HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-12-13 )~ond~ - December 13, Re,ar Meeting
The BOARD OF APPEALS held its regular m~nthly ~eeting on Mon.~ eVening, December
13, 1~76 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Roc~. The following members were
present asd voting~ Alfred E, l~izelle, Ac~ing Chairma-; Louis D[Frusoio, Clerk;
James D. Noble, Jr.; Ralph R. Joyoe; and Assoc. Members, Sandra N~uroe and Stephe~
R. Doherty.
There were 8 visitors present for the public hearings.
ARCHDIOCESE SUPERI~ COURT HEARING: Mr. Frizelle requested Mr. ~.~ce, who was
present at the Cour~ hearing to reiterate what had transpired. Nr. ~oyce told the
Board that To~n C~unsel would appear at this evening's Board of Selectmen meeting
to advise them what opticas were av&ilable to them. Inasmuch as the appeal was
turned down, the next course of action is in the hands of the Selectmen.
Follo~dng a short discussica, Messers l~rizelle, Noble, DiFruscio and Doherty voted
in favor of continuing the appeal; Mr. ~oyce a~stained. A brief memo w~s sent to
the Board of Selectmen rega,-d~ this Boardts feel:~ on the matter.
1. RUSSELL ~. GAMACHE - Campbell Rd,: The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. ~a~ache
spoke in favor of his application stating that the house was originally placed on
the property on what was supposed to be the correct lot setbacks. Mr. Paul Oollinst
surVeyor discovered the discrepancy of 17 ft. which was thought to Belong to ~amache
but actually belonged to Collins. The plans were reviewed By the BOARD. The
variance requested involved a triasgular corner (6~ ft,) which falls within the 30
foot sideline requirement. C~les E. Cyr drew the original plot pl~u which was
done on March 1~ 1~76 and certified to meet zoning. Inasmuch as the construction
of the dwell~n~ was begun An mid-I~ebruary, Mr. Frizelle inquired what the B~ilding
Permit ~as issued on. Charles Fos~er, Building Inspector, stated it was issued on
the required septic plan. Further, he stated tha~ it is not always easy to see
where the lot line ~re located so he trusted the surveyor, Mr, Collins, the abutter,
was not present but does not object, said Mr. Gamaohe. It wns n'oted ~hat the plan
dated March 1 has the ea~e dimessions as the plan su~itted to this BOARD~and that
the house sound up in a completely different place frc~ where it was supposed to be
in relation to the septic system. Mr. Frizelle commented that if the ~ is going
to hand out variances after the act is done it may as well throw out the Zoning
L~w. Mr. ~amache stated that he accepted the boundary as being correct and there
was no intention on his pa~ to deviate from the laws. The BOARD kept the septic
plan and, also, the original plot plan.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Dohertymade a motion to take the matter under advisement and Mr. Noble seconded.
The vote wa~una~imou~.
MrS. Munroe sitting.
2. HEP~EF(~ CO~,. -Earth ~m~ Pe~t Renewal: ~e clerk ~ t~ le~ notice./
~o~ J. Willis, ~. ~resented the o~er, ~. ValiSe. ~. Valente ~ also p~sen~.
~. ~illis s~ated ~ his re,est for c~shi~opera$i~s no~ his pri~c~ce~.
~e new e~h remo~l laws ali~this a~er a~Blic he~. ~w~d l~e to c~e a
problem ~ we all ~ow e~s~s~ ~gested ~o allaw neigh~o~'fe~s t~t i~ c~ ~
o~rated re~ably well-- we ~e ~bject ~o en~r~n~ c~trols ~heDept. of
Na~al Res~ces as f~ ~ noise fact,s ~e c~ce~ed; it w~ld Be 2~ f~. a~
~ B~o~ S~.; w~d li~t it to a ~ opera~i~ ~d li~ted as to h~s. ~
su~i~ted ul$i~te l~d use of~he si~e ~i~ten ~o~. ~lt $~ t~s w~ ~ opera-
December 13, 1976 -conto
tio~ of considerable duration, since 1~62 through previous owners, Mr. Valente has n~t
operated the pit to any extent because it is economically unsound at this time. ~he
proposal would ultimately conclude the operation and return it to its residential use -
1 acre development. We have some serious local develope~rs interest'ed in purchasing the
site and there is only a limited amount of gravel remain ,i,ng. It is an existing operation
and are here to renew it and are trying as nearly as feasible to comply with the new
regulations. There are no drainage problems, he continued but will be subject to
scrutiny By the Planning Board and Conservation Commission if and when it becomes under
development ·
The IM1ARD and Mr. Willis then went over the by-law Pertaining to Earth Removal section
By section. Mr. Willis aSked that the 5 ft. contour lines be waived with respect to
the plans. He told the BOA_RD that they had not ~ubmitted the proposed final drainage of
the site beeauae it will all be re~iewed at some subsequent time by the Con. Com.
~ere is one access point which is finished and located on the pla~ the area of actual
operation is 13 acres but is worked in 5 acre increments.
The plan is to Be stamped By a registered s~rveyor and ~o be returned to the next meetinge
Total acreage of the site is 76-78 acres But they would not be exceeding the 40 acres
with resp.ec~ to the present viable permit.
Non-transferable revokable permit = Mr. Willis felt that anyone who purchases the pro-
perry would want to use the excess for sales purposes. Whoever buys and continues the
operati~n would be under the same rules that Mr. Valente is under and would file a bond
with the Tcmn ko substitute for Mre Valente's
Mr. Valente explained the crushing and screening operation and felt that it would make
thin~s go a little faster in cleaning up the operation. He would have no part of the
crushing operation. He would be subject to the controls of the ~errimaok Valley Air
Pollution Commission But they would not act until the ~ OF APPEALS granted a per.it.
Mre Frizelle coe~ented that we could like to see any application to the Coew.~ssion before
it was submitted. Mre DiI~uscio noted that if Mr. Valente is not going to do the crush-
ing himself the BOARD would be unable to issue him a permit.
~ Thews_s, an ab~tter, stated that he objected and felt it was futile to discuss the
matter if~ a permit ca. not even ~ isled.. ~so, he stated t~t he ~d no oBje~i~ ~o
~he ~a~l o~r~$i~ ~d t~t ~, ValenCe ~s c~lied ~th w~t ~s ~en recessed ~
the ~.
~r. Willis ooem~nted that there should be a requirement that no topsoil can Be taken
the site and that they will maintain the vegetation as per Move 10, 1975 decisiene
No opposition to the gravel pit ~s voiced.
A motion was made .by Mr. Noble to take the matter under advisement. Mr. Doherty seconded
and the vote was unanimous.
ARCHDIOCE~ - continued= 'Mr. Joico, who had attended the Seleotmen's meeting, told the
Board of Appeals members that his intention in not wanting to discuss the matter too
deeply prior to the Selec'tments meeting was that his point would be bette~ made bring-
ing .it to the Selectmen first th~_~ in a forum at this meeting. The reason he changed
his mind was that we had to make a recommendation from this BOARD to the Board of
Selectmen. He stated that he would not go on public record By voting o~ it, however.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 PoMe
The BOARD OF AI'~EALS held · regular monthly meeting on Jfondey evening, December 13,
1976 at 7t30 P.H. in the Teen Office Heating Renu. The following meubern were present
· nd voting.* Al·zed E. Yrizell·, Vier-Chairmen; R. Louis DIYruecio, James D. Hoble,
blph R. ~oyce end Stephen Doherty,
There were 8 visitors in attendance.
Hr. Frtzella asked Mr. Jo~ce to state what had happened in the Superior Court hearing
on the Archdiocese. Teen Counsel ~ill appear at the ~eleet~en'e meeting to advise them
~at ~ti~o they have end then i~'e up to them. ~izelle, DtFruecio and D~erty voted
in fov~ of c~ionin~ the appeal; J~ce obs~ined. ~e B~rd ~ote a brief memo ~e
the Selectmen re~erdtuK i~o feeli~o ~ the ~C~er.
RUSSELL G, GA~ACHE - Campbell Rd : the Clerk reed the legal notice Mr. Ca~oche spoke
in favor of the epplic~tio~. He. se placed .on lot o~ what ~s suppled to be pr~r
set,eke fr~ lot line. Err~ learned ~en su~eyor vas check,n; 1~ llne ~ square
[~taKe o~ nei~hb~, P. Collins, ~ro~erty. ~e 17s missies ~8 Kiven to Go~che
rectly. Plans reviewed by the B~d. ~r dr~ the ~isi~l pl~ ~len; h~se 8tarred
in uid-Februo~ and plot plan dra~ ~ ~. 1. Hr. Yrizelle~inqutred ~ot the buildin;
pe~it vas ironed on - the required septic plan, said C.~8ter, and tenet always see
~ere the lot lines 8re 8o ~ruo~ed ~he su~ey~. Hr. ~Mche 8~sCed
not ~eeent bu~ no~ in ~osi~i~. ~e h~oe w~nd up in f c~le~ely differen~ place
~hon where it ~s ·upposed to be m ~he septic plon. Frizelle felt ~hf~ if ~he B~rd
ie ~oin~ ~o h~nd ~ variances eater the acc is d~e, then ~y as ~11 thr~ ~c the
ZBL. ~Mche 8ccep~ bound8~ ee be[n~ c~rec~ mud s~oted iC ~ no
parc CO deviate ~r~ the love. ~e Bo~d kep~ the septic plan end ~I~o
ploC plan.
Mo opposition.
Doherty made a motion tO take the n~tter ,rider advisement, seconded by Noble. Unanimous
vote.
flKREFORK C~tP.: (S. Mentor sat on this peti¢ion) The Clerk read the legal notice. JoJ~n
Willis representing and Hr. Valente present. Hr. Willis told the Board that their request
for · trueing spar·tiaa wee nsc only purpose for bein$ before them. #ant to cure problem
of neighbors' fear· regarding the ~operstiou. It can be operated reasonably well: they
ore subject to environmental controls from the Dept. of Ibt'l Resources as far as noise
factors ere coacerned. It would be 2500 ft. away fro~ B~ford St. Suggested limiting it
to s 90-day permit end limit os to hours m~st sdvtseable. At this point, he submitted
copies of the ultimate land use of the site. Willis advised that it has been economically
unsound for Vslente to operate the pit to any extent et this time. The proposal would
ultimately conclude the operation and return it to its residential use, I acre develop-
meat. They ore trying es nearly a8 feasible to comply with the regulations, said Willis.
He then aeked the Board to waive the 5 ft. contour liner with respect co the plans. Other-
wire complied w~th Sec. 5.3. They have no~ submitted the proposed general drainage of
the site because it will all bet e viewed at ·sue subsequent time by the Con. Com. under
another eerier (developer). There is one access point which i8 fenced and locked. The
ares of actual operation ia 13 acres but ia worked in 5 acre increments. Total acreage
.if 76-?$ acres and they would not exceed the ~0 ·tree with respect tow here the permit
is still viable. Whoever buys and continues the operation would be under the same rules
that Mr. Velente is under end that person wonld file a bond with the T~w~ to substitute
for Velente's bond.
Valento explained crushin~ end screening a~d mentioned 2 prospective buyers. This vo~ld
make things go s little bit fester. Valente would have no port in the screening opera-
tion. Discussion endued regardin~ the crusB~g.o~uration and DiFruscio orated that if
Valenta ia not goin~ to do it himeelf the Board cannot even issue a permit.
Deemnber 13, 19876 (cont.)
Harry Thomas stated opposition right nm~ and also called Air Pollution C~ntrol. Rad
no objection to the gravel permit.
Willis stated there should be a require~e~t that no topsoil can be taken off the site.
They vii1 maintain vegetation as per Hay. 10, 197S decision.
No other ~oniti~.
Hr. Noble made s motion to taken the matter under advisement. Doberty seconded and
the ~ote won unanimous;
Rnl~hJoyee re Archdiocese: Ny intention in not~nntingto d~scuas the matter
previously on tbs Arehdteceee was that my point vould be better made bringing it to
the other Selectuen first. The reason that changed ny mind is t~t we had taken s
recouuendatton on it but I am not going on record to vote au it.
The me~ting adjourned at 9:30 1~.
Chairm~n
s