Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-11-13Monday - November 13, 1972 1 Hearing The BOARD OF APPEALS held its regular meeting on Monday ev&~ing, NOvember 13, 1972 at the To~n Office Building meeting room with the following ~embers preseat and voting: J. Philip Arsenault, Esq., Ob~i~man; Dr. Eugene A. Beliveau, Clerk; Arthur R. Drummond, Frank Serio, Jr., and AsSOciate Members Louis DiFruscio and' There were more tbmn 30 people present, for the meeting. 1. ~ARI~: Daniel J. Olenio. (Assoc. Mem. Salem~e sat on this petitioa). Dr. Boliveau reed the.legal notice in the appeal of DANV~, J. OT.~.UIO who requested a variation of ~ec. 6.1, 6.2 and Table 2 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit a to~h~use consisting of five units on the premises located at the south side of East Water Street; approx. 500 feet fro~ the corner of Ohicke~ing Road. 0hairma~ Arse~ult read the B-~l~u8 Inspector's refusal for a buildiag permit because there is not the required area of one acre. He.also reed the letter from the Pl~,-,~g Board which stated the Board rec~ends unfavorable action because one acre is the =~-~=um required and this petition is approx. 1/3 tha~ size. Atty. Do~enic J. Scalise represented the petitioner, who-was also present. He stated he would like to change the petition to read four townhouses instead of five units. He explatued that the lot contains approx. 15,000 sq. ft. and that water and sewer are available. He is proposing a four unit to~2~ouse building and that he.needs a variance for the square footage and frontage and area. The plan shows four units and each unit has its own lot area, which cont~ more than the required area for a umit. The complex will be set back 30 feet and meets ~ setback requirements. The closest existing dwelling has a front setback of 8.feet. All of the area is a multi-family area. The.elderly housing~is adjacent and there are duplex and ~-femily units on East Water Street. He showed pictures of the area and said the complex would be in keeping with the neighborhood. It would not be detrimental and would not be in substantial derogation from the intent of the By-law. , Dr. Beliveau asked where the parking area ~ould be and Atty. ~calise said it ~ be in the rear of the complex. The following people were recorded as opposed to the petition: ~. & Mrs, Charles Black, 14 Clarendon St.~ Winifred ~ulliv~n, Clarendon St.~ Ray Canty, Phillips Ct.~ they objected because of the increase in traffic end the already existiag problem. Mr. Drummond made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Dr. Beliveau seconded the motion and the vote was unamimous. GAFF~Y PETI~ON~ ~tevens ~I'ill 0onversion. Mr. DiFruscio made a motion to ~ the special permit subject to certain conditions. 1. The number of apartments be reduced to ~:~; units. November 13, 1972- cont. That the 1~4 apartments be constructed in Building No. 1, 2 & 3 and that Building ~ No. 2 will be torn do~n. That~the apartments contuse no more th~n 2 b~dr~oms - 70% to contain one bedroom a~ 30% to contain two bedrooms. ~' ~ ~ That the petitioner will submit a new plot plan showing an area of approx. ~} acres to be combined with the apartment area and be left open and unbuilt u~on. That a n~e floor plan be submitted showing the redistribution of the apart-' Mr. ~ seconded the motion. Chairman Arsenault said that the motion is in substantial variance from the original proposal and he believes it would be out of order to consider it as presented. This is a substantial chang, from the o~iginalplan. There are two procedures that could probably ~llow this. One would be to re-open the hearing with proper notice and allow the petitioner to emend his petition o~ two, vote on the petition as presented at this time and the petitioner could them move for re-consideration if the vote is unfavorable. He believes that the motion is out of order; there are too many conditions; that the~conditions are not specific en~ug.h to shoe th, kind of plan you are looWt,~ for. Atty. ~illis asked if the petitioner could make a comment. Atty. PB~ll~ps said he thoughtthatthe hearing~as closed and no on, else could be heard. Chairman Arsenault said he did not object to the two parties commenting on his ruling. Mrs. Blackstock said she thought that the hearing was over a~d that they have had enough of Mr. ~illis' rudeness, (etc.). Atty. Phillips read frOm the Board's rules and regulations which stated that the Board should take a vote on the petition before any other action could be taken. He would deem this matter completely closed, that the next thing before the Board is Mr. Arsenault' s ruling. Atty. ~iliis said he wished to be heard and that the matter before the Board is the motion and that the chairman has ruled the motion is out of order. Atty. PB~lips objected to Atty. ~illis speaking. .Arty, ~s said the only way you can rule a motion out of order is if it is tot~v afar from the petition. If the motion is less than what was asked for, it can be considered. ~his should be submitted to To~n Counsel to see if this. is a proper motion to be heard at this time. You can allow leas than what is asked for. Chairman Arsanault said that his understand~-~ of the Board'a rules are that if a majority of the Board ~ishes to overrule the chairman, it can be done. Dr. Beliveau said that if the hearing is re-opened, the sem. arguments ~ be heard ~ over again - he doesn't see any need for it. By reducing the number of apartments, it makes the request for this petition a much more attractive one. He thinks the Board c~u vote on it but doesn't know whether or not it is legal. No arguments can change anything. November 13, 1972- cont. Mr. Drummond said that this Board can put on a~y restrictions they want; if they want to reduce the number of apartments, they can do so. He does not see the need of another hearing. Mr. Serio thinks probably more restrictions c-.n he PUt on this. He would prefer to reopen this and see what is being offered. This affects the whole town, not only the people in this room. He wants a chance to study these restrictions. Atty. Phillips said that on page 6, section 1 of the rules, the voting req,,trement is that a vote of four members is needed to do ar~thing. Chairman Arsenault refe~.~ed to section 2, which gives the members a majority vote to overrule the ch-~man. He explained that a"yes" vote would overrule the chair and allow the Board to act upon the motion as Presented. A "no" VOte would sust-~n ~he ruling of the chair that it is out of order. The chR~man asked for a vote Qf._thQse i~vor of overrulling the ch~r. Dr. Beliveau, Mr. Drummond and Mr.DS~ vote~yes". Mr. terio and Mr. Arsenault voted "no". The chair is overruled.. Mr. DiFruscio read his ~otion again and after some discussion conditions were' added: That the entrance to Phillips Court be closed off from Harkaway Road. That there ~ill be no removal of the existing pine trees and there will be no use made of the land on the othe~ side of the trees between the abutters and the trees. Chai~man Arsenault suggested that as a practical and fair matter, the motion is too unprecise. He doesn't see how we can decide all of the issues a~ presented and make a fL-Ming as to compliance with the Zoning By-law. The motion doesn't lend to the precise treatment that this petition deserves. Mr. Serio thinks the hearing ~hOuld be re-oPened within 30 days and give everyOne a ch-.nce to see what is offered. He agrees with the chairman.' The vote was taken on the motion~ 3 voted yes and Mr. Sario and Mr, Arsenault' voted no. Mr. Serio then made a motion that the petition be re-opened and that a hearing be held in order to study the a~endmant to this petition. Chairman Arsenault said it isn't quite clear. It is his feeling that a vote should be taken on the original petition as presented and depending on how it goes, both sides would have their remedy.~ There could be an appeal or the petitioner could request reconsideration. Mr. DiFruscio seconded the motion. Chairman Arsenault said there is nothing before the Board. ~ho will present anything if the hearing is re-opaned? : Mr. $erio asked what safeguards we would have if we acCept the conditions. Mr. DiFruscio said it would be in' the decision and written on the plans, new plans submitted, etc. r November 1~, 1972 - cont. Mr. Serio then made a motion to withdraw his mOtion md ~r. DiFruscio withdrew' his second. Mr. DiFruscio then made a motion to reconsider his original motion; Mr. Drummond seconded the motion.' The vote was ~-1, with Chairman Arsenault voting no. Atty~ Phillips objected to the action of the Board of Appeals as it is taking place. He sees nothing but turmoil for the town the way it is going now. He thinks this is a completely different petition~ now and is completely unfair.' ChairmarA Arsenault said Mr. Phillips was out of order. The vote was taken on the motion to grant the special poi, mit'with the conditions. Four members voted yes and Chairman Arsenault voted no. The vote was &-l. TRO~BLY PETITION: Mr. $erie made a motioh to DENY the petition. 'Mr. Salemme presented his report stating that the tower would not interfere with the abutters' television, etc.. They would be operating close to Channel ~ and there would be no proble~ unless there is an abnormal malfunction of the transmitter. This would eliminate having to purchase two buses and would make for better communication. Mr. HarOld Trembly was present and said this would be on clOsed unit and on inter- state bus frequency. The nearest person would be about 150 miles away. He checked with the telephone company and to rent a transmitter alone would cost about $~' 500. ~ Mr, Serio Said he is c6ncerned about the height and the looks of the base. Dr. Beliveau seconded the motion. The vote was 3-2. Mr. Drummond and Mr. Arseneult voted no. Mr. Drom~ond made a motion to GRANT the variance; Mr. Arsenault seconded the motion and the vote was 2-yes and 3-no. Mr. Serio, Mr. DiFruscio & Dr. Beliveau voted no. The variance is not allowed. ' BUILDI~I~SPE~TOR POSITION~ A letter was received from the Selectmen relative to a meeting to be held with several to,n departments and boards to consider whether or not the position of building inspector should be made full-time. The Board feels that a full-time building inspector is definitely needed. Mr. Arsenault nomt-atedMr. Serio as the Board's representative to the meeting; Mr. DiFruScio seconded the nomination and the vote was unanimous. The board feels the bldg. inspector would be :helpful for earth removal permits, to attend all meetings, rule on requests for permits, etc.~ that he is enforcing officer of the Zoning By-law and many interpretations are needed from him. NATSONEARTHRE~OVAL: The Bn~la~ngInspector suggested to the board that a time limit should be set on the Watson earth removal permit. After discussion the board voted to send a letter'to Mr. Watson to the effect that the board is aware of the fact November 13, 1972 - cont. that he has corrected the situation near the boundary lines as was discussed with him at a previous meeting. However, plans have not been submitted for the en- larged area as he stated he ~ould submit tham and as the board had requested. If the plans are not submitted for the next meeting on December llth, the board will revoke the earth re~oval permit. CHAPT~ 77& -Housing: A letter was received from the Pl~ingBoard relative to the provisiOns of Chapter 77& of the Acts of 1969 of the Legislature and the additional responsibilities placed upon the Board of Appeals by the new ZoningBy-Law. The chairman suggested that a Pla~ing Board member attend aBoard of Appeals meeting to discuss the letter. ~ORE~ REALTY EARTH REMOVAL PERMIT: Mr. Marino was present at the request of .the Board, to further discuss his earth removal operations on Holt Road. Mr. Arsenault and the ~ailding Inspector explained to him that the new zoning Bas changed the lot size requirements where his operation is located. 50,000 sq. ft. lots had bean required pre~iously and 80,000 sq. ft. lots are now required. The Board requested that he terrace his remaining area to meet the new requirements. Mr. Marino was concerned about the 50tOOO sq. ft. lots that have already been terraced. He said there was very little loam to begin with and that the first portion of the area is rough-graded. The Board feels that a variance would be needed on the area that has been graded on the 50,000 sq. ft. lots. The board feels a hardship would be considered on that area but that he should comply with the present zoning on the remaining area. Mr. Marino said he would discuss the matter with others in the compan~ and come back to the board next month and will not do any more grading in the area. ~ROMBLY PETITION: Mr. Drummop~ brought the matter of the petition for the transmitting tower by Mr. Trombly. He feels there is a hardship and thatMr. Keirstead hadno right to speak as he did at the last meeting. Mr. Drummond made a motion to reconsider the Trombly petition; Mr. Arsenault seconded the motion. Mr. Arsenault and Mr. Drummond voted yes; Mr. Serio, Dr. Beliveau and Mr. DiFruscio voted no. The motion failed. OLENIO PETITION: Mr. Drummond made a motion to DE~Y the petition; Dr. Boliveau seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Board found there was no hardship. GAFF~PE~ITION: The Board will wait for the corrected plans to be submitted before the decision is writtenand filed with the Town Clerk. The chairman felt he should netwrite the decision since he voted against the petition. BUDGET for 1973: The Building Inspector suggested that the 3 departments should go before the Advisory Board together since they all worked out of the same office. He dis- cussed compensating the secretary for the long meetings that have been taking place lately. Something will be worked out later. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. (J. Philip Arsenault) (Anna Donahue)