Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-10The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday evening, October 10, 1989 in the Library/Conference room of the Town Building. The meeting opened at 7:30 pm and the following members were present and voting: William Sullivan, Acting Chairman, Walter Soule, Raymond Vivenzio, Anna O~Connor and Louis Rissin. Mr. Robert Nicetta, Building Inspector, was also present. PUBLIC HEARINGS Stephen & Nancy Salois Variance 17 Highland View Rd. Legal notice was read by Mr. Vivenzio, Acting clerk for the evening. Attorney Scalise spoke for the petitioner stating that the Salois family had purchased the property at the end of May, 1989. The plans for the purchase showed the pool too near the lot line. The variance is needed because the pool cannot be moved. It is approximately 8' from the house now. Photos of pool and house shown to the Board. The lot slopes up and there are trees in the area. They tried to have the pool moved and had pool people look at it. Only one would try to move it and they would not guarantee it, for a cost of $992.00. They want to continue to use this pool and when the pool is too old to use they will not put another one in that area. Under the circumstances, they feel it would be a hardship to have to have it removed. The variance would be 10' on one side and 7' in the back. The pool is now 3' from the lot line. Most abutters do not object to this. Mr. Sullivan asked in anyone in the audience was in favor of this petition, no response, he then asked if anyone was opposed to this petition. Mr. Fitzgibbons stated that he has been in the area for 20 years and the pool has deteriorated and he does not feel that this petition should be granted. He stated that the pool does not have a fence around it and that a lot of kids play in the woods directly behind this site. He claims that the petitioner knew the pool was in bad condition when they purchased the property and he is totally against this petition. He stated that there is room on the other side of the house, and that the present pool should be taken down. Another abutter, Mr. W. McGibbon who lives across the street, said that the kids can bet into the yard and it is a safety hazard to the neighborhood. Mr. Rissin asked if there was a fence around the property and Ms. Salois stated that only the one that was there, but they are planning to put in a new one if the variance is granted. Mr. Sullivan asked if a new pool would be put in the same spot as the old and Attorney stated no, but they are here seeking a variance for the pool that is up now. Mr. Fitzgibbons again stressed that the petitioner knew that the pool needed a variance when the bought the site, but they put a new ground fault in before they had permission for the pool to be left there. The lot in the back is the one that the kids play in and there is not a fence in that part. Mr. Nfcetta stated that here is a farm fence, 4' high, and it covers the entire backyard. The petitioner stated that they would be willing to put a wooden stockade fence in if necessary. There is someone in the house most of the time and there is a lot of supervision. He suggested that the pool be put in some other place if it is replaced. Mr. Soule stated that the new pool could be put 3' closer to the house and in the same place. Mr. Rissin suggested that conditions be put on the decision that the safety factors satisfy the neighbors. Mr. Longo who lives behind the petitioner stated that the pool has been there for 20 years and was put in by the previous owner without a fence, the Young's put the present fence up. He clains that he is the only one that would be affected by the pool. Ms. Salois stated that they had the property surveyed in case they had to put in a new fence. Mr. Longo showed the plot plan to the Board. Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. Fitzgibbons is a new fence would satisfy him and he stated no. Mr. Sullivan emphasized that the only problem the Board had was with the safety factor. Mr. Sullivan stated that most of the abutters are not against leaving the pool as is, but Mr. Fitzgibbons again said that the pool has to go and should be on the other side of the house. Mr. Soule stated that the Board was only talking about a 3' variance and we have a good Building Inspector and he would not Page 2 Salois - con'd let anything happen that would affect safety. Mr. Fitzgibbons again stated, why uild a fence now when they will have to move it in a couple of years? Ms. Salois replied that a new fence will be put up and they have a ladder that is taken up when no one is there and also at night. Attorney Scalise said that these people have enjoyed the pool and would appreciate the granting of this variance with any conditions that the Board decided to make. Upon a motion made by Ms. O'Connor and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to take this matter UNDER ADVISEMENT(Sullivan, Soule, O'Connor and Rissin). Peter & Brenda Phelan Variance 834 Chestnut St. Legal notice read by Mr. Vivenzio. Mr. Phelan spoke for himself giving the specifi- cations of the plans for the addition and needs 11-12'. His mother lives next door and has no objection. He wants an enclosed porch with a roof and a deck also. The porch will be 18' x 14' and will be 20' from the lot line. He is in an R-2 zone. Plans to put the deck on at a later date. Mr. Sullivan suggested that he put the deck and porch on at the same time. No one in the meeting was in favor or opposed to this petition. Upon a motion made by Mr. Rissin and seconded by Mr. Vivenzio, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the variance as requested.(Sullivan, Soule, Vivenzio, O'Connor and Rissin). John Lu, MD Variance & Special Permit - 225-227 Main St. Legal notice read by Mr. Vivenzio. Attorney James Gaffny spoke for the petitioner. He gave the Board a summary of what the petitioner wanted and showed pictures to the Board. He needs setback relief but found out that he did not need a variance for the parking. After talking to the Building Department he still wants to be heard on the Special Permit for the third floor conversion, and referred to the section in the legal notice. The building has an enclosed stairway to the third floor and has a 6' clearence so he would like to put on a dormer to eliminate this problem. He would keep the building in the style of the neighborhood. It is a large building and the adding of this dormer would not be apparent to the neighborhood. Attorney Gaffny showed a draw- ing to the Board and stated that the building was constructed about the turn of the century or even older. Petitioner would keep the appearance of the building the same. The income from two apartments does not carry the opening costs for a building llke that so he would like to add the third unit. He would have two (2) parking spaces for each unit. The parking lot would not be any closer to the street than the building. The attorney introduced the doctor and his family to the Board and stated that the doctor and his family had gone around the neighborhood and they did not find any owners against this, most of the people were renters. He stressed that there is a lot of rented apartments in that area. The doctor's intentions is that this is a long term investment for his family and one of his sons will be livng in one of the apartments as he is now. He stated that the third unit would help him to keep the property up on a long term investment. Photos shown and explained to the Board by Attorney Gaffny. Mr. Sullivan asked if there were any questions from the members and Mr. Vivenzio asked why they did not need a parking variance. Attorney Gaffny stated that according to the Building Department he did nmot need a variance for the parking spaces, they cannot find anything in the bylaws that asks for more parking. The Board did question the number and size of the parking spaces and was told that there were 6 spaces. Mr. Sullivan stressed that the spaces must be 10' x 20'. Mr. Vivenzio said that the plans submitted by the petitioner could not be voted on. Attorney Gaffny stated that the plans could be made to the Board's specifications. Mr. Soule asked if the petitioner objected to giving the Board more detailed plans showing the two (2) skylights and the dormer. Petitioner said that the dormer was on the side of the house with the driveway. Lu - con'd Page 3 Ms. O~Conmor asked if only family would be living there and was told that one son was living there now but the other units would be rented out. Mr. Sullivan asked if this building could eventually become a doctor's office, and was told by the petitioner's attorney that the doctor had his practice in Tewksbury, and he has no intention of moving. Mr. Sullivan asked the petitioner if he would accept a condition to the Special Permit that no business be permitted in this house. Dr. Lu spoke for himself and said the house is beautiful on the first and second floor but the third floor is awful. The roof leaks and the wood is bad and so are the floors. The third floor has to be fixed, it is unhealthy the way it is. There are holes in the floor and he wants the house in good shape and plans for his son to use the third floor, he wants to update the building. Mr. Sullivan asked if anyone had any questions, and Ms. O'Connor asked if there were any three-family units in the area and Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Vivenzio said yes. Mr. Don Markey, 233 Main Street questioned where the parking lots will be and the dormers. Mr. Sullivan asked the petitioner to show Mr. Markey the plans and the parking spaces that are there now. The parking will be under the trees on the property. Mr. Lu, son of the petitioner, stated that he had tried to get in touch with the neighbors but could not reach some of them, he stressed that on trees will be cut down. Mr. Markey stated that he did not want them to go toward his property. The house has always been a two-family and the only one that has gotten a third floor unit was in the 50~s and that was because of the housing shortage. He does not think we need any more three-family houses in town. Even though the dormer will not be seen from the street, it will be'seen from his house. He has a concern about six (6) cars in a small area and going out onto Main Street in a high volume area. There is a funeral home on Third Street that also creates a lot of traffic. Mr. Markey questioned whether there was two entrances and the son said that they did. Mr. Markey stressed that he did not feel that the petition should be granted because we already have too many multi-family units in the area. Mr. McPhee, 242 Main St. an abutter, stated that there 15-20 multi-family dwellings between Third and Main Street and a lot more on Main Street. He feels that the character of the neighborhood should not be changed, and that the traffic is a big problem. Attorney Gaffney stated that the dormer will be screened from the street behind the driveway. It will not be an unsightly addition and a more detailed plan would show this. They want a Special Permit just for the thrid floor and will not be doing anything to the outside of the building, and feel this addition will not affect the neighborhood. The third floor is in need of repairs and major ones such as the roof. The doctor's future plans are for this property to be a family project and will be for long term. Discussion held on the size of the parking spaces. They are 8' x 18' on the plans, and according to Mr. Nicetta, Building Inspector, they should be 10' x 20'. Mr. Soule stated that the spaces are 10~ x 20'. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously to take the matter UNDER ADVISEMENT. David H. Pickles, Sr. Trustee Salem St., R. T. Variance Lot B, Salem St. Legal notice read by Mr. Vivenzio. Attorney Scalise spoke for the petitioner amd gave the Board copies of the 1987 bylaw affecting this petition. Mr. Giarrusso, owner of the land originally had a variance granted in 1987 to divide the lot into two. Mr. Pickles went to get a building permit and at that time he found out that he was within 100' of a tributary to the Lake. Attorney Scalise said there is a period of three (3) years that this can be done in the 1987 bylaw, 4.135, Page 42, the bottom of the page was read to the Board by Attorney Scalise. Pickles - con'd Page 4 The soil has been tested and perked and is excellent. The only area that the house can be put is within the 100' area. The septic system is not in the 100' area. A corner of the house would be in the 100' area, The tributary is a brook that drains into a holding area across the street and under Salem Street. Most of the year it is dry. From the Giarrusso land it goes to the brook near the cemetery. Mr. Soule asked if this is the edge of the wetlands and questioned where it is shown on the plans? Attorney Scalise stated that it is an R-3 zone. Mr. Soule asked if there was a brook on the other side of the street, and was told yes, that it drained into the Giarrusso land, not this site. Mr. Vivenzio stated that the further than the 70' shown on the plans, and Attorney Scalise said yes, the tributary is to the left of the wetlands by about 15' The Board was shown the septic tanks and leeching fields on the plans. Mr. Giarrusso said that they showed two (2) gallons per minute on the perk tests. Mr. Pickles said they are agreeable to not use a concrete driveway and would use crushed stone. He also stated that no trees would be taken down. The pool has been removed as requested in the original variance. When he applied for a building permit he was told that it would be within the 100' of a tributary. The house will be back from the street and will not need any setback variances. Mr. Rissin questioned the frontage and was told it was good for three (3) years because of the division of the lot and the moratarium. Attorney Scalise stressed that the variance granted in 1987 was still legal for a three(3) year period. Mr. Sullivan said that sewage will be available in the near future, and asked if there was any reason that this could not be tied into this lot. Attorney Scalise stated that it goes down Marbleridge. It comes from the cemetery to Dale to Marbleridge to Great Pond Road. 420'from road to Mr. Giarrusso's lot. The house is set back from the road and it would cost a lot of money to bring the sewer line into the house. There is an ease- ment into the lot. Mr. Giarrusso said that the reason he is doing this is that he is a family man and with them living there, he can have his kids doing work for him. Mr. Sullivan asked if anyone was in opposition to this petition. Attorney Scalise stated that this has come before the NACC and they are saying that the Planning Board has to issue a Special Permit, and this is not the case because of the 1987 bylaw. Mr. Soule stated that he would like the tributary shown on the plans before any decision is made. Mr. Cristoldi had no objection to this. Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to take this matter UNDER ADVISEMENT( Sullivan, Soule, O'Connor & Rissin). Mr. Sullivan stated that he was concerned about the NACC decision and what we have the right to do under the 1987 bylaw and the present bylaw. Attorney Scalise said that the Community Development DePt. has already asked the Town Counsel about a similar case. The zoning bylaw is in effect for three (3) years from the time of the decision. This petitioner has from 1987 to 1990 to use this decision by moratorium freezing the time span according to the Town Counsel. He also stated that Mr. Giarrusso has filed with the NACC and they want our decision before they make theirs. Mr. Vivenzio feels that the position of NACC is wrong and this should not go before the Planning Board. Town Counsel has made this de csion and do not agree with the NACC. Mr. Soule stressed that the tributary must be shown on the plans and request- ed petitioner to have the plans redesigned and bring them to the Board at our next meeting for final approval. REVIEW Leahy - Variance - 90 Middlesex Letter from Attorney Shaheen read to the Board by Mr. Vivenzio, requesting a review of the decision rendered to petitioner on December 14, 1988.(see file). Mr. Nicetta, Building Inspector spoke regarding this decision. When the plans were signed, it was for 5' but when the petitioner came in to obtain a building permit it was denied because it was for 2'. The permit could not be issued because of the difference in the setback. Leahy - con'd Page 5 Letter from Attorney Shaheen to Mr. F. Serio read by Attorney Scalise(see file). Mr. Soule mentioned that the dimensions on the plans are not correct. Mr. Sullivan said this review should be continued to the next meeting and have Attorney Shaheen and Frank Serio there to explain the situation. The garage is shown as a one-stall garage and he wants to put up a two-stall garage. The plans are definitely incorrect. DECISIONS Stephen & Nancy Salois - Variance 17 Highland View Road Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to GI~ANT the variance as requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. All safety and building codes be met. 2. Variance pertains only to the existing a ove-ground pool, and the same shall not be reconstructed. 3. Area to be enclosed by a fence approved by the Building Inspector. 4. A Building Permit and Occupancy Permit must be obtained from the Building Inspector. (Sullivan, Soule, O'Connor and Rissin). John Lu, MD Variance & Special Permit - 225-227 Main St. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to DENY the Special Permit as requested on the following grounds. With few exceptions, this section of Main Street is primarily a one and two family residential district. Preservation of the existing character of this portion of Main Street is an important purpose of the bylaw, as this main thoroughfare is an important and picturesque amenity of the town in this area. Petitioner seeks con- version of attic space into a third residential unit. ~his specific site is an inappropriate location for this third residentail unit. The proposed use will increase traffic and population density, thereby adversely affecting the neighbor- hood. The Board finds that the proposed use is not in harmony with the intent and general purpose of the bylaw as stated in Section 1 of the Zoning Bylaws, expecially sub- sections 1, 3, and 5. The Board also finds that the petitioner did not meet the conditions of Section 10.31 of the Zoning Bylaws; especially Sections 10.31; la, b,c and 3.(Sullivan, Soule, Vivemzio, O'Connor and Rissin). The Board had a discussion on signs with Robert Nicetta, Building Inspector. He said that the only service station that is in violation with the currect sign regulations is Haffner's. He stated that he has been getting letters from other oil companies asking why these signs are still up. He has contacted Town Counsel and has had no response. Letter to be written to Town Manager and Selectmen from the Building Inspector telling about the illegal signs at service stations and other places. Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Next regular meeting will be on Tuesday evening, November 14, 1989 in the Selectmen's meeting room at 7:30 p.m. Audrey W. ~aylor, S~re a~ William Sullivan, Vice Chairma, /