The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1974-11-11Monday - November 11, 1974 Regular Meeting The BOARD OF APPEALS held its regular meeting on Monday evening, November 11, 1974, at 7.'30 P.M. in the To~n Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Alfred E. Frizelle, Vice-Chairman; Dr. Eugene A. Beliveau, Clerk; William lq. Salemme and Louis DiFruscio. Asso. Member James lqoble was also present. WAT8(~ ~tRAVEL PIT: It was noted that we have received the correct assigement on the bank passbook. Mr. Serio talked with Charles Foster and asked him to make a decision in his mind as to whether or not he should stop the permit. Mr. Foster is to give a report at the next meeting. HE~EFO~E CORP. BOND: Mr. John J. Willis, Esq. called Nember Frizelle and also checked the matter out with Mr. Valente. Mr. Valente had instructed his insurance agent to do this, but it had not been done. They will have the bond in the office by nert Monday, Ntvember 18, 1974. ANTHONY RE"[NOI~S PETITION RE WO~DHOU~E PROPERTY: Mr. Frizelle stated that the B(]ARD is very limited in what they can do. We are sitting as a Pla-King Board of Appeals and have to determine whether the action taken by the Planning Board was proper. The action taken was according to Article 3-F of the Rules and Regulations. This is not a subdivision since it h~s access on a public way. The only thing we can legally look at is whether the Planning Board acted properly and Mr. Frizelle feels that they did. The minutes of the Planning Board meeting of August 73, 1~7~ were read. Dr. Boliveau questioned the statement of "minor remodeling". Shouldn't they have come before the Board of Appeals for a special permit, he asked2 He also, stated that he would not recommend this building for living quarters to any of his friends; it is right on the sidewalk and there is no privacy anywhere. Dr. Beliveau feels it will require much more t~u minor remodeling and doesn't think it will be a financially feasible project for the young couple involved. Under Paragraph 14 of the ZBL they should have come in to the BOARD (~ APPEALS. Mr. Serio stated, but that is assuming the structure is under the correct zoning and this is a non-confo~ use. Mr. Frizelle agreed with Dr. Beliveau in that he mdc some good points on the conversion aspect, but that is not before us. Mr. Foster advised Mr. Reynolds many times to get legal counsel and he did not take his advice. Upon motion made by Mr. Frizelle to sustain the decision of the Planning Board pursuant to Sec. 3-F, Mr. DiFruscio seconded. A discussion followed in which Dr. Beliveau stated that the Planning Board went beyond their authority and will vote against the motion in protest to their infringing on the Board of Appeals authority. The vote was taken in which Members Seric, Frizelle, DiFruscio and Salemme ~ere in favor and Dr. Belivaau opposed. In all variances, said Mr. Frizelle, there are 4 requirements which must be met and if any one of the 4 are not met and findings are not made then the case can be overturned. November ~ ~, 1~4 - cont. l~e should have more efa discuesion at our meetings as to wh~t is going on. xt is a paper street and Town Counsel has ruled that when a party owns land on a paper street he or she has the right of entry on that street. The plan has to go from the BOARD OF APPEALS to the Planning Board. Motion was made By Mr. Salemme that we GRA~ the variance and seconded by Mr. Dil~ruacio. Mr. Frizelle stated that according to Sec. 9.5 of the ZBL, it meets all the hardship. T~e vote on the motion was ~animous. EAROLD A. & ~ERLY 3. ~PPLE: Letter from Atty. Philip Arsenault, dated October 24th~ was read. The BOARD reviewed the plans. Recommendation from Charles l~oster was to insist that the 100 ft. frontage be met and the Building be kept the same size. The determining factor would be the width from front to back. Dr. Beliveau w~ndered whether or not the BOARD would be imposing a condition that would spoil the aesthetics, l~r. Frizelle noted that these people are stuck ~ith a piece of land, and By positioning the lmilding where they have they would only need ome variance. Dr. ~eliveau stated that in this particular case because of the topograph.v and small size of lot they should be allowed to have the variance they requested. The land was purchased in 1970. Mr. Serio a~ked Mr. Salemme how strongly the Planning Board really feels on this 100 ft. front setback. Mr. ~lemme thinks we should go along with their recommendation. We should not go on the basis that others are not 100 ft. bacE. Mr. ~elinas was at the Planning Board meeting when the matter was discussed and didn't seem opposed to it. Mr. l~rizelle made a motion that the BOA~ G~ a variance from Bec. 6.1 T~ble II and Sec. 6.3 Table II (~00 ~t. from existing roadway to front of the building). The motion received no second. Mr. Frizelle then m~de a motion to ~ variance from ~ec. 6.~ Table and 6.3 T~ble II with not less than 20 ft. from rear and side and su~mit new plans before we sign them. The petitioner must adhere to Sec. 6.3 Table II, feo~n~te 1. Mr. Salemme seconded and the vote was as follows: 3 in favor, ~rizelle, Serio amd ~alemme and 2 opposed, DiFruscio and ~eliveau. The motion did not carry. Dr. Beliveau m~de a motion %,o~ GRANT the variance as orig ~n, ally submitted as shown on the plan. Mr. Dil~scio seconded. Dr. Beliveau stated that it is a small lot, very swampy area in fha back and it is going to cause a lot of expense. Also, there may never be any widening of Rte. 114. The vote on the motion was t~ken and Members Serio, DiFruscio and Beliveau voted in favor. Members Salemme and Frizelle voted in the negative. The motion didn't carry. Mr. Dil~ruscio then made a motion to ~RA~T a variance for an 85 l~t. setback with side and rear setbacks. Dr. Beliveau secended and the vote was taken as follows: Serio, DiI~scio and Beliveau in favor, Frizelle and ~lem~e oppoeed. This motion did not carry. A mo~ion was made By Member l~rizelle to G~ a variance from Sec. 6.~ Table II and 6.3 Table II with not less than 20 feet setbacks in the rear and side of the Building and to further require the petitioner to submit a new set of plans for signatUres; and to DENY the requested variance from Sec. 6.3 Table II fgotnote ~. Mr. Salemme seconded the motion and the vote was 4 members in favor with Mr. DiFrusoio abstaining. 0NRI STOP~ER ADAMS: A motiou was made by Mr. Salemme to DENY the continuance of the Earth Removal Permit until he engages in some on-going restoration. Mr. Dil~ruscio seconded the motion. November 11, 1974 - cont. Mr. Dil~ruscio asked, has he or has he not co~plied with the conditions? He has graded and put some topsoil down, but no seeding has been done. The Building Inspector said, for the purposes of discussion, if he restores the site completely he cannot do any more earth removal. The area that the BOARD gave the permit for is from the end of the parking lot back. Mr. ~alemme withdrew his first motic~ and Mr. DiFruscio withdrew his second. Mr. Saleratus then made another motion to discontinue %he earth removal operation in that area and continue the bond for 1 year from January 28, 1975. Restoration shall be com- pleted by July 1, ~975. (Yf it is not done ~y that date Adams will have to forfeit the bond.~) Mr. DiFruscio seconded the motion. The motion was amended to say, restoration shall be loaming and seeding in order to prevent erosion which shall be completed by July 1, 1975 to the satisfaction of ~he BOARD. Members Serio, Frizelle, Saleratus and DiFruscio voted in favor; Dr. Beliveau was opposed. MISOELLANEOUS MA~I'ERS: The notice of the To~ Building Christmas ~s received and acknowledged. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. ~io, jrt) ' Chairman / (Gilda Blacketock)