Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-10-18 The B 1971 at 7: and voting Dr. Eugene Salemme, w There wer~ 1. HEAt~ Monday - October 18, 1971 Regular Meeting - 3 Hearings DARDOF APPEALS held its regular meeting on Monday evening, October 18, 30 P.M. in the Town Office Building with the followimgmembers present J. Philip Arsenault, Chairman; Kenneth E. Pickard, V. Chairman; A. Beliveau, Clerk; Arthur R. Drummond and Associate Member William N. ao sat in place of Frank Serio, Jr. who was out-of-town. 10 people present for the hearings. Davis & Furber Machine Company Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice in the appeal of DAVIS & FURBER MACHINE COMPANY who requested a variation of Sections 6.2, 6.~1, 6.~2 & 7.3 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the division of land withan existing building thereon for the purpose of conveyance, on the premises located at the north side of Water Street and known as 52, 5~ & 56 Water Street. Mr. Arsenault read letters received from the Planning Board and Building Inspector opposing the granting of the variance. Atty. John J. Lynch represented the petitioners, and presented another sketch to the Board which showed the dividing line of the business and industrial area to be the lot line as shown on the plot plan submitted. He said there is no other land available to combine with the lot to make it larger since the Davis &Furber card building is ~8 feet away and the forge shop is 18 feet from the rear corner of the lot and there is also a 12 foot retaining wall along the rear property line. The company wants to do away with all of their real estate hold~ngs and they propose to sell this build~ng to one of the present tenants. He said this problem was created by a previous Board of Appeals and the Planning Board and they want to rectify a mistake made years ago. (However, the Board found this not to be true). No one else spoke and there was no opposition. Mr. Pickard made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was unSIL~OUS. 2. HEARING: Dr. William J. Patterson Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice in the appeal of DR. WILLIAM J. PATTERSON who requested a variation of Section 6.32 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the division of a parcel of land into two lots having less than the required area; on the premises located at the east side of Turnpike Street at the corner of Wilson Road and known as 256 Turnpike Street. Mr. Arsenault read letters from the Planning Board and Building Inspector, neither objeching. Dr. Patterson spoke in his own behalf and explained that the entire area contains 25,588 sq. ft. and he wants to make two lots, one to conts~n 12,522 sq. ft. and the lot upon which his home presently stands, to contain 13,066 sq. ft. Both lots have the required frontage but not enough area. The existing homes in the immediate area are on lots of less than lO,OOO sq. ft. There are now sewerage facilities in the area. There is a hardship because the land is not being utilized to its fullest. The formation of these lots would not be detrimental to the area and would not derogate from the intent of the Zoning By-Law. He would like to erect a single family dwelling on the vacant lot. He presently lives in the two-story dwelling and operates his dental business there. The new dwelling would be for himself. At the time the property was purchased there were five separate lots (in 1956). October 18, 1971 - cont. Chairman Arsenault questioned whether this was a proper petition siuce a petition for this same property had been before the Board within the past two years and had been denied, Dr. Patterson assumed he was acting properly since the previous petition was for a different reason. No one else spoke and there was no opposition. Mr. Drummond made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Pickard seconded the moiion and the vote was unanimous. 3. HEARING: J. & V. Realty Trust. Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice in the appeal of J. & V. REALTY TRUST who requested a variation of Section 6.31 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit a variance on the frontage of Lot 9A Surrey Drive, from 100 feet to 90 feet; on the premises located at the east side of Surrey Drive, approx. 330 feet from the corner of Chadwick Street and known as Lot 9A Surrey Drive. Mr. Vincent McAloon spoke, representing the petitioner, and expls~ned that the lot lines of the subdivision are at an angle and that after the house was built they found that a drivewaycould not be placed properly so that they want to give l0 feet additional frontage to lot 1OA which would leave a frontage of 90 feet on lot 9A. Frank Arcidiacono, owner of the lot, was recorded in favor of the petition. No one else spoke and there was no opposition. Mr. Drummond made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. PiCkard seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. DAVIS & FURBER MACHINE COMPANY PETITION OF Sept. 20, 19?l: The Board could not vote on this petition because Member Frank Serio, Jr. was absent and since he sat on the original hearing a vote cannot be taken until the same full Board is present. However, a lengthy discussion was held among those present. Atty. Arsenault said he had discussed the matter informally with Town Counsel. If the petition is granted as requested the buildings c~nnot be expanded and if they are burned more than 6~%, they cannot be rebuilt. The members were concerned about what protection the prospective buyers would have if the homes were under a non-conforming use, especially as to insurance. Lafond Insurance Co. was contacted by telephone and they said there would be no difficulty. Mr. Pickard made a motion to call a special meeting or vote at the next regular meeting and invite the petitioner back to answer questions. Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The members will view the premises individu- ally. Mrs. Clifton Stone, a tenant, was present and discussed her views on the petition and stated she was quite upset at what the company was proposing. Further discussion was held as to the size of the lots, the possibility of enlarging them, the use of the garages and access to them. Mr. Pickard then made a motion to amend the first motion and made a new motion to take the matter under advisement and discuss it at the next regular meeting with the petitioner and resolve it at that time, if possible. Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Board then discussed the hearings held earlier in the evening. 1. Davis & Furber Machine Company Dr. Beliveau made a motion to GRANT the variance; Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. October 18, 1971 - cont. The Board found there was a hardship in that the building had been built prior to the passage of the Zoning By-Law and that all of the available business land owned by the petitioner and available for combination with the locus was being used. No structural changes would be made on the locus. There would be no detriment to the neighborhood in that the division would result in no structural changes. The pro- posed change would not substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the By-Law. 2. Dr. William J. Patterson The Board first voted on whether or not it was a proper petition to appear before the Board since a previous hearing had been held by the petition within 2 years. Mr. Pickard made the motion that it was a proper petition; Mr. Drurmmond seconded the motion and the vote was & - l, with Chairman Arsenault voting no. Mr. Pickard then made a motion to GRANT the variance; Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was 4 - l, with Chairman Arsenault voting no. The Board found that the lot was sufficiently unique in the area in that it was much larger than the adjoining lots and that the petitioner would suffer a financial hardship should the petition be denied. The variation was not sub- stantial in that it met all other provisions of the By-Law with respect to side- line, setback, frontage and rear yard requirements. It was not a substantial derogation from the intent of the By-Law in that the proposed lot would be sub- stantially similar to many other lots in the neighborhood already built upon. 3. J. & V. Realty Trust Mr. Drummond made a motion to GRANT the variance; Mr. Pickard seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Board found that a ten foot variance was not substantial enough to violate the intent and purpose of the By-Law. That after the granting of the variance, the total frontage of the two adjacent lots in question would not change and the variance involved only the allocation of the extra ten feet to one lot as opposed to the other. The Board found hardship to the extent that the owner of the building would have difficulty using his garage if the variance was not granted. Moving his driveway would have entailed substantial financial hardship. BUDGET for 1972: The Board discussed what amounts would be requested in the budget for 1972. It was voted to request $200 - Expenses; $188 - Extra clerical; $2248 - Secretary's Salary; making a total budget of $2636.00 for 1972. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. (J. Philip Arsenault) (Anna Donahue) ' Chairman Secretary