Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-10-21Monday, October 21, 1974 ReguAar Meeting The BOARD 0~ APPEALS held its regular meeting c~ Mo~day evening, October 21, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serie, Jr., Chairman; Alfred E. Frizelle, Vice Chairman; Dr.. Eugene A. Beliveau, Clerk; William N. Salemme and Louis Di~cuscio$ James Noble, Asso. Member. There were more than 15 people present. HAROLD A, & BEVERLY S. I~11~PLE: The no, ice was rea~ by the Clerk. Atty. Philip Arsenault of 316 Essex S~. represented the petitioner. Mr. Arsenault stated that the petitioner's position is relatively simple, but serious from their standpoint. The lot in question is comprised of 49,400 sq. ft. in area. The Whipple's have owned the property since 1970 and own no adjacent land. When they pur- chased the property it was zoned for residence, but in the most recent Zoning B~-Law this area was changed to T-1. Mr. Arsenault s~ated that their problem is three-fold: in an ~-~ District, a residence is no longer permitted$ in an I-1 District the lot area is undersize and it is a hardship because they can't build on the lot unless they get a ~riance. Mr. & Mrs. Whipple tell me, said Mr. Arsenault, that they have approached owners of abutting land and the neighbors don't w~nt to sell so they are locked into 49,400 sq. ft.; the set- back reQ~Airement is 100 ft. He w~mt on further to say, that the use of the building ~rill be in complete compliance' with the zoning by-law. They propose a two-flooz, split-entry office building. They would like a variance on the setback from 100 ft. to 73 ft. and he stressed to the BOA~ the important nature of this appeal. The petitioner has no choice ms to what to buildt amd there are a number of buildings on Tarnpike ~. which do not have the 100 ft. setback requirement. Charles Foster, B~ilding Znspector, can verify the fact that they tried to 1~ land from John Farnum;. Member Frizelle noted the Planning Board's recommendation of insisting on keeping the front set back. If the BOARD wants to go along with this, they would have to add a variance for rear and side lines. At this time, Mr. Eerio read the ~,lding Iuspector's letter. Dr. BeXiveau stated that the BOARD should view the site. Mr. Frizelle asked if it is necessary to have this particular size building and Mr. Whipple answered, no, we could have a little smaller building. Mr. Dil~cio made a motion to ta~e the matter under advisement and Mr. ~izelle seconded. The vote was unanimous. 2. ANTN~ & ~EARON REYNOLDS: Member Salemme stated, for the record, that being in favor of the Wooclhouse conversion sitting on the Planning Board he wOUld not sit on this petition as a member of the Appeals Board. James Noble took Mr. S~lemme's seat for this hearing. The clerk read the notice after which testimony was hear from Mr. Reynolds. He stated that when he bought the property nex~ door to the Woodhouse's last August the real estate broker told him this would be a little furniture place and now it hms been changed. The traffic is pretty bad and there is a large truck parked in the yard which blocks the view. He thought it would m~ke a nice garage rather than a dwelling. Mr. Reynolds also stated that none of the neighbors knew anything about the proposed conversion. Mr. James Poor also spoke in opposition and presented snapshots of~a large ~ruck ~hich October 21, 1974 - cont. is parked in front. Mr. Poster, Building Luspector, said he doesn't feel this is part of the petition, it is a police matter. Mr. Poor stated that what bothers h~m most is that the Town has spent alot on zom~ng, plans, etc. and we are breaking them down by allowing a conversion of a building such as this. He then asked, if once this is converted can the building be enlarged at a future time? The Building Inspector answered that it could be if what is added' conforms to the set back requirement. The use conforms with the zoning regulations. Mr. Poor stated, he takes exception to the granting of the permit. Mr. Reynolds was, also, opposed. Mr. William Chepulis, Chairman of the Planning Board, explained his Board's position. The Planning Board, he s~id, does no~ grant permits an~ in line with that, according to Section 3-F of the Rules & Regulations which was quoted it wasn't violating any By-L~w. The Planning Board members felt, too, that there would be a lesser problem with a residence than a~commercial enterprise. In opposition to the petition was Mr. Philip Arsenault, an attorney, who represented Mr. & Mrs. Wm. Woodhouse. He SPoke about his symp~th~ with Mr. Reynolds in obtaining the wrong information but the Woodhouse's didn't give him this information and after they had pmmchased the property the word got back to them that the neighbors would like to have it not be a bUsiness any more and then they got the idea to put it to conforming use. No one approached these individuals when all this w~s go~ng on. This building is not in a garage, it has a poured foundation in the rear and concrete block foundation in the front. It also has sewerage, water service and gas. Now, to get into the law, e~m~ed Mr. Arsenault, it is a substantial but non-conforming building. They could continue to use it in the way it was being used before. It has been there since July 13, 1927, so it was there long before the zoning by-law came into effect. He referred the BOAKD to Section 8.1 of the By-Law. Planning is before the BOARD tonight and his use of the lot is legal. Section 3-F of the Rules & Regulations is why they went to 'the Planning Board, not for a permit. Planning Board 'action was proper and all items cited on the petition inapplicable to the Planning Board. Mr. Ostherr of the Planning Board stated that the granting of the power to the Planning Board to approve the existence of ~wo buildings on one lot is from the S~ate Enabling Legislation. Charles Foster, Building Inspector, stated that from 1956 to 1962 is was a n~Aghborhocd business and at one time there was talk that a drop-in center for people with problems and then the neighborhood get upset. At that time there was a petition circulated to the Boards in town against that particular use and after that the Planning Board studied the Zoning Districts and they rezoned to Residential upon the requests of the neighbors. At that time it was used for furniture repair by one individual and continuted until this summer. The only type of work that could be done there would be the same or similar and wrote to the owners of the property to advise them of this. Mr. Foe%er read the letter in which he asked them to notify him if and when they rented or leased the small building. They asked if it could be used for an apartment and, ai~ter researching it, found it could be provided the Planning Board consented %o the use. Mr. Foster feels the Planning Board and himself have tried robe faAr to everyone in this situation. He advised Mr. Reynolds to get counsel, but he chose not to do this. It is not a multi- family dwelling - it is 3 families on one lot. In conclusion, Mr. Foster stated that he is sorry to see us so embroiled in a neighbohhood squabble. Mr. Reynolds then asked, where are all the people who are supposed to be in favor of this. conversion? Jeanne Atkins stated that a Mrs. Osborne owned that property at one time and she wanted to make an apartment there but was turned do~ by some Board ~ying that there wasn't enough space, etc. Why did they do that at that time? Botcher 21, 1974 - cont. Member ~rizelle stated thmt the Board is restricted by law to looking at only certain things amd this is why we are cutting you off as far as the truck, etc. is concerned. We sympathize with you on some things, but we are really airing the neighborhood pro- blems. Nr. ~rizelle~made a motion to take the matter underadvisement and Mr. Di~ruscio seconded. A short discussion followed in which Dr. Beliveaustated that the area require- ment comes from our local building law. The vote w~s unanimous on the motion. CHRI~ STOPHER ~DANS: The clerk read the notice. Mr. Adams was present and note4 that this is an extension of the present permit. He said he had bulldozers and payloaders on the property. The Building Inspector reported tha~ since last ~y he had been there twice. He didn't see any signs of seeding, there is some dirt there and couldn't see where Adams got enough loam to fill. The bank part look~d like it had been graded. Very little loam on the side at all. Adams wants to leave the stumps there until spring. Mr. Serio asked Adams how long he intends to keep the operationgoing. Mr. Adams sta~ed that he really didn't have that much to do, it depends on the economy. Mr. Serio then asked, do you think you can wrap it up in ayear? Adams answered, hopefully. Mr. Frizelle said that what concerns him isgetting~.,~ b~ok into shape. You dilly-dallied so long not meeting the requirements. None of the area we are concerned with has been seeded. Opposition: Mr. Farkas spoke of spring running to the street and through his property. Wants the to~n to be responsibl~ for any~hingthat happens on his proper~y if they give him a permit. If they don't, he will sue the town. Mr. Frizelle's motion w~s to take the matter under advisement and view the property. Dr. Beliveau seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 4. ANNA D0~AE~E: The clerk read the legal notice. Mrs. Donahue represented herself and gave each member a copy of a brief which is on file. The Board then reviewed the plan. Mr. Foster, Building Inspector, is in favor of the petition because he feels the intent of the By-Law is here. Mr. Frizelle made a motion to take the matter under advisement and Dr. Beliveau seconded. The vote was unanimous. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Wilson, Wa%er S~. RE: Elm Court Townheuses: All members had read a copy of the let%er in which they were complaining about the drainage from said townhouses. A motic~ was made by Mr. Frizelle to answer the Wilson~'s in writing advising them that it is not under the purview of this Board. Mr. Salemme seconded the motion and the vote was uuanimous. Letter from Wm. N. ~alemme Re: CyrEarth Removal Site: Mr. Boric read the' letter si%er which he asked Mr. Foster what the status of this site really is. Mr. Foster replied, it was in operation at the time the zoning By-law came into effect and Town Counsel ruled that it could continue to operate as a non-conform~ug~. use for a period of time. Ne contacted Nr. Heider, who works for Cyr, end doubts that we could make them get a permit where it has been in operation all these years, ~t we should ge~ the area restored as soon as possible. Mr. Salemme stated that some sort of removal activity with the pasty ear has transpired and the run-off goes into the road. The 21, 1~74 - c~to Nighway ~urveyor noted that iS is possible that the culvert can Become ologged. N~. Foster told Heider Shat we wans She siSe restored as much as possible. Mr. Foster also thought Shat if we could ge~ iS restored and limiS She opera~ion it might Be a Better siSuation than h~vinghi~ oome in for a per. iS. The Building [nspecSor sSated that he would investigate jusS wha2Arnold Smlisburydid say about Shis operatioa. Mr. Chepulis, Platming Beard Chairman, ShoughS we could allow them to operaSe as a gravel piS, bus have So do so under our rules. Mr. Frizelle made a motion that as iS sSands, She master is properly Before the ~uilding Inspector. Mr. DiFruscio seconded and the vote wmsunanimous. Read aaawer from Arnold Salisbury, Town Ooansel, filed for the Board on the DiMauro ease, The Zoning BulleSin was received amd acknowledged. The meeting adjourned aS 10:30 P.N. (Gilda BlacksSook)