HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-08-24August 10, 1964 - Cont.
The Board signed the necessary plans of the petitions that were granted.
The Board signed the following
Anna Donahne 40.00
Daniel C ahill 5.00
(stamps) $ 45.00
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
Ch~ rman
Clerk
Nonday - August 24, 1964
Special Meeting
The Board of Appeals held a special meeting on Monday evening, August 24, 1964
at 7:00 P.M. in the Town Building. The following members were present and voting:
Chairm~n Daniel T. O'Leary, Secretary William Morton; Arthur Dr~=,ond, John J.
Shields and Associate Member Howard G~l~an who sat in place of Henry E Lurid.
This meeting was called at the request of Mr. Simon .Caponette in order to act on his
petition for a s~?pool.
First a letter was read from Atty. Hs~old Morley requesting renewal of the Gilbert
Rea earth removal permit. A letter will be sent to the Building Inspector asking
for his report as to whether or not the petitioner has conducted the earth removal
according to the ~nditions on the permit. This report should be received in time
for our September 15 meeting.
SIMON L. CAPONETTE:
Mr. &Mrs. Caponette were present and gave the proper plans to the Board, as requested.
Mr. Shields noted that the size of the pool on the plans is 16X32 and the petition
says 15x30.
Mr. Caponette explained to the Board that through a ~ eunder~tanding, he took a tree
and some shrub do~n where he wanted the pool placed. It is not dug at all. The
contractor thought that only the plans were necessary and that it was all right to
proceed. He again went to the Building Inspector and could not get a permit.
Mr. Shields asked him what safety measures he had in mind.
Mr. Caponette said he would put a 3~ ft. retaining wall and a 6 ft. cedar fence around
the pool.
Mr. Shields asked if the trees in the back yard prevented putting the pool there?
August 24, 1964 - Cont.
Mr. Caponette said the back yard was on the north side and never gets the sun and
wouldnlt fit between the trees. At least two trees would have to be removed. There
are 4 big maple trees, willow trees by the street and a hemlock tree.
Mr. Shields said a 1 foot thick retaining wall leaves only 2 feet beside the pool.
Mr. O'Leary asked where the water would drain, f
Mr. Caponette said it would drain from the driveway into the open sewer.
Mr. D~,,mmond said he still couldn't see why the pool couldntt be put in the back yard.
Mr. Caponette again explained about the trees. Where he wants the pool in the front,
the sun hits all day long.
Mr. Shields made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. N~n seconde~
the motion and the vote was unanimous.
Mr. Gilman asked why he cut the tree down in the front when he didn't have approval?
Mr. Caponette said the contractor went ahead thinking all that was necessary was
having the plans. When he went to the Bldg. Inspector, he couldntt get a permit.
The contractor is from Watertown.
Mr. Smields asked what the m~wket value of his house was?
Mr. Caponette said around $20,000.
Mr. Shields asked if that was average for the houses in the neighborhood.
it was.
And he said
Mr. Morton said that if this was approved the neighbors have 21 days in which to
appeal. Mr. Caponette said the neighbors are happy - there's nobody against it.
neighbors are with btm. He explained that this was the first time that he had to
come before any kind of a Board and everything was new to h~m.
The
Mr. Shields informed him that the decision will be fair, clear and in accordance with
the law.
The Board then went into executive session and discussed the petition.
Mr. OILeary feels that he has plenty of land in the back yard.
Mr. Shields said it would not be a hardship. Hers going to put a 4t ~e~aining wall and
a 6t fence. This Board should consider appearance and its effect on adjacent properties.
It will only allow 2'on one side of the pool, which is unsafe. He said he wanted a
15x30 pool on the application and now says he wants it 16x32'.
Mr. Shields ~de a motion to DENY the petition. Mr. Dx-~wmond seconded the motion and
the vote was unanimous.
The reasons for denying are as follows:
1. There would be no hardship to the petitionerby the denial of this petition since
there is an alternate location on the subject lot which would not require action from
this Board.
August 24, 1964 - Cont.
2. The size of the pool on the plans (16'x32') does not conform with the size of the
pool on the petition (15'x30').
3. The erection of a fence such as is proposed, would be detrimental to the neighborhood
and would not be in keeping with the general character of the neighborhood. There would
be a 4~ 'retaining wall and a 6~ fence on top of that wall. The base of the retain~g
wall would be approx. 1~ wide, leaving only approx. 2~ which would also make use of
the pool unsafe.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
AD
Chairman
Clerk