Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-01-03Wednesday - January 3, 1973 Special Meeting The BOARD OF APPEALS held a special meeting on Wednesday evening, January 3, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building with the following members present and voting: J. Philip Arsenault, Esq., Chairman; Dr. Eugene A. Beliveau, Clerk; Arthur R. Drummond, Frank Serio, Jr. and Associate Member Louis DiFrusclo. This specialmeeting was called because a rea~est for reconsideration of the Board's decision granting a special permit to John J. Gaffnyfor the Stevens Mill conversion, had been filed by ten registered voters of the town. There were 20people present for the meeting. Chairman Arsenault read the request for reconsideration to everyone present. Ray Canty, Phillips Ct., said that the Board should reconsider its decision because town meeting had voted out apartments and townhouses. Atty. Herbert Phillips spoke, as representing several abutters. He Said there are several points that should be taken seriously. The purpose of reconsideration is k0 take another look and it is perfectly leEal to do so. There should be a re- consideration because this was orio~dnally a petition for 200 apartments and after several meetings changes were made and these people didn't have a chance to come before the Board to give their views. He said this Board ha~ made a mumble, jumble out of the situation. He thinks they have been pushed into a decision they couldn't get out of. Member DiFruscio presented several conditions that had not been presented to the people, which wasn't fair. At the meeting of December llth and the meeting of Nov. 29th, nothing was shown to the people. New plans should be studied and made'available no matter how many copies are necessary. At the meeting of December 19th, additional conditions were put on the petition. This is a substantial change from what was heard by the Board originally. You can't ignore that special town meeting threw out townhouSes and conversions. Atty. Phillips thought that two of the members of the Board are leading the battle against reconsideration. One member sits on the Board of Public Works; he would like a ruling from Town Counsel if there is a conflict since one of the conditions refers to meeting requirements of the Board of Public Works. Member DiFruscio said we don't have to sit here and take this abuse from this clown. Atty. Phillips said those words could be grounds for a libel suit. Chairman Arsenault called for order. Atty. Phillips continued on to say that Members DiFruscio and Drummond should not be voting on this matter because of a moral conflict; one is friendly with the petitioner and the other sits on the Board of Public Works. These people are en- titled to have an unbiased decision. These people should be given a chance to be heard again. The way it is being done, through the back door, is not right. There should be a new hearinE. Jauuarv 3, 1973 - cont. Member Drummond asked Atty. Phillips if this was another one of the veiled threats like what he has been getting recently. Atty. Phillips said it is morally wrong - canyou look at yourself in the mirror. Atty. Willis spoke, representing the petitioner, and stated that this decision was not made on a law that made over night; this took over 2~o~years with the help of a professional planner. (Atty. Willis gave a brief history of the new Zoning By-Law). The first time a petition was brought in under the new law, the persons primarily concerned caused a special town meeting to be called. 90%of the people at the special town meeting were all persons who were involved and did not repre- sent a general consensus of the townspeople. Special town meeting action can have no effect on this petition; the decision had already been made prior to this special town meeting. How many times does a matter have to be reconsidered? He continued saying there have been inuendoes passed out tonight and he regrets this. He regrets that Atty. Phillips has to come to this community and make these accusations. He explained, to correct the record, that the Board of Public Works did not indicate that the Board of Public Works approves the facilities; the engineer for the Board of Public Works sent the letter to the Board stating that the facilities were adequate. This petition has been considered since October 16th, it is now January 3rd. The petitioner has made every effort to provide an adequate and complete association with the neighbors. He personally met with almost every person in this room and discussed it with them and also met with them at their request. As recently as two weeks ago we suggested some compromises, which they refused. He continued that the petitioner, owner and counselor are all residents of this town and are trying to do something which they think is good aud are doing it under the law. He urges the Board to allow the decision to stand since the matter has already been considered three times. Atty. Phillips said he was not intimating any impropriety from Atty. Willis. He read parts of the Board's decision and said maybe the decision should be corrected where it refers to the Board of Public Works. He said to offer a compromise now would not help the situation. Now is the time for the Board to call a new hearing and bring everything out. Allow the people to have a new look at the whole thing. Dr. Beliveau made a motion to reconsider the petition; Member Serio seconded the motion and the vote was: Members Beliveau, Serio & Arsenault voting yes; Member DiFruscio voting no and Member Drummond abstaining. The mormon for reconsmderat~on failed and the petition stands as being granted. FALANGA PETITION: Member Serio made a motion to GRANT the variance upon the petition of Bruno Falanga; Mr. DiFruscio seconded the motion and the vote was A members yes and Member Drummond abstaining. The Board viewed the premises and found that the lack of 8 feet frontage was not a substantial derogation from the intent or purpose of the By-law and that there would be a hardship if he were not allowed to divide his property in this manner because of the topography of the area, and the drainage involved. The meeting adjourned at 9:00P.M. Chairman Secretary