain all required state and local licensing. 3. The building shall be outfitted with a hardwired smoke detection system as approved by the Centerville, Ostervilie,Marstons Mills Fire Department. 4. No additional footprint or building area shall be permitted without prior consent of the Zoning Board. 5. This use variance is not transferable. When the use ceases or the property is transferred from the present owner,the use shall revert back to a single family dwelling. 6. The owner will additional parking as required by Site Plan Review. 7. The owner will be licensed by"EOEA". Seconded by Gail Nightingale VOTE: AYE: Gene Burman, and Chairman Emmett Glynn NAY: Dan Creedon,Ron Jansson,and Gail Nightingale Mr. Creedon stated he voted in the negative because no Variance Conditions were demonstrated. There are zoning districts in the Town where this use is allowed and this in not one of those districts. He praised Ms. Skalsky's work. Mr. Jansson stated,although the need is there,no Variance Conditions were demonstrated. He felt the most appropriate relief would be through Town Council. Mrs.Nightingale stated,although she felt bad,this use is not allowed and Town Council should adopt an Ordinance that will allow this type of use. ORDER: Appeal Number 2000-25 is not granted and therefore denied. OLD BUSINESS: Appeal Number 2000-12 Sydney Board Members hearing this appeal were Gene Burman,Gail Nightingale, Ron Jansson,Tom DeRiemer,and Chairman Emmett Glynn. This appeal was continued from February 02,2000. At the start of this hearing, Chairman Emmett Glynn read a letter,received March 28,2000,from Robert Sydney which states,"Please be advised that I hereby withdraw the above referenced appeal." 6 f Z.B.A.Meeting—March 29,2000 td MOTION: Gail Nightingale Per request of the applicant,a motion was made to allow Appeal Number 2000-12 to be Withdrawn. Seconded by Tom DeRiemer VOTE: AYE: Gene Burman,Gail Nightingale,Ron Jansson,Tom DeRiemer,and Chairman Emmett Glynn NAY: None ORDER: Appeal Number 2000-12 has been Withdrawn. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal Number 2000-26 Conlin Board Members hearing this appeal were Gene Burman,Gail Nightingale,Ron Jansson,Richard Boy,and Chairman Emmett Glynn. Attorney Theodore A. Schilling represented the applicant,James M. Conlin,who was present. A memorandum was previously submitted to the file by Attorney Schilling and all Board Members have received a copy. Attorney Schilling indicated that this property was granted a Variance in 1978 based on a similar site plan and the variance conditions have not changed since that time. The topography has not changed. Public Comment:Dennis Valente,an abutter,submitted photographs to the-file which show a step slope with wetlands in the back of the lot in issue. He is in opposition to this appeal. Patrick Brown was concerned about the wetlands. No one else spoke in favor or in opposition to this appeal. For clarification: The Board told the abutters that even if this Variance is granted for bulk regulations,the applicant must still comply with Board of Health and Conservation Regulations. Attorney Schilling reviewed the appeal before the Board. He explained in 1978,under Appeal Number 1978-57, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance from the minimum lot size requirement to allow these two lots to be considered as two buildable lots. However,that variance was not exercised within the required time-frame. The applicant is before the Board again seeking a variance for two lots of the same exact square footage but in a slightly different configuration. The center line between the two lots has been changed to be more compatible with the development of the lot. The same Variance Conditions exist now as existed in 1978. The houses that will be built on these two lots will be controlled and regulated by the Board of Health and the Conservation Commission. As to Variance Conditions pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 10,there is a hardship in that the Petitioner, James M.Conlin,suffered a heart attack and had by-pass surgery. There are topographical conditions unique to the lots which create a hole located between the two lots, leading to the rear of the lot. To require the Petitioner to conform to a different lot size than other lots in the neighborhood,would impose a hardship upon the Petitioner. Because many of the lots in this area are similar in size and the prior granting of the variance under the same conditions,the granting of the relief would not be in derogation of the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and would not cause substantial detriment to the neighborhood. Some of the abutters are upset because they want to keep this lot as vacant open space however that is not fair to the Petitioner. Attorney Schilling again stressed that the applicant will abide by all Board of Health and Conservation Commission Regulations. FINDINGS Richard Boy With reference to Appeal Number 2000-26,the following are the findings of fact: 1. The applicant,James M. Conlin,is seeking a Variance to Section 3-1.4(5)Bulk Regulations-Minimum Lot Size. The Property Address is 27 and 59 Bob White Run,Cotuit,MA as shown on Assessor's Map 024,Parcels 7 Z.B.A.Meeting—March 29,2000 052 and 053. The area of Parcel 052 is 0.72 acres,and the area of Parcel 053 is 0.73 acre. The property is located in the RF Residential F Zoning District and the WP Wellhead Protection Overlay District. 2. On August 23, 1978,under Appeal No. 1978-57,the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance from the minimum lot size requirement to allow these two lots to be considered as two buildable lots. However,this variance was never exercised within the required one year time-frame. In granting the variance the Board found that each lot contained approximately 31,500 sq.ft. 3. The reconfiguration of the two lots as shown on the proposed subdivision plan does not adversely affect or change the original granted variance and the conditions found owing thereto. 4. The topographical conditions unique to the lots are shown on Town of Barnstable's topography plan effectively creating a hole located between the two lots, leading to the rear of the lot. 5. To require the Petitioner to conform to a different lot size than in the neighborhood of this development,would impose a hardship upon the Petitioner. 6. Because many of the lots in this area are similar in size and the prior granting of the variance under the same conditions,the granting of the relief would not be in derogation of the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and would not cause substantial detriment to the neighborhood. Seconded by Gene Burman VOTE: AYE: Gene Burman,Gail Nightingale,Richard Boy,and Chairman Emmett Glynn NAY: Ron Jansson MOTION: Richard Boy Based on the findings of fact,a motion was made to grant the relief being sought in Appeal Number 2000-26 subject to the following conditions: 1. The lots are to be created as presented to the Board in a plan titled" Plan of Land Bob White Run Cotuit,MA" dated January 14,2000 drawn by Norman Grossman,RPLS. 2. The Approval Not Required(ANR)Plan that is to be submitted to the Planning Board,shall reference this Decision. The ANR plan and Variance are to be recorded together. 3. The development of the lots shall conform to all Health Department regulations without Variances for the Board of Health. 4. The conditions imposed during the creation of the drainage easement on this site shall not be changed without further approval from the proper authorities. Seconded by Gail Nightingale VOTE: AYE: Gene Burman,Gail Nightingale,Richard Boy,and Chairman Emmett Glynn NAY: Ron Jansson Mr.Jansson stated he voted in the negative as he felt the variance conditions cited do not relate to the nature of the relief being sought. ORDER: Appeal Number 2000-26 has been Granted with Conditions. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal Number 2000-27 Egan Board Members hearing this appeal were Gene Burman,Gail Nightingale,Ron Jansson,Richard Boy,and Chairman Emmett Glynn. Attorney Michael Ford represented the applicants,John R.and Pamela C. Egan. John Egan was present. A memorandum was previously submitted to the file by Attorney Ford and all Board Members have received a copy. The applicants own four lots. Two lots consists of their single family home and garage. This proposal is to permit two putting greens on the other two lots to be used in conjunction with their single family home. No accessory structures are planned. There are already two small structures(an irrigation building and a,pump house)on site. 8 Z.B.A.Meeting—March 29,2000 Attorney Ford reported that the lots in issue are in different title ownership. Section 4-1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the accessory uses and structures must be retained in identical ownership with respect to both fee and non-fee interests. The applicant's are the beneficiaries of the trusts and they own or control all the lots. However,if the Board requires,the applicants will create one trust and put all the parcels together under that trust. Both of the lots in question are separate buildable lots,but the Petitioners have elected not to proceed at this time with building. They are seeking a more passive use of the land(putting greens)and as such,the relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or the neighborhood affected. At the present time,no other use is intended for these lots. Attorney Ford indicated that as long as the rights granted under this Special Permit are exercised,there will be no other use on these lots. Public Comment: No one spoke in favor or in opposition to this appeal. FINDINGS: Ron Jansson With reference to Appeal Number 2000-27,the following are the findings of fact: 1. The petitioners,John R. and Pamela C.Egan,are seeking a Special Permit to Section 4-1.2(1)Accessory Uses. The property address is 37 and 59 Bluff Point Drive,Cotuit,MA, as shown on Assessor's Map 034,Parcel 063 and Parcel 064. The property is issue is located in a RF Residential F Zoning District. 2. The Petitioners currently own a single family dwelling across the street at 28 Bluff Point Drive,by virtue of a Trust,for which they are the Trustees. 3. The Petitioners are seeking to utilize the two lots across the street(37 and 59 Bluff Point Drive)as accessory uses to allow for two putting greens-one on each of the lots-along with two accessory buildings. These two lots(Parcels 063 and 064)are buildable lots. 4. Parcel 63 -37 Bluff Point Drive is owned by Pamela Egan. Parcel 64-59 Bluff Point Drive is owned by John R. Egan. 5. The Petitioner has indicated an interest to combine the ownership,so that will not be an issue under the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The 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 Ordinance. Seconded by Gail Nightingale VOTE: AYE: Gene Burman,Gail Nightingale,Ron Jansson,Richard Boy,and Chairman Emmett Glynn NAY: None MOTION: Ron Jansson Based on the findings of fact,a motion was made to grant the relief being sought in Appeal Number 2000-27 subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. All three lots(the primary house lot and the two accessory lots)will be in the same record ownership-common ownership. 2. The accessory lots are to be developed and used as presenting in a plan tilted"Landscape Improvements Accessory To Residence of John Egan,28 Bluff Point Drive,Cotuit,MA"and dated November 15, 1999. Seconded by Gail Nightingale VOTE: AYE: Gene Burman,Gail Nightingale,Ron Jansson,Richard Boy, and Chairman Emmett Glynn NAY: None ORDER: Appeal Number 2000-27 had been Granted with Conditions. 9 i Z.B.A.Meeting—March 29,2000 OTHER BUSINESS: Annual Election of Officers A motion was made by Gail Nightingale, seconded by Gene Burman, and unanimously voted upon to appoint Ron Jansson as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. A motion was made by Ron Jansson,seconded by Gene Burman,and unanimously voted upon to appoint Gail Nightingale as Vice-Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals A motion was made by Gail Nightingale,seconded by Richard Boy,and unanimously voted upon to appoint Gene Burman as Clerk of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Officers for the Zoning PP Board of Appeals are as follows: ` • Ron Jansson,Chairman • Gail Nightingale,Vice-Chairman • Gene Burman,Clerk Motion to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 PM. Respectfully submitted, Debbra S.LavoOSe, etary Zoning Board of Appeals 10 D ARCHIVED SPECIFICATIONS Year : Project Name: Project Address: DF'qt" co-l' /�2 Map & Parcel # ----ram Permit number, if assigned: Permit date: Per Tom Perry, these Specification books must be kept indefinitely. Check with the Commissioner before discarding any of these documents. They can be moved to storage if needed. i Archived Specs TOWN CLE�'r: NSTABLE, MASS. Y 2.3 PH 2: 33 NAM Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals Notice-Withdrawn Without Prejudice Appeal Number 1999-147-Sprint Spectrum, LP Special Permit Pursuant to Section 4-4.4(2j Nonconforming Building or Structure Not Used as Single or Two-Family Dwellings Summary: Withdrawn Without Prejudice Petitioner. Sprint Spectrum, LP FILE COPY ONLY! Property Address: 1047 Falmouth Road/Route 28,Hyannis NOT RECORDED AT Assessors Map/Parcel: Map 250,Parcel 004 Area: 0.83 acre REGISTRY OF DEEDS Zoning: RD-1 Residential D-1 Zoning District Groundwater Overlay: GP Groundwater Protection District Background: The property consists of a 0.83 acre lot that is improved with an office building of approximately 5,611 sq. ft., and a 115 foot self supported radio tower. The existing building consists of two levels; an exposed finished basement and a first floor level. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing tower with a 120 foot monopole structure and associated base equipment for use as a wireless communications facility. To allow the proposed facility, the applicant has applied for the following zoning relief: • Appeal Number 1999-147-Special Permit pursuant to Section 4-4.4(2) Nonconforming Building or Structure Not Used as Single or Two-Family Dwellings, to permit the replacement of an existing 115 foot radio tower with a 120 foot monopole structure and associated base-equipment station. • Appeal Number 1999-148-Special Permit pursuant to Section 4-4.5(2) Expansion of a Pre-Existing Nonconforming Use, to permit the replacement of an existing 115 foot radio tower with a 120 foot monopole structure and associated base equipment station for use as a wireless communications facility. • Appeal Number 2000-31 -Variance from Section 3-1.1(5) Bulk Regulations-Maximum Building Height to permit the tower to exceed the 30 foot height limitation on structures and allow 120 foot tower. Procedural Summary: This appeal was filed at the Town Clerk's Office and at the Office of the Zoning Board of Appeals on October 21, 1999. A public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals was duly advertised and notices sent to all abutters in accordance with MGL Chapter 40A. . The Applicant and Board Chairman executed extensions of time as needed. Copies.of which are contained in the file. The hearing was opened on December 01, 1999, and continued to February 02, 2000, March 29, 2000, April 26, 2000 and to May 10, 2000 at which time the applicant requested and the Board granted a withdrawal with our prejudice. Hearing Summary: Board Members deciding this appeal were Gene Burman, Richard Boy, Dan Creedon, Tom DeRiemer, and Gail Nightingale, Acting Chairman. During the hearings, Attorney Edward D. Pare, Jr. represented Town of Barnstable-Zoning Board of Appeals-Notice-Withdrawn Without Prejudice Appeal Number 1999-147-Sprint Spectrum,LP Special Permit,Section 4-4.4(2)Expansion of a nonconforming structure the applicant. Supporting staff included Matthew Fallon, Site Acquisition Consultant; Kevin Washburn, Project Engineer; and Steve Desmarais, R.F. Engineer. At the May 10 continuance, the Board found to grant the variance relief requested in Appeal No. 2000-31. At that hearing, the Board discussed with Town Attorney, Robert Smith the needed for a Special Permit. It was determined that the relief needed for Sprint Spectrum can be granted by means of a dimensional variance. With the dimensional relief granted.in Appeal Number 2000-30, Attorney Pare stated the.Special Permit requested in Appeal Numbers 1999-147 and 1999-148 are no longer needed and he requested the applicant be allowed to withdraw those two appears without prejudice. Motion: At the May 10, 2000, hearing a motion was duly made and seconded to permit Appeal Number 1999-147 to be Withdrawn Without Prejudice. as requested by the applicant. The vote was as follows: Nightingale, AYE: Gene Burman, Richard Boy, Dan Creedon, Tom DeRlemer and Gail 9 Actin Chairman NAY: None Order: Appeal Number 1999-147 has been withdrawn without prejudice. Appeals of this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 17, within twenty (20)days after the date of the filing of this decision in the office of the Town Clerk. 9A-31-0� G ' Nightingale,&ing Chal an Date Signed 1 L nda Hutchenrider; Clerk of the Town of Barnstable, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, hereby certify that twenty(20) days have elapsed since the Zoning Board of Appeals filed this decision and that no appeal of the decision has been filed in the office of the.Town Clerk. y r a Signed and sealed this day of L e) under the pains and penalties of perjury. I !Tc Q� Linda Hutchenrider, Town Clerk 2. Re1No mapper ownerl owner2 addr city state zip 147+148 249 064 ST GERMAIN, ROBERT & FRANCES %MCLEAN, KENNETH N JR 173 ARMORY ST JAMAICA PLAIN MA 02130 249 066 RYAN, JOSEPH A & NATALIE TRS 28 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 067 4 249 068 GAMMONS, JOHN H & .BERTHA V BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 069 JONES, DAVID T & SHEILA M 4 BLACKBERRY LN HYANNIS MA 02601 249 076 BEAUCHAINE, ARTHUR P %MEDLIN, KAREN M 56 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 071 PEARSON, LISA 64 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 072 THOMAS, JOHN W & MURIEL 76 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 073 PRAISE, IRMA BALL & PRAISE, JULIETTE 290 W MAIN ST HYANNIS MA 02601 249 077 NORTON, STEVEN A & MORRISON-NORTON, LYNETTE A 59 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 083 ANDERSON, JOHN C & SUSAN G BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 153 LEBOEUF, MARILYN K 69 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 250 001 FOUNDERS COURT CORP 460 W MAIN STREET HYANNIS MA 02601 250 002 BAILEY, WALTER 25 LYMAN ST WALTHAM MA 02154 250 003 MAHER, MICHELLE 2 BLACKBERRY LANE HYANNIS MA 02601 250 009 REED CORP P 0 BOX 1148 HYANNIS MA 02601 250 005 BOTSFORD, NORMAN L & JUDITH 1069 FALMOUTH RD , HYANNIS MA 02601 250 006 PIERCE, IRENE M 1081 FALMOUTH RD HYANNIS MA 02601 250 008 HAKALA, KENNETH A & FAITH S 728 STRAWBERRY HL RD CENTERVILLE MA 02632 250 023 H00 PIETRO, DAVID G TRS D P REALTY TRUST 37 MECHANIC ST WORCESTER MA 01608 250 023 T00 PIETRO, DAVID G TRS D P REALTY TRUST 37 MECHANIC ST WORCESTER MA 01608 250 025 GLOWACKI, WALTER J P 0 BOX 28 NANTUCKET MA 02554 250 027 H00 PIETRO, DAVID G TRS D P REALTY TRUST 37 MECHANIC ST WORCESTER MA 01608 250 027 T00 PIETRO, DAVID G TRS D P REALTY TRUST 37 MECHANIC ST WORCESTER MA 01608 250 028 SCHOFIELD, BENTLEY C & JOHN M P 0 BOX 44 CENTERVILLE MA 02632 250 065 FATHER MCSWINEY ASSOC INC %JOHN KELLEHER, TRS BOX 25 HYANNIS MA 02601 250 094 BAILEY, WALTER 25 LYMAN ST WALTHAM MA 02154 Count= 369 11 i ' Proof of-Publication i—EGAL NOTICES hr22tm >m Apo — ,. tctedfq �atandr+ @C tt ofCttapY • - 4freii thointnfxiwealth of Massachui)$tta;,°a (#:.all armienxita A Appeal Nurt,4ser 1; 44$ y �Fa-the Z ►ing trod of Appeals all Va>ie�i3 to��- 3.3 1' i�r ubded Roof Bic�t io 0Aow a new sign i.ce for .ottie's cpr$ssioftR'tt3 be placed on the roof sign.-The property is shown on Assessor's Map 209.Parcel 003 and is addressed as 1004 Falmouth Road,.Route 20.Centerville,MA in an HB Highway Business Zoning District. :745 P.M.' e Mr Greenery Appeal Numbpr_t f 9144 ; John find tutu McGreenery have appealed the decision of the wilding Commissioner as d r_ �ed A tst 3R�t:�99 whiff h states"in.r t ds to th-,-xX Oew- • sheher,a permit was issued back in Apri 1999.if this was.In our opinion,at that time,not an accessory structure,a building permit would not have been issued...in speaking with the sonof the owner.the shed is for his own personal use.'The property in Issue is the abutting piipper gwned by Cheryl V.Williams as shown on Assessors M. ,022.Parcel.067 and (cam yy/j illy Wdrassed ha 45 did Kings Rood. Cott*, MA in)rt RF Residential P_Zoning fl O fa1'N �r Mdiel Really Trust -Appeal Number 19 1'#5 Star•Mote�FiealtyTrusk/o DBnia:I Griffrn.Jr has.petitioned to the Zgnin�Board of Apps fore Fpeciai'Pematpu�Suanttq$ectiont 3.3SpecialPemMTPr�rlslonsandSactipri3-3.6(3) Conditional Uses in a°_Highway Business District. The locus tS currently.the site of a nonconforming moteli 2:duplexes.a single-family house and parking lot.The applicant is pang to demolish the existing buildings and construct a restaurant building of 0,396 s.f. ta;housalwo restaurnt uses of 130 seats and 100 seats, and construct new parking, ladscapingand buffers.The propertyls shown onAssessors Map 284rPerrel&039 r3037 and is.comrMiariy addressed as 999 lyanough Road and 3fi Ptneneedle Lane.Hyannis,MA in'the Hff Highway tusiness and B Business Zoning Districts. . 0i0t;`P.M... - Star Motel Realty Trust Appeal Number 1999 146 star Motel Realty Trust c/o Daniel Griffin,Jr.has petitioned to the Zoning Board of Appeals fof a Special Permit pursuant to Section 4 4.4(2)Nonconforming Building or Structure Not Used as Single or Two Family Dwellings end Section 4 q.a(i)Change of a Nonconforming toAnbther Non forming Use.The locus isourrentlythe.site of onoriconforming motel, 24 ipplexes.a single-family house and parking lot.The site is nonconforming in terms of use layout(buffers S parkng).The applicant is proposing to demolish the gxisting building; and constrircta restaurant building of 0,396 s•f.to house two restaurant uses of 130 seats and 1Q0 seats,and construct new parking,landscaping,and buffers.The property is shown on,Assessors Map 294,Parcels 039 rS 037 and is commonly addressed as 999 lyanough Road/Route 132 and 35 Pineneedle Lane,Hyannis,MA in the HB Highway Business and B Business Zoning Districts. 0:30 P.M. Sprint Spectrum.LP Appeal Number 1999-147 Sprint Spectrum.LP has petitioned to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Kermit pursuant to Section 4-4.2 Nonconforming Building or Structure Not Used as Single or Two Family Dwellings to permit the replacement of a nonconforning 115 foot radio tower with a 120 foot monopole structure and associated base station equipment for use as a PCS communications facility.The property is shown on Assessor's Map 250.Parcel 004 and is c addiessedes 1047 Falmouth RoaWRoute 2a.Hyannis,MA in an RR 1 Residential 04 E�mstrtat - 8 t pfitil. Sprint Spectrum.l P Appeel Number 1.99148 T B..arum.LP has petitioned to the Zonng Board of Appeals for a Special Permit ' pto Sction 4-+t.5(2)Expansion of a Pitfxisting Nonconforming Use to permit the rop gtrentofanonconfomlingli$footrediofovirerwitha120footmonopoleStructureand agsoc ed base station equiprnent.for use alms a PCS communications facility.The property I s. 4{1 Assessors Map"0.Parcel 004 and is commonly addressed a51 047 Falmouth Road/IOtit9 a.flyarmis,M/ in on RD-1 Residential D-1 Zoning District. lesaBublic Hearings will be held in the Hearing Room lt3cond F1ogr,New Town Ball,367 Miry Street,Hyannis Massachusetts on Wednesday:December 01. 1999.All plans and epplleetion.may be reviewed at the Zoning Board of Appeals Office,Town of 0,amstable, Planning Department.230$outh Street.Hyannis,MA. a t Fltir tt Glynn,Chorman Ling Board of Appeals, a 'the Symsteble Patriot November 11 &November 10. 1999 0)WN CLLE-R\ Bay ^ r SS. . 1 t"Y 23 P, 2. 34 .ems Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals Notice -Withdrawn Without Prejudice Appeal Number 1999-148-Sprint Spectrum, LP Special Permit Pursuant to Section 4-4.5(2)Expansion of a Pre-Existing Nonconforming Use Summary: Withdrawn Without Prejudice FILE COPY ONLY! Petitioner. Sprint Spectrum, LP Property Address: 1047 Falmouth Road/Route 28, Hyannis NOT RECORDED AT Assessor's Map/Parcel: Map 250,Parcel 004 S Area: 0.83 acre REGISTRY OF DEED Zoning: RD-1 Residential D-1 Zoning District Groundwater Overlay: GP Groundwater Protection District Background: The property consists of a 0.83 acre lot that is improved with an office building of approximately 5,611 sq. ft., and a 115 foot self supported radio tower. The existing building consists of two levels; an exposed finished basement and a first floor level. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing tower with a 120 foot monopole structure and associated base equipment for use as a wireless communications facility. To allow the proposed facility, the applicant has applied for the following zoning relief: • Appeal Number 1999-147-Special Permit pursuant to Section.4-4.4(2) Nonconforming Building or Structure Not Used as Single or Two-Family Dwellings, to permit the replacement of an existing 115 foot radio tower with a 120 foot monopole structure and associated base equipment station. • Appeal Number 1999-148-Special Permit pursuant to Section 4-4.5(2) Expansion of a Pre-Existing Nonconforming Use, to permit the replacement of an existing 115 foot radio tower with a 120 foot monopole structure and associated base equipment station for use as a wireless communications facility. Appeal Number 2000-31 -Variance from Section 3-1.1(5) Bulk Regulations-Maximum Building Height to permit the tower to exceed the 30 foot height limitation on structures and allow 120 foot tower. Procedural Summary: This appeal was filed at the Town Clerk's Office and at the Office of the Zoning Board of Appeals on October 21, 1999. A public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals was duly advertised and notices sent to all abutters in accordance with MGL Chapter 40A. The Applicant and Board Chairman executed extensions of time as needed. Copies of which are contained in the file. The hearing was opened on December 01, 1999, and continued to February 02,2000, March 29, 2000,April.26, 2000 and to May 10, 2000 at which time the applicant requested and the Board granted a withdrawal with our prejudice. Hearing Summary: Board Members deciding this appeal were Gene Burman, Richard Boy, Dan Creedon, Tom DeRiemer, and Gail Nightingale, Acting Chairman. During the hearings, Attorney Edward D. Pare, Jr. represented the applicant. Supporting staff included Matthew Fallon, Site Acquisition Consultant; Kevin Washburn, Project Engineer; and Steve Desmarais, R.F. Engineer. i r Town of Barnstable-Zoning Board of Appeals-Notice-Withdrawn Without Prejudice Appeal Number 1999-148-Sprint Spectrum,LP Special Permit,Section 44.5(2)Expansion of a nonconforming use At the May 10 continuance, the Board found to grant the variance relief requested in Appeal No. 2000-31. At that hearing,the Board discussed with Town Attorney, Robert Smith the needed for a Special Permit. It was determined that the relief needed for Sprint Spectrum can be granted by means of a dimensional variance. With the dimensional relief granted in Appeal Number 2000-30,Attorney Pare stated the Special Permit requested in Appeal Numbers 1999-147 and 1999-148 are no longer needed and he requested the applicant be allowed to withdraw those two appears without prejudice. Motion: At the May 10, 2000, hearing a motion was duly made and seconded to permit Appeal Number 1999-148 to be Withdrawn Without Prejudice. as requested by the applicant. The vote was as follows: AYE: Gene Burman, Richard Boy, Dan Creedon,Tom DeRiemer, and Gail Nightingale,Acting Chairman NAY: None Order: Appeal Number 1999-148 has been withdrawn without prejudice. Appeals of this decision, if any, shall-be made pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 17,within twenty (20)days after the date of the filing of this decision in the office of the Town Clerk. • 42--310-0 rGNightingiale, ing Chai n _._ j Date Signed I Linda Hutchennder, Clerk of the Town of Barnstable, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, hereby certify that twenty (20)days have elapsed since the Zoning Board of Appeals filed this decision and that no appeal of the decision has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk. yCP d-0 V under the pains and penalties of Signed and sealed this day o: pejury• -, Linda Hutchenrider, Town Clerk 2 i RefNo utappar ownerl owner2 addr 147+148 city state zip 249 064 ST GERMAIN, ROBERT & FRANCES %MCLEAN, KENNETH N JR 173 ARMORY ST , JAMAICA PLAIN MA 02130 249 066 RYAN, JOSEPH A & NATALIE TRS 28 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 667 4 249 068 GAMMONS, JOHN H & BERTHA V BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 069 JONES, DAVID T & SHEILA M 4 BLACKBERRY LN HYANNIS MA 02601 249 070 BEAUCHAINE, ARTHUR P %MEDLIN, KAREN M 56 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02661 249 071 PEARSON, LISA 64 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 072 THOMAS, JOHN W & MURIEL 76 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 073 PRAISE, IRMA BALL & PRAISE, JULIETTE 290 W MAIN ST HYANNIS MA 02601 249 077 NORTON, STEVEN A & MORRISON-NORTON, LYNETTE A 59 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 083 ANDERSON, JOHN C & SUSAN G BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 153 LEBOEUF, MARILYN K 69 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 250 001 FOUNDERS COURT CORP 460 W MAIN STREET HYANNIS MA 02601 250 002 BAILEY, WALTER 25 LYMAN ST WALTHAM MA 02154 250 003 MAHER, MICHELLE 2 BLACKBERRY LANE HYANNIS MA 02601 250 004 RELD CORP P 0 BOX 1148 , HYANNIS MA 02601 250 005 BOTSFORD, NORMAN L & JUDITH 1069 FALMOUTH RD HYANNIS MA 02601 250 006 PIERCE, IRENE M 1081 FALMOUTH RD HYANNIS MA 02601 250 .008 HAKALA, KENNETH A & FAITH S 728 STRAWBERRY HL RD CENTERVILLE MA 02632 250 023 H00 PIETRO, DAVID G TRS D P REALTY TRUST 37 MECHANIC ST -WORCESTER MA 01608 250 023 T00 PIETRO, DAVID G TRS D P REALTY TRUST 37 MECHANIC ST WORCESTER MA 01608 250 025 GLOWACKI, WALTER J P 0 BOX 28 NANTUCKET MA 02554 250 027 H00 PIETRO, DAVID G TRS D P REALTY TRUST 37 MECHANIC ST WORCESTER MA 0160.8 250 027 T00 PIETRO, DAVID G TRS D P REALTY TRUST 37 MECHANIC ST WORCESTER MA 01608 250 028 SCHOFIELD, BENTLEY C & JOHN M P 0 BOX 44 CENTERVILLE MA 02632 250 .065 FATHER MCSWINEY ASSOC INC %JOHN KELLEHER, TRS BOX 25 HYANNIS MA 02601 250 094 BAILEY, WALTER 25 LYMAN ST WALTHAM MA 02154 Count= 369 Il 666 t'9 t a egLUOMN O t t.J*qw"; top led slgels N- fpQddV id p"SUKOZ u�aW►+ u'uu+y�1 VA'sluuel(1.1 IMIS W" .gip 'a19w4wala#Q wmol'03WO opMdvlb PWWI 6L4uoZ 841'191 alp eq u pus suo tit/ 06...t 't(0 uo sllasn43Sse1/4'sluu 41'13a 1 L99'IISM 140I MON'X5O Put. urooy Quu"H 1§41 ul play ag lum 964"N 4 LVO t SO passa�PPG AUO WOO$s PW b1O le�l't)5t.don s 8'46 14 dueda�d.eyl,4!*%sud!Imummoo god 4 to m eo;'t wAnba uonM pue asn1 ettitlouow i?o!(1Z t�41!M�a�wuXb�1 if>b{�t t 6ulw,oluoououg�;lt�i�tt . ay11luuad 01. duwwgM*u0N� a 40 uopugdxl(W-"udl1 11uuad P� � 0 jol sdV in p O I1 psuogpad aN dl Uu got-east W ItaddV<jj-wnnoedg luudg al pua VOO loojd'Oq8 do OdossasaV uo t"01 sl�adcud 84L-4014 9'Jd to sa owjot 1u a u oo#is"paleloossa pug aunl3ngs OEt a 4Vm raw l o1poi lool 5 t i 6uluualuoouou a}o 1usu,aw1dw ayl lwu,ad of sauiaNy� .oMljo gouts ae Pasn 1oN auruorulgJb SUM. Ing Buluuo}uoouoy z*"I.1olioag o11M *wad ptoadg a Jo!apaddV!o preog 6uluoZ a41 of Pevo411 1ftN dl'WAS wins tbl-6661 AgWnN Ieeddvdl'UJMO dg iuud5 'Wd 09:6 . '#Wjs a 6ulwZ asawlsng g Pull ssaulsng A"GIH gN 841.u!VV I's!uugAH'auel alpaauautd at:pug ze t,WOON/t?aot! yenougA W"PaaeaPPti fyuowwo3 Si Pug LEE 166O 9laa0d'fist:dM sa slil uo umoya g1 t 1radnud a41 s,aUn q pu g'6udspuel-our pus"Ali**(*C;wl wyao SbsO lio' 5n3ugnetsa,oM1asoy� of-}'S 96S'13 ip 6ulpllnq iuw,+nei g Idru t dwpllnq 6U116 a syl 4'MPWap al 6ulsddcud el iuctlidde e4.L 4kV* asn to suLal ul 6uluuo;umuou aj slid aq-1oi 6t,"iid Pull asriO4 04044166ild U'469600 g _ 'Iatow 6uwwo}uo3uou a ft a1laayl dlluaurasl sti5ol e41•asn 6uwucp4o"- ig dujuuoluayutsN a to a6 f!35'try uogoa�Pus s6ullleMCJ�I �""16outg to Pf - littd aanl3n,ig w ulpiing 6uluuoiuosN CLlb'b b uopae$ollugnslnd lwwad Ieaadg cov tot 6uluoZ eyt W pawogitad sey�( 'u!uu�Ieluet]o/51sru1�ylaeH MOV4 Jb t-66s t +N I�ddV t'w1�1'ab Ie1otN��g - W d�g� - •slduislCl6uluo2 ssaulsng g pUe saaulsng�1�1•I 9H e43:� - t/W'sluva/tl-f'aue i eluauld 5E Pus peok!46noualE se passtaJpt xuoa.s!putt - ' tpp g 66b sleo�d'b�dey�1 s�osaassy uo uMoys sl dl�ada,d a41 ar��nq Pt�at�lNde;t91 *0*Mau lw4ouw pug 'algae 001 Pus'noes Ott 10 sasn ivamr3ssa,a l;rsoll+a 'gays o dulpi 1. luw sal a 15ru1suo5 pug s6inpluW 00 4�lPWOP 61 gi iu l a1 loli gd put ano +g!elsuls a Vdngaau.8uluu o}uoouu.1 a p e1!' ay1 AwAd"m 14 a" e41 1:44 a sssulang Agm4f44;r} ul seen Puonviao (6f5'£-6 uoltde�pug suolsl► le1�g g'1r-9 uogoag of tumid ir,,,adlgpad�eXat - - - s���uga�6ulu��ftoll�auolllt�Se4 �uJiaW�to/� l�iga� SW•+ gi(l t qW!+lpaddV. 3sn l �1" ci Of 9 $wudz ipmAvoki u!m *goo 'Poo p gN sd sar1 t L tad' 'daV j s,ibssasa�%uo tAW40 fill swg! /�y� ' ifq'4�a 6u1linge ayt al omgl W AUa"d a41;aan puos,ad uMo sl4 Jw s1 Pa4s • umbGtPPw6 . 4Mm 6uplaads ul-.-pangs!uaaq away 1ou pinoM lwwad 6uippnq a-augotuls kwsww ug. >au id*O'ualu do.Ano u1 tam sly!11-We t 1pdV W q p&"smto jauolsopuwoo 6u4Vnjq at$#o uolslgap q4;pNaadda lGaUM p h •louls!Q 6uiudz asaulang Awoi SIN Ufa ul bnN ouWaiva `at ainoki'p"WOU.1 e-4 beg t so Passwppe s1 put)No 0,1` p� Wg d�1N(tons`Soget/ui1 umijip GI.4Adwd et iot 1Cp1 *0 Ud P1�,6�) AN cq jo 'X , to t C TiMM ., > y, 05/25/00 THU 15:32 FAX WIuuc TOWN CLERK BARNSTABLE, MASS. AJOA , 2(M MAY 23 PH 27 3u Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals Decision and Notice Sprint Spectrum, LP Appeal Number 2000-31 Variance-Section 3-1.1(5) Bulk Regulations-Maximum Building Height Summary: Granted with Conditions Petitioner: Sprint Spectrum,LP Property Address: 1047 Falmouth Road/Route 28,Hyannis Assessors Map/Parcel: Map 250, Parcel 004 Area: 0.83 acre Zoning: RD-1 Residential D-1 Zoning District Groundwater Overlay: GP Groundwater Protection District Background: The property consists of a 0.83 acre lot that Is improved with an office building of approximately 5,611 sq.ft.,land a 115 foot self supported radio tower. The existing building consists of two levels; an exposed finished basement and a first floor level. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing tower with a 120-foot monopole structure and associated base equipment for use as a wireless communications facility. To allow the proposed facility, the applicant has applied for the following zoning relief. Appeal Number 1999-147-Special Permit pursuant to Section 4-4.4(2)Nonconforming Building or Structure Not Used as Single or Two-Family Dwellings,to permit the replacement of an existing 115 foot radio tower with a 120 foot monopole structure and associated base equipment station. • Appeal Number 1999-148-Special Permit pursuant to Section 4-4.5(2) Expansion of a Pre-Existing Nonconforming Use, to permit the replacement of an existing 115 foot radio tower with a 120 foot monopole structure and associated base equipment station for use as a wireless communications-facility. Appeal Number 2000-31 -Variance from Section 3-1.1(5) Bulk Regulations-Maximum Building Height to' permit the tower to exceed the 30 foot height limitation on structures and allow 120 foot tower. Procedural Summary: This appeal was filed at the Town Clerk's Office and at the Office of the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 31, 2000. A public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals was duly advertised and notices sent to all abutters in accordance with MOIL Chapter 40A. The Applicant and Board Chairman executed an extension of time to file the decision. A copy of which is contained In the file. The hearing was opened on April 26, 2000, and continued to May 10,-2000 at which time the Board granted the variance with conditions. Hearing Summary: Board Members deciding this appeal were Gene Burman, Richard Boy, Tom DeRiemer, and Dan Creedon, and Gail Nightingale,Acting Chairman. During the hearings, Attorney Edward D. Pare, Jr. represented the applicant Attorney Pare reviewed the appeals. He noted that when the applicant was previously before the Board with reference to Appeal 1999- 147 & 148, there was some concern regarding the uses on this site. On March 29, 2000, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted relief to the owner of the property and the property is now in compliance with the uses currently on the site. Attorney Pare noted that at the previous hearing, the Board questioned the legal non-conforming structural status of the tower, so-in the alternative the applicant submitted this Variance request to bulk regulations, maximum building height. He also stated that since, the tower is already there, the use of this new antennae is allowed as-of- right under the recently amended Section 4-8 Personal Wireless Communication of the Zoning Ordinance. The r� N Town of Barnstable Planning Department �(C Staff Report Ab aep USA -A eal Number 2000-24 Modification of Variance o. 1975-93 4" �IIG Date: March 23, 2000 To: Zoning Board of Appeals From: Approved By: Robert . *hernig, AICP, Planning Director Art Traczyk, Principal Planner Applicant: Randy Childs Address: 1047 Falmouth Road/Route 28, Hyannis, MA Assessor's Map/Parcel: Assessor's Map 250, Parcel 004 Area: 0.83 acre Zoning: RD-1 Residential RD-1 Zoning District Groundwater Overlay: GP Groundwater Protection District Filed:February 28,2000 Hearing:March 29,2000 Decision Due:June 7,2000 Background: The property consists of a 0.83 acre lot that is improved with an office building of approximately 5,611 sq. ft.' and a 115 foot radio tower. The existing building consists of two levels; a finished basement and a first floor level. Due to the grade of the site, which slopes toward the rear of the property, the basement is exposed on the back side. As the Board Members may recall, the issue before them originated at the December 01, 1999 hearing involving Appeal Nos. 1999-147 and 148 as related to a proposed rebuilding of the communication tower by Sprint Spectrum, LP. During that hearing questions were raised as to the uses on the site and compliance with the conditions of Variance No. 1975-93 (see attached Variance No. 1975-93). That Variance is very specific in terms of the permitted uses. The conditions imposed were as follows: 1) There shall be only two businesses on locus a) The Electric Lighting Company in conjunction with the Alarm Company b) A bookstore 2) The bookstore shall be limited to: a) the location in the building as shown on the plans submitted b) the sale of books only -not newspapers or periodicals 3) There shall be one sign of no larger than 12 square feet each a) for the Electric Lighting portion of the joint use b) for the Alarm System portion of the joint use c) for the bookstore 4) The grant of the modification of the variance does not allow for and does not imply three separate uses differing in the use. The Electric Lighting Company and the Alarm Company are to be r considered as one,joint use. The bookstore is the second use. Today, the applicant is seeking to modify those conditions to permit four(4) office units. At present those units are occupied by Elkman Bookkeeping, Briggs& Heino Plumbing & Heating, Hyannis Chiropractic and Associated Alarm System, Inc. Sprint Spectrum, LP is considering locating also on the site, only with respect to rebuilding of the existing tower and locating its antennas in combination with existing communications. ' Source-Assessor's records dated 11/22/99 c Town of Barnstable-Planning Department-Staff Report Childs-Appeal Number 2000-24 Modification of Variance No. 1975-93 This issue however is the subject of Appeal Nos. 1999-147 and 1999-148 and are not before the Board today. This applicant is requesting only to legitimize those uses that are there today. Prior ZBA Action: 'Appeal Number 1968-105 The Board granted a Use Variance to permit the construction of a 36'x 64' building to be used as an electrical contracting business and rental offices in a Residence A-1 District. At that time, the only principal permitted uses were detached one family dwellings and the renting of rooms for not more than 6 lodgers by a family resident in the dwelling. Appeal Number 1971-23 The Board granted permission for the construction of a 1,976 sq. ft. addition to the existing building to be used for 4 additional offices and storage. There is a discrepancy between the Facts and Decision for this appeal, the legal notice and.the application. The Facts and Decision states that a Special Permit was granted for the expansion of a nonconforming use. The legal notice states this appeal is an appeal of the Building Inspector as well as a request for a Variance. The application for this appeal requests a Variance to Section I, Paragraph 2 -Residence Al District. The original building was permitted by a Use Variance to a Special Permit for the expansion of a nonconforming use would not have been appropriate relief. Appeal Number 1975-93 The Board granted a modification of the previously approved Variances to permit a change of use from office space to retail space. Appeal Numbers 1968-105 and 1971-23 allowed a retail lighting shop and 2,500 sq. ft. of office space. The Board granted this modification with the following conditions: 1) There shall be only two businesses on locus a) The Electric Lighting Company in conjunction with the Alarm Company b) A bookstore 2) The bookstore shall be limited to: a) the location in the building as shown on the plans submitted b) the sale of books only-not newspapers or periodicals 3) There shall be.one sign of no larger than 12 square feet each a) for the Electric Lighting portion of the joint use b) for the Alarm System portion of the joint use c) for the bookstore 4) The grant of the modification of the variance does not allow for and does not imply three separate uses differing in the use. The Electric Lighting Company and the Alarm Company are to be considered as one,joint use. The bookstore is the second use. Appeal Number 1978-19-Withdrawn - Not Applicable This was a request to allow the construction of a 24'x 40' addition to the rear of the existing building and a Variance from the signboard regulations. This appeal was withdrawn because the application, and subsequently the legal advertisement, stated it was a request for a Special Permit when it should have been for a Variance. Appeal Number 1978-42 -Withdrawn _Not Applicable This appeal was a request for a Variance to allow an addition to the existing building and a Variance from the sign code regulations (similar to the relief requested in Appeal No. 1978-19). At the request of the applicant, it was withdrawn without prejudice due to the absence of the applicant's attorney. Appeal Number 1978-53 - Denied - Not Applicable The Board denied a request for a Variance from the sign code regulations. 2 Town of Barnstable-Planning Department-Staff Report Childs-Appeal Number 2000-24 Modification of Variance No. 1975-93 Appeal Number 1978-54-Denied - Not Applicable The Board denied a request for a Variance/Special Permit to permit the construction of a 24' x 40" addition to the rear of the existing building. Staff Review: The applicant was before the Site Plan Review Committee on February 17, 2000 and was approved pending a revised plan indicating that; 1. the perimeter fencing along Blackberry Lane is within or on the property line and, 2. the parking lot is re-configured and re-striped to meet today's requirements. Those change have been incorporated and the revised approved site plan has been submitted to the file. The site is located within a GP Groundwater Protection Overlay District. The applicant has cited that on-site wastewater disposal is handled by 6 cesspools and 1 precast leaching pit. At the request of the Health Agent, those systems were inspected on February 23, 2000, and it was determined that they are in proper working order. The Health Agent was satisfied with the existing on-site wastewater disposal. Variance Findings: In consideration for the modification of the condition enumerated in 1975 Variances, the applicant must substantiate those conditions unique to this lot that justify modification of the conditions. Suggested Conditions: If the Board should find to grant the requested modification, they may wish to consider the following conditions: 1. There shall be no more than 4 office suite located within the building. No medical offices that receive or give patients care are permitted except that, the existing chiropractic office shall be allowed to operate until it moves or ceases. At that time, the space shall revert to an office use only and shall not be reused for chiropractic medical care. 2. Within one year of the issuance of this modification, the site shall be improved as represented to Site Plan Review and as shown on a plan titled"Comprehensive Site Plan"for Reld Corporation, drawn by Clough, Harbour&Associates and as approved by the Site Plan Review Committee dated February 24, 2000. 3) There shall be only one sign permitted of the site that shall not exceed.36 square feet. Attachments: Applications Copies: Petitioner/Applicant Approved.Site Plan Assessor's Field Cards GIS Map Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Inspection 3 ZONING;REI,IEg BEING SOUGHT H-kz,, ' BEENDETF '''INEDBYT LZO RC _ � OF T G I!OW Ot=,.Si1RLi8TABL3 APPRt Zoaiaq Boi+d..of Appeals �� t1Ms,_,., r' ,N THE, An-1 cation to Path an for a variance. ' k For office one O d►ppeal # 000- 111310 FEB 2 8 Epp _' ' Hearing Du. si ad applies es to the • .sowing Hoard of Appeals for a variance from S0, the•.manner and for the reasons hereinafter not forth: Petitioner Name: . Randy Childs , pie 775-3442 Petitioner Address: c/o'Associated Alarms, 1047 Falmouth Road, Hyannis, MA 02601 Property Location: 1047 Falmouth Road, Hyannis- Property owner: Reld Corporation phone 775-3442 Address of owner: 1047 Falmouth Road, Hyannis, MA 02601 M petitioner differs E Mmer,, state nature of-Interests Randy Childs is the Vice President of Reld Corporation Nizi of Years owned: 32 years Azsessor•e Map/Parcel Number: 2501004 Zoning District: _ RD1/D-1 Groundwater overlay District: GP variance Requested: Modify Pxisting variance inirsuant to GL 40AA14to..cnnfnrm to existing conditions. Cite Section i r1tle of the.zoning ordinance Description of variance Requesteds to- modify existing variance 'by allowing four office spaces; one,of which would provide chiropractic services to replace a permitted retail electrical supply show/sales room and retail bookstore. Description of the Reason and/or deed for the variance: existing use of the property was not consistent with thp variance previously issued Description of construction Activity. (if applicablej: none 8zistia4 Level of. Development of the Property - Number of Buildings: 1 Present Oss(s) : office space Gross Floor Area: 7696 sq.ft. Proposed Gross Floor Area to be Added: 0 , Altered: 0 is this property subject to any other relief (variance or special Permit) from the Zoning Hoard of Appeals? Yes g) No [] Zf Yes., please list appeal numbers or applicants name ..1968-105, 1971-23, 1975-93 Application to petition fora Variance Is the property within a Ri.storic District? Yes Is the property a Designated Landmark? Yes ['] No For Historic Department use only: Not Applicable ...::.. oRR Plan Review Number Date Approved Signatures Have you applied for a .building permit? . Has the Building Inspector refused a permit? Yes [] No . Yea [] No pg All applications for a Variance which proposes a change in use, new construction reconstruction, alterations or expansion, except for single or two-family dwellings, will require an approved site-Plan (see section 4- 7.3 of the Zoning ordinance). That.process should be completed prior to submitting this application to the Zoning Board of Appeals.. F_or suildina Department use only: Not Required ...........•...... [] Site Plan Review Number L D. Date Approved a I N-)I Signature: -The followings information must be submi tted. with the petition at the time Of filing, without such information the Board of Appeals may deny your request: Three- (3) copies of the. completed Application Form, each with. original signatures. Five 1 5) copies of a certified property survey (plot plan) showing the dimensions of the land, all wetlands, water bodies, surrounding roadways and the location of the existing improvements on the. land. All proposed development-activities, except' singie and two-family housing development, will require five• (5) copies of a proposed site improvements plan approved by the site Plan Review committee. This plan must show the exact location of all proposed improvements and alterations on the land and to structures. see ~Contents of site Plan:• section• 4-7.5 of the Zoning ordinance, for detail requirements. . The petitioner may submit any additional supporting documents to assist the Board in making .its determination. �G2IJ.signature: Date: Petitioner Agentfs Signature Agents Address: PO Box 714, West Barnstable, MA 02668 phones 508/361-8831 "roperty Location: 1047 FALMOUTH RD(ROUTE 28) MAP ID: 250/004/ lision ID: 18155 Other ID: Bldg#: I Card I of I Print Date:03/14/2000 7777777, KELP%-%Jnr Description- Code Appraised value ASSeSsed value UOM LAND 3400 124,40( ---IZ4401 P 0 BOX 1148 COMMERC. 3400 158,00( 158,00 801( ffYANNIS,MA 02601 COMMERC. 3400 5,40( 5,40( Barnstable 2000,MA Account?; 15yloy Plan Ref. ax Dist. 400 Land Ct# Per.Prop. #SR Life Estate NDL I Notes: 290,924 VISION ODL 2 GIS ID. nuti, A5/'au 287,80 g gpm'n gg", J,W-, r111V 01, ;,�R,,, k�, gu"; KLL,V t-UKr IJYY/15J U Yr. Code Assessed value 1r. 0 e ssesse a ue r. Code Assessed value _rw,-3w 124' Do 124,40( 199! 3400 158,00(1991 3400 158,00( 199 3400 5,40(1991 3400 5,40( oa. 0a. 287,30(— TOW, 3U9,70C 'his signature acknowledges a visit by a Dara Collector or sses sor TN.7T4,MPW,x "K TV Z-1 Year typelvescripo"on Amount LOae I Description Number Amount Comm.Int. Appraised Bldg.Value(Card) 158,000 Appraised XF(B)Value(Bldg) 0 61511 Appraised OB(L)Value(Bldg) 5,400 1 Appraised Land Value(Bldg) 124,400 Sp�kffiq RRY ecial Land Value UUM.AVJ U5 1.k U�Iil ECONOMICS Total Appraised Card Value 287,80( Total Appraised Parcel Value 287,80( Valuation Method: Cost/Market Valuatior ppraised Farcel Value W- Permit ID -Is-sue-Date lype Descriprion Amount I-p-Dare 70 Comp. a e omp "M Piz- �R 5 B# Use Code Description one D Trontage Depth units Unit Frice 1.Pactor S.I. C.Jdctor Nbhd. Aaj. I NOW-Aafl3peCiall-ricing Adj. ni rice a value -1-- 3400 Uk'k ICE BLD L 11 lu E 1.-UC-FfVW I.Mb ILL(.8.i,U3UJN-oTe-s--.jujbijLi, --TV FIM ntaitana .Total an F"u 124,40 Property Location: 1047 FALMOUTH RD(ROUTE 28) MAP ID: 250/004/// Vision ID:18155 Other ID: Bldg#: I Card I of I Print Date:03/14/2000 i�nl 'La. Cn. Description 1-onmerciatDara Elements Slyy Ieype ice Hldg Element Ca. Ch. Description rAb[30] Model 4 Commercial Heat&AC ff-- NUNE Grade 0C C Frame Type )2 WOOD FRAME Baths/Plumbing )2 AVERAGE Stories I I Story kJAS 24 Occupancy 00 CeilinglWall )8 TYPICAL usm Rooms/Prtns 2 AVERAGE Exterior Wall 1 14 ood Shingle %Common Wall 2 all Height 10 Roof Structure 3 Gable/Hip Roof Cover 3 Asph/F GIs/Cmp — 40 4C V Interior Wall 1 5 Drywall 2 ?, 11-1-11, Element Code escrrp ion ac orInterior Floor 1 14 Carpet Complex- 2 Floor Adj Unit Location Heating Fuel 04 Electric 24 Heating Type 07 Elec Baseboard Number of Units Mb ZU AC Type 01 one Number of Levels =BM %Ownership Bedrooms 00 Zero Bedrooms Bathrooms 0 Zero Bathrms -4 24 00 0 Full unadj.Elase Kate J.0 Total Rooms 1 1 Room ize Adj.Factor .90679 Bath Type ade(Q)Index .03 38 38 dj.Base Rate 9.50 38 -ze a 4;� 'd d. Kitchen Style Idg.Value New 87,249 ar jearBuilt 969 ff.Year Built 1975 .1 Physcl Dep 22 u : ncnI Obsinc 0 c i, on Obsinc 23 p p c e . ond.Code p c ecl Cond% Code Descr!euon FerceatgLe p L ULD Luu Overall%Cond. 55 Deprec.Bldg Value 158,000 tN;UV% Q, I................ . Loae Description VR Units unit Price Yr. DpKl VoCnd Apr. Value IFAVI rAVUNG--ASPHXET-- --TTIM ----c ff0 X�4XY 11SWE Code Description Living Area Uross Area Lff.Area Unit-Cost prec. Value --B7KF--Fi—rs-ff Foor IM 4Y.5t 191,9-6. FBM Basement,Finished 1,73-- 2,88 1,731 �29.7( 85,78- UBM Basement,Unfinished 96( 19, 9.9( 9,50, It ross iv ease Area 5,801 BI-dg Val: A37,141 SPR Meeting Notes 02/17/2000 Site Plan Review Meeting of February 17,2000 2nd Floor Hearing Room Barnstable Town Hall 367 Main Street,Hyannis Present: Ralph Crossen, Building Commissioner, Doug Bill, Associate Planner, Thomas McKean, Director of Health, Steve Pisch, Engineer, Also in attendance were Attorney Bruce Gilmore, Montaque Brown, Bill Dillion, Dan Ojala, Rabbi Yekusiel Alperowitz, Sid Davidson. This meeting was called to order at 9:05 AM and adjourned at 11:30 AM. SPR 16-2000 Reid Corporation (Sprint)1047 Falmouth Rd, Hy (250-004) Attorney Bruce Gilmore,representing Reid Corporation,reviewed the history attached to the 1047 Falmouth Road site. Multiple uses have shared and occupied this site for a number of years. The applicant recognized that this site is a non- conforming mixed use in a residential,GP district. In addition,Attorney Gilmore noted that the available parking exceeds the minimum required by the by-law. He continued,informing the panel that although the existing septic is not Title 5 compliant,it is well maintained and shall continued to be so. The applicant offered to construct a swale in order to address storm water run-off not included in the current system. Ultimately,he reminded the committee,the applicant seeks to legitimize a use that has been in operation for approximately twenty years.This transmission tower has been there since 1968. There is no intensification of use because there are not employees on site and no client visits. Planning asked if this application is a pre-existing,non-conforming use,constructed prior to the 100' set back? Attorney Gilmore responded affirmatively. Discussion included the available parking of 47 vehicles(32 required)and that the ZBA appears to be concerned with the actual use and height of the tower. During subsequent conversation it was revealed that because construction occurred during the early 1980's, it is not Title 5 compliant. There are in fact 7 cess pools. Detailed discussion ensued including whether or not this single use would trigger the up grading of the existing cesspool systems,whether or not one or more tanks were in fact operating and whether or not the panel should require the up .grading anyway. The applicant interjected that this use does not involve any traffic,employees or clients. The sole technician visits on a monthly schedule of sites to ensure proper operation. They do not maintain an office. Steve Pisch inquired about the drainage,a fence along Blackberry Lane and the curb cut. Specifically,he informed the applicant of the town's desire to reduce the cut to 24'. He also indicated that the parking stalls should be 19' according to the town standard. What is provided appears to be 14' - 15' . Steve recommended that the applicant reconfigure and restripe the parking lot to be in compliance with town regulations. The Building Commissioner asked for confirmation that the Blackberry fence is in fact located within the property line. A revised plan clarifying this and indicating the location of the dumpster should be submitted for review. Conclusion: Approved pending a revised plan indicating the following: Confirmation that perimeter fencing along Blackberry Lane is within or on property line. Parking lot is re-configured and subsequently re-striped. 1 c � ` ti1 _ S t - ♦ � _ i • � _ -,. � ,a �—. � file : :. 9 n ' DATE:_2/23/00____ PROPERTY ADDRESS: Associated Alarms__,,__ __-)—Q.4J-22&Le_98 --------- 2 3 Mems..—a2Gti�,a- I ` TOWN OF BARN �e a , ove date, I Inspected the septic ,system at the above address. ZONING BOARD s .sys` em consists of the following: 1 . 6-6 ' x8 ' bloc cesspools . 2. 1-1000 gallon precast leaching pit packed in stone. Based on my Inspection, I certify the.followlns conditions: 3. This is not a title five septic system. 4. This is a sewage system. 5. The sewage sysem is in proper working order at the present time: 6. Pumped all of the inflow cesspools at time of inspection . SIGNATURE:,./ Company: Jose,ph_P- Macomber & Son, Inc. Address:_ Box_66________ Centerville He__02632-0066 Phone:___508 775_3338______- w THIS CERTIFICATION ODES NOT CONSTITUTE A GUARANTY OR WARRANTY JM rJSEPH P. MACOMBER & SON, INC. Tsnks•Cesspools•Leachf lelds Pumped Installed Town Swer Connections =p.o. a66CIenter"vllle. MA 0263Z-0066 ,775.6412 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVmoNMENTAL PROTECTION ONE WINTER STREET, BOSTON MA 02108 (617)292.6600 TRVDY Sac ARCEO PAUL CELLUCCI DAVM B. Sr, ' Governor Corr—; SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM-WSPECTION FORM PART A CERTIFICATION Prop@rty Ad&ss:10 4 7 Route 28 Name of ownw Associated Alarms . C e n e r v 11 M 02632 Address of Owrw: °sti 1.26 Joseph .P.Macomber Jr . Nan,.of Insp.ato.:(Ptaass I @m a DEP oved syetsm Inap@cta pursuant to Section 16.340 of Title 6(310 CUR 15.000) Ccrnpamy Nartw: J.r.M a c o m b e r & SS o n Inc . htadutgAddra": Box 66 CPnt -rvi11e �Maca 02632 Telephone Number: —7r ---3,3' - CERTIFICATION STATEMENT I certify that I have personally Inspected the &@wage disposal system at this address and that the Information reported below Is true, acculst4 and complete as of the time of inspection. The Inspection was performed based on my training and experience In the proper function and maintenance of on-sits sewage disposal systems. The system: Y Passes Conditionally Posses _ Needs Further Evaluation By the Local Approving Authority _ F611s 1 Insp�ctols Slgtmur. Dots: I^ �-AAZ The System Inspec shall submit a copy of this inspection report to the Approving Authority(Board of Health or DEP)whNn thirty (30) dart completing this Inspection. If the system Is a shared system or has a design flow of 10,000 gpd or greater,the Irupebtor and the system oM shall submit the report to the appropriate regional otf(ca of the DepartmentohEnvlronmerwd Protection. The original shouldtie sent tomes I -. .. system owner and copies sent to the buyer, if applicable, and the approving authority. NOTES AND COhIMENTS �F MAR 6 2000 revised 9/2/98 PaetIof11 ��rmI.e on R.cydW npv SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION,FORM PART A CERTIFICATION(continued) •PropertyAddres: 1047 Route 28 Centerville ,Mass . Owner. Associated Alarms . Doo.of Inspoc&m:2/23/00 INSPECTION SUMMARY: Check A, B, C, at D: A. SYSTEM PASSES: I have not found any Information which indicates that any of the failure conditions described In 310 CMR 15.303 exist. Any faaws criteria not evaluated are Indicated below. COMMENTS: B. SYSTEM CONDITIONALLY PASSES: One or more system components as described In the'Conditional Pass'section need to be replaced or repaired. The system,upon completion of the replacement or repair,as approved by the Board of Health,will pass. Indicate yes,no, or not determined(Y. N. or NO). Describe basis of determination In all Instances. If'not determined',explain why not. "Ll f, The optic tank s metal,urdess the owner or operator has provided the system Inspector with a copy of a Certificate of Comp ante(attached)Indicating that the tank was Installed within twenty(20)years prior to the date of the Inspection: or tit• • c tank whether or not metal,Is cracked,structurally unsoun shows substantial Inflitrodon or exfiltration, o an failure Is Imminent. The system will pass Inspection if the exlstin aepde tan is replaced with•complying septic tank as approved by the Board of Health. L Sewage backup or breakout or high static water level observed In the stributlon box s due to broken or obstructed pipe(*) or due to a broken, settled or uneve stribution box. The system wi pass nspec on If(with approval of the Board of Health). broken pipe(*)are replaced obstruction Is removed distribution box Is levelled or replaced / - The system required pumpirig-Tnore than•fourdmes t.•yeardue to broken or vbso cted pipe(*). The m vyste will-psss-� Inspection If(with approval of the Board of Health): broken pipets) are rsplacid obstruction Is removed revised 9/2/98 Page 2oru SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM PART A CERTIFICATION (continued) Property Address: Owner: Date of Inspection: C. FURTHER EVALUATION IS REQUIRED BY THE BOARD OF HEALTH: _Aj2_ Conditions exist which require further evaluation by the Board of Health in order to determine If the system is failing to protect the public health, safety and the environment. 1) SYSTEM WILL PASS UNLESS BOARD OF HEALTH DETERMINES W ACCORDANCE WfTH 310 CMR 15.303(1)(b)THAT THE SYSTEM IS NOT FUNCTIONING IN A MANNER WHICH.IMLL.PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTILAND SAFETY AND THE EMMOMMENT: Cesspool or privy is within 60 feet of surface water. Cesspool or privy is within 50 feet of a bordering vegetated wetland or a salt marsh. 2) SYSTEM WILL FAIL UNLESS THE BOARD OF HEALTH(AND PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIER,IF ANY)DETERMINES THAT THE SYSTEM IS FUNCTIONING IN A MANNER THAT PROTECTS THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT: The system has a septic tank and soil absorption system(SAS)and the SAS is within 100 feet of a�surface water supply or tributary to a surface water supply. �k4 The system has a septic tank and soil absorption system and the SAS Is within a Zone I of a public water supply well. The system has a septic tank and soil absorption system and the SAS Is within 50 feet of a private water supply well. dV The system has a septic tank and soil absorption system and the SAS Is less than 100 feat but 50 feet or more from a private water supply well, unless a well water analysis for coliform bacteria and volatile organic compounds indicates that the well is free from pollution from that facility and the presence of ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen is equal to or less than 5 ppm. Method used to determine distance vt4 (approximation not valld). .. . ... 3) OTHER This is a GewagP gyct-Pm Three ciap^arate syst=eme --- • is being held''othe main cesspool and the waste water is passing over to the overflows. System is in excellent working order at the present time. revised 9/2/98 Psge3ofll SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM PART A CERTIFICATION(continued) PropertyAddrvss:1047 Route 28 Centerville ,Mass. Owner: Associated Alarms Date of Inspection: 2/2 3/0 0 D. SYSTEM FAILS: You must indicate either "Yes" or"No" to each of the following: I have determined that one or more of the following failure conditions exist as described in 310 CMR 16.303. The basis for this determination is Identified below. The Board of Health should be contacted to determine what will be necessary to correct the failure. Yes No / r/ Backup of sewage intofeciR"t+ptent cornponenFdae to on overloaded orcleggedSflSor-ceaspod• 3- , Discharge or ponding of effluent to tha surface of the ground or surface waters due to an overloaded or clogged SAS or cesspool. nrpd Static liquid lev:osspook;` l In th distribution box bove outlet Invert due to an overloaded or clogged SAS or cesspool. Liquid depth in less than 6" below Invert or available volume is less than 1/2 day flow. Required pumping more than 4 times in the last year NOT due to clogged or obstructed pipets). Number of times pumped I. Any portion of the Soil Absorption System,cesspool or privy is below the high groundwater elevation. Any portion of a cesspool or privy Is within 100 feet of a surface water supply or tributary to a surface water supply. Any portion of a cesspool or privy is-within a Zone I of a public well. Any portion of a cesspool or privy is within 50 feet of a private water supply well. Any portion of a cesspool or privy is less-than 100 feet but greater than 50 feet from a private water supply well with no acceptable water quality analysis. If the well has been analyzed to be acceptable, attach copy otwell water analysis for --coliform bacteria, volatile organic compounds, ammonia nitrogen-and nitrate nitrogen. - E. LARGE SYSTEM FAILS: You must indicate either 'Yes" or"No" to each of the following: The following criteria apply to large systems in addition to the criteria above: The system serves a facility with a design flow of 10.000 gpd or greater(Large System)and the system is a significant threat to public health and safety and the environment because one or more of the following conditions exist: Yes No J the system Is within 400 feet of s surface drinking water supply the system•is-witNo 200 4etof-o4Fibutart►Aoawrfaoe.dAnk4wg•waW--sup0ly• _ Y the system is located in a nitrogen sensitive area(Interim Wellhead Protection Area=IWPA)or a mapped Zone 11 of a public water supply well) The owner or operator of any such system shall upgrade the system in accordance with 310 CMR 15.304(2). Please consult the local regional office of the Department for further Information. revised 9/2/98 Page 4orn SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM PART C SYSTEM INFORMATION Prop..tyAddress: 1047 Route 28 Centerville ,Mass. Ownw. Associated Alarms Do's of Inspection: 2/2 3/0 0 FLOW CONDITIONS RESIDENTIAL* Design flow: g.p.d.lbedroo . Number of bedroom&(desipril:.Nd Number of bedrooms(actual): i' Total DESIGN flowAli" Number of current residents: Garbage grinder(yes or no): Laundry(separate system) (yes or no)&. 4—;- if yes,sepamts.Inspection.required Laundry system Inspected (yrs or no)A) Seasonal use(Yea or no):A)-17a� � g � Water meter readings,If av�jlable(last two year's usage(gpd): ,(jam 42 Sump Pump(Yes or no):4 �Q o ;�J�s� Last date of occupancy:_ COMMERCIAL/INOUSTRWL: 1 Type of establiahment: A e Design flow: d ( se n '.203, Basis of design flow Grosse trap present:ly a or no) Industrial Waste Holding Tank present:(yes or no) 4:h Non-sanitary waste discharged to the Title 5 system:lye$or no)A113 Water meter readings.If avail Is' Last date of occupancy: OTHER:IDescribe) Last date of occupancy: l GENERAL INFORMATION PUMPING FkEqORDS XIsource of I fo tion: , /CA York System pumped as part of Inspection:(yes or no) If.yps,volume pumped: lob— gilIgns Reason for pumping: VYb9WT. TYPE OF SYSTEM Septic tank/dlstribution box/soll absorption system Single cesspooi' Overflow cesspool Privy Shared system(yes or no) (if yes, attach previous Inspection records,if any) l/A Technology etc.Attach copy of up to date operation and maintenance contract —� Tight Tank " Copy of DEP Approval Other W-4 APP,RPXMATEA Rf all compptynts�te Installediif k w •and scum.of4aforrrtation: Sewage odors datected when arriving at the site:(yes or no) �!!7 revised 9/2/98 P&Qa6of11 i SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM PART B CHECKLIST p,.op"Addr.ss: 1047 Route 28 Centerville,Mass . Owner: Associated Alarms Date of Inspection:2/2 3/0 0 Check if the following have been done: You must Indicate either 'Yes' or"No' as to each of the following: Yes No Pumping Information was provided by the owner, occupant,or Board of Health. None of the system-cornpoaents lasmsimen purnpedL6w4+cJeast two•aweeka sndl'tbe'aystem h"Ammeaoeeiaiay"Nonal flow rates during that period. Large volumes of water have not been introduced into the system recently or as part of this inspection. _ As built plans have been obtained and examined. Note if they are not available with N/A. _ The facility or dwelling was inspected for signs of sewage back-up. The system does not receive non sanitary or Industrial waste flow. _ The site was inspected for signs of breakout. All system components, L luding the Soil Absorption System,have been located on the site.. The a tic tank manhole ere uncovered, opened,and the interior of th se tic tan as inspected for condition of baffles or tees, material of construction,dimensions,depth of liquid,depth of sludge, depth of scum. The size and location of the Soil Absorption System orrthe site has been determined based on: ' Existing information. For example, Plan at B.O.H. _ Determined in the field lif any of the failure criteria related to Part C is at Issue,approximation of distance is unacceptable) (15.302(3)(b)] .. _ Tha facility owner(And.00--pants.if diftaraai trnm.oWnerl.sKsra.prmidod:irifh JaicrmatioaDn t.Y-n�+:apat rn,0n•aa,M&Qf SubSurface Disposal Systems. revised 9/2/98 Page 5of11 SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM PART C SYSTEM INFORMATION(contimb d) PiropertyAddress: 1047 Route 28 Centerville ,Mass . Owrw: Associated Alarms . Date of Inspection: 2/2 3/0 0 BUILDING SEWER: (Locate on site plan) Il Depth below grade: Material of construct! n:cast Iron 40 PVC other(explain) Distance from vale w er supply well at suction line Diameter �1 Comments:(condition of Joints,venting,evidence of feakaser,-etc.) Joints appear tight No evidence of lPakagP _ S TANK• We, (locate on site plan) Depth below grade: Alf Material of constructionWAconcretel!�Jmetabf/�FlberglassA/N Polyethyle'no4gother(explaln) If tank Is Instal,list aye ls.age.confirmed by Certificate of Compliant (Yes/No) Dimensions: AVA Sludge depth: AJ Distance from top of sludge to bottom of outlet tee ortmtflr, 7A Scum thickness: A14 Distance from top of scum to top of outlet tee or baffle:_J�A Distance from bottom of scum to bottom of outlet tee or baffle:_ How dimensions were determined: AA Comments: (recommendation for pumping,condition of Inlet and outlet tees or-baffles,depth of liquid level in relation to outlet invert,structuroHntegrity, evidence of leakage,etc.) -- eptic tank is not nrPCPnt GREASE TRAP: (locate on site plan) Depth below grade:/ Material of consuuction:oaconcrate4tnatal. FiberglassAJ�PolyethyleneNs other(explain) AIA Dimensions: Alff Scum thickness: Distance from top of scum to top of outlet tee or baffle: Distance from bottom of scum to bottom of outlet tee or baffle: Date of last pumping: Comments: (recommendation for pumping, condition of Inlet and outlet tees or baffles, depth of liquid level In relation to outlet Invert, structural Integrity, evidence of leakage, etc.)- -Grease trap is not Dresent revised 9/2/98 Page 7ofII SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM PART C SYSTEM INFORMATION(continued) ProQwtyAddress: 1047 Route 28 Centerville ,Mass . Ownw: Associated Alarms. Dace 01 Inspection: 2/2 3/0 0 TIGHT OR HOLDING TANK:�'t(Tank must be pumped prior to, or at time of, inspection) (locate on site plan) Depth below grader Material of construction4concreto-kmetaI4N Fiberglass. APolyethylenWAother(explain) Ald w�.9► Dimensions: Capacity; 41,4 gallons Design flow:_4JA gallons/day Alarm present Alarm level: Alarm in working order:YeWO Noely Date of previous pumping:ALA Comments: (condition of inlet tee, condition of alarm and float switches,etc.) liglit or noiding tanks are not present , DISTRIBUTION BOX Qi (locate on site plan) Depth of liquid level above outlet invert:__ ' Comments: (note.if level and distribution is equal, evidenoe of solids carryover,evidence of leakage into or out of box, etc.) — istribution boxes are not prpsent _ PUMP CHAMBER:,A&V— (locate on site plan) Pumps in working order:(Yes or Nol Alarms in working order(Yes or No .Q Comments: (note condition of pump chamber,condition of pumps and appurtenances,etc.) ump chamber is not present revised 9/2/98 Psge.8ofII SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTUII INSPECTION FORM PART C SYSTEIIA INFORMATION(cortdrond) Property Address: 1047 Route 28 Centerville ,Mass . O1N1ef: Associated Alarms • Date of Inspection: 2/2 3/0 0 / SOIL A.BSORPTiON SYSTEM(SAS)- (locate on site plan.If possible:excavation not required,location may be approximated by non-Intrusive methods) If not located, explain: Type: Is aching pits,number- leaching chambers,number:-2 leaching galleries,number: leaching trenches,number,length: leaching fields, number, dime alone: overflow cesspool,number: Alternative system: ess—por rior 78 Code . Leachin Name of Technology: P g Comments: was installed in 1982 1 ote condition of soil, signs of hydraulic failure,level of ponding, damp soli, condition of vegetation, etc.) Loamy sand to coarse sand No G; gnc of hjr.lrn„1jC f-411, grade . Witn cas CESSPOOLS:_ (locate on site plan) Number and configurstion: Depth-top of liquid to Irdat Invert: Mat 10 R Depth of solids laysr: Depth of scum layer: DlmensioNs of cossPOOIL lux or, Materials of construction: Indication of groundwstsr: Inflow(cesspool must be pumped as part of Inspection) e- i nt I ow teas intrusion . Comments: (note condition of soil, signs of hydraulic fallura•.Isvel of pending,condidon ofvegetatlon,etc.) Same aG aha e PRIVY: (locate on site plan) Materjals of consuuc qn: Dimensions: y� Depth of solida: Comments: (note condition of soil, signs of hydraulic failure,level of ponding, condition of vegetation;etc.) Privy is not prpspnt - revised 9/2/98 Pagt9of11 1 SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM PART C SYSTEM INFORMATION(cants md) PropwlyAddress: 1047 Route 28 Centerville ,Mass .? Ownw: Associated Alarms Date of hw@c': 2/2 3/0 0 SKETCH OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM: Include ties to at least two permanent referents landmarks or benchmarks locate all wells within 100' (Locate where public water supply comes Into house) 4 y 6x$ e � � ��� �' 1 ° ��� - P/Aw ate' /.d d d O id &IF7u//}TCW�rI��V revised 9/2/98 Page 10of11 '•eao ,f x f' CA It S ,., ® ' +-q ,9re DRY 1047 Route 28 Centerville ,Mass . ' Associated Alarms REAR 0 # ! There are four catch Basins #4 # 1=5 ' x5 ' #1$#2 should be # 2=5 ' x5 ' cleaned out # 3=6 ' x7 ' #2 # 4=6 ' x7 ' #3&#4 are dry #3 SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM PART C SYSTEM INFORMATION(conthwed) Property Address: 1047 Route 28 Centerville ,Mass . Owner: Associated Alarms. Date of Inspection: 2/2 3/0 0 NRCS Report name Soil Type_ Typical depth to groundwater USGS Date website visited Observation Wslis checked Groundwater depth: Shallow Moderate Deep SITE EXAM Slope Surface water Check Cellar Shallow wells Estimated Depth to Groundwater, Feet Please indicate all,the methods used to determine High Groundwater Elevation: Obtained from Design Plans on record Observed.Site(Abutting property observation hole, basement sump etc.) Determined from local conditions Checked with local Board of health Checked FEMA Maps Checked pumping records :/Checked local excavators,installers Used USGS Date Describe how you established the High Groundwater Elevation. (Must be completed) Used Water contours map . Gahrety & Miller Model 12/16/94 revised 9/2/98 page norii' `a•nrnr+t—nrr7r•'Tf ffrrmr•It1T.rnr'nrta7.tt+TRr.7r•�S1�n►aTAT�t'wttfter+ty s�'wr�ltwT 7T".TT�7f�1r�:..<•,r—• 1 TOWN OF Barnstable . BOARD OF HEALTH 0 , SUIISURFACF SEWAGE VISI'USAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM - PART D •- CERTIFICATION •••Tt1 R••.::.—T..It:�.�TT1tRt!tl.'RCaT.T71r1�T.fR'7qT•T.t7T71R1f•\71R�1'n1Aw�R11�1�1t�7A't lwl .�I'T'T•1.�. -TYPE OR PAINT CI.EAALY- PROPERTY INSPECTED STREET ADDRESS 1047 Route 28 Centervni,lle ,Masss . 02632 ASSESSORS MAP, . DLOCK AND PARCEL OWNER' s NAME Associated' Alarms . PART D - CCRTIFICATION I NAME OF INSPECTOR Joseph P.Macomber Jr . COMPANY NAME J. P.Macomber & . Salf 'INC. COMPANY ADDRESS Box 66 Centerville,Mass . 02632, Street Town or City COMPANY TELEPHONE ( 508 ) 775 - 3338 FAX ( 508 ) 790 1578 CERTIFICATION STATEMENT I certify that I have personally inspected the sewage disposal system at ®recommendations. his address and that the information reported is true, accurate, and omplete as of the time of -inspection . The inspection was performed and any regarding upgrade , maintenance , and repair are =consistent with my training and experience in the proper function and maintenance of on- .. .site sewage disposal_ systems . Ch?system one: PASSED The inspection which I have conducted has not found any information which indicates that the system fails to adequately protect public lieaiLh or Lhe environment as defined in 310 CMR 15 . 303 , Any failure criteria not evaluated are as stated in the FAILURE CRITERIA section of this form. System FAILED* The inspection which I have con acted has found that the system fails to Protect the . E-jublic health and the environment in accordance with Title 5 , 310 CMR 15 . 303 , and as specifically noted on PART C - FAILURE CRITERIA of this inspection form . Inspector Signature Date a( n6 copy of this certification must be provided to the OWNER, the BUYER here applicable ) and the BOARD OF H$ALZ'JI. * If the Inspection FAILED, the owner r or "M ` eator shall u P p8rade ' the system within one year of the date of the inspection , unless allowed or required otherwise as provided in 3.10 CMR 15 . 305 . partd .doc Town of Barnstable Planning Department Staff Report :Childs-Appeal Number 2000-24 Modification of Variance No.9975=93 Date: March 23, 2009 To: Zoning Board.of Appeals From: Approved By: Robert P Schernig,AICP, Planning Director Art Traczyk. Principal Planner Applicant: Randy Childs Address:: 1047 Falmouth Road/Route 28,:.Hyannis,,MA Assessor's Map/Parcel: Assessor's Map 250,Parcel.004 Area: 0:83.acre Zoning: RD-1 Residential RD-1'Zoning District Groundwater Overlay: GP Groundwater Protection District Filed:February 28,2000 Tearing:March 29;1000 Decision Due:June 7_2000. Background: The property consists of a 0,83 acre lot that is improved with an office building of approximately 5,511 sq ft:' and a 115 foot radio tower. The existing building consists of two levels; a finished basement and a first floor level. Due to the grade of the:site,which slopes toward the rear of the property,the basement is exposed on the back side. As the Board Members may recall, the,issue before them originated at the December 01, 1999 hearing involving Appeal Nos. 1999-147 and 148 as:related to a proposed rebuilding of the communication tower by Sprint Spectrum; LP. During that hearing.questions were raised as to the uses on the site and compliance with the conditions of Variance No. 1975-93(see attached Variance No. 1975-93).. That Variance is very specific in terms of the permitted uses. The conditions imposed were as follows: 1) There shall be only two businesses.on locus a) The Electric lighting Company in conjunction.with the Alarm Company b) A bookstore 2) The bookstore shall be limited to: a) the location in the building as shown on the plans submitted b) the sale of books only-not newspapers or periodicals 3) There shall be one.sign of no larger than 12 square feet each a) for`the Electric Lighting portion of the joint use b) for the Alarm System portion of the joint use c) for the bookstore 4) The grant of the modification of the variance.does not allow for acid.does not imply three separate uses differing in the use. The Electric Lighting Company and the Alarm Company are to be considered as one,joint use, The bookstore is the second use.. Today,the applicant it seeking to modify those conditions to permit four(4)office.units. At present those: units are occupied:,by Elkman Bookkeeping; Briggs.&Heino Plumbing &-Heating, Hyannis Chiropractic and Associated Alarm System, I► c. Sprint Spectrum, LP is.considering locating also on the site, only with respect to rebuilding of the existing tower and locating its antennas in combination with existing communications. ` Source-Assessor's records dated 1 1122 99 f Town of Barnstable-Planning Department-�;"ff Report Childs-Appeal Number 2000-24 Modification of Variance No.1975-93 This issue however is the subject of Appeal Nos. 1999-147 and 1999-148 and are not before:the Board today. This applicant is requesting only to legitimize:.those uses that are there today,. Prior ZBA Action. Appeal Number 1968-105 The Board granted a Use Variance to permit the construction of a 36'x 64'building to be used as an electrical contracting business and rental_offices in a Residence A-1 District. At thattime,the only principal. permitted uses were detached one family dwellings and the renting of rooms for not'more than 6 lodgers by a. family resident in the dwelling. Appeal Number 1971-23 The Board granted permission for the construction of 1,976.sq. ft. addition to the existing building to:be. used for 4 additional offices and storage. There is a discrepancy between:the Facts and Decision for this appeal,the legal notice and the application. The Factsand Decision states that a Special Permit was granted for the expansion of a nonconforming use. The legal notice states this appeal is an appeal of the Building Inspector as well as a.request for a Variance. The application for this appeal requests a Variance:to Section 1, Paragraph 2-Residence Al District. The original building was permitted.by a.Use Variance so a Special Permit for the expansion of a nonconforming use would not have*been appropriate relief. Appeal Number 1975-93 The Board granted a modification of the previously approved Variances to permit a change of use.from office space to retail space. Appeal Numbers 1968.105 and 1971-23 allowed a retail lighting shop and 2,500.s.q. ft.. of office space. The Board granted this modification with the following conditions 1.) There shall be only two businesses on locus a) The Electric Lighting Company in conjunction with the Alarm Company b) A bookstore 2) The bookstore shall be limited:to: a) the.location in the building as shown on the plans submitted b) the sale of books only-not newspapers or periodicals 3) There shall be one sign of no larger than 12 square feet each a) for the Electric Lighting portion of the joint use b) for the Alarm System portion of the joint use c) for the bookstore 4) The grant of the modification of the variance does not allow for and does not imply three separate uses differing in the use. The Electric Lighting Company and the Alarm Company are to be considered as one,joint use. The bookstore is the second use. Appeal Number 1978-19-Withdrawn- N2L,� icable This was a request to allow the construction of a 24' x 40' addition to the rear of.the existing building and.a: Variance from the signboard regulations. This appeal was withdrawn.because the application, and subsequently the legal advertisement, stated it was a request for a Special Permit when it should have been fora Variance. Appeal Number 1978-42 -Withdrawn-Not Applicable This appeal was-a request for a Variance to allow an addition to the:existing building and a Variance from the sign code regulations(similar to the relief requested inAppeal No. 1978.-19). At the.request of the applicant, it was withdrawn without prejudice due to the absence of the applicant's attorney. Appeal Number 1978-53-Denied-Not Applicable The Board denied a request for Variance from the sign code regulations. I 2 Town of Barnstable-Planning Department-4�aff Report Childs-Appeal Number`2000-24. Modification of Variance.No.1975-93 Appeal Number 1978-54-Denied-Not Applicable The Board denied a request for a Variance/Special Permit to permit the construction of,a 24'x 40"'addition.to the rear of the existing building, Staff Review: The applicant was before the Site Plan Review Committee on February 17; 2000 nd was approved pending a revised plan indicating that; 1. the perimeter fencing along Blackberry t_ane is within or on the property line and, 2. the parking lot is re-configured and re-striped to meet today's requirements. Those change have been incorporated and the revised approved site.plan has been submitted to.the file. The site is located within a GP Groundwater Protection Overlay District. The applicant has cited'.that on-site wastewater disposal is handled by 6 cesspools and 1 precast leaching pit. At the request of the Health Agent, those systems were inspected on February 23, 2000,and it was determined that they are in proper working order. The Health Agent was satisfied with the existing on-site wastewater disposal. Variance Findings: In consideration for the modification of the condition enumerated in 1975 Variances, the applicant must substantiate those conditions,uniquetothis lot that justify modification of'the conditions. Suggested Conditions: If the Board should find to grant the requested modification, they may wish to consider the following conditions: 1. There shall be no more than 4'office suite located within the building. No medical offices that receive or give patients care,are permitted.except that,the existing chiropractic office shall be allowed to operate. until it moves or ceases. At that time,the space shall revert to an office use only and.shall not be reused for chiropractic medical care. 2. Within one year of the issuance of this modification, the site shall be improved as represented to Site Plan Review and as shown on a plan titled"Comprehensive Site Plan"for Reid Corporation, drawn by Clough, Harbour&Associates and as approved by the Site Plan Review Committee dated February 24, 2000. 3) There shall be only one sign permitted of the site that shall not exceed.36 square feet. Attachments: Applications Copies: Petitioner/Applicant Approved Site Plan Assessor's Field Cards GIs Map Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Inspection 3 iWR OaApWOTOR TtRf817ip6 RaiPCS'fS 6tKY � . y�QGTH ROA -- xn �y �. -1y.rp. plTfYY1T - r MUNf r � 7 } c ExiSIWC.USES. - OtM.AREA EMKOYEES . 4 ® `4i' RaP 4u8: No TTmp ® 81490&tWe plia b" 1.084 a.1.1 Full lb i. ran wuai a >, e:+i1i nas A m"Un9 4 Trearlanl C i 2^��-f`Q? '"�`"�' " .a� a ,4 >•.. _ � oft CheoPr tk 812 ar.t Full Tb" = wear- lAarocint�A —P lama Mc 5264.aT ar:tObawimiit � m Iorinp CFaalfkafton.. 8D-1(Roa>Dantimj. '�$ :p rrr 5 Solbadm fiani:JO'J100'1 Rnot>sim� p qS A - ror: .. y0tl'-Sot6oW W .�---""". 'yt'f Propvltoa Lxoiea M ttaut or M!W 2 3 ^�-� u„ a n,a> „ orr-slrnm Pa wlaa • • Royaro i,tt s.t.cpoe rwar moot/Saporate s,rle. :Ij300 a1,x8.i>R at..T 1/Wto x 4 Suitaa 8 OFAoRN F{ .t - EMF.U.0; 34 Spoosea, ,s'Ao 5.. r."atloe Aran Req lad by.Towa.o/8arnat"bte "az00 SS, u ff-2 ,o ,.,..rm,4.u,.n ... fAvas y/T EMtat[ay taatrattoa Aeco _ - LL row 3Y a tu:a n w SeaPaPn pile Z®,t60,e:6 voch ..320.S.f[ f lr9 .iS"rwSw°pP` ae. `A� ! Pfop"od Infdtrallm Am S-I"GO Pita 1 0-t80 af.•c-h m/00 SF, WstroUaa Ooaia >•:3.400 S.F. M'AIIMI..Aran 9.880 SF. f 4.>!i 7 8.' c X7t� Pow a nfYu ars 0+ CRAMOC SCM m v as viaur a�.a R.rav _ Stara9D Ydaatn RepyYed by R01Wat WttW4 5,048 cv n eaw '•wawa.raw f.waea aew...e.tme v Pfopatd SlamwalaT lat8tfollaa eaaai Yatufraf .$,900.aw it. A C CLOUGH. HARBOUR RGLO CORP00APON � SITE PARCEL tNfORMATlOA' L� &ASSOCIATES'LLP O WP GOMPREHENS VE SITE PLAN RA4tvnEiQ3.8.A.�EYLFyT,w.rnnEr+s :so AID 6 t.�NOC; F£ «fFBC:TH lOi7 fW.IIOIiPI Ra. &OCi(N/A .. .. .aa Ca TrAet Sal[LI neAiwW}lUt.HA .. Pala+ fffNieai.YA O]a0i 1014- - S 5 4 f v i y y nom "-T D B TOW or. a Q sit xoni Board, of 'appeals nn Ali r,ati2a tag til i.aa for a Variance- MtO For office bse WitBearing Date Ki i The s as iersi + a app3.3.as to the Semi ng d of Appeals for a var e. from the cs, £ the.manner and for the reasons hereinafter set forth: Petitioner Names R22.d G a" Phone 775-3442 . Petitioner Ad4re8st c/o`Associated Alarms,, 1047 Talmouth Road, Hyannis, MA '02601 Prop %ati= 1047 Falmouth Road, Hyaruu s Property Viers Reld Corporation � o Phone 775-3442 Address of owners 1047 Falmouth Road:, Hyannis, MA 02.601 Zf.petlh£oner 4We= tmw owner, state nature of Interest: and Li . Lhe Vice President of Reld Corpgration Ni=ber of yearsowned: 32 years Assessors map/Parcel, numbert 250/004, Zoning Districts 11D-1_ Groundwater Overlay Pistricct-. GP Variance Requested: Modi v exiaLias_variance imi scant tg tom' , c,4 A,§j� -n r nfnrm to existing conditions. Fite section A 71tle of the zo�e orcumance Description of variance Requested: to, modify existing var i:ance .lay allowing 'four. office spaces;, one.'of which would provide chi:ropractic: services ,to replace a permitted retail electrical su ly show/sales room and retail bookstore. Dbacript on of the Reason and/car need for the variances existing use of the ro2er tj ITas nQt consisLepL xith the yagj"g previously issued Discription of conat=ction vity: (if applicable)' : none Existing Level of Development of the ftoperty - Runber,of Ruildingss: 1. Present use.(e) ,office space � gross Floor Area: '7696 Proposed Gross Floor Area to be Added: 0 Alteseds 0 is this property subject to any other relief (variance or special Permit) from the Zoning board of Appeals? yes ki No � xf Yes, please I st appeal numbers or eppl cants name .1968-105- 1971-23, 1975.23 1978-19, 1978--42, '1978-53, 1978--54, 1999-147 & 148 Application to petitiiosn for a Variance Is the property within a xistoric District? fee No . Is the -property s Designated Landmarks yes UP No .'For s�or�c �artmeaat so only Not Applicable ...• O q 4'O q 02 Plaza kiview wumber ••• Date approved Signatura t Have you applied for a building permit? Tea t 3 No E1 has the. Building Inspector refused a permit? yes 3 No F1 All apyali.caiion a for a variance which proposes a change in use, new construction, reconstruction, alterations or expansion, except for singleor. two-faasi 3 y dwellings, w.i ll require approved site Phan (see section q,� 7.3 of the zoning Ordinance), That,process should be completed prior to submitting this application to the zoning Board of, Appeals, For-Bui:? j nee ne0a=ent USe on_l not Required .6........ site Plata Review number b' D Q Date approved a Signature a ' The followings information dust be submitted with,the Petition at the Mime Of filing, without such information the Board of Appeals may deny your request: Three (3) copies. lof the completed Applicatimn: Posm, each with, original signatures Five (5) copses.of a certified prGPertg survey (plot plat) showing the dimensions of the land, all wetlands, water bodies,. surrounding. roadways and the location of the existing improvements on the, land.. All proposed development activities, except single and two-family housing development, 'will. require five (5) copies of a proposed. site improvements Plata approved by.tie site plan Review Committee. This Plan muat show the enact location of all proposed improvements and alterations ota the land and to structures. see "Contents of site :Plaza:— section- 4 -7.5. of the zoning Ordinance, for detail requiremeents. the.petitioner may submit any additional supports sag doctameahffi to assist the Soard in making"its determination. CfZ Legit , signature: f � Date: � {� Petitioner $gent,a Sigastrzre Agernvs .address. PO Box 714, Jest Bamstable., MA 026.68 Phone.- Fax :No.5Q81367-544A Pro perr4-Locati6iv 1047 FA'UNIOZ's`H RU(ROUTE 28) a1/:4P IO: 2501004111 14,0an ID.,1.8155 tuber/P.: RI dg #: 1 Carr/ 1 of 1 Print,Vate.,0311412040 t t rltllC 7 {f'�h li 1,S .... ' .. (101 lTILIIILs' /kIh1 D� :L{CCr Cuwf1;: It355 IVI . __ ._.,._... .., . 1 C)eacr,at rnt E t ails ,f� zF t jr"r rs i t Iss cr I T'1x1ziF• .g P 0 BOX 1148 f - �� —+j � � .. CO�t ti RC.w 3400 158,00 s1'5��01� RO! XIYANNIS,NUt 02601 ,40( s s tdl`P1 h t1 fZ ail L.1�,l 7 1_ ,40 Barnstable 2000,ti�A R-e-I�—�_ Tax Dist. 400 Land W [ t'v a':4'rtap. 9qR Life Lstate 4 t DL i Notes. 290,924 iI 12i`Itl f P Y7G}r. 51 CI3{I Jf 5LISIIl l SAI T341/ ltI1lr t ,r :C PR C l✓v1rSzx'EL 3 Ss sIzhss�rVT!'u(hT lb"7tI7r72 iJ ice" �sass7Ture{'It i 0___> _Tr c cue" t<S.s .rsctd l due 11991), I�399 34 , 9 34 t ,i 1990 3400 1-8,d0 199 3400 158,00(, 3400 5,400199 3400 5,400 I eta __.„. ._ I I tzruC Z8 ;7 ?87 0 /arra7. 3U*)7I10 C37`!Ih'Yt sSI SSt19t 5'7 4 s srgrralure a gnaw er Wcs a vrsra•by a Data Co lector arA3sess.rr ' 3 vier -" "—"�7}1 rya r rttf>rr nrtru ats Ca CJ€ cy t{ for 1 urn eiYi7r3u t t ararrra Irrt. f I Appraised Bldg;Value(Card) 158,0d0 i Appraisers XF(B)Value(Bldg) 0' n a S u 5,400 i Appraised OB(L)Vattie(Bldg) tVC1IES Appraised Land Value'(s3ldg;} i24;4. _-_.__�_m...�...__.. _,.." ,_. _.: _ .__...:.„ _ Special Land akte• Total Appraised Card Value r87�04' Total Appraised Parcel Vatue 287,800, t Valuation Method: � t ostfiNfarket Vatuatiot N i if T<titt Apprwi►se3Wi'heel valtie . 287 80Uj I%I;lLX7f�5tC;I'LTt1? I I{IiC'(?RII.... f/LYT?Cli 1, -T/isCOR W _. _ _ 7�ar a77I3�. ss Trzrte 7ve Z scrrl>trore a rrmta. rzsp_ ate" �Z oir�p. j`t3ute F.c�rri. t anunerris 9 i+. ` �7nr' j C:a: Furir"'"""ffs rXtsufi q E t _ I.,fs.A -ILIV�I�11,T.=IfiIChS xSLt'7 Ctt _.. _. _._._ _ _ r --o r"-- „, -- - ...."._.__.___.... rr--- -•_> ,... ..,, _... ,a.frt7" a"{t:."'t t?. Se".tar„5'?ew.�t r�r,ciri> "":Tint n.11 rice t1 Gse�.B "1'IT:'1*;Tlarrt,trc�r .Cvt.e. ;1� rranrpl; but L�tttts .,rn,Ptu� ,T:`Ft.�tar F S�. C Cawtrr � �,. . . J. s 1 t J.. .. y IS 4_S i I" _. r.._ _ i1 S1(` I rI;OiTtTOQ.___T0t4 $3T: :.o es: U351`I'1;`—�4it33 iZ 14ttt}. Tnrril arid` rrrls d 8, ............ .. _..... t.. -_.... ... .. ne I.... AC rrra an a Property Lodi iow 1047 1 1I3t OA11'11 RO(ROUTIC 28) ALAP ID: 250/004//! Vision ID:18155 other ID: I Carrel 1 of I Prirtt Drrte:03/14/2000 cc}t s rl rYclr� � r�l /1 :s1�1�YCI _ ._,. __ _ ...,. .i w m:. m:. ......, _ ..... __ _ _ ... _. _ ......._ 1 ireraaerrt kZ'c1,.;7."fr;; lksc'i.7;raerr "": '_ ` C.orurrre�re"rFr�%�irlriCler»i'iFl� �'T�5� . �"""" �''�" f Ivief'1'yp ICIil€c� L Model 94 Cbrnoaereial 3iea r�C .. ._i(w \Ck\E __. _.___.___... tirade tt(: _ C: ramc Cvlae 2 VO0111Rr1"ISE. aths/Plumbing 102 E �1V.FRafE £Stories, i ?1 Story x € t)Gcapancy 0 ' ;Ceiling/wall 118 XVPICAI. BM 2 xterior Wall I 14 Wood Sbin ke 'Rooms/Puns 02 , AVERAGE rn Common Wall 0 2 i 4i'al)Height 10 -Roof Structure 0 (Gable/Hip � Roof Cover 03 !4spblir Gls/cmp i a 4 € t _..'_.._..C{�D t?l7tltTZ1(JfIC";131rI nlcrior C4'ili t {kS t Drywalk t rerr ` " jCuue escrr/trrcta� 2 Interior Floor 1 14 #2 Carjact 'otoAdj, " i �.Jnii I txcataon � � � ,-Ieating Fuel 4 !k€etrkc 24 I94 eating Type i7 ; E tc.c:Baseboard umber oF;lkntts BRtt t�cTypc I None atiunahei of Levels [ $/o Ownership Dedroorhs 00 Lcro Bedrooms athroonts it lero Ilathrms TIOS TAIA RATT I BIZ Fk TJOI1 77 77" } 4 o 0 Full ired3 13 t r 11a[G " 3:I113 Total Rooms t A Roo m ata Adl Factor 4.90679 ' rrhde(Q)index 1.63 38 38 '�Batla 1 ype _ /ldj..Base Rate 49.50 38 l itclten Style l Sdg.Vsttu Net+° 87,249 E ear Built- t969 i -ff.Year Built 19?5 Vrini Physcl Dep }22 i r-uncnlObskne '0 _1 q eon OlastnC 1 17/AXD AT1 �r5C(+peel Cand,Code :. l,ca t00 a ---Pverail%C;ond. 55 Deprec.Bldg Value 158,000_ i scwF,tirrr� »7s "tan j pirPricw fr. LJ Itt i '�Crcd ':, i/rr, ctae 5 r T1 =A 1'�1;��rr. y.. TJ 197 50 ,. S;dOfl E x � � 8 l � t t � li771I111:4Cr 517II full�i S IfYf k[7�"r47 C 11UA C E to 13�;crztst rrr " rrs�Fb Ir a t tsrzs, :r r "ff Ir'a f-rrrI-t-ost r ----- _._ _ 13AS �arsT 1`lacar� — 3,970 9 494� t9tf� FBtiI 4iasemrnt,Finished 1,7331 2s8 173 29.7 .85 784 1I13:l1 �liasement,Unfinished U 96 19 9"90 9 504 t ga l i ' .... .-.._< _ ..- __. .� _ - ........ Tit.'-Gross LTv.Leri§-eF 1ren 3, 11 7 X ,80 j 131t Val. S?24 i SPR Meeting Notes 02!1 M000 Site Plan.Review ?1leetinl;of February 17,2000 2nd Floor Hearing Routh Barnstable`rown Rall 367,Main Street, Hyannis Present: Ralph Crosson,Building C:ornmissionex,'Doug .dill,.Associate Planner,Thomas.. McKean, Director of Health, Steve Pisch,Engineer; Also in attendance were Attorney Bruce Gilmore, Montaque Brown, Bill Dillion, Dan Ojala, Rabbi Yekusiel Alperowitz, Sid.Davidson. This meeting;was called to order at 9:05 AM anti adjourned at 11:30 AM. Sl'R 1.6-2000 Reid Corporation(Sprint).1`047 Falmouth Rd'fly(2:507.004). Attorney Bruce Gilmore,representing Reid Corporation reviewed.the history attached to the 1047 Valmouth Road site. Multiple uses have shared and occupied this site for a number of years. "fire applicant recognized.tbat this'site is a non- conforming mixed.use in a residential;Gl?district. In addition,Attorney Gilmore noted that the available parking.exceeds, the minirmim required by the by-taw. He continued,_informing the panel that although the e cistino septic is not Title 5: compliant; it is well maintained and shallcontinued to be so; The applicant offered to construct a swale in order to-address - storm water run-off not included in the current system. Ultimately,he reminded the committee,the applicant seeks to Icuitinlire ause that has beun in operation for approximately twenty years.'Phis transmission_tower has-been there since 1968.There is no intensification Of Use because there...are,not employees on site and-no client visits'.- i'lannin-asked if this application'is a pre-existin6,rion-conforrnin Ilse,constructed prior to the, 100' set back? At Gilmore responded affirmatively, Discussion included the available parking(if47 vehicles(32 required)and that the ZBA appears to be concerned with the actual use and height of the tower. During subsequent conversation it was revealed that because construction occurred during the early 1980's, it is not Title,5. compliant.. There are in fact 7 cess pools,, Dcu.,iled discussion ensued including.whether or not this single use would'trigger the up grading.ofthe existing cesspool systems,whether oi-not onc.or more tanks were in fact operating and whether or not the panel should require the up grading anyway. The applicant interjected that this use does not involve any traffic,employees or clients_. The.sole technician visits ot1 a monthly schedule oi'sites.to ensure proper operation. `i`hey do rr��t maintain an olTice. Steve Pisch inquired about the drainage,a fence along.Blackberry Lane and the.curb cut. Specifically, he-informed tlle: applicant of the.town's desire to reduce the cut to 24'. He also indicated that the parking stalls should be.19`according to the town standard. What,is provided,appears to be 1:4 15' . Steve recommended that die_applicant_reconfigure and restripe the parking lotto be in compliance.with town regulations. ZI the Building C on�rnissiotier asked for con the Blackberry fence is in fact located with iri the property.line. ;A revised plan clarifying this and indicating;the location of the durnpster should be submitted for review. Cctttelusion; Approved pending a revised plan.inclicatiiif the iolltiwi.ng: C''ur�fir•rriirtion thul pertrrrt ter jencr".n,t,T:ufc3ns, Blackberry Lain-,is within or on property Gyre. Parrklog lot isre=oxrn/igrn cC:rod sttlisequejztti r e-strip t(. i 'q m e i f y► l ,� � �, a r. e 1 1� a• E ItE i I I i 41 PROJE NAME: ®,�//T ���Ze�.-� �B✓�-ice ADDRESS: "0 7 PERMIT# .j PERMIT DATE: M/P: � --� LARGE ROLLED PLANS ARE : B O SLOT Data entered in MAPS program on: If By. i9 r 0111,Vtq, CLLcj r< BAP,1\1STA_QL_E. MASS. MAMMA= P=4y 23 P9 2: 34 Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals Decision and Notice Sprint Spectrum, LP Appeal Number 2000-31 Variance-Section 3-1.1(5) Bulk Regulations-Maximum Building Height Summary: Granted with Conditions Petitioner:. Sprint Spectrum, LP FILE COPY ONLY! Property Address: 1047 Falmouth Road/Route 28, Hyannis NOT RECORDED AT Assessors Map/Parcel: Map 250,Parcel 004 Area: 0.83 acre REGISTRY OF DEEDS Zoning: RD-1 Residential D-1 Zoning District Groundwater Overlay: GP Groundwater Protection District Background: ' The property consists of a 0.83 acre lot that is improved with an office building of approximately 5,611 sq. ft., and a 115 foot self supported radio tower. The.existing building consists of two levels; an exposed finished basement and a first floor level. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing tower with a 120 foot monopole structure and associated base equipment for use as a wireless communications facility. To allow the proposed facility, the applicant has applied for the following zoning relief: Appeal Number 1999-147-Special Permit pursuant to Section 4-4.4(2) Nonconforming.Building or Structure Not Used as Single or Two-Family Dwellings, to permit the replacement of an existing 115 foot radio tower with a 120 foot monopole structure and associated base equipment station. • Appeal Number 1999-148-.Special Permit pursuant to Section 4-4.5(2) Expansion of a Pre-Existing Nonconforming Use, to permit the replacement of an existing 115 foot radio tower with a 120 foot monopole structure and associated base equipment station for use as a wireless communications facility. • Appeal Number 2000-31 -Variance from Section 3-1.1(5) Bulk Regulations-Maximum Building Height to, permit the tower to exceed the 30 foot height limitation on structures and allow 120 foot tower. Procedural Summary: This appeal was filed at the Town Clerk's Office and at the Office of the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 31, 2000. A public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals was duly advertised and notices sent to all abutters in accordance with MGL Chapter 40A. The Applicant and Board Chairman executed an extension of time to file the decision. 'A copy of which is contained in the file. The hearing was opened on April 26, 2000, and continued.to May 10, 2000 at which time the Board granted the variance with conditions. Hearing Summary: Board Members deciding this appeal were Gene Burman, Richard Boy, Tom DeRiemer, and Dan Creedon, and Gail Nightingale,Acting Chairman. During the hearings, Attorney Edward D. Pare, Jr. represented the applicant. Attorney Pare reviewed the appeals. He noted that when the applicant was previously before the Board with reference to Appeal 1999- 147& 148, there was some concern regarding the uses on this site. On March 29, 2000, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted relief to the owner of the property and the property is now in compliance with the uses currently on the site. Attorney Pare noted that at the previous hearing, the Board questioned the legal non-conforming structural status of the tower, so-in the alternative-the applicant submitted this Variance request to bulk regulations, maximum building height. He also stated that since,the tower is already there, the use of this new antennae is allowed as-of- right under the recently amended Section 4-8 Personal Wireless Communication of the Zoning Ordinance. The 7.awn.of Barnstable-Planning Department-Staff Report Sprint Spectrum,LP-Appeal.Number 2000-31 Variance-Section 3-1.1(5)Bulk Regulations-Maximum Building Height proposal needs a dimensional variance for the additional height. They will be rebuilding the tower for safety reasons. Attorney Bruce Gilmore who represented the owner of the property (Randy Childs)at a previous hearing of Appeal No. 2000-24 for a modification of an existing Special Permits/Variances for the use of the locus, explained that the existing tower was mentioned at the March 29, 2000 hearing of the appeal and cited in the Board's findings The tower was an accessory use, first by Childs Electric, and then by its successor Associated Alarm. William Hastings, RF Engineer.Specialist, explained that Sprint needs to be up high on the monopole (120 feet high)in order to separate them from Associated Alarm antennas. The height is also needed to clear the trees and allow coverage of Hyannis. Sprint and Associated Alarm will be the only users of the tower. Kevin Washburn, an engineer from Clough, Harbour&Associates, LLP, explained the GPS antenna is very small in size(about the size of a small drinking cup)and placed on the antennae to allow the signal to locate other Sprints antennas. The tower is designed to accommodate one other use, but they are not now seeking a co-locator. Attorney Pare reiterated that Sprint's use will be legal because communication antennas are allowed, under certain conditions pursuant to Section 4-8, in every zoning district. The variance request is for height, not use variance. Ralph Crossen, Building Commissioner noted that the current tower does not have a building permit. Public Comment: No one spoke in favor or in opposition to this appeal. The Board asked the applicant to demonstrate variance conditions. Attorney Pare stated that since there is already a tower on the site,this is a unique condition only to this site and not the neighborhood affected. The relief is for only an additional five feet and as such not a detriment since there is currently a 115 foot tower on the site. If the relief is not granted it will be a hardship to Sprint as they are required by the FCC to provide telecommunication services throughout the State. They have to comply with the Telecommunication Act of 1996 and without this relief Sprint would suffer a substantial hardship. The immediate area is largely commercial and the relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or the neighborhood affected. The Board was concerned with the nature of relief needed. They determined to request the Town Attorney review the case and advise on the relief needed. The Board continued the appeal to May 10, 2000. At the May 10,2000, continuance Acting Chairman Gail Nightingale expressed concern for the tower as an existing communication tower as defined in the Personal Wireless Communications Section of the Ordinance. Town Attorney Robert Smith responded that defining the tower in that context would not have a bearing in this particular case. The relief needed for Sprint Spectrum can be granted by means of a dimensional variance. Part one of Section 4-8(3), Personal Wireless Communications, deals with communication devices, antennas and appliances on existing structures. The"use"-"wireless communication" is permitted everywhere in Town of Barnstable on existing structures. It is only the height of the structure that needs relief in this case. That can be done through a dimensional Variance. Findings of Fact: At the hearing of May 10, 2000, the Board found the following findings of fact as related to Appeal No. 2000-31: 1. The applicant, Sprint Spectrum LP, is seeking a Variance from Section 3-1.1(5) Bulk Regulations- Maximum Building Height 2. The property address is 1047 Falmouth Road/Route 28, Hyannis, MA, as shown on Assessor's Map 250, Parcel 004 and located in the RD-1 Residential D-1 Zoning District and the GP Groundwater Protection Overlay District. '3. The petitioner is seeking to replace an existing 115 foot-tall tower structure with a 120 foot-tall monopole. 4. The applicant originally proposed to accomplish this segment of the plan through a request for a Special Permit (Appeal Number 1999-147) pursuant to Section 4-4.4(2) Nonconforming Building or Structure Not Used as Single or Two-Family Dwellings 5. As to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 10 Variance Conditions, the topography of the site is burdened with a great slope which is unique to this property. This monopole could add visual pollution to the area, but there is a need to take care of the people in the town who need cell phones. It would be a hardship for the applicant to locate outside this area which would lead to a gap in service and place the applicant in jeopardy of penalty from the FCC. There are conditions on the site that warrant the grant of a variance. 2 f Uwn of Barnstable-Planning Department-Staff Report Sprint Spectrum,LP.-Appeal Number 2000-31 Variance-Section 3-1.1(5)Bulk Regulations-Maximum Building Height 6. The neighborhood is surrounded by commercial businesses across the street and down the road. 7. The relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. There may be visual pollution, however proper screening and painting would help. 8. The relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance as there is a need in the town for this type of service. 9. During the course of these proceedings there was no opposition voiced by any abutters. The vote was as follows: AYE: Gene Burman, Richard Boy,Tom DeRiemer, and Dan Creedon NAY: Acting Chairman Gail Nightingale Ms. Nightingale voted in the negative because she felt this was not within the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Decision: Based on the findings of fact, a motion was duly made and seconded to grant the relief being sought in Appeal No. 2000-31 subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plan titled"Sprint Spectrum, LP Site I.D.# BS13XC661 B4 Associated Alarm System 1047 Falmouth Road Hyannis, MA 02601", prepared by Clough, Harbour&Associates LLP and dated March 2000. 2. The proposed monopole, including all antennas, shall not exceed a height of 120 feet. 3. The color of the monopole shall be earthtone to lessen the visual impact. 4. If use of the monopole is abandoned or not used for a period of one(1)year, the pole shall be removed within 30 days and the site restored. This is to be done by the petitioner. 5. If transmissions from this pole or its antennae interfere with any local television, radio, telephone, alarm system, or other electronic equipment, Sprint Spectrum, LP or its successor shall have 20 days to rectify the situation. If not rectified within those 20 days, the Building Commissioner shall order the communication devices to be shut down immediately. 6. There shall be no further development of the subject property without Zoning Board of Appeals, Board of Health and Site Plan Review approval. 7. The petitioner shall post a Performance Bond acceptable to the Legal Department or its Designee for removal of the monopole. 8. There shall be no more than nine(9)antennas from Sprint Spectrum, LLP and two whip antennas which is in accordance with the plan submitted. The vote was as follows: AYE: Gene Burman, Richard Boy,Tom De_ Riemer, and Dan Creedon NAY: Acting Chairman Gail Nightingale Ms. Nightingale voted in the negative because she felt the granting of the Variance was not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Order: Variance Number 2000-31 has been granted with conditions. Appeals of this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 17, within twenty (20)days afte e d to :he_ in of this ecision in the office of the Town Clerk. _s-k3 oe Acti Chairman ail Nighti ale Datd Sig ed I Linda Hutchend er, Clerk of the Town of Barnstable, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, hereby certify that twenty (20)days have elapsed since the Zoning Board of Appeals filed this decision and that no appeal of the decision has been filed in the office of the ToWn-plerk. Signed and sealed this C day b " 0l7;r under the pains and penalties of perjury. Linda Hutchenrider, Town Clerk 3 •. - Proof_Of Public, tlon LEGAL NOTICES Town of Barnstable Zoning¢oard of Appeals Notice.of Public Hearing Under The Zoning Ordinance for April 20.2000 To all persoris{nterested in,or affected by the Board of Appeals under Sec.11 of Chapter 40A of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,and all amendments thereto you we hereby notified that: 7:25 PM Azores Appeal Number 2000-30 Sheila Azores and Marcia Azores have petitioned to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Permit for a Family Apartment pursuant to Section 3-1.1(3)(R) of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is shown on Assessoris Map$19,Parcel 016 and is commonly addressed as 12 Bayview Road,Barnstable,MA in an RB Residential B Zoning District. 7:30 PM Sprint Spectrum.LP Appeal Number 2000-31 Sprint Spectrum LP has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Variance to Section 3-1.1(5)Bulk Regulations. The Applicant seeks to replace an existing 115 foot communl- cations tower with a 120 foot monopole pursuant to the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The property is shown on Assessods Map 250, Parcel 004 and is commonly addressed as 1047 Falmouth Road/Route 28. Hyannis, MA in an RD-1 Residential D-1 Zoning District. 7:45 PM Morin Appeal Number 2000-32 Jacques N. Morin has petitioned to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Permit pursuant to Section 4-4.2 Nonconforming Lots. The sale.of a 102.5i x 1041 area of land to the neighbor creates a more nonconforming lot. The property is shown on Assessoris Map 292, Parcel 87 and is commonly addressed as 56 Delta Street, Hyannis, MA in an RB Residential 8 Zoning District. 8:00 PM Naked Oyster.Inc. Appeal Number 2000-33 Naked Oyster.Inc.has petitioned to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Modification of a Special Permit. The Applicant is seeking to modify Condition#3 in Appeal Number 1998- 82modifying Appeal Number 1997-47A.Condition#3 limited the restaurant use to a Coffee Shop inot to exceed 2.000 gross square feet and not to exceed 50 seats.i The Applicant is seeking permission for a 1,600 square feet restaurant with a bar totaling 72 seats. The property is shown on Assessoris Map 294,Parcel 002 and is commonly addressed as 20 Independence Drive,Hyannis,MA,in an IND Industrial Zoning District,B Business Zoning District,and HB Highway Business Zoning District 8:30 PM Morse Appeal Number 2000.34 Rodger H.and Jayne K Morse have petitioned to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special - Permit pursuant to Section 4-4.2(5)Nonconforming Lots n Merged Lots. The applicant owns two lots which have merged. Applicant has prepared a plan of land dividing the premises into two tots,one containing 6731 sq.ft.(Lot 1)and one containing 8,933 sq.ft.(Lot 2). The property is shown on Assessoris Map 117,Parcel 106 and is commonly addressed as 12-18 Parker Road, Osterville. MA in an RC Residential C Zoning District and a BA Business A District. 8:45 PM OiGlishen Appeal Number 2000-35 James OiGlishen has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Use Variance to Section 3-1.1 to allow use of a four(4)family residence. The property is shown on Assessoris Map 307. Parcel 227 and is commonly addressed as 143 Chase Street,Hyannis,MA in an.RB Residential B Zoning District. These Public Hearings will be held in the Hearing Room;Second Floor,Town Hall,367 Main Street,Hyannis,Massachusetts on Wednesday,April 26.2000. All plans and applications may be reviewed at the Zoning Board of Appeals Office, Town of Barnstable. Planning Department,230 South Street.Hyannis,MA. Ron Jansson,Chairmen Zoning Board of Appeals The Barnstable Patnot April 6,2000 8 April 13.2000 ReiNo mappar ownerl owner2 addr city state zip 31 249 064 MCLEAN, KENNETH N JR 173 ARMORY ST JAMAICA PLAIN MA 02130 249 066 RYAN, JOSEPH A & NATALIE TRS 28 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 067 CARINE, JANICE E P 0 BOX 196 CENTERVILLE MA 02632 249 067 004 THIS PARCEL DOES NOT EXIST 249 068 GAMMONS, JOHN H & BERTHA V BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 069 JONES, DAVID T & SHEILA M 4 BLACKBERRY IN HYANNIS MA 02601 249 070 MEDLIN, KAREN M 56 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 071 MIRAN.DA, RUI A 64 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 071 MIRANDA, RUI A 64 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 072 THOMAS, JOHN W & MURIEL 76 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 073 PRAISE, IRMA BALL 6 PRAISE, JULIETTE 290 W MAIN ST HYANNIS MA 02601 249 077 NORTON, STEVEN A & MORRISON-NORTON, LYNETTE A 59 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 083 ANDERSON, JOHN C & SUSAN G BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 249 153 LEBOEUF, MARILYN K 69 BLUEBERRY HILL RD HYANNIS MA 02601 250 001 FOUNDERS COURT CORP C/O C JOHNSON & CO PO BOX 1100 CENTERVILLE MA 02632 250 001 FOUNDERS COURT CORP C/O C JOHNSON & CO PO BOX 1100 CENTERVILLE MA 02632 250 002 BAILEY, WALTER 25 LYMAN ST ' WALTHAM MA 02154 250 003 MAHER, MICHELLE 2 BLACKBERRY LANE HYANNIS MA 02601 250 004 RELD CORP P 0 BOX 1148 HYANNIS MA 02601 250 004 RELD CORP P 0 BOX 1148 HYANNIS MA 02601 250 005 BOTSFORD, NORMAN L & JUDITH 1069 FALMOUTH RD HYANNIS MA 02601 250 006 PIERCE, IRENE M 1081 FALMOUTH RD HYANNIS MA 02601 250 008 HAKALA, KENNETH A & FAITH S 728 STRAWBERRY HL RD CENTERVILLE MA 02632 250 023 H00 PIETRO, DAVID G TRS D P REALTY TRUST 37 MECHANIC ST WORCESTER MA 01608 250 023 TOO PIETRO, DAVID G TRS D P REALTY TRUST 37 MECHANIC ST WORCESTER MA 01608 250 025 GLOWACKI, WALTER J . P 0 BOX 28 NANTUCKET MA 02554 250 027 H00 PIETRO, DAVID G TRS D P REALTY TRUST 37 MECHANIC ST WORCESTER MA 01608 250 027 TOO PIETRO, DAVID G TRS D P REALTY TRUST 37 MECHANIC ST WORCESTER MA 01608 250 028 SCHOFIELD, BENTLEY C 1 GOODWIN PL - $1 BOSTON MA 02114 250 065 FATHER MCSWINEY ASSOC INC %JOHN KELLEHER, TRS BOX 25 HYANNIS MA 02601 250 094 BAILEY, WALTER 25 LYMAN ST WALTHAM MA 02154 ti 3 _7V_Zd y . , r, Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals KM& t Planning Department i" a� 230 South Street,Hyannis,Massachusetts 02601 (508)862-4795 Fax(508)862-4725 May 04,2000 Robert D.Smith,Town Attorney Town of Barnstable 367 Main Street Hyannis MA,02601 RE: Appeal Numbers 1999-146,19WI47 and Appeal Number 2000-31-Sprint Spectrum,LP Dear Mr.South: On December 01, 1999 and April 26,2000,the Zoning Board of Appeals heard testimony on the above referenced appeals: During the BoaWs-deliberation,several questions were raised concerning the existing radio tower's regality , and whether or not the use of this tower can be considered pre-existing nonconforming,copies of the minutes from both meeting are enclosed. The relief being sought is a Special Permit pursuant to Section 4-4.4(2)Nonconforming Building or.Struchue Not Used as Single or Two-Family Dwellings and Section 4-4.5(2)Expansion of a Pre-Existing Nonconforming Use and/or a Variance to the Bulk Regulations. The applicant's attorney has argued that the use of the existing tower is pre-existing nonconforming because it was constructed pursuant to a license issued by the FCC on October 10,1975,and that it is grandfathered pursuant to MGL Ch.40A,Section 7,and thus can be modified or extended by Special Permit. In reading the minutes of the April 26th hearing,you will see that Attorney Pare referred to Section 4-8-Personal Wireless Communications of our Zoning Ordinance. Is Associated Alarm's existing structure"a communication tower"as stated in Section 4-8(3)"Except where permitted as of right....in all Zoning Districts,an antenna mounted or located on any existing building or structure other than a communications tower,may be permitted by Special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals...." [emphasis added). The Board did not agree completely with Mr.Pace's argument however,we have not voted on the issue yet. Is the existing radio tower an accessory use to the Associated Alarms business allowed as-of-right and if so,how can it now become a pre-existing nonconforming use? There is no building permit on file in the Town's records for the existing tower. Does the lack of a building permit make the existing tower an illegal structure regardless if it is classified as accessory or nonconforming? Finally,if it is determined that the tower and its use are pre-existing nonconforming,can the dismantling of the existing tower and the erection of a new tower be considered an expansion allowed under Section 4-4.5(2)of the Zoning Ordinance? The applicant is Sprint Spectrum not Associated Alarms. Should this be considered an additional application and use? Finally,the Board would like to know what alternative forms of relief can be applied for if the existimg'tower is not determined to be pre-existing nonconforming? The property is located within 300 feet of Route 28,so a new Use Variance is not possible. The hearings for these appeals have been continued to May 10,2000. Your office's review- and opinion on these issues would be greatly appreciated. Respectfully, �L - �4L AcKg Chairman Gail Nightingale CC: Attorney Edward Pare Zoning Board of Appeals Board Members i clear)which allowed for the construction of an addition to the existing building for additional offices. The existing tower was mentioned at the March 29,2000 hearing and listed in the findings(#2)of Appeal Number 2000-24. Appeal Number 2000-24 was a modification of the existing Special Permits/Variances on the site. The tower was an accessory use,first by Childs Electric,and then by its successor Associated Alarm,and as such,is a pre-existing nonconforming use. William Hastings,RF Engineer Specialist,explained that Sprint needs to be up high on the monopole(120 feet high)in order to separate them from the Associated Alarm which is also located on this tower. They also need the height so they can clear the trees and cover all of Hyannis. Sprint will be on the top of the tower. There will only be two uses on the tower. Kevin Washburn,an engineer from Clough,Harbour&Associates,LLP,explained the GPS antenna is very small in size(about the size of a small drinking cup)and placed on the antennae to allow the signal to locate other Sprints antennas. The tower is designed to accommodate one other use,but they are not now seeking a co-locator. As to the structure,the existing tower is now 3 feet across and the new tower will be 4 to 4%feet at the base and. tapering to the top. The existing tower is made of lattice work and the new one will be Solid. The Board still had a concern about the use. Attorney Pare reviewed the proposal stating that the new section of the Zoning Ordinance(Section 4-8)allows for the antennae use(either as-of-right or by Special Permit)and they only need a dimensional variance for the additional height As to the current tower,it is not clear how that use was allowed. This new tower is a new structure that is taller than allowed and that is why they are seeking a.variance:for the height The new use will be legal because communication antermas are allowed(under certain conditions pursuant to Section 4-8)in every district The variance.request is for height It is not a use variance. The Building Commissioner addressed the Board. The current tower does not have a building permit and he will not"second guess"what happened.back when it was constructed. One thing to consider is,if this were a secondary use,is it now a primary use that has a accessory use attached. He questioned if Sprint is now the main use and fte alarm company,the accessory use. He questioned if a new variance or a modification of a variance was needed Public Comment: No one spoke in favor or in opposition to this appeal. Some of the Board Members still had a concern as to what relief was needed. Acting Chairman Gail Nightingales questioned if this was a new use on the property since they are a new tenant The relief that was just recently granted in Appeal Number 2000-24 only included what was on the site and this is an additional use.This is also m new structure and a new business. The Board asked the applicant to demonstrate variance conditions. Attorney Pare stated that since there is already a tower on the site,this is a unique condition only to this site and not the neighborhood affected The relief is for only an additional five feet and as such not a determent since there is currently a 115 foot tower on the site. If the relief is not granted it will be a hardship to.Sprint as they are required to provide telecommunication services throughout the State and Sprint would be penalized by the FCC if they do not meet certain service for the area. They have for comply with the Telecommunication Act of 1996 and without this relief Sprint would suffer a substantial hardshi3p. The immediate area is largely commercial and the relief can be granted without substantial determent to the public good or the neighborhood affected. The Board was still concerned. They asked for a letter from the Town Attorney about the proper relief for this site— should the Board be looking at Special Permit relief,Variance relief,or both. Some Board Members questioned U this would be adding another use to the site and if so would it be an accessory use or the primary use since Sprint is now the owner of the tower and leasee of that portion of the property on which the tower will be located,which is how the applicant had standing to come before the Board. The alarm company will now become a tenant on the tower. Attorney Pare is of the opinion that the only relief needed is that of a dimensional variance. The Board continued these appeals. Appeal Number 1999-147 and Appeal Number 1999-148 and Appeal Number 2000-31 are continued to May 10,2000 at 8:45 PIVL Note:Attorney Pare signed an extension of time for these appeals. I . • Excerpts.from the minutes of February 02,2000 OLD BUSINESS: . Appeal Number 1999-147 and Appeal Number 1999-148 Sprint Spectrum,LP At the start of these hearings,Chairman Emmett Glynn read a letter from Attorney Edward D.Pare,Jr.dated January 27,2000 which states[in part], "....We request a continuance in order to resolve outstanding issues raised by the Board..".Upon request of the applicant,these-appeals are continued until March. [Note:Attorney Pare signed an extension agreement] Appeal Number 1999-147 and Appeal Number 1999-148 are continued to March 29,2000 at 7:30 PK Excerpts from the minutes of March 29,2000 Appeal Number 1999-147 and Appeal.Number 1999-148 Sprint Spectrum,LP At the start of these hearings,Chairman Emmett Glynn read a letter from Attorney Edward D.Pare,Jr.dated February 29,2000 which states[in part], "....Sprint Spectrum respectfully requests that the public hearings...be rescheduled to thez=ftewing date:." Upon request of the applicant,these appeals are continued. [Note:Attorney Pare signed an extension agreement] Appeal Number 1999-147 and Appeal Number 1999-148 are continued to April 26,2000 at 7:30 PM. Excerpts from the minutes of April 26,2000 OLD BUSINESS: Appeal Number 1999-147 and Appeal Number 1999-148 Sprint Spectrum,LP NEW BUSINESS: Appeal Number 2000-31 Sprint Spectrum,LP Board Members hearing these appeals were Gene Burman,Richard'Boy,Tom.DeRiemer,Dan Creedon,and Acting Chairman Gail Nightingale. Attorney Edward Pare represented the applicant A memorandum was previously submitted to the file by Attorney Pare and all Board Members have received a copy. Attorney Pare reviewed the appeals. The applicant is seeking to replacing an existing 115 foot tall tower structurm with a 120 foot tall monopole. When the applicant was previously before the Board,there was some concern regarding the uses on this site.. On March 29,2000,the Zoning Board of Appeals granted relief to the owner of dae property and the property is now in.compliance with the uses currently on the site. •The applicant believes the tower is a legal nonconforming use&structure,and would require a Special Permit to allow for the expansion by Sprint. But at the previous hearing,the Board questioned the legal non-conforming structural status of the tower,so-in the alternative-the applicant is also requesting a Variance to the bulk regulations should the board find that the tower does not constitute a legal non-conforming structure. Attorney Pare stated that he is only seeking permission for the additional antennae. Since,the tower is already there;the use of this new antennae is allowed as-of-right•under Section 4-8 Personal Wireless Communication oi= the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal needs a dimensional variance for the additional height They will be rebuilding the tower for safety reasons. Attorney Gilmore addressed the Board. He was the attorney who represented the owner of the property(Randy Childs)at a previous hearing. He explained that in 1968,a Variance was granted to allow for the construction of Childs Electric. Later,a"second relief'was granted(either a Special Permit or Variance as the records are not r TOWN OF BARNSTABLE - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Excerpts from the minutes of December 01,19" Appeal Number 1999-146 and Appeal Number 1999-147 Sprint Spectrum,LP . Board Members hearing these appeals were Gene Burman,Richard Boy,Gail Nightingale,Ralph Copeland,andl Chairman Emmett Glynn. Both Alternate Board Member Tom DeRiemer and Dan Cnedon were present and can replace any Board Members)if necessary. Attorney Edward D.Pare,Jr.represented the applicant. Supporting . staff present included Matthew Fallon,Site Acquisition Consultant;Kevin Washburn,Project Engineer,and Steve Desmarais,R.F.Engineer. Attorney Pare previooily submitted a memorandum to the file which all Board Members have received The Board asked the applicant to show standing. A lease agreement with the owner was submitted. In addition,the owner of the property,Randolph E.Childs,was present and reported the applicant has his permission to seek the requested relic£ Attorney Pare explained that Sprint Spectrum proposes to replace an existing 11 S foot tall tower structure with a 120 foot:tall monopole and install associated base equipment on the land. This is an additional five feet from the original structure. As background,Attorney Pare reported that the Applicant,Sprint Spectrum and Wireless Co, L.P.,are wholly owned subsidiaries of Sprint Corporation,the long distance telephone company. Wireless Co,L.P. is a subsidiary of Sprint Spectumn. In 1.995,Wireless Co,L.P.was issued a Radio Station Authorization by the Federal Communications Commission(FCC)for-PCS wireless broadcast with respect to the Massachusetts area. At this time,Sprint Spectrum is actively building-out its PCS system on a nationwide basis and began providing service to Massachusetts customers in November of 1997. PCS is the next generation of wireless telecommunicmtions which utilizes digital technology to provide substantially improved clarity,privacy,and all-in- one communications. In contrast to existing analog systems,digital PCS technology provides a much clearer signal (by eliminating interference with computer technology)and allows.for the delivery of fax,computer,and other data *transmissions without the need for telephone Imes. Most importantly,as the digital signal cannot be intercepted with common radio scanners,PCS communications are confidential and secure..A copy of the FCC license to Sprint was submitted in the memorandum. The licensing process was reviewed by Attorney Pare. In 1996,the Telecommunications Act of 1996,deregulated the telecommunications industry to provide for competition. Carriers were sought with the ability to locate antennas,and provide telecommunication services through the construction of towers and co-location on existing towers..Sprint Spectrum is one of a limited number of companies licensed by the FCC to provide PCS to the residents and businesses of the Town of Barnstable. As a licensee of the FCC,Sprint Spectrum is mandated to ' build-out and operate its system such that adequate wireless service is provided to the general public. The site selection process includes the idea of co-locating on existing towers. This is usually easier and costs lesm money and does not impact the general area of the tower. The existing tower must have sufficient height and strength to be able to handle the additional antenna and wires. Another alternative is to rebuild or extend and strengthen existing towers. Lastly,would be new tower construction. The applicant seeks to dismantle the existing tower and replace it with a monopole structure 5 feet higher than the current tower. Thus,the applicants are seeleing a Special Permit to expand the non-conforming structure and a Special Permit to expand the non-conforming use:on . this site. At this time,the Board asked the applicant if he had proof that the current tower on this site is a legal pre-existing nonconforming structure and a legal pre-existing nonconforming use. In Attorney Pare's opinion,the existing tower structure constitutes a pre-existing nonconforming use because it was constructed pursuant to a license issued by the FCC on October 10, 1975. There is no building permit on file in the town. The owner of the site,Randolph Childs, addressed the Board and explained that he conferred with the building inspector at the time of installation of the existing tower structure and was advised to,seek the approval of the FCC, the FAA(Federal Aviation - Administration),and the Barnstable Municipal Airport. He then erected the tower structure pursuant to that FCC- license. He was told it could not have lights-and it does not have any lights. Mr.Childs never filed for a building permit because he was led to believe one was not needed. The tower was constructed in plain view of the town a-nd he has never been told he was in violation. The tower is not in the flight path of the airport. TheBoard was still concerned about procedure. They questioned how the applicant can propose to change a nonconforming use if it is not a legal nonconforming use. Attorney Pale felt this could be allowed under MGL Chapter 40A,Section 7 grandfather rights,however the Board did not agree with him. That section states the violation can not be enforced after a certain number of years-not-that after it certain number of years the use Th becomes legal. e Board stated the applicant must prove the use is legal. Attorney Pare read horn the Mass. Zoning Manual,Section 6-29,which refers to Section 7 protection and the allowance of certain minor changes to a structure if the changes are not substantial. In'Attoiney Pare's opinion,the Board has the authority to grant additional height to this tower as a grandfathered nonconforming structure. The replacement of the tower with a new tower makes sense because the existing tower would not be able to handle their antennas or cables and this new tower will be structurally sound. The area already has the visual impact of a tower as a tower already exists on this site. The base of the proposed tower is 5 feet and the base on the existing tower is 2 feet. The Board explained to the applicant that other telecommunication carriers have been before the Board and were granted approval on other sites within the town. However,on this site,because of the relief being requested,it is the burden of the applicant to prove this tower is a legal pre-existing nonconforming use and pre-existing nonconforming structure. They also felt that since the applicant is putting up a new tower it was not an expansion of an existing tower. The Board did not want to continue until the legality of the tower and the use could be verified. The applicant has Site Plan Review approval but without the Building Commissioner present this evening,the Board could not ask hum if this issue of a.legal pre-existing nonconforming uselstructure was brought up at Site flan Review. The Board noted that this site was before them for numerous requests for zoning relief but the tower was never mentioned in any of the files. A tower was never shown on any plans. The site was granted a modification in 1975 for two business uses only. According to the Staff Report,on a recent site visit conducted on I l22/99,it appear s the tams and conditions of Appeal Number 1975.93 are not being met in that there are more than 2 businesses on the premises. The signs at this location indicate that there are five separate businesses. The Board asked the applicant if he could address the uses on the site and he indicated he could not comment as he did not know whart was there because he was only interested in the tower. The Board indicated they would like the Building Commissioner to look into any possible violations of the current.Variances and questioned if the owner should seek a modification of these Variances. Attorney Pare stressed that the tower was constructed pursuant to an FCC license. Perhaps at that time,a building permit was not required for the tower if the FCC issued a license. Mr.Childs thought the tower was-and has been- legal all this time. Until certain issues could be resolved the Board chose to continue these appeals: The Board requested and/or AM needed clarification of the following: • a report from the Building Commissioner regarding-these appeals, does this appeal need to go back to Site Plan Review?, • the legality of the tower structure and the use of the tower, • the different uses on the site--are they legal?, • would this use of the site by Sprint be considered a new use on this site?, • should the existing Variance(s)be modified since there are more uses on the site, • if this is a lawful accessory use,how can it now become a pre-existing nonconforming use?,and • if the existing tower is dismantled and a new tower is built how can this be considered an expansion? Attorney Pare indicated he would like'to talk to the Town Attorney regarding the issue of grandfathering and the issue of a legal pre-existing nonconforming use and structure. Appeal Number 1999-147 and Appeal Number 1999-148 are continued to February 02,2000 at 8:30 PM. J TOWN OF BARNSTABLE - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Excerpts from the minutes of December 01,1999 Appeal Number 1999-146 and Appeal Number 1999-147 Sprint Spectrum,LP Board Members hearing these appeals were Gene Burman,Richard Boy,Gail Nightingale,Ralph Copeland,and Chairman Emmett Glynn. Both Alternate Board Member Tom DeRiemer and Dan Creedon were present and can replace any Board Member(s)if necessary. Attorney Edward D.Pare,Jr.represented the applicant. Supporting staff present included Matthew Fallon,Site Acquisition Consultant;Kevin Washburn,Project Engineer;and Steve Desmarais,R.F.Engineer. Attorney Pare previously submitted a memorandum to the file which all Board Members have received. The Board asked the applicant to show standing. A lease agreement with the owner was submitted. In addition,the owner of the property,Randolph E.Childs,was present and reported the applicant has his permission to seek the requested relief. Attorney Pare explained that Sprint Spectrum proposes to replace an existing 115 foot-tall tower structure with a 120 foot-tall monopole and install associated base equipment on the land. This is an additional five feet from the original structure. As background,Attorney Pare reported that the Applicant,Sprint Spectrum and Wireless Co, L.P.,are wholly owned subsidiaries of Sprint Corporation,the long distance telephone company. Wireless Co,L.P. is a subsidiary of Sprint Spectrum. In 1995,Wireless Co,L.P.was issued a Radio Station Authorization by the Federal Communications Commission(FCC)for PCS wireless broadcast with respect to the Massachusetts area. At this time,Sprni Spectrum is actively building-out its PCS system on a nationwide basis and began providing service to Massachusetts customers in November of 1997. PCS is the next generation of wireless telecommunications which utilizes digital technology to provide substantially improved clarity,privacy,and all-in- one communications. In contrast to existing analog systems,digital PCS technology provides a much clearer signal (by eliminating interference with computer technology)and allows for the delivery of fax,computer,and other data transmissions without the need for telephone lines. Most importantly,as the digital signal cannot be intercepted with common radio scanners,PCS communications are confidential and secure. A copy of the FCC license to Sprint was submitted in the memorandum. The licensing process was reviewed by Attorney Pare. In 1996,the Telecommunications Act of 1996,deregulated the telecommunications industry to provide for competition. Carriers were sought with the ability to locate antennas,and provide telecommunication services through the construction of towers and co-location on existing towers. Sprint Spectrum is one of a limited number of companies licensed by the FCC to provide PCS to the residents and businesses of the Town of Barnstable. As a licensee of the FCC,Sprint Spectrum is mandated to build-out and operate its system such that adequate wireless service is provided to the general public. The site selection process includes the idea of co-locating on existing towers. This is usually easier and costs less money and does not impact the general area of the tower. The existing tower must have sufficient height and strength to be able to handle the additional antenna and wires. Another alternative is to rebuild or extend and strengthen existing towers. Lastly,would be new tower construction. The applicant seeks to dismantle the existing tower and replace it with a monopole structure 5 feet higher than the current tower. Thus,the applicants are seeking a Special Permit to expand the non-conforming structure and a Special Permit to expand the non-conforming use on this site. At this time,the Board asked the applicant if he had proof that the current tower on this site is a legal pre-existing nonconforming structure and a legal pre-existing nonconforming use. In Attorney Pare's opinion,the existing tower structure constitutes a pre-existing nonconforming use because it was constructed pursuant to a license issued by the FCC on October 10, 1975. There is no building permit on file in the town. The owner of the site,Randolph Childs,addressed the Board and explained that he conferred with the building inspector at the time of installation of the existing tower structure and was advised to seek the approval of the FCC, the FAA(Federal Aviation Administration),,and the Barnstable Municipal Airport. He then erected the tower structure pursuant to that FCC, license. He was told it could not have lights-and it does not have any lights. Mr.Childs never filed for a building permit because he was led to believe one was not needed. The tower was constructed in plain view of the town and he has never been told he was in violation. The tower is not in the flight path of the airport. The Board was still concerned about procedure. They questioned how the applicant can propose to change a nonconforming use if it is not a legal nonconforming use. Attorney Pare felt this could be allowed under MGL Chapter 40A,Section 7 grandfather rights,however the Board did not agree with him. That section states the violation can not be enforced after a certain number of years-not-that after a certain number of years the use becomes legal. The Board stated the applicant must prove the use is legal. Attorney Pare read from the Mass. Zoning Manual,Section 6-29,which refers to Section 7 protection and the allowance of certain minor changes to a structure if the changes are not substantial. In Attorney Pare's opinion,the Board has the authority to grant additional height to this tower as a grandfathered nonconforming structure. The replacement of the tower with a new tower makes sense because the existing tower would not be able to handle their antennas or cables and this new tower will be structurally sound. The area already has the visual impact of a tower as a tower already exists on this site. The base of the proposed tower is 5 feet and the base on the existing tower is 2 feet. The Board explained to the applicant that other telecommunication carriers have been before the Board and were granted approval on other sites within the town. However,on this site,because of the relief being requested,it is the burden of the applicant to prove this tower is a legal pre-existing nonconforming use and pre-existing nonconforming structure. They also felt that since the applicant is putting up a new tower it was not an expansion of an existing tower. The Board did not want to continue until the legality of the tower and the use could be verified. The applicant has Site Plan Review approval but without the Building Commissioner present this evening,the Board could not ask him if this issue of a legal pre-existing nonconforming use/structure was brought up at Site Plan Review. The Board noted that this site was before them for numerous requests for zoning relief but the tower was never mentioned in any of the files. A tower was never shown on any plans. The site was granted a modification in 1975 for two business uses only. According to the Staff Report,on a recent site visit conducted on 11/22/99,it appears the terms and conditions of Appeal Number 1975-93 are not being met in that there are.more than 2 businesses on the'premises. The signs at this location indicate that there are five separate businesses. The Board asked the applicant if he could`addess the uses on the site and he indicated he could not comment as he did not know what was there because he was only interested in the tower. The Board indicated they would like the Building Commissioner to look into any possible violations of the current Variances and questioned if the owner should seek a modification of these Variances. Attorney Pare stressed that the tower was constructed pursuant to an FCC license. Perhaps at that time,a building permit was not required for the tower if the FCC issued a license. Mr.Childs thought the tower was-and has been -legal all this time. Until certain issues could be resolved the Board chose to continue these appeals. The Board requested and/or still needed clarification of the following: • a report from the Building Commissioner regarding these appeals, • does this appeal need to go back to Site Plan Review?, • the legality of the tower structure and the use of the tower, • the different uses on the site-are they legal?, • would this use of the site by Sprint be considered a new use on this site?, • should the existing Variance(s)be modified since there are more uses on the site, • if this is a lawful accessory use,how can it now become a pre-existing nonconforming use?,and • if the existing tower is dismantled and a new tower is built how can this be considered an expansion? Attorney Pare indicated he would like to talk to the Town Attorney regarding the issue of grandfathering and the issue of a legal pre-existing nonconforming use and structure. Appeal Number 1999-147 and Appeal Number 1999-148 are continued to February 02,2000 at 8:30 PM. � 1639. �FDMA'�s Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals Decision and Notice Childs-Appeal Number 2000-24 Modification of Variance No. 1975-93 Summary: Granted with Conditions Applicant: Randy Childs Address: 1047 Falmouth Road/Route 28, Hyannis, MA Assessor's Map/Parcel: Assessor's Map 250, Parcel 004 Area: 0.83 acre Zoning: RD-1 Residential RD-1 Zoning District Groundwater Overlay: GP Groundwater Protection District background: The property consists of a 0.83 acre lot that is improved with an office building of approximately 5,611 sq. ft. and a 115 foot radio tower. The existing building consists of two levels; a first floor level and a finished exposed basement. An issue arose at the December 01, 1999 Zoning Board of Appeals hearing of Appeal Nos. 1999-147 and 148 as related to a proposed rebuilding of the communication tower by Sprint Spectrum, LP. During that hearing questions were raised as to the uses on the site and compliance with the conditions of Variance No. 1975-93. That Variance was very specific in terms of the permitted uses. The conditions imposed were as follows: 1) There shall be only two businesses on locus a) The Electric Lighting Company in conjunction with the Alarm Company b) A bookstore 2) The bookstore shall be limited to: a) the location in the building as shown on the plans submitted b) the sale of books only- not newspapers or periodicals 3) There shall be one sign of no larger than 12 square feet each a) for the Electric Lighting portion of the joint use b) for the Alarm System portion of the joint use c) for the bookstore 4) The grant of the modification of the variance does not allow for and does not imply three separate uses differing in the use. The Electric Lighting Company and the Alarm Company are to be considered as one,joint use. The bookstore is the second use. Today, the applicant is seeking to modify those conditions to permit four(4) office units. At present those units are occupied by Elkman Bookkeeping, Briggs& Heino Plumbing & Heating, Hyannis Chiropractic and Associated Alarm System, Inc. Sprint Spectrum, LP is considering locating also on the site, only with respect to rebuilding of the existing tower and locating its antennas in combination with existing communications. This issue however is the subject of Appeal Nos. 1999-147 and 1999-148 and are not before the Board today. This applicant is requesting only to legitimize those uses that are there today. The site has a history of Zoning Board activities dating from a 1968 grant of a Use Variance No. 1968- 105. After that others that were issues and granted were 1971-23 and 1975-93. Other activities that were not granted were 1978-19, 1978-42, 1978-53, and 1978-54. i To of jBarnstable-Zoning Board of Appeals-Decision and Notice Childs-Appeal Number 2000-24 Modification of Variance No. 1975-93 Pr ocedural Summary: This appeal was filed at the Town Clerk's Office and at the Office of the Zoning Board of Appeals on February 28, 2000. A public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals was duly advertised and notices sent to all abutters in accordance with MGL Chapter 40A. The hearing was opened March 29, 2000, at which time the Board granted the requested relief. Hearing Summary: Board Members hearing this appeal were Richard Boy, Gail Nightingale, Gene Burman, Dan Creedon, and Chairman Emmett Glynn. Attorney Bruce Gilmore represented the applicant, Randy Childs, who was present. Attorney Gilmore cited that the Reld Corporation, Inc., the Real Estate Corporation, is the title owner to. the property in issue. He reviewed the current uses on the site include a bookkeeping business, Briggs & Heino Plumbing & Heating, a chiropractor, and the Child's Companies which include Associated Alarm System, Inc. There has been a chiropractor use on site since 1976. Attorney Gilmore reviewed the history of the site. In 1968, a Use Variance was granted for an electrical contracting business and rental offices. In 1971, a"second relief"was granted which allowed for the construction of an addition to the existing building to be used for 4 additional offices and storage. There is a discrepancy between the Decision in Appeal Number 1971-23 and the legal notice. The Decision states that a Special Permit was granted for the expansion of a nonconforming use whereas the legal notice states it was an appeal of the Building Inspector as well as a request for a Variance. In any event, the work commenced in 1973. By 1974, the rental units were unoccupied and in 1975, the applicant was granted a Variance in Appeal Number 1975-93. This allowed for two retail uses on the site. However, the bookstore use granted in that appeal, never came to fruition. The only retail use on site at that time was the lighting store (which remained until 1984). That retail use has been discontinued and the only use in that unit has been office use. There has been no retail use on this site since 1986. Since the applicant did not"use"the relief granted in 1975, they were under the impression that they could revert back to the relief granted in 1968 and 1971 for the office use on site. The applicant is before the Board tonight to legitimize the uses currently on the site. Public Comment: Mr. Botsford, a direct abutter, spoke in support stating they are good neighbors with no problems. No one else spoke in favor or in opposition to this appeal. Findings of Fact: At the hearing of March 29, 2000, the Board found the following findings of fact as related to Appeal No. 2000-24: 1. The Applicant, Randy Childs, is seeking to modify the Special Permits/Variances granted to the property located at 1047 Falmouth Road/Route 28, Hyannis,.MA as shown on Assessor's Map 250, Parcel 004. The site is located in the RD-1 Residential D-1 Zoning District and the GP Groundwater Protection District. 2. The property consists of a 0.83 acre lot that is improved with an office building of approximately 5,611 sq. ft. and a 115 foot radio tower. 3. The existing building consists of two levels; a finished basement and a first floor level. 4. This request for a modification came about as a result of an application for a radio communications tower by Sprint Spectrum LP (another appeal before the Board). Upon inspection of the building, it was discovered that the existing uses were not consistent with the relief previously granted. 5. The applicant is seeking to modify the conditions previously granted in the Special Permits and/or Variances to permit four(4) office units to include a bookkeeping office, a plumbing & heating office, a chiropractic office, and Childs Electric/Associated Alarm System, Inc. 6. This relief would be a modification of those applicable sections of Appeal Number 1968-105, Appeal Number 1971-23 and Appeal Number 1975-93. 7. The 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 Ordinance. 2 fown of Barnstable-Zoning Board of Appeals-Decision and Notice Childs=Appeal Number 2000-24 Modification of Variance No. 1975-93 The vote on the Findings was as follows: AYE: Gene Burman, Richard Boy, Dan Creedon, and Chairman Emmett Glynn NAY: Gail Nightingale Decision: Based on the findings of fact, a motion was duly made and seconded to grant the relief being sought in Appeal No. 2000-24, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. There shall be no more than 4 office suite located within the building. No medical offices that receive or give patients care are permitted except that, the existing chiropractic office shall be allowed to operate until it moves or ceases. At that time, the space shall revert to an office use only and shall not be reused for chiropractic medical care. 2. Within one year of the issuance of this modification, the site shall be improved as represented to Site Plan Review and as shown on a plan titled "Comprehensive Site Plan"for Reld Corporation, drawn by. Clough, Harbour&Associates and as approved by the Site Plan Review Committee dated February 24, 2000. 3. There shall be only one sign permitted on the site that shall not exceed 36 square feet. The Vote was as follows: AYE: Gene Burman, Richard Boy, Dan Creedon, and Chairman Emmett Glynn NAY: Gail Nightingale Mrs. Nightingale stated she voted in the negative because she felt there were no variance conditions and that the.applicant has gone beyond what was allowed in Appeal Number 1975-93. Order: Appeal Number 2000-24 has been granted a Modification of Variance No. 1975-93 with Conditions. This decision must be recorded at the Registry of Deeds for it to be in effect. The relief authorized by this decision must be exercised in one year. Appeals of this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 17, within twenty (20) days after the date of the filing of this decision. A copy of which must be filed in the office of the Town Clerk. Emmett Glynn, Chairman Date Signed I Linda Hutchenrider, Clerk of the Town of Barnstable, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, hereby certify that twenty(20) days have elapsed since the Zoning Board of Appeals filed this decision and that no appeal of the decision has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk. Signed and sealed this, day of under the pains and penalties of perjury. Linda Hutchenrider, Town Clerk 3 I _ Town of Barnstable Planning Department Staff Report Sprint Spectrum, LP Appeal Number 1999-147-Special Permit Pursuant to Section 4-4.4(2) Nonconforming Building or Structure Not Used as Single or Two-Family Dwellings Appeal Number 1999-148-Special Permit Pursuant to Section 4-4.5(2) Expansion of a Pre-Existing Nonconforming Use Date: November 22, 1999 To: Zoning Board of Appeals f From: Approved By: Robert P. rnig,AICP, Planning Director Reviewed By: Art Traczyk, Principal Planner Drafted By: Alan Twarog,AICP, Associate Planner Petitioner: _ *—__ , Sprint'Spectrum,.LP Property Address: 1047 Falmouth Road/Route 28,.Hyannis Assessor's Map/Parcel:!Map 25o,"Parcel 004" Area: 0.83 acre Zoning: RD-1 Residential D-1 Zoning District Groundwater Overlay: GP Groundwater Protection District Filed:October 21, 1999 ' Public Hearing:December 01, 1999' Decision.Due:January 19,2000 Standing: The property is owned by the Reid Corporation.. Sprint Spectrum, LP is proposing to lease a 575 square foot area from the owner. Staff suggests the applicant provide a copy of a lease agreement or a letter of authorization from the property owner to seek the relief that is the subject of these appeals in order to show standing before the Board. Background: The property consists of a 0.83 acre let that Is Improved with an office building of approximately 5,611 sq. ft., according to assessor's.records dated 11/22/99, and a 115 foot self supported radio tower. The existing building consists of two levels; a finished basement and a first floor level. Due to the grade of the site, which slopes toward the rear of the property, the basement is exposed on the back side and is at a lower grade than Falmouth Road. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing tower with a 120 foot monopole structure and associated base equipment station at the base of the monopole for use as a PCS communications facility. To allow the proposed facility, the applicant has applied for the following zoning relief: • Appeal Number 1999-147-Special Permit pursuant to Section 4-4.4(2) Nonconforming Building or Structure Not Used as Single or Two-Family Dwellings, to permit the replacement of an existing 115 foot radio tower with a 120 foot monopole structure and associated base equipment station. The existing tower is currently nonconforming with respect to its height. The maximum height allowed in all zoning districts is 30 feet. • Appeal Number 1999-148-Special Permit pursuant to Section 4-4.5(2) Expansion of a Pre-Existing Nonconforming Use, to permit the replacement of an existing 115 foot radio tower with a 120 foot monopole structure and associated base equipment station for use as a PCS communications facility. The existing tower is being used for radio communications in conjunction with the alarm business located on the premises. The property is located in an RD-1 Residential District which only permits detached single-family residences as a principal permitted use. Planning Department-Staff Report-Sprint Spectrum,LP Appeal Number 1999-147-Special Permit,Section 4-4.4(2)Expansion of a nonconforming structure Appeal Number 1999-148-Special Permit,Section 4-4.5(2)Expansion of a nonconforming use Prior ZBA Action: Appeal Number 1968-105 The Board granted a Use Variance to permit the construction of a 36'x 64' building to be used as an electrical contracting business and rental offices in a Residence A-1 District. At that time, the only principal permitted uses were detached one family dwellings and the renting of rooms for not more than 6 lodgers by a family resident in the dwelling. Appeal Number 1971-23 The Board granted permission for the construction of a 1,976 sq. ft. addition to the existing building to be used for 4 additional offices and storage. There is a discrepancy between the Facts and Decision for this 9 P Y appeal, the legal notice and the application. The Facts and Decision states that a Special Permit was granted for the expansion of a nonconforming use. The legal notice states this appeal is an appeal of the Building Inspector as well as a request for a Variance. The application for this appeal requests a Variance to Section I, Paragraph 2-Residence Al District. The original building was permitted by a Use Variance so a Special Permit for the expansion of a nonconforming use would not have been appropriate relief. Appeal Number 1975-93 The Board granted a modification of the previously approved Variances to permit a change of use from office space to retail space. Appeal Numbers 1968-105 and 1971-23 allowed a retail lighting shop and 2,500 sq. ft. of office space. The Board granted this modification with the following conditions: 1) There shall be only two businesses on locus a) The Electric Lighting Company in conjunction with the Alarm Company b) A bookstore 2) The bookstore shall be limited to: a) the location in the building as shown on the plans submitted b) the sale of books only -not newspapers or periodicals 3) There shall be one sign of no larger than 12 square feet each .a) for the Electric Lighting portion of the joint use b) for the Alarm System portion of the joint use c) for the bookstore 4) The grant of the modification of the variance does not allow for.and does not imply three separate uses differing in the use. The Electric Lighting Company and the Alarm Company are to be considered as one,joint use. The bookstore is the second use. Appeal Number 1978-19 This was a request to allow the construction of a 24' x 40' addition to the rear of the existing building and a Variance from the signboard regulations. This appeal was withdrawn because the application, and subsequently the legal advertisement, stated it was a request for a Special Permit when it should have been for a Variance. Appeal Number 1978-42 This appeal was a request for a Variance to allow an addition to the existing building and a Variance from the sign code regulations (similar to the relief requested in Appeal No. 1978-19). At the request of the applicant, it was withdrawn without prejudice due to the absence of the applicant's attorney. Appeal Number 1978-53 The Board denied a request for a Variance from the sign code regulations. Appeal Number 1978-54 The Board denied a request for a Variance/Special Permit to permit the construction of a 24' x 40" addition to the rear of the existing building. 2 Planning Department Staff Report-Sprint Spectrum,LP Appeal Number 1999-147-Special Permit,Section 4-4.4(2)Expansion of a nonconforming structure Appeal Number 1999-148-Special Permit,Section 4-4.5(2)Expansion of a nonconforming use Staff Review: Surrounding Land Uses The existing tower is readily visible from Route 28 and the surrounding properties. It is located in an area with a mix of different land uses. Single-family residences abut the subject site to the west and south. A landscaping business (Better Stones & Garden), an electrical contractor's office and a Knights of Columbus Lodge are located across Route 28 to the north. A vacant lot abuts the property to the east. Further east is an apartment complex. It appears from a recent site visit, conducted on 11/22/99, that the terms and conditions of Appeal Number 1975-93 are not being met in that there are more than 2 businesses on the premises. The signs at this location indicate that there is a chiropractor office, a plumbing & heating company, an asphalt contractor's office, a bookkeeping service business, and an alarm company. The applicant should be prepared to address this issue before the Board. Site Plan Review The site plan was found approvable on September 9, 1999 with the following conditions: • ZBA approval. • Submittal of RF information. • DPH approval on radiation levels. • Compliance with zoning regulation 4-8(2)(b) The applicant has submitted copies of the requested information for the Board's review. Is the applicant proposing a monopole capable of co-location with other providers? The proposed monopole appears rather large for use by only one provider. As the Board may recall, in Appeal Number 1999-88, TeleCorp PCS was granted permission for a 75 foot monopole off Industry Road in Marstons Mills. The TeleCorp monopole appears much less visually intrusive (see attached copy of photo simulation). Is there a way of reducing the visual impact of the proposed monopole? Pre-Existing Nonconforming Status The existing radio tower is nonconforming with respect to its height. Radio towers used in conjunction with a business have been allowed in the past without zoning relief, being considered accessory to the business and a separate structure from a building and, therefore, not having to meet height requirements. The main question before the Board is whether the use of the existing tower can be considered a pre- existing nonconforming use such that a Special Permit can be issued for the towers alteration and expansion. The Legal Department has stated that the present use of the subject tower can be considered an accessory use to the alarm company. If the use of the radio tower is accessory, it is permitted as-of- right. The alarm company is allowed by a Use Variance, so it cannot be considered a pre-existing nonconforming use. According to the application, the existing radio tower was constructed in 1975 pursuant to a license issued by the FCC on October 10, 1975 (see attached copy of license). The application states that the owner of the property at that time, Randolph E. Childs, conferred with the building inspector at the time of the installation of the tower and was advised to seek FCC and FAA approval. There is no record of a building permit having been issued. The plans submitted with Appeal Number 1978-54 (dated June 01, 1978) show what may be construed as a radio tower located at the southeast corner of the proposed addition, however, it is not labeled. It appears from the plans that the proposed addition in 1978 would have required the re-location of the existing tower, given the tower's present location and the proposed location of the addition. The applicant makes the argument that the present use of the radio tower can be considered a pre- existing nonconforming use because it was constructed pursuant to the FCC license described above. 3 Planning Department-Staff Report-Sprint Spectrum,LP Appeal Number 1999-147-Special Permit,Section 4-4.4(2)Expansion of a nonconforming structure Appeal Number 1999-148-Special Permit,Section 4-4.5(2)Expansion of a nonconforming use The applicant also makes the argument that the existing tower structure constitutes a legally existing "grandfathered" structure under M.G.L. Ch. 40A, Section 7 and, accordingly, can be treated the same as a pre-existing nonconforming use and thus modified or extended by special permit. If the Board should find that the present use of the radio tower is not pre-existing nonconforming, the only other possible form of relief available to the applicant may be a modification of the original Use Variances (Appeal Numbers 1968-105 and 1971-23), as modified by Appeal Number 1975-93. A new Use Variance is not possible because Use Variances are not permitted within 300 feet of Route 28 (Section 5-3.2(5)of the Zoning Ordinance). However, in speaking with Legal, an argument could be made that modifying a previously approved Use Variance to permit a use not allowed under current zoning regulations is not a proper avenue of relief. Special Permit Requirements: In granting a Special Permit for the alteration and expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming structure, the Board must find that the proposed alterations and/or expansion are not substantially more detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. If the structure houses a nonconforming use, the provisions of Section 4-4.5 shall also apply. In granting a Special Permit for the expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming use, the Board must find that the proposed expansion will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood and that the following requirements are met: A)Any proposed expansion of the use shall conform to the established setbacks for the zoning district in which it is located, or such greater setbacks as the Zoning Board of Appeals may require due to the nature of the use and its impact on the neighborhood and surrounding properties. B)The proposed use and expansion is on the same lot as occupied by the nonconforming use on the date it became nonconforming. C)The proposed new use is not expanded beyond the zoning district in existence on the date it became nonconforming. D)At the discretion of the Zoning Board.of Appeals, improvements may be required in order to reduce the impact on the neighborhood and surrounding properties including but not limited to the following: 1) greater conformance of signage to the requirements of Section 4-3; 2) the addition of off-street parking and loading facilities; 3) improved pedestrian safety, traffic circulation and reduction in the number and/or width of curb-cuts; 4) increase of open space or vegetated buffers and screening along adjoining lots and roadways. The applicant shall demonstrate maximum possible compliance with Section 4- 2.6 Landscape Requirements for Parking Lots, paragraph 6, if applicable. 5) accessory uses or structures to the principal non-conforming use, may be required to be brought into substantial conformance with the present zoning. The standards for granting a special permit also require the following findings of fact to be made by the Board (Section 5-3.3(2)): • that the application falls within a category specifically excepted in the ordinance for a grant of a Special Permit, (Section 4-4.4(2) allows for the alteration and/or expansion of a nonconforming • 4 Planning Department-Staff Report-Sprint Spectrum,LP y Appeal Number 1999-147-Special Permit,Section 4-4.4(2)Expansion of a nonconforming structure Appeal Number 1999-148-Special Permit,Section 4-4.5(2)Expansion of a nonconforming use building or structure not used as single or two-family dwellings by the grant of a Special Permit. Section 4-4.5(2) allows for the expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming use by the grant of a Special Permit.), that a site plan has been reviewed and found approvable in accordance with Section 4-7, (The site plan was found approvable by the Site Plan Review Committee on September 9, 1999-Site Plan Review No. 081-99.), and, • that after evaluation of all the evidence presented, the proposal fulfills the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and would not represent a substantial detriment to the public good or the neighborhood affected. Suggested Conditions: If the Board finds to grant the requested relief, they may wish to consider the following conditions: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plan titled"Sprint Spectrum, LP Site I.D.#BS13XC661 B4 Associated Alarm System 1047 Falmouth Road Hyannis, MA 02601 prepared by Clough, Harbour&Associates LLP and dated June 1999. 2. The proposed monopole, including all antennas, shall not exceed a height of 120 feet. 3. The color of the monopole shall be earthtone to lessen the visual impact. 4. If use of the monopole is abandoned or not used for a period of one (1)year, the pole shall be removed within 30 days and the site restored. This is to be done by the petitioner. 5. If transmissions from this pole or its antennae interfere with any local television, radio, telephone, alarm system, or other electronic equipment, Sprint Spectrum, LP or its successor shall have 20 days - .to rectify the situation. If not rectified within those 20 days, the Building Commissioner shall order the communication devices to be shut down immediately. 6. There shall be no further development of the subject property without Zoning Board of Appeals, Board of Health and Site Plan Review approval. 7. The petitioner shall post a Performance Bond acceptable to the Legal Department or its Designee for removal of the monopole. Attachments: Applications Wattachments Copies: Applicant/Petitioner Assessor Field Card GIS Map SPR Meeting Notes FCC License Excerpt from Mass.Zoning Manual Site Plan Photo Simulation(Appeal No. 1999-88) Photo Simulations Structural Design Letter Supplemental-Materials I 5 I I B 01ft, RE ,+$ ENFO �I,IET E EI11Ta SOU BEAp R�ETEIN7'OCFy,RTft ZONIVN'9`` C'IItGUI►?3T�yRg 88i,iEF G TOWN OF BARNSTABLE Zoning Board of Appeals Application for a Special Permit ,_. -. Date Received LOCT For office use only:Town Clerk Office : Appeal# - 7 Hearing Date I� Decision Due 1 TOWN OF BARNSTABLE gg ZO IN BOARD The undersigned hereby applies t4Appeals for a Special Permit,in the manner and for the reasons hereinafter set forth: Applicant Name: Sprint Spectrum,LP Phone(201)684-4302 Applicant Address: 1 International Blvd.,Suite 800,Mahwah,NJ 07495 Property Location: 1047 Falmouth Road,Hvannis,MA:02601. Property Owner:: Randolph E.Child ;Phone E508).775-3442 Address of Owner:Same as property location If applicant differs from owner,state nature of interest: Lease of around space for replacement of existing communications tower. Number of Years Owned: 31 Assessor's Map/Parcel Number:Map 250 Lot 4 Zoning District: RD-1 Groundwater Overlay District: Yes Special Permit Requested: 4-4.2 Nonconforming Building or Structure not used as a single or two-family dwelling, Cite Section&Title of the Zoning Ordinance Description of Activity/Reason for Request: See Attachment 1 Description of Construction Activity(if applicable): See Attachment 2 Proposed Gross Floor Area to be Added: 0 Altered: 0 Existing Level of Development of the Property-Number of Buildings: 1 Present Use(s): Alarm System Company, Gross Floor Area: t 3600 sq.ft. V Application for a Special Permit Is the property located in an Historic District? Yes[ ] No [x] If yes OKH Use Onlv: Plan Review Number Date Approved Is the building a designated Historic Landmark? Yes [ ] No [x] If yes Historic Preservation Department Use Only: Date Approved Have you ever applied for a building permit? Yes [ ] No [x] Has the Building Inspector refused a permit? Yes [ ] No [x] All applications for a Special Permit require an approved Site Plan. That process must be successfully completed prior to submitting this application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. For Building Department Use only: Not Required—Single Family [ ] Site Plan Review Number. Date Approved Signature: The following.information must be submitted.with the.application at the time of filing,failure to supply this may result in a denial of your request: Three(3)copies of the completed application form,each with original signature. Five(5)copies of a vertified property survey(plot plan)showing the dimensions of the land,all wetlands,water bodies and surrounding roadways and the location of the existing improvements on the land. Five(5)copies of a proposed site improvement plan,drawn by a certified professional and approved by the Site Plan Review Committee is required for all proposed development activities. This plan must show the exact location of all proposed improvements and alterations on the land and to structures. See"Contents of Site Plan",Section 4-7.5 of the Zoning Ordinance,for detailed requirements. The applicant may submit any additional supporting documents to assist the Board in making its determina ' Signature: Date 10 Applican or A nis Signature Agent's Address: III Win ers Circle Albany,NY 12205 Phone(518)453-4500 Fax No.(518)453-4775 ' ram !NG soPORT TOWN OF BARNSTABLE BE�PF.pp �N1NQ ' • ;y ri, Zoning Board of Appeals CTtL'YCF„g Application for a Special Permit Date Received b its For office use only: i.Town Clerk Office i i► Appeal# Hearing Date I OCT Z UWDecision Due A-1 k-26U3 TOWN OF BARNSTABLE ZONING BOARD OFRNA-1- The undersigned hereby applies to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Permit,in the manner and for the reasons hereinafter set forth: Applicant Name: Sprint Spectrum,LP Phone(201)684-4302 Applicant Address: 1 International Blvd.,Suite 800,Mahwah,NJ 07495 Property Location: 1047 Falmouth Road,Hvannis,MA 02601 Property Owner: .,Randolph E.Child Phone(508)775-3442: Address of Owner:Same as.property location If applicant differs from owner,state nature of interest: : Lease of ground space for replacement of existing communications tower. Number of Years Owned: 31 Assessor's Map/Parcel Number:May 250 Lot 4 Zoning District: RD-1 Groundwater Overlay District: Yes Special Permit Requested: 4-4.5.2 Expansion of a Pre-Existing Nonconforming Use Cite Section&Title of the Zoning Ordinance Description of Activity/Reason for Request: See Attachment I Description of Construction Activity(if applicable): See Attachment 2 Proposed Gross Floor Area to be Added: 0 Altered: 0 Existing Level of Development of the Property—Number of Buildings: 1 Present Use(s): Alarm System Company, Gross Floor Area: t 3600 sq.ft. Application for a Special Permit Is the property located in an Historic District? Yes[ ] No [x] If yes OKH Use Only: Plan Review Number . Date Approved Is the building a designated Historic Landmark? Yes [ ] No [x] If yes . Historic Preservation Department Use Only: Date Approved Have you ever applied for a building permit? Yes [ ] No [x] Has the Building Inspector refused a permit? Yes [ ) No [x]. All applications for a Special Permit require an approved Site Plan. That process must be successfully completed prior to submitting this application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. For Building Department Use only: Not Required-Single Family [ ] Site Plan Review Number Date Approved Signature: The following information,must be submitted with the application,at the time of filing,failure to supply this may result in a denial of your request: Three(3)copies of the completed application form,each with original signature. Five(5)copies of a certified property survey(plot plan)showing the dimensions of the land,all wetlands,water bodies and surrounding roadways and the location of the existing improvements on the land. Five(5)copies of a proposed site improvement plan,drawn by a certified professional and approved by the Site Plan Review Committee is required for all proposed development activities. This plan must show the exact location of all proposed improvements and alterations on the land and to structures. See"Contents of Site Plan",Section 4-7.5 of the Zoning Ordinance,for detailed requirements. The applicant may submit any additional supporting documents to assist the Board in making its determin n. Signature: Date fe,-ja-44 =rs s or entsSignature —Agent's Address: cle Alban NY 12205 Phone(518)453-4500 Fax No.(518)453-4775 I ATTACHMENT 1 GENERAL Sprint PCs Spectrum,LP(Sprint PCs) is a PCs license holder in the State of Massachusetts and the Town of Barnstable.As such it is charged with the responsibility of providing wireless telephone service throughout the State, including the area in and around the Town of Barnstable. Sprint PCs is making application for a Special Permit for expansion of a non-conforming use to replace an existing 100 foot self support tower with 15 foot whip antennas mounted on top (total structure height 115 feet) with a monopole structure with a total height of 120 feet and associated base station equipment for use as a PCs communications facility on the property located at Falmouth Road,Barnstable,Massachusetts. The existing site is presently used by Associated Alarm Systems. The leased parcel.consists of 575 square feet. The monopole structure and base station equipment will be.completel surrounded by a six.foot high chain,link secur4y;fence..-Sprint. PCs will obtain access to the site.over the existing parking lot. A Sprint PCs.employee,will visit the site at least once a month for equipment checks and routine maintenance.Utility tservice will be available from existing service located on the.property. The proposed site.will.be.powered .with a 200 amp electrical service and it will have a battery back up.for short-term power outages. The proposed PCs facility at the Falmouth Road site will be an essential part of Sprint PCs's telecommunications network throughout Massachusetts to facilitate wireless communications for emergency services,businesses and individuals in the Barnstable area. Additionally,construction of the proposed PCs facility will allow Sprint PCs to fulfill its obligations under its FCC license to provide PCs service in the State of Massachusetts. A PCs system is initially designed by the creation of a grid consisting of"honeycomb-like"cells. When a call is placed using PCs service,it will be transmitted via a radio frequency to the nearest cell site. Each cell covers a specific geographic area,the effective diameter of which is dependent on both topography and vegetative cover in the area. In order to provide service to the PCs user, there must be a continuous interconnected series of cells that must overlap in a grid pattern approximating a honeycomb. When the PCs user moves into a new cell,the transmission is automatically transferred to the cell site in the new cell without interruption in service,this is called"handing off' the service. In order for this system to work effectively, there must be some overlap between adjoining cells. The PCs facility must be located as near to the center of the cell as possible to insure adequate 1 4 and reliable coverage. Also, the antennas must be located at a height to allow for sufficient transmission above trees,buildings or other structures that may obstruct the transmission. The system is only useful if there is adequate coverage in the service area. Areas that lack cells will leave"holes"creating suboptimal system performance. Because each cell in the network is critical and services a specific radius, the exact location is very crucial to the overall functioning of the PCS network. Each cell site must be placed in such a manner as to provide service within a particular area, and to provide overlapping(but not duplicate)coverage with the existing or proposed cells around it. To achieve this necessary seamless web of coverage, there is limited flexibility as to where a PCS facility can be placed. The first consideration Sprint PCS must make in siting a facility is determining the area in which a facility can be located to meet specified coverage objectives. In the case of'the proposed site on the Falmouth Road property, Sprint PCS has done a thorough engineering study,using an elaborate computer program known as a propagation study in order to determine the ideal location for PCS facilities within the Town of Barnstable. A propagation study evaluates cell boundaries based on topography and determines,optimal locations for a PCS-site.in order to provide maximum coverage in a:particular.cell Using this'information Sprint PCS identifies,a Y'search ring". A search ring.represents a relatively limited area,usually resembling a circle or oval, within which a PCS site,must,be located in order to meet coverage objectives for the cell site. Sprint PCS has identified the proposed site, on the Falmouth Road property,as a technologically feasible-location in this Barnstable cell. The second consideration made by Sprint PCS involves the coverage that a specific site will achieve. In urban and suburban areas Sprint PCS designs its system to provide complete coverage to the area. In order to meet this demand Sprint PCS's network engineers perform a "drive test"to measure how reliable a proposed site will be in the cell it is designed to cover. The drive test is conducted by elevating PCS antennas which have been attached to a crane, to a proposed height, at a proposed location to measure the intensity of the signal at that particular height and location. A van equipped with a receiver is driven in the vicinity of the antennas and signal strength is measured. An identified site must be capable of providing the coverage requirements of Sprint PCS's system in order to support a PCS facility. Using this information, Sprint PCS has identified the proposed site at Falmouth Road as a technologically feasible location in this Barnstable cell. Sprint PCS's corporate policy is to utilize existing structures whenever possible for the 2 development of proposed PCS facilities. Sprint PCS begins the search for a PCS site by creating an inventory of existing structures in the area. In fact, Sprint PCS's entire network is designed around existing facilities in an effort to utilize these structures and avoid construction of new sites. Whenever possible, Sprint PCS will place its antennas on existing structures including rooftops,towers,water tanks and other suitable structures. Placing antennas on these structures is called co-location. New structures for PCS facilities are constructed only when no other suitable existing structures for co-location are found within a cell in which Sprint PCS must provide coverage. In fact,the 1996 Telecommunications Act in Section 251 provides for pole sharing of local exchange carriers and Sprint PCS makes every attempt to comply with this provision. Finally, all potential locations within the search ring are considered and the following factors are assessed: 1. Land use compatibility-zones and districts within each jurisdiction are assessed for their compatibility. Industrial and commercial areas are considered most compatible,residential and open spaces the least. 2. Aesthetic compatibility.-existing structures, such as buildings, smoke stacks and water tanks are evaluated for their adaptability to screening or hiding PCS equipment.. 3. Engineering suitability:-the ability to send and receive radio signals from potential sites is assessed. Because.-PCS antennas require line-of-sight'transmission the degree to which: . hills, tall trees, or buildings bloel�the radio signal is evaluated by Sprint�PCS's<:rietwork.'. engineers. 4. Ability to lease-property owners of suitable sites are contacted to:determine their interest in entering into a lease agreement. 5. Constructability-each structure or parcel of land is evaluated for its.capacity to support a facility. Sprint PCS has followed this procedure to evaluate all other alternatives in this area prior to determining that a new facility will need to be constructed. In this Barnstable cell, Sprint PCS has been unable to identify an existing structure suitable for the co-location of its antennas. A structural analysis of the existing self support tower has determined that it is not structurally capable of supporting Sprint PCS's proposed antennas. Sprint PCS has chosen this particular site at the Falmouth Road location for its PCS facility for many reasons. This site has met Sprint PCS's criteria with regard to land use compatibility, least aesthetic impact, engineering suitability, ability to lease and constructability. Additionally,the proposed site at Falmouth Road meets all coverage requirements,has an interested landowner and provides adequate elevation to meet the system's needs. Therefore, it is evident that Sprint PCS has exhausted all other possibilities with regard to siting 3 a this PCS telecommunications facility and has determined that the Falmouth Road site is the most technologically feasible as well as most unobtrusive from the standpoint of the community. This site has minimal impact while allowing Sprint PCS to satisfy its requirements in this cell in accordance with its federal license. The Federal Aviation Administration(FAA), requires an analysis of the proposed PCS facility for its relation to Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR)Part 77 surfaces. In short,FAR Part 77 surfaces are imaginary surfaces surrounding airports that must remain free of obstructions. Based on the evaluation of the proposed site, it was determined that the Falmouth Road PCS facility will require further review by the FAA. This review is currently underway. As with all of Sprint PCS's facilities, the PCS facility at Falmouth Road is designed to meet and exceed current recommended structural code requirements. The proposed PCS facility is designed to withstand any major storm or natural disaster. COMPLIANCE WITH BARNSTABLE ZONING REGULATIONS As discussed in the section"-immediately following this section,the,legal standard applicable to Sprint PCS for this project is the standard afforded to utilities; rather than they standard,generally applied to other non-utility.uses.;This utility standard is the same regardless of::whether.the utility applies for a special`exception, variance or other type of zoning approval;or permit. .Nonetheless, as demonstrated, Sprint PCS complies with the Town of Barnstable requirements for issuing a Special Permit: APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 104 P.L. 104, 110 Stat. 56,47 U.S.C.Sec. 151 et seq. (February 1, 1996) (hereinafter the "Act") prevents any state or locality from banning PCS systems: No State or local statute, regulation, or other State or local legal requirement,may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. Sec. 253. In accordance with the Act, the FCC may preempt enforcement of any conflicting State or local statute,regulation or legal requirement. Section 704 of the Act gives a municipality a certain degree of regulatory control over the placement,construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities, however, there are specific limitations placed on that regulatory control. Specifically, Section 704(a)(7)(B)(I)(II) mandates that local government regulations cannot prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting wireless communication services such as PCS systems. To provide personal 4 wireless services to a municipality, a wireless service provider, such as Sprint PCS, must locate at least one telecommunications facility within each cell of its grid system. Accordingly, a municipality's zoning regulations must allow for one facility within every cell of each provider's grid system. The Act also prohibits,local zoning authorities from discriminating among functionally equivalent service providers. Section 704(a)(7)(B)(I)(I). In other words, if a telecommunications company was already providing wireless service within the Town of Barnstable,the regulations must also allow for competitors, such as Sprint PCS, to operate in the Town of Barnstable. Moreover,because the Act prohibits discrimination, the existence of one wireless provider within a municipality does not mean a municipality has complied with its obligation to allow wireless service communications within its boundaries under Section 704(a)(7)(B)(1). Lastly, Section 704(a)(7)(B)(iv) of the Act provides that a town cannot regulate a PCS facility based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions since the frequency allocated to Sprint PCS's PCS system will not allow for harmful emissions from the facility. It is instructive that the federal—,courts—have recognized that in order to provide:wireless-..,service to residences_consistent wit -,FCC.requirements, transmission facilities must be.located.in-or near_ residential areas. The courts in_the case of OPM USA=Inc:v. BrevaTd County,.7.F: Supp:2d 1316 (M.D. Fla.; 1997) (construction.of a 340 foot tall tower),summarizes this.sentiment as follows: "Initially,the Court notes that it would be a rare event to be able:to buffer a., communications tower so that is not visible at all." OPM—USA,7 F. Supp.2d at 1324. Accordingly,the Court notes that towers cannot always be compatible with the character of the surrounding property. If this were so, all towers would be grouped together. However, in order to meet the increasing demand by consumers for wireless services, telecommunications towers have to be separated and located in areas in which they may have not been traditionally located such as residential, commercial, and rural areas." OPM—USA, 7 F. Supp.2d at 1325. As the technology thus occasionally requires the construction of facilities which are visible to residences, generalized concerns about aesthetics and/or potential decreases in property values are not sufficient to support a denial of zoning relief for a proposed wireless telecommunications facility. The court in the,case of Iowa Wireless Services v. City of Moline, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1915 (C.D. M. 1998) (construction of a 158 foot tall tower),explains this federal law limitation as follows: 5 i "While the[1996 Act] is designed to preserve significant local authority,the thrust of the [1996 Act] is to increase competition in the telecommunications industry by preventing discriminatory and arbitrary conduct by local zoning board relative to the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities. It would completely frustrate the purpose of the statute if the voicing negative opinions by a small number of citizens, without more, could serve as a basis for denial. Any municipality could defeat the request for a permit by simply making a very limited record that in the opinion of three or four citizens the tower would blight the landscape. Congress did not intend that rejection of a license application could be accomplished on such a sparse record." Iowa Wireless at 922. Federal law also provides that towers must be located from time-to-time in scenic areas in order to provide wireless telecommunications service to a particular area. The court in the case of 360 Communications Company v. Board of Supervisors, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8261 (W.D. Vir., 1999) (construction of a 100 foot tall"mountain top" tower extending 40 to 50 feet above the tree canopy), clarified this issue as follows: i "Citizen concerns contained in the record [of a zoning proceeding]..are virtually:certain to '. arise each time a wireless provider eeks to build a tower. [However;the 1996 Act- requires that unattractive towers must be placed in visible areasl".where:there are:no reasonable alternatives:to.the application site and the denial [of.zoning rehef]::results in a lack of coverage;... [even when,the sites arel highly prized by the public for their natural beauty.,, In the present case, Sprint PCS does not have service coverage in the Barnstable/Falmouth Road cell. The proposed facility will remedy this problem and provide adequate service to the entire Barnstable/Falmouth Road cell. In support of its applications, Sprint PCS will demonstrate that is has very limited flexibility as to where its can locate its facility. As shown below, Sprint PCS also complies with all Barnstable requirements for a Special Permit for expansion of a non-conforming use. Pursuant to §4-4.5 of the Barnstable Zoning Ordance, the Board may approve a Special Permit application if the proposed structure conforms to the standards set forth in §§ 4-4.5,2 The standards set forth in § 4-4.5,2 include detriment to the surrounding neighborhood, setbacks, expansion beyond the underlying zoning district,parking,public safety and open space. Sprint PCS has met all of the above criteria as follows: 1. Detriment to the Surrounding Neighborhood. Sprint PCS's use will be compatible and harmonious with the character and appearance of the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a detrimental effect on property values in the surrounding area. The surrounding area is largely commercial. The proposed use will not interfere with these uses or future uses of 6 ' nearby properties. The proposed use consists of a relatively small space in the surrounding area; approximately 575 square feet of development. In addition, a tower already exists on the site with a total height including antennas of 115 feet. The proposed monopole structure will only result in a structure height increase of 5 feet to a total of 120 feet. 2. Setbacks.-The setbacks of the proposed monopole will be very similar to those of the existing tower. The proposed monopole will be constructed immediately adjacent to the existing tower and is located to comply with the 100 foot setback requirement from Route 28. 3. Expansion Beyond the Existing Lot. The proposed facilities are contained on the same lot as occupied by the existing nonconforming use on the date it became nonconforming. 4. Expansion Beyond the Existing Zoning District Boundary. The proposed facilities will not extend beyond the existing zoning district boundaries. 5. Parking. Virtually no traffic will be generated by Sprint PCS's proposed use. The facility will be visited by a Sprint PCS employee approximately once a month for>routine maintenance and equipment checks. The present site provides ample:accessAo.the.siteand for short-term parkingfor the monthly.visit to the proposed facility.;:Thsuse will:-not create an additional traffic in the area in addition t the o h monthly visit and;'therefore;.it..poses no Y Y P - hazardous.conditions, arrd,.lt:will not lower service levels. r 6. Public.safety. The proposed PCS facility is accessible to fire,police and other emergency vehicles, as indicated on the site plan attached as Exhibit B. %7. Open Space.:The proposed facilities will not result in the loss of any open space since they are being located on an existing developed lot. 8. Pre-existing Non-conforming Use Pursuant to Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")License. a. The existing tower structure constitutes a pre-existing non-conforming use because it was constructed pursuant to a license issued by the FCC on October 10, 1975. We understand that the owner of the site, Randolph E. Childs, conferred with the building inspector at the time of the installation of the existing tower structure and was advised to seek the approval of the FCC and the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"). Upon receiving the approval of the FCC and the FAA,we understand that Mr. Childs erected the tower structure, certainly in plain view of the residents and officials of the Town of Barnstable. Pursuant to the FCC license, the instructions of the building inspector and the lack of any noted objection to the installation of the tower,it must be assumed that the existing tower structure constitutes a pre-existing non-conforming use. Accordingly,the Board may grant.a special permit for such a use. A copy of the FCC approval for the tower is attached. b. Grandfathered Use Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 7. Alternatively, the existing tower structure also constitutes a legally existing 7 "grandfathered" structure pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40A. Section 7. The existing tower structure was erected twenty-four(24) years ago in plain view of the residents, building inspector and other officials of the Town of Barnstable,without noted objection. Accordingly,this grandfathered use should logically be treated the same as a pre-existing non-confirming use and thus modified or extended by special permit. Please see § 6-29 of the Massachusetts Zoning Manual (copy attached)which concurs with this analysis. Based on the above information, Sprint PCS has clearly complied with all of the applicable considerations and standards set forth in the Barnstable zoning regulations for Special Permits. Sprint PCS's facility will not interfere with existing uses in the neighborhood, nor will it create any air pollution,noise,vibration, glare,heat,refuse, water pollution,danger due to explosion, fire or radio activity,or radio interference. In fact, Sprint PCS's use will provide a benefit and resource to the Town of Barnstable,by providing advanced technology and services for individuals,businesses and emergency services. For the foregoing reasons,Sprint PCS respectfully requests that the Board:grant a special permit as requested.in the attached application, and/or such other relief, including:variance.relief, deemed necessary by the Board:under the;zoning by-law.so that Sprint;PCS�mayconstruct and operate the'proposed€aeility We respectfully submit that the standards for zariing relief as set Forth in the by-law wvell;as M:G.L. c. 40A must be interpreted and:appiied such that the decision issued is in conformance with the Telecommunications Act of:1996. Accordingly;.to the extent that either the zoning by-law or M.G.L.c. 40A imposes restrictions upon the Board's ability to issue any such variance(s), such limitations have been preempted,under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as they would effectively preclude Sprint PCS from providing wireless service to this.area. Similarly,the 1996 Act proscribes that the "hardship" standard for relief must be applied flexibly such that the visual, safety, and aesthetic impacts of each proposed site are evaluated on a case by case basis. 8 ATTACHMENT 2 Construction activity on the site will involve the construction of the proposed monopole immediately adjacent to the existing self-supporting tower. Once the monopole is complete the existing antennas will be transferred to the monopole and the existing self support tower will be dismantled and removed from the site. This construction phasing is necessary so the landowners radio service will not be interrupted. The construction period for the project is expected to last approximately 6 weeks. vbkn m.181SS Other M. Bldg#: I Card 1 of .1 Print Date:11/22/19" UUMr p om• Value Assessed Value 'UM LAND IA404 O BOX 1148 OMMERC. 3400 158100 1581001801 ANNLS,MA 0260.1 OMMERC. . 3400 5A9C 5,41H Barnstable 2000,MA . ccoun an ax Dist 400 Land Ct# Ufa�. ,. Life Estate • DL 1 Notes: 290,924 VISIO L2 M. , Assessed rqlue Yr. 1 Godeess ue Yr. LoOde Assessed value 1 3400 158, 199 3400 158, 1 3400 :-5,40C 199 3400 SAN Total. oWt lAls signature acknowledges a v1su by a Daur LOUeCtOr or ASSeSsOr ear esc p ton moon p on Comm.Inf. Appraised Bldg.Value(Card) 158,000 Appraised XF(B)Value(Bldg) 0 o Appraised OB(L)Value(Bldg) 5,400 Appraised Land Value(Bldg) 124,400 Special Land Value ECONOMICS Total Appraised Card Value 287,S Total Appraised Parcel Value 287,80 Valuation Method: Cost/Market Valuado o praised arcs value ZX7,59C Per m: issue Dare lype escrip ron mount Insp va e Comp va e Comp. mmen s a e J1Uelnesull K ta., HIP Use a escrip ron ne u Prontage 'vepin unusunit n_ce 1.rac or 3.2. C ractor Adj. Notes.Aajfap=zai Pricing Adj.Unif Price ralue - 9 . , O , , i totaln _ —_ `-. o n u r.•y ..�. •1lY PlVV 111lW�IIVV■ rvt annr/I/: Aav/Witt// Vialow ID:18135 Other M. Bldg#: 1 Cord 1 of 1 Print Dore:11/22/1999 a j em Description LOWMeMMIDAUKlemeow - ce — Element escnp:on 1 ode] 4 ! ICommerdal ea e C i IC came Type OOD FRAME ths/Plumbing VERAGE tones h Story ccupancy 0 I I eiling/Wall 8 CAL BM tm/Prt is 2 VERAGE_ , tenor Wall 1 4 ( !Wood Shingle 4 Common Wall 2 all Height 0 of Structure 3 j �athffl Wolm fCover I GWCmp tenor Wall 1 rywall emen a crip one or 2 tenor Floor 1 4 arpet omp ex 2. oor Adj it Location eating Fuel 4 Electric 24 eating Type 7 ec Baseboard umber of Units C Type 1 one umber of Levels BM Ownership edrooms 0 ro Bedrooms 4 2 atbroomB Zem Bothrms - 0 Full nadillasc Raw Total Rooms I Room ize Adj.Factor 90679 .03 38. 38 Both Type dj.Base Rate 9.50 38 Kitchen Style ldg.Value New ,249 ear Built %9 Year Built 975 Physcl Dep 2 uncnl Obslnc Obslnc pec1.Cond.Code e %cn on Breen a e °.. pecl Cond% erall%Cond. 5 c.Bldg Value 580000 o F 7 escnp on n ni r. pr. ralue e Vesenp'an Living Area rose rea Area eprec. ue Irloor , FBM asemeat,Finished 1,73 1,73 29.7 85,78 VBM aaement,UnEfthed 96 19 99 91S0 rocs nom a e vat. , JY / r Conclusion: APPROVED with the following contingencies: Obtaining DEP certification for holding tanks or an alternative Approval limited to southern lot only Installation of trash receptacles SPR 081-99 Assoc.Alarm/Sprint 1047 Falmouth Rd,Hy(250-004) The applicant seeks to replace an existing 100 ft. self support tower with a 115 ft.monopole and base(120 ft total)for use as a PCS communication facility. The current site is utilized by Assoc.Alarm. The applicant was represented by Tony Mantello on behalf of Sprint Spectrum,LP. It was determined that the prior applicant for this site had obtained a special use permit from the ZBA. This applicant was advised of the need to appear before the ZBA and to be represented jointly with counsel at the aforementioned hearing. After some general discussion,it was determined that the proposed site shall not be significantly amended or impacted and the proposed usage and variable circumstances are under the jurisdiction of the ZBA. Conclusion: Approved with the following contingencies: . Two copies of the following .. ...... .. ZBA Approval >, Submittal of RF information`` DPHapproval on radiation levels Compliance with Zoning regulation 4-8, 2b SPR 042-99 Dunhill Devel., 804 Main St.,Osterville,Ma. (117-176,082,083) Continued from 8/19/99. The applicant seeks to convert an existing gas station into a country store maintaining the pumps but eliminating the service aspect of the garage. Tom McKean inquired about the about the leeching under the pavement. He indicated that leeching under pavement was strictly prohibited. Pete Sullivan shall relocate leeching to a vegetation buffer zone. Bob Burgmann and Art Tracyzk commented that the current revisions appeared to satisfy prior concerns. Ralph Crossen inquired about the choice of crushed shells, stone or paver blocks. He highly recommended stone or pavers over the shells for practical purposes. In addition,the Commissioner also required the installation of granite curbing. Further discussion ensued regarding the a proposed wall located to rear of the property. Referred to as a"challenge"by Peter Sullivan due to the drastic differences in the contour ranging from 36 ft to 26 ft. The Building Commissioner recommended creating a swale behind the wall to capture run-off, leeching under the stairs and taking advantage of the roof i E. � � • all ''= !C Pam td6 FEDERAL{Y�ASMwmmcpkNllm C lm� IQ ,►� J� MICROWAVE e - -1 wwio r4noNL10E11TS8 EATRAL ST4T10N OF CAPE CODS IA[. B e w - WkE6S=8 754262 P. r., 84rx 114R law_ lvm umm HYANNIS CCTngFP 13• 1.9A9 OCT09EF 13, 19S4 VA 'm 1047 FALMOLTH ND HYaHNIS EAA�VSTA�ALE �= Nj1117 co�+s) Inxs1 cTA. Ahill SITE '0 10n FT 1 39 4R v 70 19 35 w hOk'r MULTIPLE ADDRESS STSTEN 61TH MASTER STATIOV OV 952 C625 AT .STATED COORCITATES All' FEKCTE STATIM 4 0� 92A .1625 OPERATIN6 4ITHIN C MILE RADIUS OF TI.E EASIER S1AT S TECHMTCAL DATA 6 FREnl!l�N�Af mi�p 1Nw1DR1 AZIpw EiY�IDN �ONNU TDGE�11NGE Im d . r 'r 001 952.OtZ50 33. C 360.0 CMhI 90 FT 15F 9 V .00:15 nr 928 Ot250 2P. 5 360.0 VARY 20 FT 15F9 �6 s L. �d y 9n1 W d 7� 7 C i¢ 99'^ i� A� pp FACE 1 ILI 02 �Q _ UNIT®CATO OF AMA mg F UMA m - FEDERAL COMLJUNICATl0H8 COM MBION WASIIIpMOT1.IL m _ CITIZENS RADIO STATION.LICENSE am or gwmm me ISM 570 KVO O�AZ a or we ■ueu*aosw�e Rya■IMP O°�da� roe..�+i�o,,;ial w"+W:se.r oman n..l 7S LQ�IO-30 N ..,.gas. Inwrro " a„r..8 d.ry a "J" 1 0 m.W.a� �n nanan.a,nr newMsaq f.n� ..rep d a nre.� ws�� IF"Mail ���d�u�dtnlbw� T G7ebaisYMaalwrt�anM d WaWn� ■^d is rr airR dan.arin0w tsaa atfaa+owda■tMmansaAoftP . 6 Lny .Mls+o sodum Gromid s.�i.~.nwal� +harrirlrsewar b�■ftsaitMM &00900 d d dM o/Tillmalill e w ' ¢ = G Oaaaa{�a asrt.o+i aarPNrawa.a.MWUF" a�■I!yaRlnxO!ON■IE1t{Y�A3w TO UM No ariNRiM 0r M A1rr�W L� .Q . 4 ate' 140T TRANSFER ABL9 � -tEp�t :�'L 'ST,:f i-'� 4F C&pE COO a P13% C I,I Q Cps VN ICATIONS comwossmN .4 i N i � I NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES §0.28 which has not been directly addressed by a Massachusetts court,is most likely to arise in the context of a use that has been dormant for a relatively short period of time(less than two years)prior to the zoning change rendering the use noncon- forming. For a use that has been dormant (albeit conforming) for a number of years prior to the zoning change,the mere passage of time may be seen as evidence of an intent to abandon the use. See Bartell v Board of Appeals of Lakeville,23 Mass.App.Ct. 664, 505 N.E.2d 193 (1987); Tamerlane Realty Trust v Board of Appeals ofProvincetown,23 Mass.App.Ct.450,503 NE.2d464(1987);cf.Derby Ref. e Co.v Chelsea,407 Mass,703,155 NE.2d 134(1910), §6.28 Boston Practice. The Boston Zoning Code expressly states that its goal is"not to unduly prolong the life of[a nonconforming]use."Section 6-5 of the Code provides that a nonconform- ing use is terminated by twenty-four consecutive calendar months of nonuse.Fur- thermore,for purposes of this section of the Code,failure actively to use a structure for the nonconforming use is deemed to be nonuse. §6.29 INTERACTION AMONG SECTIONS 3,6 AND 7 OF THE ZONING ACT Pursuant to Section 3 of the Zoning'Act, a structure owned by a religious sect, nonprofit educational corporation or arm of the Commonwealth and used for religious or educational purposes,is exempt from a local zoning law's useregulations. It is not clear,however,whether such an exempt use should properly be characterized as a lawful nonconforming use,or instead as a noncomplying use that is immune from zoning enforcement.While the distinction is irrelevant for so long as the structure is devoted to the exempt charitable or educational use,it becomes critical upon sale of the structure to a private,nonexempt owner.It could be argued that the charitable or educational use, though exempt from zoning,was not lawful at the time of its establishment and thus does not qualify for the nonconformity protections of Section 6 of the Zoning Act.The private owner could thus be restricted to only those uses permitted by the current zoning law.The only Massachusetts court to consider this situation,however,has determined that an exempt use is lawful,and thus should be treated as nonconforming. Durkin v Board of Appeals of Falmouth, 21 Mass.App.Ct.450,488 N.E.2d 6,8(1986)(former post office in residence district changed to nonconforming business use upon issuance of.a Section 6 finding).Under this interpretation,a subsequent private owner may convert the exempt use to another nonconforming use, in accordance with the procedures discussed in this chapter. Similar analysis would prevent a municipality from requiring a private owner to alter a structure,purchased from an exempt charitable organization or governmental entity,so as to comply with the current zoning law's dimensional requirements. Supp. 1995 6-23 1 §6.30 MASSACHUSE773 ZONING MANUAL Section 7 of the Zoning Act limits to sic years the period of time within which a structure,built and used in accordance with a building permit issued by an authorized official,may be attacked for being in violation of a local zoning law.An amendment of Section 7,which became effective on February 10, 1988,goes even further and insulates from legal challenge any structure that has been in existence.for ten years or more,whether or not the structure was constructed pursuant to a validly issued building permit. Section 7 protections are usually invoked when a long-standing structure was built pursuant to an improperly issued building permit, or when municipal records cannot establish whether a building was in compliance with the applicable zoning law at the time of its construction.Since Section 6 addresses only the expansion of a nonconforming structure, it is not expressly applicable to the E expansion of an illegal,noncomplyingsWc g lure.While such a noncomplying struc- ture may be protected against zoning enforcement 8 g by Section 7,it is not clear whether an expansion of such a structure would be permitted as a matter of right(assuming that none of the three Powers tests were triggered),or whether a Section 6 finding could be issued authorizing the proposed expansion.For the Section 7 protection to be meaningful,it would seem logical that certain minor changes could be made to such a structure if such changes do not trigger any of the Powers tests, and that a municipality may have the authority to allow certain more.substantial changes and alterations upon a Section 6 finding. See Cape Resort Hotels, Inc. v Alcoholic Licensing Board of Fabnouth,385 Mass.205,216-20,431 NE.2d 213,220-21(1982). §6.30 BILLBOARDS The protections afforded nonconforming uses and structures by Section 6 of the Zoning Act do not apply to nonconforming billboards, signs or other advertising devices located on public ways, on private property within public view of any highway,public park or reservation,or on land adjacent to interstate and primary highway systems.Mass.Const.art.L,§180;G.L.c.40A,§6;G.L.c.93,§§29-33; G.L. c. 93D. Although Section 5 of the Boston Enabling Act does not address nonconforming billboards,signs and other advertising devices, G.L. c. 93,§29 grants Boston the authority to regulate these advertising structures, should the city promulgate such an ordinance. This chapter was originally written by Robert A.Fishman,Esq.and Marisa Lago, Esq.;it has subsequently been updated and revised by Robert A. Fishman for the 1992 and 1995 Supplements.Lauren A. Liss, Esq, assisted in the preparation of the supplemented chapter. 6-24 Sapp. 1995 ar, ;M yy 0 lop. .. •ur a 4, 'yw. . u d tl�lv�xxip: a�' F yy:F n , �wM nwawlrl- "' rt; IPi''i�"S ItP I�1i f�r PI'r �'p�p rI �Nall ACROSS FROM PROPOSED SITE ON INDUSTRY ROAD LOOKING NORTHERLY PROPOSED CONDITIONS o ' ITHIS DRAWNG FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY slc i 2 - (ROUTE 28) UTH ROAD 4 ,. s FALMO y 3 rAular 77-� Ck,110'Sr ' - .• fig 70 71 ------- ' Pd1L 161. UW Pale lk r-6 PiAr1m �� Ens1.OOAM PIP[' N71' 7 "m PDX A ASSESSORS MAP 250 ALT O "YAWS PROW --� - 3 3 EXIS7ING USES GROSS AREA EMPLOYEES of ® � Y771N.ai - ® Elkman Bookkeeping .456 sf. 1 Full Time W\g PAO ® - 1 Part Time ® Briggs do Heino Plumbing 1.064 s.f. 1 Full Time E1°ST 7O1"¢R — u oo uio[Rmouo * ' � a:3.a;v.ii3 A Heating 4 Transient I Z` �srNa"'� c+E rz 1oa �,,�ui Ff \ Q :Hyannis Chiropractic 912 sf. 1 Full Time P O ® u I �WF�OM ® Associated Alarm Systems, Inc. 5.264 s.f. 10 Full Tune MON P M 10 TF \ �" 11 Transients ASPOAL7 ® Sprint Spectrum. LP 483 sf. 1 Transient N0 MLR. LANDS NAi °L11 AREA-3.d6O2 S0.F7 32 �' 1 Zoning Clasification RD-1 (Residential) Q as gam ACRE 31 Nam'' e p p Setbacks Front:307100' • 4ae + LANDS AW 44 ce D Side-IV ANNUMN _807SFQW e t} IR4 O i PMRear.IV AWN N.DO13a40 y .,aEA I if ^0 U 6 /ss4 n �a y It ! 1 A'.sPu -- �� M00' Setback for \ � Properties Located on e�yy� 1� s+naaaf ear m er ' EAAW NA Route 28. NW MAR 2 3 M ~ 7 '�_ ..m, a�P 19i97 Off—Street Parking 1 AM Required:1/30Q sf. Gross Floor Area + 1/Separate Suite 8 :a IMF gpR-STABLE :1/300 sf. x 8.179 s.f. + 1/Suite x 4 Suites I _� n^G 4PPFALS. _ _ T I = 32 Spaces - Existing: 34 Spaces ma M Stormwater Calculations I rr IVMrm —�" Aro Cu"RW nrs m """""`A"°" e<Axr PAO'Ym A- Infiltration Area Required by Town of Barnstable: = 3.200 S.F. nMN21A"[rAf7 MA gam:OIIOT AS w y aAR1ES N.1614JIt Yr:W AAa 1A UN AMO Illm"M .A"Is1A�M"R ems"nµ S�11"a PAW $I \ � w Existing Infiltration Area TA� / a n3De,a 164 Seepage pits 2 O 160 s.f. each = 320 S.F: r' ��~WM rAn"w•AmaArzs W �.G + Proposed Infiltration Area MW A AK OS!M10»RIaY. > u 1»165OEa7ArmnnmC Seepage pits 1 O 160 s.f.-each - -- = 160 S.F. un°1— aA a l.m m w. °Gu wuatls .. . . . . acvArlr6 Apia 5aP"arp0>me�M 11i/Q1' Infiltration Basin wA'en ■A11I,ocros"RA.r KAtrx Arne=nr = 3,400 S.F. A wlm alonAna a rzul wm Ban am CPS aaaA rA wn !ANDS N Total Infiltration Area = 3.880 S.F. ♦ UNDOMM"WWWS"ew P Aw.MOM MW Ml rww alr. DAND&SWELA rgAl£S � - a llM—M-Arr s1AE a r nu1 AR A .- naAOAnr rIn[r raAUM�u¢•t a 4184 P.2a) GRAPHIC SCALE PROPtlf I.n MIE mar IcuftCM,u A.INO11YArz Mar IA7 rAr W am 7 Storage Volumn Required by Rational Method = 5,040 CU. ft. a SYA[M/o Arr SUE OT sArn.nMt Ar ur-lO-oAl[NSIMC7 0i nll[rW0 s . w r w' " Propsed Stormwater Infiltration Basin Volumn = 6,900 cu. ft. •. SMAXT In Au"•IM EASDRI M a1EYAM n NMI= =W WCOM I ' Iprsel A • 1�_2o R L CA- CLOUGH. HARBOUR 1A &ASSOCIATES LLP RELD CORPORATION SITE PARCEL INFORMATION MAW"wv 'FLANNE a - MAP 2so COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN AACFiTEC75 1047 FALMOUTH RD. BLOCK N/A Wawa M°R RM W/M°wm °00 '• 450 COTTAGE STREET — SPRINGnELD, MA — 01104 HYLINNIS, MA 02601 - LOT 4 YI �/qi sac w as 210t 413-746-07S16 _. ao0 ARI. ORIMNC rIIYeEII IIEv 6 5 sage r-sr noon w e.r ar Z 1 1 4 3 2 Z2 E 34 5� GENERAL NOTES ` r 1. THIS FACILITY IS NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY. 2. THIS FACIUTY IS ONLY INTENMD TO BE USED FOR THE SHELTER OF EQUIPMENT. —AL. THE FACILITY NHL ONLY BE MSITED BY THE UTILITY SERMCE PFRSONEL FOR EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 3, THE PLANS SHOW SOME MGM SUBSURFACE STRUCTURES,ABOVEGROUND STRUCTURES ri ectrum Lp AND/OR UTILITIES BLT.IEVED TO EAST IN THE WORKING AREA,EXACT LOCATION OF WHICH MAY VARY FROM THE LOCATIONS INDICATED. sp t sp PROJECT INFORMATION SITE I.D.# BS13 C661B4 SITE ADDRESS: ASSOCIATED ALARM SYSTEMS 1047 FALMOUTH RD. HYANNIS, MA 02601 LATITUDE N41' 39' 32.2" ASSOCIATED ALARM. �SYSTEMS LONGITUDE W70' 19' 32.8" 1047 FALMOUTH ROAD ZONING CLASSIFICATION: RD-1 (RESIDENTIAL) SETBACKS: FRONT: 30' / 100'* SIDE: 10' REAR: 10' HYANNIS,. MA 012601 * 100' SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON RT. 28 AREA- OF CONSTRUCTION: f 600 s.f. PROJECT DIRECTORY 1 OWNER: ASSOCIATED ALARM SYSTEM • s 1047 FALMOUTH RD. PROJECT HYANNIS, MA 02601 LOCATION of APPLICANT: SPRINT SPECTRUM, LP �1 CROSSROADS CORPORATE CENTER I I� 1 INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD MAIHWAH TE ONEW JERSEY 07495 SrTE DIRECTIONS ENGINEER: CLOUGH, HARBOUR & ASSOCIATES LLP 450 COTTAGE STREET FROM US 6 (MID—CAPE HWY) EASTBOUND, TAKE EXIT 6 i a SPRINGFIELD, MA 01104 CONTINUE O SR 138 SOUTFHi FOR APPROX 1.7 MILES TURN RIGHT ONTO BEARSES WAY �. TURN RIGHT ONTO SR 28 WEST f ALMOUTH RD) AFTER APPDX 1.5 MILES, TURN T INTO THE •• ' "-w GENERAL DRAWINGS ASSOCIATED ALARM SYTEMS PARKING LOT THE SITE IS BEHIND THE BUILDING. , • RBA661Z1 TITLE SHEET RBA661Z2 EXISTING CONDITIONS RBA661Z3 COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN t_OCATION MAP NO SCALE RBA661Z4 ENLARGED SITE PLAN RBA661Z5 EQUIPMENT DETAILS MARCH 2O00" RBA661Z6 MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS FH:: CLOUGH. HAFT BOUR ASSOCIATES LLP „",, �,..I, ETIGrgEEFiS.sLl*JEYlZR5.FtrvvrJa=js. 9 mw s LANDSCAPE aao Fr a-TS 450 COTTAGE STREET — S'PRINGFIELD, MA — 01104 P.O. BOX 626 413-746-0796 ow nq.a.�pan- SITE X"7 ROOIE 20 2 we ,y RpUIE 26 R OAD (ROUT R 28) 5 ' Y TM RDA FALMO UT H 6 5 FMILONr y WAL7FR NLAAREY 69 70 71 �try� B y a 43" P,113 �E � LONG POND 4 � 1 � / �"�•PLANTER 7 2T 4 sa PLANTER c MON 0 / POLE ASSESSORS MAP 250 SITE LOCATION HYANNIS (NO SCALE) ASPHALT �� \ / 1 CAL .B - 1 STORY y WOOD FRAME �. g 1 EMST GONG PAD 1 W\GEN. _ — LAUDS N 1 N6ILTEA LII .Ak s Q 4344 P.11J t O pot—, AINLINK ,. " LAUDS•%� YH LWAIMANN ASPHALT � LAWS X/T �4 NORMW L 8075F6110D NEW CORPO IXIII1f `�- J"7H R. BOTSFOW a 139a P. 183 at 13Lis P. 3BD ARFA—3At59bE SOFT lBENCH x-CUT`ON R�iM QR QB3t ACRE OF MANHOLE - ELEV-5M f9 PIPE • i° I�2 ' O fr U TL l— N a Co 4 _ T P--XE amps _ ANCHELE LAL4H9? STORAGE 91. LIM P. 197 i Box J MAP REF[I,ENCC` MAP ENRRID$IUMEMY 1RL-SLNOWL90/PLAN OF LAM In BIE �1 BAMMA MASS FOR ROBERT S..flLIDTP AS PRDVM BY \ CHAR ES N SAVERY.INC.O1 AM le.1954 AID FLED W THE - "- BANNSTABLE COIMITY REGISTRY OF DEEDS IN PLAN BOOIL 157 AT PACE 51 NOTES LANDS Wr �.,�, I KARFM AL AAfEMW /. BASE ARAM PREPARED aY G10IICTL.HARBOUR a ASSOCIATES lIP' - Q 1T39% A I" . f1LOM�A JR/E,OBS FIELD StALyE► 2 MTHU°EAL119 % EVATI00 MU OBINMm ViNIDN° X56.1 CODE pBEAS/LEDDN6P5 TO UM CPS BASE STAINNI. � MAM AND ZOIETCDORONM 7°NI1D6T MA4Atl11riET15 9•IOMI,F ANY ARE ETO'fES14)D O USB"A FEEL HEIGHTS AS BIONK IF ANY,DETERMINED BY YEAIIGL OF STIIUCIURE - ACTUAL LouTnx LANDS N/P 9 4. NORM ORIEROUND ININUTIU Ts TRITE N.IF BASED ON FIELD OBSmvAROL DAWD&� J NES GRAPHIC SCALE w INmERaeanlB uOUTBs sHOMt s ANY FpOM F1F1D LoanaN a12r. 'L� s PROWISUBJECTY��Q+LLYY FACTS SHQ%W SATIRE mw iu v w"�'a DPLOT. L1 41LiC; P. 2BJ TL oANY STATE ai FA CT A"I'P-'°_°",E"BS'""LT OF 1H`E R°uL° THIS DRAWING FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY 1 L 1 AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION 7. SUBJECT TO ALL RroM4,EASEMENTS,COVENANTS OR RFSiRN;B06 OF RECOM. . a A SOCIATM SURYEY RAS NOT PEkFWIm BY CLOUOA HARBOUR! I IDOL. 20 M ASSOGIAIF;11P W CONAMCR01,MM 7NE TMOPARATRM OF TNIS 97E CLOUGH. HARBOUR ASSOCIATED ALARM SYSTEM 1 Sprin t Spectrum, LIP , .+Spit Spectrum, LP S ASSOCIATES LLP —' ,CROSSROADS CORPORATE CENTER 1 INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD, SUITE 800 EXISTING CONDITIONS ©� ENGI�,�/EYC7F75. ASSOCIATED ALARM SYSTEM i 8 LANVC�TAPE q�Iff1�8 MAHWAH, NEW JERSEY 07495 �1°I'°'�" 01104 1047 FALMOUTH RD. 450 COTTAGE STREET SPRINGFlEID, MA HYANNIS. MA. 02601 BOSTON MTA ND DME 'roe N0. DRAWING NOMBER REV 413-746-0796 SITE NO.: BS13XC66184 SOME ,•_Zr ffsNfO DN olwNll ne RNA663Z2 0 oa n,eMe No.Tnz-n - LJ" sp SITE M1� OL 2 �y pp1tE 25 Tl= 0AD (ROUT 28) 5 \ 1�N N FALMOUT N R �, - _ B 3 TAUAOIITM` �,E -� UNDS N/F 69 T PRE WAL7LR BAILEY n e 8, 4344 P.11J 15 5• LONG POND s ,: �PLANTER EMIST. 4•PVC DR"PIPE i L ww 174sa B S1I~ AS/PECLOMM AAO PAW PLANTER N 2 E AEW 57MWp AS NOW APO?vav szzmLv qT Ct2NG MON (AIA<I eim r AH9wmvj (AWw0=r AFFRvp EDJ POLE "t \ ASSESSORS MAP 250 SITE LOCATION _r!'f ASPHALT �{ONT S� \ HYANNIS (NO SCALE) It 6 7 ° 9 �C% PAW FALAWYM ROW ct"°OQS a N 2702987. Z 0 _ I STORY E 977147.92 1 \ FRAME CONC PAD WOOD m, rr\GEN. � CHAIN ( 12 LANDS N/1' 1 1 #3 WAL IER BAILEY E)OST TOVIQt it 4.344 P.I13. SFmff Ea6O-AmVr N Z Tar f AMdW"A LETAIS . "M AGATE 1Dd TES RDP ) 1 14 E�IRmo GROkI D H C t6is 57awCAE® 2 3 S706M EW MMY)047xw 16 1s — _ 84sw(AwwaASLrAAw w!v) Z5 Z5 POLE A ASPHALT w LANCES N/�' _ BENCH REED CORPORA RQV R ,r a 13K P. 1L73 34OF MANHOLE 33 - 4 E1EV-S&I AREA - -T4Wa* SaFT 33 'R OR QBJf ACRE 29 30 31 atA55r AREw 2D x 4as a 26 Y'7 4. OA PIPE LANDS N/f . \� GI:STER 9 NORMAN L BOTSFORD d E ? 24 4'PIN J "7N ItBOTSFORD 50 a136Q P. J60 \�� f 10 T= X — b 19 LANDS N AAIC7/ A1� S7APAGE•6alT M6E � 1 ANZQ^.11AD WNW , B 86,T$ P. 197 AMtapiww.or ow at BOX OX ` 4 ' t i . CONOEIE IIOIAiENf NOM l9161.nAcaor►r9cw G1LES FM TAM W YAP REFERENCE: ar Agwr YAP EMTIR®•9L=l%IIa T-SIIBnMIS A RAw rs wow LANDS N/� BARNSTAwE YAss FqN ROWL S EWOTf As PTar�AaED 9► C1 - . R ARIFS N. COUNSAVO`F.R ON DARE O III AMD NM w T'A m \ KAREN At AIEDUN BAIwSTAOIE cauNTY REOSIRY OF DEma M RAII.BOOM I!s A7 PAS w B. 11J9W. P. 164 NOTES \ L BASE FROM A PUNEMAPPIN/ 9SIML PREPARED NAMMA!ASSOOATE5 UP 2 LA 7,UDEAELEYA➢4/S HERE OBTAIN®UTNNa1Q CODE OPS NFFFlEERgBB110�FD m 1!B�5 BILg STA710N TATIII tuDE ARE NDT]IDI®m XAOB)YASSApUgT15 - EIEVATIOMS AIE =L SW Oi SIROCROSw U.S.FEET. NEIGHTS ASLOOCATTM i M1:OETEIlNNED er IEa1NCAl ANGLE OR BYACTUAL I a NORTH BRIMAmmN 13 TRUE"am BASED ON mS ass a law LANDS Nllr 4. UNDERGROUND UINn=GROWN,W ANY,FROM iEID EDGTMw CKT DA WD & W A JONES w w a S SUBJECT TO MIT STATE OF FACIE TNT M ACCURME BOIwDARY 9/RMEY wo1AD nm..s a 4184 P. 283 OP PRETY R IEEE A E OMLY SXOMI AS AP7RO 1.TR41 TN YAP AND O®ROf. a SUBJECT TO ANY STATE OF FACIE TWAT M UP-IO-DATE AgSV ACT OF TINE NO" (0 FEET) n,on nc 7. SUBJECT TO ALL ROMM EASOdEWM COMA NANTS OR RESBECTIGNS OF IIECORD. 1 Ind, 20 R a A BOUMARY STI r TINS NOf PEaiOR11ED By OWUOL XARBOIw! ASSOCIATES.UP N CONLARICIIW TERN TIE PIEPMYITMM OF INS SITE CH CLOUGH. HAFIBOUA ASSOCIATED ALARM SYSTEM 1Sprint Spectrum, LP ' 4SPrint Spectrum, LP & ASSOCIATES LLP ORANEIG CaP,Teort EIG PLAhdqETS CROSSROADS CORPORATE CENTER� COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED ALARM SYSTEM 1 ®� 6 INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD, SUITE B00 r MA MAHWAH. NEW JERSEY 07495 f0"m"'a an A7 .' 450 COTTAGE STREET SPRINGFIELD, MA - OtT04 1047 FAL.MOUTH RD. 413-746-0796 HYANNIS, MA 02601 BOSTON MTA WE A oY APvo me NaI DRAVIIM NIUMBEIt V SITE NO.: BS13XC66)B4 RBA661Z3 0 sr+E ,•-ar IF9CIMD rs Nua, De _ Tun r�NN ANIVA4 ST.1aPQPr AN7Dwz4(7TP.) i - PEA7FUMf AN7 w 7-M,A6L � s•ITArr nrs� ,ss J RAQ mvwr 9 D• 1'-,- 17 ir¢ocA)m Ar�KI i,>;1 t• � � "'— Aw mwt2r FNAP EAISTAM4 ,I tawwwr(vr 31"" tit 70 fir•}� S _ 1... iev .c ErNC CAPS A�1 ism AwLv w ! �rASPEMIGA 'ARM 2374 REMOVED)LEASELEWM(Adz) A fSrALL aarJsm SRA1E 1 8 l_ SALE IAOVI wnry a 1ri 12 11 IANV 6E mwtw is E tl t 13 AIEAAow QRs7NAc ==•—"" i Ss �I I PIE 8011AeDS _ 1 =�%'" }t t' c•c rw PA000SAD 12V AADII0PME PAODUSIV SVMVTA7< 'S ,olf T gal IY: l '•� eeHD1oE �tRGAT� ,. OOLGCE SMIM.Gil 7E 09S7AYC.IN7EJIIINS B'-O'A/pL L76W LAW4 Pe�l<f/AC+ `\ �- ; W 1 LIFR41�IMP£ 41, ,: E7� ace. g p{ — S """ ty " liNlc�rFl+cE aN 6wi9ovr kilt 18 1` _ "�Y EXISmrG ' ' Uyv :! y 1 ..%--. - I STORY 1 �`"ter WOOD FRAME 4 AW OV cWA cSPANWVrE7E�PIor SITE WORK GENERAL NOTES: BUILDING '\ ^ ( MH d AIM amw LA1K�wnP VVH q1•-d 6tAAtBED IDPE 341 LANDS Nr 1.ALL SITE WORK SWILL BE AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWING AND POLE OUN FaINDAnaN .1kI Z6 Z8 ait CID. P.1 TQA1 STIPULATED IN THE Ib1T10N PROJECT SUMMARY. T01NEit ELEVAli� IJ99 P. I[I3 ' AREA-3SL560-k SWT Z RUBBISH,STUMPS, DEBRIS,STICKS,STONES AND OTHER REFUSE.SHALL N,s S'F'19VT fC5 OR0.QI*ACRE BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF LEGALLY. 11 t GLMMAMICAFAWAF E91099N19ff QV 3.THE SITE SHALL BE GRADED TO CAUSE SURFACE WATER TO FLOW FA9FS R. R. AWAY FROM THE PCS EQUIPMENT AND TOWER AREAS. o 4.NO FILL OR EMBANKMENT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED ON FROZEN GRIDUND. FROZEN MATERIALS.SNOW OR ICE SILL NOT BE PLACED swr cur ANo fiEww Em7AVC IN ANY MI OR EMBARKMENT. PA NSMU r WOW TOILER rAAD \ Z9 30 s.THE SUBGRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED AND BROUGHT TO A SMOOTH UNIFORM GRADE PRIOR TO FINISHED SURFACE APPLICATION. • O.All EXISTING ACTIVE SEWER,WATER.GAS.ELECIWC,AM OTHER N 28 UTIUTIES WHETS ENCOUNTERED IN THE WORK, SFW1 BE PROTECTED O 7 AT ALL TIMES,AND WHERE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPER EXECUTION OF O Z THE WORK,SILL BE RELOCATED AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERS. EXTREME CAUTION SHOULD BE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR WHEN ' �`' 26 EXCAVATING OR PIER ORILLING AROUND OR NEAR UTILITIES. • '! 25 CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SAFETY WANING FOR THE WORKING CREW. 24 2702 76.35 7.ALL EXISTING INACTIVE sETIER. WATER.GAS, ELECTRIC AND OTHER ( 23 97708 .1 UTILITIES,WHICH INTERFERE WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE WORKSHALL BE REMOVED ANDIOR CAPPED. PLUGGED OR OTHERWISE . 1 \ 22 EIICUITION aF THICH E WORK. SUBJECT TO THE XV THE 2t u ENGINEERING. Dry B,THE AREAS OF THE OWNERS PROPERTY DISTURBED Br THE WORK AND 96 / NOT COVERED BY THE BUILDING OR DRIVEWAY.SHALL BE GRADED TO ,d A UNIFORM SLOPE.FERTILIZED.SEEDED.AND COVERED WITH MULCH AS SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIFICATION LANDSCAPE WORK. 9.CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING SITE DURING CONSTRUCTIOK. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. IF REQUIRED DURING ..-% /1 ' CONSTRl1CTIOK SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH STATE OF _ ENLARGED SITE PI-AN MAS=USA GUIDELINES FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL r�. ' m • • N m p AND CDOROINATED WITH THE TOWN/COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE � t\ (IN FEET 16dh- 10 R CLOUGH. HARBOUR ASSOCIATED ALARM SYSTEM —Sprint Spectrum, LP � Sprint Spectrum, LP FH & ASSOCIATES LLP CROSSROADS CORPORATE CENTER am""wort ENC3NEE3=S SIB RLN4qS=S ASSOCIATED ALARM SYSTEM 1 INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD, SUITE 800 rr ENLARGED SITE PLAN ®am 6 L,ANc3sc pE pJ�1REr— 5 1047 FALMOUTH RD. MAHWAH. NEW JERSEY 07495 FM ZM" 450 COTTAGE STREET — SPRINGFIELO. MA — 01104 HYANNIS. MA 02601 BOSTON MTA Nn am AflB016 x CM AP" JOB NO. I DRAIAIIG NUMBER REV a13—sae—o�9s SITE NO.: BS13XC661 B4 ,� ,.-,. ,� ,q ow.. oc RBA66124 0 GM Pre No.7472-n _ —- ——_ -. _ —.. f ANTENNA POWER CABINET EQUIPMENT ICE SHIELD ICE BRIDGE 1. FUTURE POWER CABINET . PRIMARY CABINET 31- (MAX) i FUTURE GROWTH CABINETS X ICE SHIELD FRAME o (C6 X&2 W 1/4'CAP PLATE) MONOPOLE i h B ® ® ® •1 M0710H SENSTIVE 21^ICE BRIDGE LIGHT FO(IURE W/3-r CHANNEL i B75 EOIAPMONT 0 0 r DIA SCH 40 �- STEEL PIPE ACCA COAIOAL CABLE • NOTE ENTRY PORT CABlEPORT/ EOUIPMENT LAYOUT AND DWIENSONS CABIFRAMEE NET MOUNTING •1 HANDHOLE SHOWN/IRE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.FINAL DESIGN INFORMATION TO BE COORDINATED WITH EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER. Z •R MONOPOLE Z4 NO SCALE FOUNDAnoN FINISHED GRADES T FRAME ANTENNA CABLE CRETE PIER Z9A SENDING RADIUS PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS 1icE SHIELD l EVAT j Z4 IMPORT POST _ METER LOCATION IF MOUNTED TO PPC PANEL T53x2 TYP PL 1/2'a12'OA 4'FOOTING DESIGN BASED IO�NA5100 MPH WIND ANT7D�UBC PWR TE1.00 l TABLE -1� /8 1-A) PPC YMp/ WALL MOUNTED CABINET TYP PLAN NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES 4- PART NO.N2101-11101 1 4 CAP PL HILTI HHYY15D ADHESIVE TS 3x2x 1/4 WELD ANCHOR 6-MIN.EMB. (TYP P 1 pA HOLE FOR ALTERNATE MAMMEW olA HOLE BOLT n PPC MINI i1 SUPPORT POST » (TYP 7 PLACES) ole TS 3xUI/4 iv 4xw ♦3 H6 VENT OHOLE —ANEW AMP/4 EQ.SPCD ND SEAT 0 /3 TIES O 18 � FOOTING 1'-6-DIA CONCRETE + v SECTION CONIC PER REBAR PLAN SECTION PPC MINI MOUNTING FRAME 41s NIS 24 ICMDGE EQUIPMENT SUPPORT FOUNDATION PIER 81A NTS z5 LA CLOUGH. HARBOUR ASSOCIATED ALARM SYSTEM -*-Sprint Spectrum LPspt SpeN rum, ,� & ASSOCIATES LLP -- CROSSROADS CORPORATE CENTER DRAVAW oQP EQUIPMENT DETAILS ,mwr ENGINEEl75,sLjgVEYpFLs.R SUITE 800 �� ©3000 S L1WpSC APE APZ3AT15�8 ASSOCIATED ALARM SYSTEM 1 INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD, us zwc oc xM 450 COTTAGE STREET — SPRINGFIELD. MA — 01104 1047 FALMOUTH RD. MAHWAH. NEW JERSEY 07495 413-746-0796 HYANNIS. MA 02601 BOST.ON MTA xa DDE w.vmaec A oNI M►9 .LOB NID. I DRAINING NUMBER IREV SITE NO.: BS13XC66184 RBA661Z5 0 pw P-I 1 N 14n-71 SW[ M=0 Of9Ym OC DIMM /5 ' TYPICAL WOVEN WIRE FENCING NOTES i .-.y GATE POST ROADWAY (INSTALL FENCING PER ASTM F-567.SWING GATES PER ASTM F- SOO) DOUBLE SWING GATE-Cllt CHAIN UNK FENCE VARIES PLANS 1. GATE POSE �TERMINAL OR PULL POSE 2 1 2ti SCHEDULE 40 3 STRANDS BARBED WIRE TOP TENSION WIRE avow CFOR ATE PER ASnd-- uV THRU 6 FEET OR 12 FFELTT F�DOUBLE SWING �L C GUSHED STONE SURFACE E POST BRII:E RAL 2. LINE POST.29M SCHEDULE 40 PIPE PER ASIM-F1063. LIMITS OF CRUSHED STONE SURFACE BOTTOM 7 UN AT GATE • 1 1 SCHEDULE 40 PIPE PER ASTM-FIOE3 TENSION 3.GATE FRINE /2' W"� B T�'� PROVIN wromm l7E. 4.TOP RAIL h BRACE RAIL, 1 1/Y4 SCHEDULE 40 PIPE PER ASIY-F1061 GRADE TO DRAIN DyGbiML ROD ORAILS VER FOR -W OF 5.FABRIC: 12 GIL CORE WIRE SIZE 2-MESK CONFORMING TO ASEM-AT92 AS Sf10MN ON PLAN 2'x 6'PRESSURE CI /STELL TREATED WOOD CURB. TURNBUCKLE TOTAL WIDTH 8.TIE WIRE: MINIMUM 11 GAL GALVANIZED STEEL AT POSTS AND PARS A SINGLE WRAP OF FABRIC TIE AND AT TENSION WIRE BY HOG E TO DRAIN GATE FRAME RINGS SPACED MAX 24'INTERVALS -= AW AY Y FROM TONER Y FORK • - ARD ITWIPICAL rrtm LATCH z' FlNLVN GRRADE LOCK �T9� 0.t GROUND 7.TENSION WIRE:7 GA GALVANIZED STEEL. - TOP STRAND B. BARBED WIRE- DOUBLE STRAND 12-1 0.0.TWISTED WIRE TO MATCH YFWRESERVa V-•LONG TREAIID EXTENSION 10 OF BARBED WIRE } 1/2- W/FABRIC 14 CA.4 Pr..BARBS SPACED ON APPRDXKATELY 5'CENTERS 1 (MMAv) 4S FABRIC SEE DETAIL 9. GATE LATCH! DROP DOWN LOCKABLE FORK U1CH AND LOCK WOOD STAKE AT$-�0.R _ KEYED ALIKE FlM ALL STIES IN A GNEN MTA STABILIZATION FABRIC (MIRAFI 500X OR EQUAL) TOP F71[iliV SHOO 10. LOCAL ORDINANCE OF BARBED WARE PERMIT REQUIREMENT SHALL BE PLACED ON COMPACTED COMPLIED IF REQUIRED. SUBGRADE PROJECT I'ABOVE RDA ITSLOPE T WOVEN WIRE SWING GATE: DOUBLE 346 11. HEOff- W VERTICAL i 1'BARBED WIRE VERTICAL DIMENSION.ALL tY Mrs FIN GRADE GANG NOTES WITS OR GROUND NIS Z4 74 1 NO SCALE FROM f1FMAN N z z GRADE LINE POST FOOTING LOAM Q SEED (MIN) (TAPER 70 E10511NC LAWN) _ rrmr IL 513CRON WOVEN WIRE 34T NIS Z4 VARY �1 2 . - -LAYER OF 3/4-CLEAN STONE (BOTTOM OF TIT) 4 MIL POLYETHV ENE 12'XIY 4'OF PEASIONE(TYP.) B'LAYER OF B'MODIFIED ROCKFILL MIN.SINGLE SHEET(TV.) TO CONFORM WITH MASSACH USETTS HIGHWAY SPECIFlGOTLh�Ne SECTION 995AI RILL POSE END OR ITEM986 (TYP. FOR ALL MOPES) COMPACTED GRAVEL BACIO'lLL -' BARBED'INRE I 0 ' 0 PAVER A�RFw eBRACE RAIL 0 O 0 9 3 QL7 9 0 0 0 9 Z4 NOT TO SCALE l6 SHOW GRADING PUMA STRETCHER 9 0 O 0 BAR 4'GRAVEL PEt DIAGONAL ROD W = I 0 0 0 9 o FARTHWORK •1 SPEXXICATION STEEL z I 0 O 0 9ROUGH ' FILL R CROWN OR SPOT �WIRE n 1 0 0 0 9 n EARTHWORK I FERIAS SOWN ON SPEaFuATIOHNs 9 0 O H ° / WELDED WIRE OR curOR GROUND9 0 O' 0 I CCHICKEN HICKEN WIRE SEDIMENT COMROL FABRIC ATTACHED 0 0+ 0 I - �b USING_W RNGS'OR PLASTIC TIES GRADE 11 ..1 n '1 1 1 MAX �-I �� rd 1Mll N 0 1r GEOTEXT E MWAR 4 FROM GRADE 1 �EAARRTHWO�RK 1 - SPECIFICATIONSENCHIM _ - (1•-O'MIN) - NATURAL SLOPE SCARIFY AND ITR STEEPER TFWW 40 COMPACT TOP r lam* OF DUSTING GRADE SEE NOTE ON DETAIL 345, I F-2-15ECTIO4 THROUGH F GRAVEL PAVEMENT 321 WOVEN WIRE comm GAw LZIJLEACHING PR DETAIL 6- COMPACTED sal NIS 24 END OR PULL POST- Z4 Nor TO SCALE z SACKFUL HTS m KEY B'- 12'OF FABRIC INTO NOTM 1.CONCRETE 4.000 PS - 26 DAYS 2.STEEL REINFORCED PER ASTM SPEC A-15-57 T FENCE POST Cr'I-STEEL FENCE POST(TYP.) - 2 ENTIRE BASIN REINFORCED WITH 6"Kfi' - 8 e;AUfX:WW 4. BASIN TO BE SET ON SIX INCHES MINIMUM 5. CONCRETE COVER TO BE SET IN FULL BED OF MORTAR IL CONCRETE COVER TO BE 4'MIN.7HICKNESSI3.OIL► MIHL 7.ALL UNITS TO BE RATED FOR AASHO H-20 LOADING SILT FENCE DETAIL 901 . B.ALL PIPE CONNECTIONS TO BE SEC141flY MORIARED IN PUCE 24 NTS I CLOUGH, HARBOUR ASSOCIATED ALARM SYSTEM Sprint Spectrum, Lp ' �-sprint Spectrum, LP & ASSOCIATES LLP —' rROSSROADS CORPORATE CENTER / °N"""°'�1N1a11 E��• ANNERS ASSOCIATED ALARM SYSTEM 1 INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD, SURE 800. / MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS 0 a000 NS LL11VC79CAPE ARCF-IffEZTS 1047 FALMOUTH RD. + MAHWAH, NEW JERSEY 07495 mulD imp" 450 COTTAGE STREET - SPRINGFIELD, MA - 01104 HYANNIS. MA 02601 BOSTON MTA "" 0O� iavaiaa w M APft JOB ND' DRAPING NUMBER rnl•a N.nn-n REv 413-746-0796 A SITE NO.: BS13XC66184 RBA661Z6 0 uw - a�ui As rplen ol9or� Ire owr• drs