HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-05-081
The BOARD OF APPEALS held their regular meeting on N~nday ew-4w~, Nay 8, 1967
at 7=30 P.F~ in the Town Office ~]41&~w~. The follo~xng memBer~ were present and
votings ~ames A. DeyO, Chairman; Arthur Dr~md, ~eeretary~ 'Daniel T. OJLeary
and ~ohn ~. Shieldl. Regular M~mber Dcaald Scott was unable to attend. No
Associate Members were available so that the Board had to sit with four me,hers.
There were 16 people present for the hearings of the
1. ~.A~IN6~ Tho~e & ~ary 0rabtree.
Mr. Dx~mm~nd read ~ha legal notice. The Chairman informed the applicants that
they were entitled to be heard Before a five-~an Board s~d that they co-1~ defe~
their application without prejudice; or if they wished to eontim~ it would require
a ?~--4~us vote (four) to approve their petition.
Atty. Charles W. Trc~ appeared for the applicants and pleaded that they wished
their case presented at this hearing. He explained that there was an
house on the lot in ~estion but it wes so situated that the lot could be divided
nearly equally creat~ a second lot. This would not derogate from the intent
purpose of the Zoning By-Laws and would not be ~ derogation of the neighborhood.
and Mrs. Crabtroe and ~rs. Ed. Werenehuk were recorded in favor.
~r. Loets X~iec and Mrs. Smith of 8~7 Chestnut St. spoke in opposition, prinoip*l~y
opposed to the mmll size of the proposed new lots. If the petition ~re granted.
it would set a precedent that could b~ followed by nearly every he, e-miner in the
a~eae
~r. D~aao~d ~ade a ~otion to take the petitien under advise~t. ~r. OtLeary
secoaded the ~otioa amd the vote was ~nani~ous.
2. ~ARING~ P. & L. Devel ~op~_nt Corp. and Sun Oil Ocular.
Mr. Drmmmd r~ad the legal notice. The Chaiman ex~latned that aa the ~oard
normll7 sat aa five me~bere and only four were present, the petitianer could
defer his application if he so desired. It was also e:r?'l,,~-ed that granting the
variance would require m~-~mous approval of the four ~amBers. Atty. ~
Morley, representing the petitioners, stated that he wes ~-~ to pressed.
Atty. ~orley pleaded the ease for the applicants by stating that a variance ~as
already in existence for the lot as had Been granted by the Board on Nay 20,
196~. This variance would be ut~4sed should the present petitian Be denied. Re
further stated that the principle reason for the present petition wes a re-positic~
of the proposed station so as to suit the arehitectural standards of the proposed
te~t. He also stated that the developers of the lot had invested considerable
monies in the lot including contributing to the cost of necessary sewe~ extensions.
Atty. Morley also stated that the petitioners would be agreeable to any special
restrietians the Board wished to i~pose as a condition to granting the variance.
188
May 8, 1967 - Cont.
William Chepulis and Richard Heider, representing Cyr an abutter, were re~orded as
opposed. Their artfonts consisted of the ha_~a_rd of gasoline seepage into the
water supply, increased traffic hazard in that the exits fre~ the station were
very near a potentially troublesome intersection, a gaudy or ekrm~ area situated
at an area of natural beauty, and two arguments concerning the legality of the
hear~-~. ~ The~e were; the application was for a variance wherein in his opinion
it should have bean for a Special Permit and also to have a hearing at all there
w~_st .be on file a buil~-g permit rejection letter from the B~4~,~ Inspector.
This letter, while available~ ~s dated April 25, some ti~e after the application
for a hearing was filed.
~r. Holder asked wh~ }ir. Cyr, an abutter, had not received official notico of the
hearing. It was noted that it has been the practice for the Clerk of the Board
to secure the listing of abutters from the office of the Assessors and should
their records not have haan updated there was no other reasonable way to insure the
accuracy of the notices. It is expected that there will be instances of this type
with the rapid turnover of property and the lengthy procoedings in the legal world.
it would be wholly unreasonable to assume_ that if a persia is aware then other
media of such a hearing that the absence of an official notice should have an~
effect on the legality of the hearing.
Charles Foster, Building Inspoetor, asked the petitioner about planting and
seed~-_e the area. He mentioned the b-~ being a problem.
Atty. Morley said the Board could put any restrictions on their decision end they
would c~lyo
Shields made a ~ction to take .the petition under advisement.
seconded the ~otion and the vote was
~r. Steiuherg appeared before the Board regarding the special permit fo~ an
apartment development which bad been granted to b~ in 1963. He said he is
ready to start building and has a e~mm~tment with the b~-~, Upon questic~
fr~a the Board he said he would have the B*~.send the Board a letter as .soon as
possible c~nfir-4~ his statements.
Charles Foster said Steinberg c-~ to l~u for a building permit. He was waiting
for the septic per, it fro~ the Board of Heal%h~
SMALL LOTS:
OB_~les Foster, Bldg. Insp. then discussed with the Board about small lots.
and how the State law supersedes local l~w. The State requires a ~ of
5,000 sq. ft. and 50 ft. frontage. He wanted to get the BoardJs feelings and
whether or not they should ec~e to the Board.
Mr. Deyo said they should present some sort of evidence that they could not purchase
a~ available, adjoining laud.
Mr. Shieldm made a m~tica that the Board be in favor of amending Section 6.61
subject to the correct warding by ~ the Bldg. Insp. and approval of
To~n Counsel. Set the w~,~w~m lot size at 5,000 sq. ft. and a ~ of 15~
May 8, 1967 - Cont.
189
aide line and 50~ fr~ntege. ~trike out the 12~ aide line for saall lots.
Mr. O~Leary seconded the motion. The vote was 3-1 amd M~. Dr~a~md abstained frc~
~tl~H PIF, I~gA~ I~F, IqEWAT.:
Sidney Rea. Mr. ~ seconded the motion and th~ vote vas ~A~ _~;us.
1. Thomas and Mary Crabtree=
The Board discussed the petitic~ and noted that all of the lots in the area
~ere of at least one acre (44,000 sq. f~. being the m'~,~'~m,,m required under the
present Zc~ing By-Law~) incl~n_m a new developnent on ~arion Drive now under
struction.
Mr. 0,Leery w~de a ~otion to ~ the application, which was seconded by Mr. Shields
and voted ~-=-*=~usly by the Board.
The principle reasons for denying are as follows:
1. There was no apparent hardship, f~A-olal or otherwise.
2. The proposed sub-division would have created two lots both of which would have
bean grossly under the ~hM~um lot size for the area.
Granting the application would have meant a severe deviation fro~ the intent
purpose of the Zoning By-~awa and a substantial derogation of the general area.
2. P. & L. Developaemt Corp.
The Board discussed the petition and noted fiat the differences were alight.
It vas also noted that permission to store gasoline underground ia granted by the
~eleetmen as had been done in this case. Traffic conditions are in the provin~
of the Police De~t who had not noted any objections to the propo~e~
Station.
Shields ~ade a motion to GRANT the petition, seconded by Mr. OtLeary and. voted
.w,s-~m,.aal.v. There will he o~nditions ~ade in the decision.
The principle reasons for granting are as follow~:.
1. To deny the petition would cause severe financial hardship to the applicant.
2. Given that a variance exists, granting this petition is almost a perfunctory
·atter satisfying a small change desired by the applicants.
3. The approval of this petition is contingent upon the ap xlicantls ~eeting the
following ooaditions:
190
May $, 1%7 - Cents
a. A~I portions of the lot not utilized for tho activities of the gas
station, in particular the. enb*-~u~nt bordering Old Clark Road, shall be grade~
· o as to sust~ four inches of
b. Not lees than 100 h,,,.~y evergreen shrubs shall be placed ca said
e. The green area sha~l be m~,teined eo ae to create a presentable
appearance At all tines during that period of the year when weather pernits.
3. ~LI~ and WAL~ER=
The Board discussed the petitica and noted that favorable action would result
in an improved tax base, bast end use of the la~d, and would be an asset rather
than harmful to the area.
Mr. D~ ~ade a motion to GRA~T the variance and special pereit. Mr. Shields
seennded the motion a~d the vote was --=~4~ous - subject to special ccnditicas.
a. That plane for the erection of the eight unita be aul~i%t.~d to the ~
certified by a registered Architect and conforming with local and state applicable
regulations _a_-_d requirements.
b. That no occupancy shall be allowed until such a time aa the Building Inspector
haw made a final inspection of the improvements and has issued an occupancy permit.
~ Principal reasons for approving this application are:
1. The allowance of transfer of land to W~]~er Realty Trust will allow an end use
of' the land which would otherwise have remained ex,ess, and for which the present
ovner ~m~ld derive no future benefits.
2. That with the increased amount of land in a high density area, granting of
eight additicaal ~ ts would not be in deregatica to the intent and purpose of the
By-Law, would not be detrimental in any respect to the immediate neighborhoo~
infl;:_~mces, but would actually en~e-oe the area.
3. That to deny this application would result in a hardship, financial or othe%~.
wise, to the applicants.
The ~eeting adjourned at 9~30 P.M,
JAD Cl~'~aa