Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962-10-15Nonday- October 15,, 1962 Special meeting for Mearings The Board of Appeals held a special meeting for hearings on Monday evening, October 15~ 1962 at ?:30 P.M, in the Town Building. The following members were present and voting: Daniel T. O'Leary, Chairman; Willimm Morton, Henry Lurid and Associate Member Arthur Drummond who sat in place of Howard Gilman. Secretary Robert J. Burke arrived later. Due to the large number of people present for the first hearing, the meeting was adjourned to the Fire Station meeting rooms. There were m~e than forty people present. 1. HE~h~tNG: Li?~CH, ~cCOi~IOR & ~AITES. 7:30 P.E. Atty. John J. Willis represented the petitioners and presented the plans to the Board. Mr. O'Lesry read the legal notice in the appeal of Catherine D. Lynch~ William F. McConnor & Charles Waites requesting a vsa-dation of Sec. 4, Para. 4.4/$ of the Zor_ing By-La~ so as to permit a restanrant. It will also be necessary for a small addition as show~ en plan, resulting mn rear lot line variance to 18 feet and a side line variance to 18 feet, on the premises, located at south side of Sutton Street, 1,000 feet distant from the corner of Sutton St. and Main St. and known as 213-215 Satton Street. Atty. Willis emplained that Mr. Waites has been before the Board before because of his place having been destroyed by fire. According to the By-law a restaurant is permitted in an Industrial ~one. M~. Waites conducted an establishment on S~nders Street, new wants to have one on Sutton Street. There are Industrial uses on ~1 three side and immediately adjoining is the Business area of the Town. This would not be det~imental to the area. They will not change the building f~em the street front, only an addition in the back. There is a need in the area for such a facility; the only other restaurant nearby is Val,s.~ There are no immediate shutters who have indicated opposition to this petition. The addition extends to within 18 feet of the rear lot line. This is sub- stantia~y less than the size lot required in an Industrial zone. The Board has the authority to review the plot plan and not the use. This property has been for sale for a long time. The agent and ce-o~er are here. He tsl~d to Mrs. Salots, immediate abutter, and explained the purpose of the petition. They have tried unsuccessfully to sell the property for residential use, it is not suitable for a residence because it is completely surrounded by mercantile and Industrial uses. Mr. McConnor, ohe of co-ow~ers, spoke and explained how unsuccessful they have been in their efforts to sell the property for a residence, even though they put considerable money into improving the property. ~r. Charles Waites spoke and explained how unsuccessful he has been in finding a place for his business. This place would be suitable for his type of business. Opposed: Mr. Andrew Coffin, 18 Columbia Road, spoke in opposition and organized a group of people to come to the meeting. He explained that hardship is not a valid reason. The traffic hazard on Sutton Street is serious now and would become worse. This would he a detri- ment and would d~-grade the neighborhood. The petitioner has an all-alcoholic license, that license would be put into effect on these premises. The following is a list of those opposed : Mrs. Mary McLaughlin, 300 Sutton St. Ella Taylor, 283 Sutton St. Rath Donabue, 283 " " Gertrude Shepherd, 302 Sutton St. Mrs. A/ice Roy, 255 Sutton St. Mrs. Alice Clark, 249 Sutton St. Mr. Moore, 251 Sutton St. Mrs. Heinz, 11 Thorndike Rd. Robert Gurka, 15 Thorndike Rd. Mr. John Roy, 253 Sutton St. Evelyn Clark, 253 Sutton St. Mrs. Mildred Chamberland, 242 Sutton St. October 15, 1962 - Cont. Mrs. Margaret Hickey, 250 Sutton St. Ernest Kress, 5 Irving Rd. Felix Ber~:.llo, 30 Troy Rd. Mary Chiara, 287 Sutton St. Carmela Chiara, 287 Sutton St. Santo Messina, 268 Mass. Ave. Eugene Salois, 221 Sutton St. Alma Long, 238 Sutton St. Mrs. Loyce, 230 Sutton St. Mrs. Mmrphy, 267 Sutton St. Tom Casale, 232 Sutton St. John Casale, 232 " " Arlene Casale 232 " " %~alter Baril, 22 Columbia Rd.' Alvin Watts, 29 " " Philip Watson, 33 Perley Rd. Raymond Lynch, 298 Sutton St. Walter Hamilton, Trey Rd. Mrs. Annie Coffin, 18 Coll~mhia Rd. Persis Murphy, Ellis St. Following several questions, Mr. Waites stated that it w~l~ be a restaurnat with a liquor license. Mr. Coffin added that he read the By-law and said it permitted a restaurant, b~t not a liquor establishment. It has been stated that there will be liquor there. Atty. Ralph E. Finck, 2?90sgood Street, spo~e strenuously in objection and stated that this was a back-door ~pproach to serve liquor. That the notice is invalid, that a 20-ft. setback from the street is required ~n a lot. There have been no provisions made for parking or safety measures taken for the great number of children in the neighborhood. If there was any accident there, we would al! be g~ilty. You should consult the police and see how they. feel ahont it. This is just to transplant a ca~ed bar-ro~m. The Board saw fi~ to de~y them on Sm~nders St. - they should do the same here. (Applause). Mr. W~llis and Mr. Finck discussed the situation a little mc~e, with others present also adding their objections. Mr. B~rke asked who owned the property. Mr. Willis stated McConnor & Lynch but that Mr. Waites is also on the petition. Mr. Mor~on questioned whether or not this petition abeutd also come under para. ?.44. Mr. O'Leary said that the addition is about as large as the present house. Mr. Lurid made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Barke seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. ' 2. HEARING: ~s. James Jorgensen Mr. O'Leary read the legal notice in the appeal of Mrs. James Jorgensen requesting a variation of Sec. 7, Para. ?.21 of the Zoning By-La~ so as to permit the erection of a covered porch , with carport beneath, on the premises located at the west side of Forest Street, 2500 feet distaut from the corner of Box~ord & Forest Streets and know~ as Lot no. ?. Mr. Farr presanted the plans and explained thepetition. Mrs. Jorgensenwas also present. There were no abutters present and there was no opposition. Mr. Burke made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Lurid seconded the motion and the votev~sunanimous. October 15, 1962 - Cont. The Board then proceeded to discuss the hearings. Lynch, McConnor & Waites. The Board looked at and dissussed the plans. Mr. Morton made a motion to deny the petitio~ because it does not m~et the requirements of the Zoning By-L~wunder Section 7.4. Mr. Lurid said the addition is as big as the building. ~. Burke said ~y build up an Indus trial area with small things. This situation is no hardship. Mr. L~n~ secondedMr. Morto~,s motion and the vote was unanimous. This variance was denied for the following re~s0~s: 1. The applicant will suffer no hardship if the variance is denied. 2. It does not meet the requirements of the Zoning By-Law uuder Section ?.4. 3. There are no parking facilities provided. 4. There is a serious traffic hazard in that area. ~.~rs. J~nes Jorgensen. Mr. Burke made a motion to O~NT the variance. Mr. Nor~c~ seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Board signed the plans. Mr. OrLeary read a letter to the Board from Town Counsel Arnold Salisbury about Mr. Mangano and his garden apartments. Mr. Mau~ano now would be willing to have 6 apartments rather than 8 as originally asked for. The Board feels in general that Mr. Mangano would have to have another hearing for a v~riance. The plans for the previous hearing have already been registered so that he would have to come before the Board again with new plans. Mr. Mangano came in and explained to the Board that he originally ha~ asked for a Special Permit. He had talked to the Bldg. Insp. and was advised that 8 apartments would be allowed, although he had considered ~w~ The plans do not show the number of apartments, just the proposed apartment buildings. He talked with his lawyer, Mr. Bacigalupo, who talked to Nr. Salisbury who also consulted the Bldg. Zusp. and said that there was enough land ~rea for 6 apartments. His attorney though that an amendment could be made to the decision and that a new hearing would not be necesss~y. Mr. O'Lesry said the Board could consult the Town Counsel to see if they have the right to make an amendment. The Board feels that a new hearing would be necessary.. Mr. Burke said that if Mr. Salisbury ss~s we can make an amendm~t, have him send us a letter saying so and we'll do it. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.M. AD ~ ~ Clerk