Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-06-14Juae ~4, ~976 - Monday Regular Meeting The BOARD O~AP?EALS held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, June 14, 1976 at 7:30 P.~. in the To~n Office ~eeting Room. The following members were present and voting: Alfred E. Prizelle, Vice-Chairman; Prank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Ralph R. Joyce; R. Louis DiPruscio, Clerk; James D. Noble, Jr.; and Walter Jamitkowski, Assoc. Member. There were l0 visitors present for hearings. ANDRE~ &~uNNIE COFFIN, Sutton & Columbia Rd.: the Clerk read the legal notice. 7ariance reques%edunder Sec. 6.1 (2), 6.3 and Table 2 of the Zoning By-Lawo Mrs. & Mrs. Coffin were present.and wished to separate the two properties into two separate parcels to Be conveyed. Mrs. Coffin inherited the property and plans to sell it to her daughter. There is a two-familyhouse on Sutton St. and a one-family in which the Coffins reside. In 1955 the ~ack part was purchased by Mrs. Coffin from her two brothers. Now they want to move lot line according to plan on file. At the time the garage was built Mrs. 0offin had title to all the land. Mr. Joyce requested Mr. Coffin to state for the record the use the houses will be put to - a great number of two -families in the vicinity, in a R-4 District, ever~rthing done has been~in keeping with the neighborhood. The ~uilding permit for the house built in 1956 was based on the 1943 Z~L and showed membership copies of original plan filed with the Registry of Deeds aa subdivided bY Ebon Sutton and a plan showing how his mother-in-law had conveyed the property to his wife. If we do not have a permit to establish the Boundary, we cannot convey the property and it would be economically impossible to handle the two in the near future, Coffin stated. Letter from Plaaning Board was read. No opposition. Motion by Joyoe to take underadvisement. unanimous vote. Second By l~rizelle and JO~N THOMPS0~ - continued hearing (See attached sheet) DECISI0~S: A. DEPARIS - Jay Willis appeared and stated that by squaring the building off it is going to make it much more desirable and will not be any closer to the side lines than the ~uilding is now. Motion By Noble that the request he granted in conjunction with the plans and various paragraphs - second by DiFruscio and unanimous VOt e. F. B~CZYNSKI - Jay Willis representing. Board members had viewed the site; building to Be 75 ft. from the street. Joyce felt that this is one of the few before the BOARD that due to topography and soil conditions requires a variance. Dil~scio made a motion to grant the petitioner's request and the building shall conform specifically to the plan dated April 7, 1976. Second by Frizelle and unanimous vote. ROBERT DULUDE PLANS: Atty. Caffrey representing reiterated previous testimony given at last month's meeting. Frizelle Brought up the fact that the shed was to Be torn downy per variance granted in 1963. Dulude stated that he didn't know where the architect picked that up from and Caffrey said that if we had recorded the plan in we would not Be here now for this procedural question. Member Frizelle remarked that this BOARD gets involved in this type of thing quite a bit where people say they are going to do something and don't do it. Dulude said that the Building Inspector has already approved some additional expense to the building. The Building Inspector stated that he found work going on in that looationand told Dulude to come in for a permit. The building permit is only recently issued and can be revoked. Dulude: there is no reason for the shed to be torn down, it was a mistake. June 14, 1976 - cont. DiFruscio stated tBat the BOARD is ~eing asked to sign these plans as a true copy, but the Building exists which should have Been rmzed. Dulude stated further that he already received a Building permit 3 years ~go for the house and there was no problem of any shed~at that time. Said he has record of two permits from the Building Inspector. Charles Foster, B. I., stated that ~e permit on the shed was issued in error on his part By not researching it. Caffrey felt that even if it were a good idea in 1963 to tear the shed down, would the BOARD be willing to take a fresh look at it now; it is the same owner, same abutters. Dulude stated he has no idea why that notation is on the plan. The Buildi~ Inspector stated that even if the BOARD were to sign these plans he did not think he could issue for the new house being knowledgeable of the fact that a condition of the plan w~s not met. Dulude repeated that a permit had Been issued 3 years a~o. Member Joyce stated that the only thing this ROA~D can do is have a complete new hearing. If I notarize this, he said, it will Be with the stipulation that.this is with ~ull consent of the 4 members signing~this that it is only a trteoopy of a plan on record and not to the merits of.the condition that the shed should Be razed. Motion then made by Jamitkowski to sign these plans only to verify that they are a true copy of the plan on record as of 1963. Second l~zNoble - VOTE: Jamitkowski, DiPruscio, Serio, Noble in favor; Prizelle aBmtained. 0~IS ADA~: DiFrusoio £slt that Adams did improve the site a little Bit Becausethere is some ~rass ~rowing. C. Foster said that he still has the pile of stone there. Adams to Be sent another copy of the previous letter (on file) and a cover letter statlng that he abide By the conditions forth and demand renewal of the bond. RE~: FOR EARTH I~NOVAL PERMITS - Members discussed proposed modifications. Joyce to rewrite with changes for next meeting. NI~C~N,T,A~C~JSMA~V~S: Reply received to our lstter to Town Counsel Salisbury regarding allowing a petitioner to withdraw even though he has not requested samel DECISIC~: A. CC~FIN - Motion by DiFruscio to GRANT the variance. Second by Frizelle and unanimous vote. J. THOMPS0~ - Ralph Joyce sitting is place of Frizelle. DiFruscio would like to inves- tigate f~u-ther; Joyce still troubled By what By-Law states. Ne felt alternative was to put one duplex in and would not be alienating the land at all. The Building Inspector said that then you are requiring him to have 20,000 s.f. of land. Jamitkowski retorted that we are not requiring anything, he has it there. Noble felt that while he can build two 70 x 40 single family homes he can come back in two months and request Breaking them up into two apartments. Motion by DiFruscio that the 4 lots shall Be combined into lots A & B as shown on plan d~ted April 1976; not more than one duplex sh~ll be allowed on each lot; that the construction of one duplex house on each is allowed but the owner shall forfeit any rights under SEc. 4.122 (14) of the Zoning By-Law dated 1972 as reprinted July 1974; the owner shall not expand to larger than a duplex hous,~on each lot; must tie in with municipal water and sewer facilities. Second By Noble and unanimous vote. The Chairman appointed a Subcommittee of DiFruscic, Noble, and Jamitkowski to review all sites~before hearings; DiFruscio the Chairman. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M. ~~_~Secretmry Gilds Blackst cch