Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-05-13Mr. Shields made a motion to DENY the variance. Mr. Drummond sec~mted the motion and the vote was unanimous. The reasons for denial are: ~he applicant will suffer no substantial hardship, financial or otherwise and is contrary to ~ection 6.6 of the Zoning By-La~. 2. Vincent & Louise Boylen: Mr. Shield~ said we are dealing with a developer of land who developed ~ lo~s and left a~ right of wa~ into 13 acres. If he sold it as a house lot, it was a penalty to the purchaser fo~ not having had legal advice, This lot was in cm~ ownership with other lots. It is subterfuge or an ~_legal sale because of co~aon ownership of other lando Mr. Lurid said we have to deny it. Mr. Mce~on said we could give him ~he opportunity of withdrawing amd cc~ back ag~- Mr. Lund s~id there is nothing to stop hi~ fr~a putting in more than one house with a 50-foot right of wa~. Mr. Shields said if lot ~2 is swampy, DeParis co~d deed it to h~ and he would have sufficient frontage. This was a faulty purchase. DeParis is responsible; Boylau probably acted in good faith. Mr. Dr-~md made a motic~ to DENY the variance, Mr. Morton seconded the motic~ and the vote was unanimous. T The reasons for denial are: The applicant will suffer no substantial hardship. The applicant has not exhauste~ al l means ava~_lable to _make it a legal lot. The Board discussed having an organizational meeting; to have a set of rules and base decisi~ of co, non Sense and f~,rly. The Board looked over applications for hearings for next month. They discussed the application of Sapienz~, Linden Ave., sent by Atty. Ourcio, regarding the repairing of automobiles. The Bce~d questioned whether it should come before the Board of Appeals, Mr. O'Leary telephoned T~WiA OoUnSel Sa~ebury and expl,~-b~d the circ,m~tances to him. Atty. SalisMAr~ said to mail h*m all of the material and he will then s~d us a written statement as to what should be done. A letter will be sent to the Selectmen informing them of the elected officers of the Board for the year. The Board signed the following bi]Is: Anna Donshue - s®~,.,ices Boynton Press (for~s) $40.00 13, - ondey g lar eeting & arin s .The Board of Appeals held their regular meeting .on Monday evening, ~a~ 13, 1963 at ?:30 P.M. iu the To~n ~_~l&~. The following ~abers were present and voting: Daniel T. 0'Leafy, Chairman; William Morton, Hemry E. ~.und, Arthur DA-~a~o~d ~-~ John J. Shields. Mr. Dm~.,~ud and Mr. Shlelds are the new regular members appointed by the_ Selec~aen. ~r. Burke ~ Mr. Gilman are now associate members. Atty. Harold Morley was present to f~le an application for a hearing in ~une for earth removal. 1. ~E. ARI~G: Rc~an Dile~ Mr. O'Leary read the legal, notice in the appeal of Re,em D~lendik requesting a variation of Sec. 6, Para. 6.31 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the division of a lot and garage alterations to make living ~,=~ters on the premises located at north side of Inglewood St.; 100 feet distant from the corner of Mablin Street and known as #51 Inglewood Street. There were no abutters present and there was no opposition. The petitioner and his son, John Dilendik, were present. They were represented by Donald Aa,~, Engineer, w~ sho~ed the plans and explained what ~as desired. The house and garage were reeved to +.~ s lot because the State took their land wheye they lived previously. They ~ant to divide the lot and convert the garage into living quarters. The frontage measures 115 feet by 100 feet. Mr. Lu~d said this is another Marino case. They moved the house and garage frc~ Perry Street and then applied to the ~,fldLng Inspector for a permit for the garage. We should have a refusal from the Building Inspector. Mr. 0'Leafy said that the Board can't do anything until they receive a written report from the Building Inspector. He read Section 6.61 of the By-Law rela$ivo to lot requirements, etc. He says the petitioner ian~t form~y before the Board because he has not met the requirements; such as a refusal from the Buil~,~ Inspector. Mr. Morton made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Dr~nd seconded the motion and the vote was u~4~us. 2. HEARING: Vincent & Louise Boylan. Mr. O'Leary read the legal notice in the appeal of Vincent & Louise Boylan re- questing a variation of Section 6, para. 6.33 of the Zo~f~.g By-Law so as to per- mit the erection of a house and barn on the premises, located at the northwest side of Foster Street; 2200 feet distant from the corner of Salem Street. There were appro~w~tely 28 people present for this hearing. Mr. O'Leary exp]-~med the reasons fer granting variances in order for them to understand more f~y the circumstances of the case. Atty. Steinberg represented the petitioners who were also present.. He showed the plans to the Board and expl~ed that the right of way is 'shown as 50 feet~ and has been opened up. Their intention is to construct a house and they have plenty of room - 13 acres. 150 foot frontage is required, but they have only 50 feet and need that as a right of way to get to the 13 acres. The area has a number of other hc~ses, some are new and some are old. There is a large chicken farm in the Nay 1~, 1963 - Cont. area. There are houses n~g being built on property bought after this property. It would be an extreme hardship not to approve house and have the right of way. He doesn't see how it could affect the neighborhood. It would be an 18,000 dollar house. It could not affect the v~lue or homes about the place. Atty. Bradley spoke, representing most of the people in the room who are apposed. He stated the application is incorrect. Lot ~2 on the street has not bean sold and it runs back to the other land for which they ask to get a variance. There is 'still 150 feet frontage on the street that can take him back to his lan~. He ca~ acquire the land. The 150 feet frontage is available to bu~. Mr. DeParis, part owner of this available pro~y says tk~t 300 feet is available. Atty. Bradley says the whole picture smells all the way through. It is a wonderful deal for Mr. DeParis to make some money on. He can keep the other land to sell to someone else. It is an absolute fraud. There are many people here who have spent considerable ~ of money. They bought with the understanding that they were protected by the Zoning by-Law. If the Board grants such a variance it is not keeping faith with the people in this town. If the variance is granted, we will go to Superior Court. Consult your Town Counsel and see if he doesntt agree. Those oppose~ were then asked to be recorded as such: N. Arttmevieh, 998 Salem St. Mr. & Mrs. Weaver, Mrs. Hill and Mrs. 0sgood, representing the F~ller Estate. Gilbert Calvert, 11/:1 Salem St. Francis Rivet, Foster Street Jaw-s Dean, 75 Foster Street D. Smith, Lot #4, Foster St. Mrs. Gilmore, 37 Foster St. R. Baldwin, 46 Foster St. R. Stang, 1028 Salem St. Turner Bridges, Foster St. Loring Foster, 122 Foster St. Mr. O'Leary then asked to speak to Mr. DeParis. way. He asked him who owned the Right of Mr. DeParis said that they were originally going to develop the area, he and his two brothers. His brothers sold the land to Boylan, he didn't know anything about it, but he got his share of the money. It was sold with the condition that he could get his down payment back if he couldn't get a building permit. It ~s then brought~out if it could come under the SuB-division Control Law. Atty. Steinberg said all we are intereste~ in is having a right of way, the house will be in behind. The opposers joined in to say it is against the Zoning~ law. Atty. Bradley Said no court would uphold it if there is 300 feet available. Atty. Steinberg said the land was sold that way. Boylan was foolish to purchase the land without an attorney. May 13, 1963 - Cont. Atty. Bradley said that is no reason why these people should suffer because one man ~as foolish. Atty. Steinberg said the Board of Appeals is needed for these cases that are unusual. It will work a ~_~dship here. Can't see how it will hurt the neighborhood. Arty B~edley quoted a ease that was before Superior Gout%. He said variances shoul~ be granted sparingly. He said the laud has been filled in since the last hearing. Mr. O'Leary said he loomed at the land himself ami said it was all ~ull-~oze~ out andis a swamp. Mr. Morton made a ~otion te take the petition under advise~s~t. Mr. Dm~mmoud seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The hearings were over and the Board proeeeded to take up other matters. There are two new members of the Board. Mr. Shields made a motion for Mr. O~Lear~ to be ahat~ of the Board, Mr. Lurid seconded the motic~ and the vote was unan~ous. Hr. Shields made a motim for Hr. Mortcu to be Secretary, Hr. Lurid seconded the motic~ and the vote was unnn'~mous. Mr. Shields made a motion to adopt a policy where the petitioner for variances in- volving construction of structures such as apartment houses, conversions to buildings, additions to co~nercial buildings, etc., be required to submit to this Board not only a Civil Engineer,s plans of plot plan of land but detailed architectural plans and a perspectus of proposed modificatic~ of structures. Mr. Mortc~ seconded +~be motic~ and the vote was unanimous. A discussion was held regarding the motion. Atty. John J. Lynch appeared before the Board with Mr. Steinberg with an applieatic~ for propos~_d spartmants and sh~ a plan. There are 90 - 1OO acres in the whole lo~, bat 59 acres are sho,~, c~ the plan with ~ ~&ings, 6 units to a building, making 24 units. Atty. Lynch asked several questions of the Board regarding the . procedure and requirements for a hearing, etc. They will contact the Board ag=~ as to when and if they desire a hearing. Building Inspector Charles Foster called Mr. O'Leery regarding the Dilendik hearing. Hr. 0'Leary told him that it was absolute]~ necessary that we have refusals frem the Building Inspector and in the future, no hearings will be held if no refusal ~ re- ceived fr~a the B~ilding Inspector. The Board then proceeded to discuss $he evening,s hearings. 1. Roman Dilend/k: The ~bers said that they don,t hav~ the right to grant this veriance. cc~nc~ ~,hership of land and he should not be a~d to divide it.