Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-09-17September 17, 1984 Regular Meeting The BOARD OF APPEALS held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, September 17, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Office Meeting Room with the following members present and voting: Alfred E. Frizelle, Esq., Vice- Chairman; Richard J. Trepanier, Esq., Clerk; William J. Sullivan; Augustine W. Nickerson; and Walter F. $oule. Building Inspector Charles Foster was present. PUBLIC HEARINGS Enri~ht, John - Variance - Church/Garden Streets The Clerk read the legal notice. Attorney Domenic Scalise, representing the petitioner, made the following presentation: - In 1981, the applicant and his brothers purchased the existing dwelling on Church Street, which is located on an "L" shaped lot. - The back portion with 119' of frontage fronts on Garden Street. - The lot as it now exists has more land than is required in the R-4 zoning district. - The request before the Board is to divide the lot according to the plan so that the front lot will consist of 7,735 square feet and the new lot will consist of 8,426 square feet. - The proposed lot would not require any further variance. The front set- back will be 11', which is the average for the neighborhood. The rear and side setbacks will be met. The remaining variance requests are for the existing dwelling. Due to the shape of the lot, a hardship exists. The lots in the area range from approximately 4,200 square feet to 15,000 square feet. The proposed lots will be average for the neigh- borhood and larger than some. The applicant is proposing to construct a 2-family dwelling on the new lot. Parking will be provided for six (6) cars on the new lot. The existing dwelling is a 2-family. The dwelling next door is a multi-family (3-family). The neighborhood has several multi-family dwellings. The proposed lot is overgrown and has been used as a dumping site. A new house would dress up the area. September 17, 1984 -2- Regular Meeting Enright - comtinued - The proposal would not create a detriment to the area. - One side of the new house would be for rent and the applicant's brother will occupy the other side. - The garage on the lot of the existing dwelling is also in violation of the Zoning By Law. Building Inspector Foster asked if the lots were purchased separately and Attorney Scalise responded that they were not by his client. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition, but several neighbors expressed concerns. They were: Mr. Ed Maxwell Lois Borgesi Harold McPhee Mrs. Paradis Priscilla Thornton Mr. Maxwell stated that he is concerned about the proposed parking lot for the new dwelling. He questioned how much of a buffer would be provided be- tween his property and the parking lot and whether or not the cars could face the side of the building. Mr. Maxwell also questioned the status of Garden Street. He understands that the town will not continue the street and that the applicant will be responsible for the water and sewer. He also asked about plowing in the winter. He also asked if the parking area will be fenced in. He is also concerned that it will become a right-of-way. In response to Mr. Maxwell's concerns, Mr. Enright stated that the parking area will be fenced. A letter from the Highway Surveyor, dated 8/17/84, concerning Garden Street, was read and placed on file. Lois Borgesi stated that she is concerned about the drainage. The water pools in that area. The elevation of Garden Street is higher than Church Street. She asked what will happen to the drainage. Attorney Scalise responded that it will have to be run off. When the lot is built on, it will run off. The parking area will be hottopped. Harold McPhee stated that he has a problem with the six spaces. He asked if they are proposed for the tenants or will they be rented out. His property is on Brown's Court which is downhill from the applicant's property. He is worried for his tenants. September 17, 1984 -3- Regular Meeting k Enrisht-continued Mr. Enright responded that the parking will be for the tenants and that the lot can be reduced to accommodate four (4) cars. The surveyor placed the six spaces on the plan. Mrs. Paradis stated that she is worried about the noise from the parking lot and Member Frizelle told her that the Board would consider reducing the number of parking spaces to four. Mrs. Thornton asked about the existing house on Church Street and Mr. Enright stated it will remain the same as it is now. Attorney Scalise added that the main concerns of the abutters appears to be parking. It is not the intent of the applicant to rent parking spaces. His client will reduce the number of spaces to four. On the drainage, they will have to contour the drain. The applicant lives in the neighborhood and will continue to live there. It is not his intent to create a lot and sell it. They can move the parking spaces around to get them away from Mr. Maxwell. No drainage plans have been drawn. MOTION: by Mr. Nickerson SECOND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Pineau, Richard, Becotte, Lorraine and Cook, Terry - Variance - Autran Avenue The Clerk read the legal notice. Attorney Kevin Sullivan, r~presenting the applicants, made the following presentation: The two-family dwelling was constructed in 1975. In 1976, the Pineau's and Becotte's purchased the property. No plot plan was required at that time. - Two (2) decks were added to the original building with no building permits. Mr. Cook is now purchasing the property amd the current plot plan re- vealed the violation. In addition to the decks being in violation, the roof overhangs. The property meets all other rmquirements of the Zoning By Law. The variance is necessary in order to complete the sale. - The petitioners did not create the violation. Speaking in favor was Mr. Dan Reagan, who stated that the applicants purchased the property as is. September 17, 1984 -4- Regular Meeting Pineau - continued A letter from the Building Inspector dated 9/17/84 was read and placed on file. No one spoke in opposition to the petition. Building Inspector Charles Foster stated that roof overhangs are exempt under the Zoning By Law. The applicants do not need a variance for the roof. Mr. Cook added that the shed on the property could be moved to meet the re- quirements of the Zoning By Law. MOTION: by Mr. Trepanier to grant the variance as requested with the condition that the shed be moved to meek the requirements of the Zoning By Law. SECOND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Cashman, Andrew - Variance - Salem Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. George Schruender, Agent for the petitioner, made the following pre- sentation: - A bank plot plan drawn for conveyance purposes revealed the violation. - The violation is in the barn, which was there when the petitioner purchased the property. No plot plan was required at that time. - This is a non-conforming lot with 100 feet of frontage. The barn only has to beset back 12 feet and it is set back 8 feet. - The reason for the above is that the lot~existed prior to 1957. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. A letter from the Building Inspector dated 9/17/84 was read and placed on file. MOTION: by Mr. Trepanier to grant the variance as requested. SECOND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Dillon, Barbara - Variance - Old Village Lane The Clerk read the legal notice. September 17, 1984 -5- Regular Meeting Dillon - continued Attorney Richard Asoian, representing the applicant, made the following presentation: The lot was purchased in 1967 by Miss Dillon's parents. The seller of the lot built the house. The pool and shed were constructed by the end of 1968, but not by the builder. Nothing has been added since 1968. - The problem was discovered when Miss Dillon inherited the property and when the plot plan was drawn, the violation was discovered. - The problem is that the garage is 19.4 feet from the side line and the pool shed is 11 feet. The requirement is 20 feet. - The hardship exists because the petitioner cannot sell the property without the variances. - The pool shed is not portable. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. MOTION: by Mr. Trepanier to grant the variance as requested. SECOND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Criscione, Emanuale - Variance and~Special Permit - Main Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Attorney James Mawn, representing the applicant, made the following presentation: - Mr. Criscione purchased the property in 1971 and has continued to operate the premises as an apartment complex. - There are 12 units in the front and 8 in the rear. - Mr. Crisci0ne purchased the buildings to help finance college for his children and now he is looking to sell them. - After putting the property under agreement, the research showed that at the time the building permit was issued for the front unit, it was for 10 units and there are 12. - A variance and Special Permit were granted for 10 units. - No intent is here tonight to add to the complex. - There is a financial hardship since it did not comply with the Special Permit. September 17, 1984 -6- Regular Meeting Criscione - comtinued - The applicant does not know how this happened. - The main request is to get relief from the density requirement. Building Inspector Charles Foster added the following: These were built by way of a Special Permit from the Board of Appeals. - A building permit was issued and they were built. - Now, we found there are two more units than were allowed by the Special Permit and the building permit. - He cannot issue a building permit now because there are more units than the Zoning By Law allows. - They also need a modification of the original Special Permit to allow the extra units. The land was R-4 when they were built - now it is R-5. The use is in compliance but the density is not. The problem is to legally establish the units that now exist. Elizabeth Murphy, 26-28 Second Street stated that the marker seems to be on her land. The Board stated that she must take that up with the applicant. She also asked if the units will convert to condominiums and the Board re- sponded that this is not within their control. MOTION: by Mr. Soule to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries CORRESPONDENCE A letter from Mr. B. J. Falanga, 808 Johnson Street, dated 9/10/84, was read and placed on file. Mr. Falanga was present and stated that he is in agreement with Mr. Borgesi regarding sanitary sewer around the lake and he has taken the problem a step further. Also, a letter from the Office of Community Development and the Town Planner, dated 9/13/84, was read and placed on file. September 17, 1984 -7- Regular Meeting DECISIONS Curtis, Hollis - Variance - Bixby Avenue/Clarendon Street (from August Meeting) - Sitting - Frizelle, Trepanier, Sullivan, Nickerson MOTION: by Mr. Trepanier to grant the variance subject to the following conditions: I. That only a single family dwelling be constructed o~Lot B. 2. That the buildings shown on the plan to be razed shall be razed prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. That there will be a new driveway off Bixby Avenue to serve Lot A. SECOND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE : Unanimous (4 members) - motion carries. Enright, John - Variance - Church Street/Garden Street No action - Board to review site and render a decision on October 15, 1984. Criscione, Emanuele - Variance and Special Permit - Main Street MOTION: by Mr. Soule to grant the variance and Special Permit as requested. SECOND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Member Trepanier asked Building Inspector Charles Foster why the garage on the Thompson's Restaurant has not been razed as required in the conditional variance. Mr. Foster replied that the condition states that no occupancy permit may be granted until the garage has been removed and that no occupancy permit has been issued for the premises. In addition, Member Trepanier asked Mr. Foster about property at 59 Appleton Street. A variance was granted for the division of land with the condition that both the existing dwelling at 59 Appleton Street and the proposed one be tied into a sanitary sewer. Mr. Foster reported that the condition stated that no occupancy permit could be issued for the new dwelling and that no such permit has been issued to date. He further stated that Mr. Daniel McConaghy, owner of the property, would be coming in to address the Board on this matter. MINUTES - August 13, 1984 MOTION: by Mr. Trepanier to accept as written SECOND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries The~:15 p.m.