Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-06-10236 Monday- June 10, 1968 Regular Meeting & Rearings The BOARD C~ APPEALS held their regular meeting on Monday evening, June 10, 1968 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: James A. Deyo~ Chair,--; Arthur Dx,w=m~nd, Secretary; Daniel T. 0'Leafy, Donald J. Scott and John J. Shields. There were about 25 people present for the hearings of the evening. 1. JOSEPH R. LARI~IE~: The petitioner did not have a complete set of plans so that the hearing was postponed until the meeting of July 8, 1968. P. & L. DEVELOPME~T CORPORATION Atty. Ne~old Morley appeared before the Boar~ as representing P. & L. Development Corporation. Mr. Leone was also present. Atty. Morley spoke with referenae to the permit for a filling station on ~ 0sgoed Street that hsxl heen granted by the Board in May, 1967. They presented an amended site plan showing a 40 foot hot-top approach from Old Clark Street, which had not been shown on the original plans. They wanted the Board's approval of the amended site plan so that a building permit could be issued for the filS~g station. An amendment to the original decision will be submitte~ ~pproving the access from Old Clark Rc~. 2. ERNEST GAUTHIER: Mr. Dx,z, mond read the legal notice in the appeal of Ernest J. & Nancy J. Gauthier requesting a variation of Sec. 4.17C of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit a kennel for the keeping of dogs on the premises. The present zoning requirements are three acres or more. Your petitioners have about 1.3 acres, on the premises located at the south side of Turnpike Street, known as 1537 Turnpike Street. Atty. Charles W. Trembly appeared for the petitioners. The arguments for the petition were that the petitioners had purchased the tract of land a few months prier with the intention of realizing a long standing ambition, tb~t of keeping a kennel for dogs. They would accept and conform to whatever conditions the Board might impose in granting the petition. They fully intended to design and build the kennel with the~ea of minimizing possible noise. The kennel would be strictly a "boarding" and possible "training' with no hospital tendencies. The dogs would be inside at a21 times during the night. The following people spoke in opposition to the petition. Mr. and Mrs. Walter ~oyt, Boston Street Mr. and Mrs. Gourley Beverly and Mr. Whipple Letters in opposition from ~rs. Goodhue and Mrs. DeNault Douglas Wilson, Lisa Lane They were concerned mainly about the probable excess noise from the dogs. Mr. Shields made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. 0'Leafy seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. June 10, 1968 - cont. 237 3. R. GEORGE OARON: Mr. Dr-,~ond read the legal notice in the appeal of R. George Caron requesting a variation and a special permit under Sec. 4.11 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the conversion of an existing two-family home into a three-f-m~ly home on the premises, located at the north side of Main Street and known as No. 22-24 Main Street. Mr. Catch appeared on his own behalf and pleaded his case by stating the need for apartments as he had proposed. There would be no substantial changes to the house as two of the rooms were existing and minor construction would produce the unit as proposed. Ample parking could be readily provided. There was no opposition to the ~petition. Mr. Shields made a motion to t~ke the petition under advisement. Mr. O'Lear~ seconded the motion and the vote was u~s-tmous. 4. P~YM0~D J. CATTY: Mr. Drummond read the legal notice in the appeal of Raymond J. Canty requesting a variation of Sec. 6.~.l & ?.3 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit an addition to a retail store at 127 Waverly Road, k~o~n as Canty's ~arket, on the premises located at the west side of Waverly Road, at the corner of Union Street and known as 127 Waverly Road. Mr. Canty spoke on his owa behalf and stated that he was in a position ~ach that he needed to do some refurbishing of the interior of his store chiefly in the form of a new floor. To do this he nee~edL,to move a large refrigerator. As these were both major undertakings for him, ha pleaded that it was desireable to add a room, 8' x 8~, to the rear of his store to hold a new refrigerator. Thus he could stay in business and perform much more efficiently when his alterations were complete. He stated that he would accept whatever conditions would be placed on him as essential to favorable action on the petition; the understanding being that if he felt the conditions were too severe he need not act on them but if he did not he would not be allowed his expansion. The only abutter who questioned the petition was Per~iwal Allen, 5 Union Street. His concern was the appearance and effect of the expansion as regards his property. A screening fence appeared to be an amicable solution and the meeting turned for a short time into a discussion of Just where and what type such a fence should be. Mr. Drummond made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Shields seconded the motion and the vote was unsB~mous. 5. EUGENE S. OLDFIELD: Mr. D~A~ond read the legal notice in the appeal of Eugene S. 01dfield re- questing a variation of Sec. ?.23 & 6.61 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the erection of a two-stall garage nearer the side lot line than the allowed 12-foot requirament, on the premises located at 20 Sawyer Road. ~r. 01dfield appeared on his own beha~_f saying that he had no garage for his car and in anticipation of the need for a second car for his son in the near future he wanted to build a two-car garage. He had placed the garage as presented so as O'~me 10, 1968- cont. to have access to it through a _~all breezeway or porch, part of which would need to be removed. There was only one interested abutter, Mr. C~s, who neither opposed nor spoke in favor of the petition. Mr. O'Leary made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. seconded the motion and the vote was mmnimous. MELAMED APA~MENT DEVELOPMENT: Atty. Charles Trombly was present for furtker discussion with the Board. New plans had been submitted as requested at the hearing. Letters were received from the Board of Public Works and the Highway Department. Mr. Trombly again stated that the streets will never be asked for acceptance by the Town. They will comply with any requests made of any town departments. Mr. Shields said the plans should show the utilities that are to se,-,ice the project and show where the drainage goes. He feels that the plans are not adequate for an operation of this size. He thinks the hearing should be re-advertised. Mr. O'Leary spoke as an abutter, saying that t&ese apartments would he better than a housing development and is in favor of this apartment development. He doesn't think a second hearing would be necessary and that it would not be fair to anyone to have another hearing. Mr. Trombly stated that the revised plans show the topography of the land and that he can submit the Camp, Dresser & McKee plans if the Board desires. The decision can be made with decisions to which they will comply in all respects. This velopment will he no expense to the town at all. He stated they will also drain the school property. There will be 2 exits on Andover Street ~n the over-all development. Mr. Shields mentioned about another section of that area being developed and spoke about total site plan study. There is much more information that is needed; width of roadways, number of cars for total projected development, drainage should be shown completely since this is an especially bad area for drainage. There are no architectural plans showing dimensions, etc. He stated that the number of people opposing a petition has no effect on the decision. The Board acts on what is good for the Town. Mr. Trom~ly explained that the plans show the entire tract of land but are applying for only one-half of the area at present. There is no land-locked area - the entire area will be used for apartments. They intend to come in at a later time for 200 more apartments making a total of appro~mately 350 units. Mr. Trombly Said more plans will be submitted - architectural plans, etc. JAMES GARON: The Board looked at the Assessor's ~ps of the area concerned in the petition of James Garon. Mr. O~Leary made a motion to grant the variance. There was no second to the motion. June 10, 1968 - cont. Mr. Shields made a motion to deny the variance. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and the vote was 4-1. Mr. OtLeary voted against denying the petition. The principal reason for denying the petition is as follows~ 1. Granting the variance would have been a severe deviation from the intent and purpese of the Zoning By-Laws. GILBERT REA EARTH REMOVAL PEREIT: A request was received from Gilbert Rea for a renewal of his earth removal permit. Mr. OILeary made a motion to renew the permit for one year subject to the same conditions. Mr. Drummond seconded the motion a~d the vote was unanimous, The Board discussed and voted on the following petitions: 1. ERNEST GAUTPPiE~R: Mr. O'Leary made a motion to deny the petition. Mr. Shields seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The principal reason for denial is that the requested petition would have resulted in a severe derogation from the intent and purpose of the Zo~g By-Laws. 2. R. GEORGE CARON: Mr. Shields ~ade a motion to grant the petition. motion and the vote was unanimous. ~r. O'Leary seconded the The principal reason for granting the special permit and variance is that it will not deviate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Laws. 3. RAYMOND J. CANTY: Mr. O'Leary m~de a motion to grant the petition subject to conditions. D~.-,nond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The ~rincipal reasons for granting the variance are as follows: 1. Denial of the variance would cause hsrdship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 2. Granting the variance would not deviate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Laws. The special condition that this approval is contingent upon is that a screening fence he erected by the petitioner along the lot line between the properties of Mr. Canty and Mr. Allen as follows: Beginning at a garage on the property of .Mr. Canty, a six-foot minimum height stockade-type fence to within twenty feet of the street line, from that point at least eight low-growing evergreen shrubs shall be planted on the same line to the street line. No building permit shall he' issued for the proposed expansion until the Bn~lding Inspector is satisfie~ that the screening fence is or will be erected. 240 June 10, 1968 -cont, 4. EUGENE S. 0LRFIELD: The petitioner had not presented evidence of hardship, financial or otherwise, and he had not attempted to place the garage on more ample rear yard area. Mr. 0'Leafy made a motion to deny the petition. Mr. Shields seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The principal reasons for denial are: 1. There was no hardship evidenced, financial or otherwise. 2. Granting the variance would be in severe derogation of the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Laws, specifically on the side yard requirement. The Board signed the necessary plans and vouchers. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. JAD Cb~t ~m~_.