Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969-10-14Tuesday - October 14, 1969 Regular Meeting & Hearings The BOARD OF APPEALS held their regular meeting on Tuesday evening, October 14t 1969 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building with the following members present and voting: Arthur R. Drummond, Chairman; Daniel T. O'Leary, Secretary; Philip Arsenault, Donald J. Leonard and Assoc. Member James A. Glynn, Esq. There were 30 people present for the hearings of the evening. 1. HEARING: WillismB. Duffy. (Mr. Drummond disqualified himself from sitting on this petition and designated Mr. Arsenault to sit as Chairman). Mr. O'Leary read the legal notice in the appeal of William B. Duffy who requested a variation of Sec. 6.31 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the division of existing land into 5 lots having less than the required frontage and area, on the premises located at the west side of Summit Street, approx 106 feet from the corner of Prescott Street. Mr. Duffy spoke on his own behalf stating that the size of the proposed lots will be in keeping with other lots in the neighborhood and that the frontage and area do fail to meet the requirements of Section 6.31 and the cost of installing water and sewer service would be economical. Speaking in opposition were Charles Bartlett, John Tomzak and John Leach. Mr. O'Leary made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Leonard seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 2. HEARING: CyrOil Company. Mr. O'Leary read the legal notice in the appeal of Cyr Oil Company who requested a variance under Section 7.3 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the erection of a gasoline station, on the premises located at the south side of Turnpike Street, known as 1705 Turnpike Street. Ronald Cyr spoke for the company explaining that a modernized building was necessary and because of the shape of the lot, it is impossible to erect it on the lot that would leave enough room for a driveway and pumps in front. Sub- stantially built and an asset to the area, he asserted that it was desired to erect the station as soon as possible. Richard Heider, a representative of Cyr Oil Company, spoke in favor of the petition. There was no opposition. Mr. Leonard made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 3. HEARING: Antonio Forgetta. Mr. O'Leary read the legal notice in the appeal of Antonio Forgetta who requested a variance under Section 7.5 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the division of land so that each dwelling will have its own lot as per frontage and area requirements of the Industrial "L" district, on the premises located at the west side of Osgood Street and known as 1210 Osgood Street. Daniel and Eligio Forgetta represented their father and stated that the variance was necessary because the existing buildings do not conform to the sideline re- quirements on an Industrisl "L" district. There was no opposition. Mr. O'Leary made a motion to take the petitionunder advisement; Mr. Leonard seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. October ]-4, 1969 - cont. ~. HEARING: George H. Fart - Earth Removal permit. Mr. O'Leary read the legal notice in the appeal of George H. Fart 'who requested a special permit under Section 5.1 & 5.2 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the operation and maintenance of a gravel pit on the p_remises located at the south side of Salem Street, approx. 3,000 feet northwesterly from the corner of Ingalls Street. He also read the Building Inspector's refusal. Speaking in his own behalf, Mr. Farr reported that it was vitally necessary that he have the use of his land for a gravel pit for his development along Salem Street, otherwise it would be necessary for him to purchase gravel elsewhere. He also stated that he had bean removing gravel from the pit and had excavated below the water line and transporting said gravel on the public way. Mr. Farr said that as a result of his gravel removal there would be a small pond resulting, but was vague in an estimate of the amount he would require or the specific location on his land which would be the site of the removal. He would not agree to putting in a road from the proposed pit to his development which would eliminate traveling on Salem Street but would cross in one location. The Board suggested that this procedure had been done on at least one occasion and had satisfied the abutters. Mr. Fart would not assure the Board that only gravel would be removed for his own develop- ment. Mrs. Farr and two other people were in favor of the petition. At least ten neighbors and abutters opposed the special permit because they did not want a gravel pit in their back yards and because of the resulting use of Salem Street by big trucks speeding along and the danger thereby to children and other traffic in the area. The relatively narrow road would not stand up under such usage and the site would be unsafe for children who would be sure to enter it even should Mr. Farr erect a fence. Mr. O'Leary made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Arsenault seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 5. HEARING: Daniel J. Sully!van. Mr. O'Leary read the legal notice in the appeal of Daniel J. Sullivan who requested a variance under Sections 6.61 & 7.23 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the addition of a 12 x 15 ft. room to the existing structure, on the premises located at the west side of Pleasant Street, known as ~:1 Pleasant Street. Mr. Sullivan appeared in his own behalf and stated that the proposed addition would improve the appearance of his lot and would in no way be detrimental to any abutter. There were no abutters present and there was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Scott made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. O'Leary seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The submitted plans must be amended to show the abutters. Mr. O'Leary then made a motion to GRANT the variance; Mr. Scott seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Board then discussed the other hearings of the evening. 1. WTILIAMB. DUFFY: Mr. O'Learymade a motion to GRANT the variance - there was no second. The other members felt they would rather see & lots instead of 5. The petitioner will be contacted and the matter will be discussed further at the next meeting.,