HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-08-09Monc~ - August 9, 1971
Regular Meeting - 1 Hearin~
The BOARD OF APPEALS held its regular meeting on Monday evening, August 9,
1971 at 7:30 P.M. in the To~n Office B,,~l~t-2 with the following members present
and voting: Philip Arsenault, Esq., Chairman; Kenneth E. Pickard, Vice Chairman;
Dr. Eugene A. Belly,au, Clerk; Arthur R. Drummond and Associate Member William N.
Salenwae who sat in place of regular member Frank Serio, Jr.
There were lOpeople present for the meeting.
1. HEARI~X~: Estate of Samuel Oagood
Mr. Pickard read the legal notice in the appeal of OBELINE O~GOOD, ADEX.,
ESTATE OF SA]~UEL OSGOOD who requested a variatic~ of Sec. 6.32 & 7.22 of the Zoning
By-Law so as to permit the division of a parcel of land into two lots, each having
more than 39,000 sq. ft., with one having a frontage of 110 feet e_n_d one having a
frontage of 125 feet; on the premises located at ~60sgood Street.
Atty. Charles W. Trembly represented the petitioner and expq~-ed that this
property h_~ been this way for over 100 years with the house located as it is shown
on the plan. It presently has a frontage of 235 feet and they propose to subdivide
the area so that one lot contains 39,007 sq. ft. with 125 feet frontage and the
other lot, with the existing house, contA~ ~2,~7~ sq. ft. with 110 feet frontage.
The only variance they are asking is for the 15 feet lac~dn~ in the front of lot
"A". They propose to sell lot "B" and have entered into an agreement with Center
Realty Trust. These lots ~ould be in keeping with proper zoning.
Atty. Clifford E. Elias spoke, representing Center Realty Trust, and explalned
that they want to purchase the lot in order to preserve the area around the Old
Center. They have no intentions of developing, seLLing or b,,~i~g on this lot.
He said ~he Historical Society and Brick Store Compan~ are in favor of the petition.
Mr. ~endell Dillon, Old Village Lane, an immediate abutter, spoke in opposition
because he was concerned about a roadway possibly going through the area.
Mr. Pickerd made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Dr. Beliveau
seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous.
EARTH REMOVAL P~IT: Hereford Corporation
Atty. John J. Millis, representing Hereford Corporation, had requested renewal
of their earth removal permit. Chairman Areenault read the letter from the Build--lug
Inspector with his recommendations. Atty. Willis gave a brief history of t~ ·
permtt; that there were three previous owners and the debris was probably left by
them. The present owners agree that the matters should be taken care of as set
out by the Building Inspector and that they be allowed enough time to take care of
the conditions, possibly until November 1st. Mr. Silva and Mr. Valente were both
present and stated that they would do everything possible to comply.
Building Inspector Foster was present and said that if they took care of the
conditions as they go along and improve the areas being worked on it would be
satisfactory to him and that he was not setting any time limit.
Mr. Pickard made a motion te renew the permit as of July 24th. Discussion was held
on which date %o use. Mr. ~,=mond made a motion to change the date to November 1st
and it was so voted ~mimously.
August 9, 1971 - cont.
The Board than discussed the hearing held earlier in the evemtng.
~r. Drummond made a motion to GRANT the variance; Mr. Pickard seconded the
motion and the vote was u~n~mOUS. The Board found that the lots in question
had been in existance.in substantially the same form for a number of years prior
to the enactment of the Zoning By-Law. The variance from the sideline require-
merit would result in no new construction as the b,,41~g on lot #A# is already
in existence. The Board found that in this area a 15 foot variance from the
required frontage was not substantial; that lot "B" thus created would conform
to the By-Law in ~ll respects. The existing building is a substantial distance
from the lot 14ne between lot "A" and lot "B" permitted by this variance an~ the
distance between the b,,4~n~ and the lot line is much greater than re~-~ed bY
the By-law. A hardship exists because of the peculiar s_hape of the existing lot
in that they have three times the amount of area that would be required for one
lot and are wanting only 15 feet for the creation of two lots. The Board found,
as a fact, that the granting of the variance would have no harmful effect on the
neighborhood.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00P.H.
AnnaPhilip Ars~nault)
Secretary