Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-04-12The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday night, April 12, 1988 in the Selectmen's Meeting Room. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, William Sullivan, Walter Soule, Raymond Vivenzio and Louis Rissin. PUBLIC HEARINGS Robert K. Dai~le - Special Permit - 7 Hod~es Street Mr. Ntckerson, Clerk, read the legal notice. Attorney G. Cohen spoke for the petitioner filing for an appeal of the Building Inspector's denying them an Occupancy Permit. Mr. C. Foster, retired Building Inspector, stated that the he had issued the building permit to Mr. Daigle and that the petitioner had followed that permit. He stated that it is a non-con- forming structure but not non-conforming use. As the lot size is small, Mr. Daigle wanted to put a high roof line on the building and extend roof line and a building permit was issued. If he wanted to expand he would have to come to the ZBA, which he did, and was not approved so he went forward with the building without the extension. Mr. Foster stated that a site plan review was not need- ed(8.2). Fireman Casale interrupted the meeting to tell the Board that there were far too many people in the room, hall and stairway and this created a fire hazard. He suggested that the meeting be moved to the Senior Center. Another meeting was at the Senior Center, so Mr. Ser£o went out into the hall and requested that some of the people wait upstairs, in the library or outside until their hearings were called. Mr. Foster spoke for the petitioner and felt that he should defend the issurance of the building permit to Mr. Daigle. He needed 10 parking spaces, building used on the first floor and part of the second. Wanted stores and offices in the building. Because of more parking needed, he would have to go to the Planning Bpard, so he and Mr. Daigle agreed that two sides of the room could be repaired and the roof replaced, and saw no increase in the building by changing the roof llne. By building a new roof, it does not change the use of the building. Felt this was not in violation of zoning bylaw and issued the building permit. The building would have a beauty salon, etc. on the first floor and only the area presently used would be allowed on the second floor. Mr. Vivenzio asked if this was a non-conforming use or a non-conforming building as stated in Section 9? Mr. Foster said that the building use had not been changed. Letter from the Building Inspector read by Mr. Nickerson as follows:'~kE: Daigle/ Hodges Street Property - Upon review of material available in this office, a Certificate of Occupancy was not issued to Mr. Daigle for the following reasons: 1. Violation of Section 8, para. 8.3; Site Plan Review was not submitted prior to construction; 2. Violation of Section 9, para. 9.2(1), (2), (3). According to records of the Board of Assessors, the original building at 7 Hodges Street had an assessed area of 3,942 GFA. However, the present facility constructed by Mr. Daigle has an assessed area of 5,200 GFA, a clear violation of para. 9.2(3) which states that an increase in volume or area shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the original use. Signed D. Robert Nicetta, Building Inspector 4/8/88" Daigle Regular meeting con'd 4/12/88 Page 2 A brief intermission was called by Mr. Serio so that he could again speak to the people in the hallway about leaving because the Fire Department said the meeting would have to be stopped if the hallway was not cleared. Mr. Foster said that the petitioner was not asking for that part of the building. Mr. Vivenzio said that the Board does not look at parts of buildings, they look at the entire building. Mr. Foster said that the previous petition had been denied under Section 9.2 and it should not have been because of the wording of the Section, the 25% does not apply to the building. Original decision read by Mr. Nickerson. Mr. Foster stated that a decision has to be made whether 9.2 applies to this decision or not. Mr. Vivenzio said that he does not recall any decision made of only one(use or building) non-conforming use. Attorney Cohen stated that the space in question will not be used and they want to occupy the space that the building permit was originally issued and and no other space. Mr. Froster stated that the only change except for the size is the roof and this extra space will not be used for tenants. Plans shown to the Board by Mr. Daigle and Attorney Cohen, and they stated that only part of the second floor will be used and it was shown to the Board. Attorney Cohen said that they did not want to go to litigation with this and have one building inspector against another. Mr. Nickerson said that a portion of the building will not be used ever, but feels that this is hard to believe. Attorney Cohen suggested that something could be put in the decision to guarantee not using that space. Mr. Foster stressed that the main principle is that the building permit is issued and then some one else comes along and changes the decision. Mr. Vivenzio asked when the construction began and Mr. Daigle stated on February 23, 1987. Mr. Vivenzio stated that there was a denial in 1986 on this property. Mr. Foster said that he did not did not see the problem because it is not changing the use of the building. Mr. Vivenzio said he felt the building should not be expanded and Mr. Foster said that he did not feel that it was an expansion. Letter from the Fire Department read by Mr. Nickerson as follows: "The Fire Depart- ment is opposed to granting a special permit requested under this application." Signed by Chief Dolan, 4/9/88. Letter from Bahrawy Law Offices read by Mr. NIckerson as follows: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: "Please be advised that as a neighbor of the premises located at 7 Hodges Street, North Andover, MA., I do not object to the proposed use of the land and building at said address. I have had no conversations with the builder/developer of the said premises relative to his project and the proposed use. However, I have spoken with other neighbors, some of whom are abutters, with respect to this project. It is from them that I learned of the proposed use and the neighborhood dispute. As I have a presentation to make at the Andover Annual Town Meeting, I will be un- able to appear before your Board tonight. Please accept this letter in liew of a personal appearance. Thanking you for the courtesy of your attention, I remain, very truly yours, signed Ramsey A. Bahrawy" 4/11/88 Letter from Town Planner read by Mr. Nickerson as follows: "History - Applicant has expanded and altered an existing non-conforming building prior to obtaining a Special Permit from the Board as required by Section 9.1. The applicant appeared before the Board under a prior application under Section 9.1 to place two (2) apartments in the second story of the building. The Board denied this application on October 21, 1986. Staff does not take issue with the fact that the improvements to the structure are an improvement over the conditions of the buildingl What staff does take issue with was that it was done in violation of the Zoning Bulaw, by not obtaining a Special Permit from you prior to construction. Daigle - con'd Page 3 Staff has strongly urged the applicant to appear before you in order to resolve the fact that he has not received permission from the Board to do the work completed on the structure. Review Comments - Staff's concerns with this project are as follows: 1. Lack of adequate parking. 2. Lack of sidewalk and landscaping improvements adjacent to the structure. 3. Lack of roadway improvements(curb and gutter construction). Procedures - Should the Board see fit to grant the Special Permit, Staff recommends the following: A. Adequate parking be provided for the proposed uses of the building. B. The Board require sidewalks to be constructed along Rodges & May Sts. C. The Board require adequate curb and gutter along Hodges & May Sts. In addition, should the that the applicant file upon granting a Special 3/30/88 Mr. L. Allen, 3 Belmont applicant utilize adjacent property for parking, staff suggests with the Planning Board under Section 8.3(Site Plan Review) Permit by the Board. Signed Scott Stocking, Town Planner" St. spoke about having concerns, he feels that the property has been improved but feels that there is too much traffic and not enough parking. He feels the petition should be denied. Resident at 13 May Street spoke in favor, stating that the foundation was not increased and the building looks much better and feels there would not be any more parking problems than they already have. Resident at 32 May St. said that the petitioner had done a fantastic job on the building and the petition should be granted. Attorney Cohen said that parking could be at the end of the building. The street runs into the building and we will put curb and sidewalk on the street and also eight (8) parking spaces. Resident of Morton St. questioned the parking again and Mr. Serio said it would be around the building and the parking could be there. Mr. Soule stated the value of an A-frame roof in much better than a flat roof and is very good in this area because of the weather. Mr. Foster stated that he prefers an A-frame roof and that this building is very well constructed. Mr. Soule said that going back to a flat roof would have been foolish. A hair stylist wants to move in and has been waiting a long time. Mr. Nickerson asked how many cars would be there during the day and she said three most of the time. She is the only tenant at present and there will be three units when all are filled, and the second floor is unoccupied and will be office space. Mr. Serio said they will end up with 4 units. Mr. Nickerson asked if the petitioner had any idea of the number of parking spaces at present. Attorney Cohen gave a letter to Mr. Serio and it was read by Mr. Nickerson as follows: "The designated parking for the above address as defined by zoning at the time the building permit was issued is as follows: First floor - left side office space - 1000 sq. ft. - 3 spaces middle section - beauty salon - 800 sq. ft. - 5 spaces right side - office - 266 sq. ft. - 1 space Mr. Nickerson questioned the parking and whether the second floor would be used. Mr. Serio asked if the parking could be across the street on the land you own, and Attorney Cohen said they would if that was the only way we could occupy. They would be willing to do it and stated that the lot is 100' by 100'. Mr. Vivenzio asked if it could all be used for parking and Attorney Cohen said they could put four (4) over there. Upon a motion made by Mr. Sullivan and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted to take the matter under advisement. Vote unanimous - Mr. Serio, Mr. Nickerson, Mr. Vivenzio, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Soule. KinderCare - Special Permit Hillside & Turnpike Sts. Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson. KinderCare - con'd Page 4 Attorney Bain spoke for the petitioner and requested that paragraph three(3) be deleted from Paragraph eight(8) of the letter attached to the petition. He passed out a copy of the Eagle Tribune article to the Board, dated 3/30/88. A few attractive buildings can be executed on this site and a very valuable service could be provided from this site. It is a very accredited company and this is a great expansion from the first petition we submitted, about double in size. Mr. Robert Picarillo, 35 Elmtree Rd., Gastonbury, CT and Paul Laconia and other representatives of KinderCare were present and they passed out a booklet to the audience and the Board showing the proposed building, with a plot plan so that everyone could follow their presentation. The first KinderCare complex was in Alabama in 1969. From 1975-1985 they had 900 units in the United States and 40 in Canada, presently have 1,200 units in the United States and should have 1,300 units by the end of this year. They are in the child care business and realize the problems of two working in the family and the need for child care. They were here one and half years ago and asked for a smaller building, and now feel that they need a larger building and have more land. Most people are not against child care but question the development and site plans and want to ask questions Mr. Serio stated that the main problem is traffic. Paul Laconia stated that they had conducted a traffic study of Hillside Rd. and Route 114 and the existing con- ditions are poor at present because of the large amount of traffice coming out of Hillside Rd. and down Route 114 in the morning, about 250 cars. The benefit to the site would be through reconstruction of the intersection. Some suggestions can be discussed with the Town and State. The DPW now want a part of the other building removed and that could be done and it would improve the vision for Route 114 by demolishing the building. They would like to make some other changes in the future. Mr. Picarillo asked if anyone in the audience had questions about the operation of KinderCare, and one abutter asked if there would be a buffer area between the lot lines because the plans show the backyard against many lot lines. He stated that the most children in the playground at one time would be 30 and they would be staggered during the day. Mr. DeAngelo of the DPW said he thought there was to be only one entrance, and now noticed that there is an entrance near Route 114. He thought the whole site to be developed and that is not what is shown. There would have to be a curb cut onto this lot. The DPW has in mind for the future development making it a five (5) lane road so that means that in this particular area we would not have enough land for the expansion. Where would the Department get the land for the added lane needed for the new road? Lot 3 did not have "in and out" to Route 114 but the Planning Board and Director requested it, the easement could be expand- ed and the building repositioned. Another question asked was, How can they be only 20' from the line and I have to be 30'? Answered by Mr. Picarillo, that the front- age will not be on Route 114, it will be on Hillside. Letter from the North Andover Police Department read by Mr. Nickerson as follows: "REF: KinderCare Corp., Hillside & Route ll4(Petition #125-88) I have reviewed the plans for building a child care center at the intersection of Hillside Road and Turnpike Street. In my opinion this location has a very strong liklihood of being the scene of a tragedy. In my position as Police Chief, being charged with the responsibility of public safety in this community, I would be shirking my duties by not strongly opposing this project. The current state of affairs at this location is already considered to be hazardous. With the construction of a child care center on a state highway, such as Route #114, the situation will only become worse. No matter what guarantees are expressed to the Board of Appeals, as far as traffic controls, fences or child monitors, I must still express my strong opposition to this location. No person can guarantee me that a child of that age will not wander onto Route 114 at some time which will surely end in tragedy. KinderCare - con'd Page 5 I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion on this matter, and do hope that you, as a member of the Board of Appeals, will consider this a potential hazard and not allow this application to be granted. If I may be of any further assistance to you please feel free to call." Signed Richard M. Stanley, Chief of Police, 4/12/88. David Rand of the North Andover Police Department stated that only right hand turns can be made in this area, but people are using a driveway to make a turn instead of making only a right hand turn. Mr. Serio stated that only one curb cut would be allowed should this petition be granted. Abutter still questioned the 20' rear setback. Mr. Picarillo stated that they are only asking for a use permit at this time. Abutter said that he feels this is a totally inappropriate use for this area and is a detriment to the neighborhood, and does not want Hillside Road used as an entrance or exit for a day care center. There is too much traffic in the area. If the road widened, then Hillside Road would be an extension of the highway. One side of Hillside Road has already been closed be- cause of the traffic. The added traffic from the day care center would be at the peak times of the day, and that would mean 500 cars in and out twice a day, two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. Feel that the petition should be denied because of Section 9.3. The petitioner stated that the children will range in age from 8 weeks to 12 years. Approximately 125 children would be staggered during the morning hours. It takes about two minutes to drop them off, they have to sign the child in each day. If you look at the plans fairly you will see that we would be an advantage to the area. The corner would be changed and we would work with the DPW to make this street better for all. We also have to go before the State before we get any permits. Hillside Road has traffic of about 400 cars every morning and during the day it slows down. Mr. Vivenzio asked why they needed two curb cuts? Petitioner stated that the plans were brought to the Planning Board and they suggested one cut on Hillside Road. Mr. Stocking, Town Planner, decided to develop two curb cuts so that the third road would not require an in and out at a later date. Mr. DeAngelo said it should be shown as an access easement. Mr. Soule asked the petitioner if they would con- sider a smaller size and what size they would settle for. The petitioner said they could reduce the size of the building by making it a two-story building, Mr. Soule asked how many children under one year of age would there be? The petitioner stated about 12. Dr. L. Smith represents the KinderCare Corp. and feels that infants do not suffer from day care, in answer to Mr. Soule's concerns. One abutter asked how many 12-year olds would be at the center, and how would they get there. The petitioner ststed that the rante in most MA areas they have is not more than one to two of this age. At this age they do not want to go to day care. There could be a number of different ages from grades one to five. Our history is that 80-90% live in the town and most are on the road and traveling to work anyway and would drop the children off on the way work. Claim that there would not be a backup of cars, about one every five minutes. The view of the parcel from the street was questioned and the question of lights. Mr. DeAngio of the DPW said no lights were planned but the State does plan to widen the streetCRoute 114) to five (5) lanes and may need to take land from the petitioner. The Traffic Advisor for the petitioner said that the traffic report that they were showing the Board is the very worst so that all problems can be shown. About the hazardous situation, we have made many suggestions and a police officer would be put at Route 114 and Hillside, and the cost taken care of by Kindercare. Letters from Planning Board, Fire Chief and Police Chief read by Mr. Nickerson. (Copies in file). Officer Fogerty said that the Chiel is not opposed to this if all the conditions in his letter are followed. Letters from following abutters read by Mr. Nickerson: J. & J. Casey, Paul E. Devin, P. & M. Busby, William H. Kehrig, A & A Noukas(copies in file). One abutter stated that the traffic is very heavy and a number of cars take a shortcut through Kent's Moving to get to Route 114. Mr. KinderCare - con'd Page 6 Casey stated that there could be a worse use for the land, but the traffic is the problem. Each child would have to cross over Hillside Road to get the bus and that would cause more problems. The petitioner said that he felt that no one was against KinderCare, but it is the site and traffic problems causing concern. He asked if they were able to satisfy the traffic problems, would you go along with the petition. Mr Casey asked just what can you do? Mrs. Devin of Chestnut St. stated that she is opposed and does not want any more traffice and does not think that it is a good area for a day care center, you need staff of at least 20 so you need more parking spaces than shown and you cannot drop off kids in 1½ minutes as you said. Petitioner stated that the size of the lot is large enough for more parking. The following people expressed their opposition to this petition: L. Carbon, B. O'Hegan, P. McGarry, Mr. Bennett, B. Quinn, D. Aziz, and also stated that the Police and Fire Department use Hillside Road to get to Route 114 from the old center. Attorney Bain said that the only opposition we have had is the traffic problem and we hope to solve that problem and confer with DPW and the Planning Board and the Town of North Andover and help make Hillside Road safer. It is too small for the number of cars that use it now and we would like to improve the situation. Mr. Nickerson asked if the petitioner would like to withdraw the petition now? Attorney Bain said they would like a conditional approval for the petition. Mr. Serio said that cannot be done. Mr. Sullivan suggested that it could be continued for another month if you think you can have the necessary information by then. Motion made by Mr. Sullivan and seconded by Mr. Vivenzio to continue this hearing to our next regular meeting, May 10th. In favor; Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Serio and Mr. Vivenzio. Opposed; Mr. Soule and Mr. Nickerson - vote carried Z. Richard & B. Wysocki Variance - 851 Forest Street Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivemzio and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted to GRANT the variance as requested. Voting in favor were Mr. Vivenzio, Mr. Soule, Mr. Serio and Mr. Nickerson. Mr. Sullivan abstained. James E & Ellen M. Phelan - Special Permit - Lot 4A, Appleton St. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and Seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the Special Permit as requested subject to the following conditions: 1. The premises be occupied by Margaret M. Phelan 2. The Special Permit shall expire at the time Margaret M. ?helan ceases to occupy the family suite. 3. The Special Permit shall expire at the time the premises are conveyed to any person, partnership or corporation. 4. The applicant, by acceptance of the Certificate of Occupancy issued pursuant to the Special Permit, grants to the Building Inspector or his lawful designee the right to inspect the premises annually. William A. & J. Lees - Variance - 47 Marblehead Street Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson. Attorney J. Willis represented the petitioner and showed plans to the Board. He said that when Route 495 was put in, some of the petitioners property was taken and this created a small lot. The lot backs up onto Beverly St. Mr. Serio asked if Route 495 was in when the petitioner purchased this land, and the reply was yes. The petitioner owns the two lots and they would like to build a home for themselves in the back and need frontage as they do not have the frontage required. The lot is 15,000 sq. ft. It is all wooded and because of the shape of the parcel, they want Lees - con'd Page 7 to have a single-family home for themselves. The front house to be used by family, rented or sold at a later date. Others of this nature exist in the area so it is not a new thing. Off-street parking can be provided the new house. Mr. Vivenzio stressed that if yon open up the back yard, others will want to do the same thing and it is not good as far as the Fire Department getting to the new house lot. Attorney Willis stated that there is no way to get to the back lot except from Marblehead Street thru their lot. Mr. Nickerson stated that there are three other lots on the street that could also ask to be divided into two lots and we do not want to see this happen. Attorney Willis said that no one else in the area has the problem that this owner has. No one from the audience spoke in favor of this petition. Letter from the Planning Board read by Mr. Nickerson(see file). Abutters, Mr. L. White and Mr. J. Yule spoke in opposition to this petition stating that there is already to much traffic on the street and that trees will be taken down and that will create more noise from Route 495 than they already have, and the petitioners knew that Route 495 was there when they purchased the property. Attorney Willis said that the lot is larger than the rest on Marblehead Street and they bought in 1979 planning to build a new home for themselves. The new lot would be a large lot and the existing driveway would be the frontage for the back lot and also the driveway for both houses. This new house could act as a buffer to the other ones in the area for the noise from Route 495. He stated that the petitioner could come bask for an addition to the present.building on the front lot and make it a duplex, but they feel that a seperate lot would be for the best interest of the Town. The petitioner does not feel that it would set a precedent for any other lots in the area, because no one in the area has a lot that large. Claims that the frontage will not be changed in any way. In answer to an abutters question, Mr. Serio said that there is no way for the Board to prevent the petitioner from selling their lot should this petition be granted. Letter from Bldg. Inspector read by Mr. Nickerson(see file). Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to take this mattsr under advisement. Gordon Hall III & David J. Berton - Special Permit - Lot F, Flagship Drive Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson. Attorney McCann spoke for the petitioner stating that they want to purchase the property and have a Purchase & Sales agreement with the present owners. Since 1987, one of the issues that came up is that the lot is divided by I-1 and R-2 zoning. Letter to Daniel McConaghy, Assistant Bldg Inspector from Jerry A. Goldlust read by Mr. Nickerson(see file). Mr. McConaghy agreed with Mr. Goldlust's interpretation of the bylaw, but in a letter to Mr. Goldlust, Ass't Bldg. Inspector, Bruce H. Clark disagreed with Mr. Goldlust(see file). There is no written evidence but Mr. McCann states that he would go along with this. Table 2 - 50' setback, when you have a house lot there should not be a building within 100' of the house lot. Plans shown to the Board by Attorney McCann regarding the space between houses and building. The problem is that the zoning bylaw is made to set up a 100' zone between houses and buildings . No site plan review approval until a Special Permit granted by this Board. Petitioner does not feel that they need the 100' zone. Mr. Hall stated that they planned about 10 commercial enterprises, condos specifically-31,O00 per level. Mr. Serio asked what type of business would be using the buildings, and Mr. Hall said one would be a reconditioning conputer system firm, one would be a computer paper and supply company and another would be a paraplegic equipment company. Do not know others businesses as yet. Mr. Serio asked if any chemicals would be in the building, and the petitioner said no, not likely because of the other tenants in the building. Mr. Vivenzio reminded the Board of a case similar to this that they had about a year ago, and stated that this resulted in a lawsuit. Mr. Berton said that there is a wooded lot at the botton of the slope, 117' from back lot and 75' of green space and natural growth and they would put in other trees to screen the area and keep the sound down. Mr. Sullivan asked how far the abutters were from the building, and was told from 75' to over 100' Berton - Hall(con'd) Page 8 Abutter stated that petitioner said 19 condos at first and no only 10, how come? Mr. Berton said that the owners are buying more than one unit for their businesses. They had filed for a site plan review with the Planning Board and were told that they needed to get a Special Permit granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals before coming to the Planning Board. Mr. Serio stressed that an industrial and residential zone together, need a 100' buffer from the residential zone. Mr. Berton said that the Town Counsel and the Building Inspector say it is fine the way it is, but the Planning Board and Mr. Clerk say it is not fine. In order to comply fully with the 100' buffer zone(Section 4.11(3) we need a Special Permit from your Board in order to solve this problem and return to the Planning Board. Letters from Town Planner and Building Inspector read by Mr. Nickerson(see file). Mr. Nickerson also read a number of letters from abutters in opposition to this petition. Attorney representing Mr. & ~rs. Matolla, an abutter, stated that they fell that the zoning laws were put in for ~ purpose that they is to Protect the residential areas so that they are away from the noise and nuisence of the businesses. These people knew there was a zoning problem and have not purchased the land as yet and have taken the risk of spending money on the plans and engineers before they knew that this could be done. The attorney listed various things from Section 10 of the Zoning ByLaws expecially the determent to the neighborhood and that the building would be to close and derogate fromthe intent and purpose of the Zoning Bylaws, further stating that this building would not be in harmony with the area. They feel that the Board should listen to the people and not let the industrial people take over. Mrs. Grover said that she did not want 19 truck bays in her back yard. M. Matolla said the problem had been outlined and she had lived here for 20 years and feels that this petition would greatly devalue her property. Mr. Matolla said that the builders planned 10 business condos and had no firm commitment as to who would be using these buildings. Upon a motion by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded bY Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted, unanimously, to take the matter under advisement. Robert Reed Special Permit - 206 Pleasant Street Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson. Mr. Reed spoke for himself and said that they have other day care centers locally. He stated that the ages of the children would range from one (1) month to seven (7) years, and they would start off with about 18 children and up to a total of 58. Mr. Vivenzio stressed that the plans were inadequate for such an operation and advised the petitioner that he take the time to have specific plans drawn up, and should withdraw this petition without prejudice. Officer D. Rand of the North Andover Police Dept. spoke and stated that they would be extremely opposed to any- thing like this in that area. Traffic impact is high on Park, Stevens, Osgood as well as Pleasant and Route 125. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted, unanimously, to ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Due to the number of children that would be involved, the Board found that the planspresent- ed were inadequate. DECISION James Harti~an Variance Lot 6C, Turnpike St. Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the Variance as requested. Page 9 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Robert Janusz Special Permit Jerad Place II The Board had a short discussion on this petition and decided, unanimously, to have a Special Meeting on Tuesday evening, April 26, 1988 to make a final decision on this and other petitions under advisement. Meeting adjourned at 12.00 a.m. Next regular meeting is May 10, 1988 at 7:30 in the Selectmen's Meeting Room. Taylor, ~ecretary