HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-03-15 March 15, 1976 - Monday
BOARD OF APPEALS & PLANNING BOARD
JOINT N~ETING
The BOARD C~ APPEALS AND PLANNING BOARD held a joint meeting on Monday evening,
March 15, 1976 at 6:45 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room~ The following members
were present and voting - Board of Appeals: Frank Boric, Jr., Chairman; Alfred E.
FriZelle, Vice-Chairman; Ralph R. Joyce, Alternate Member; Planning Board: William
Chepulis, Chairman; ~tz Ostherr, Vice Chairman; Paul R. Lamprey; John J. Monteiro
and William N. Salemmm, Clerk.
SUBJECT: HEREFORD MATTER - ~r. Chepulis opened the meeting by stating, that the
l~mrpose is to see if the alleged disF~te can be resolved by arriving at a mutually
agreeable solution. He reminded all present of what had already transpired on the
Oc~se ·
Mr. Serio commented that it appears the problem is that the BOARD OF APPEALS inter-
prets it one way s~ud the PLANNING BOARD interprets it another. The Appeals Board
members interpret it to be a perpetual permit with a yearly review. The Planning
Board members felt that although Hereford is a pit that really has no new areas to
develop they should still follow the new rules to a point of exception - when this
happens then there is flexibility in the By-Law. A discussion followed in which
both Beards aired their views. Nr~ Frizelle stated that in their research nothing
had ever been found that showed the permit had expired. He also felt that, in some
instances, the conditions imposed through the years were more stringent than the By
-Law.
Mr. Salemme inquired if the Board of Appeals felt it was setting a precedent or no~
to which Mr. Frizelle replied that would be only if the permit had expired. Mr.
Lamprey mentioned that in John Willis' letter he used the word '~xpire".
Mr. Ostherr asked what would be done in the future. Mr. Frizelle said that he would
analize each on a case to case basis and g~ve an example of Gil Rea's pi~. Mr.
Lamprey's opinion was tha~ if they couldn't live with any part of the By-Law they
would have a logical reason for a variance. Mr. Joyce suggested ~osing the new
By-Law under the conditions of the decision. Mr. Frizelle then asked what the Plan-
ning Board would like the Board of Appeals to do. Mr. Chepulis told the others that
the Plan~ning Beard had originally asked for the Board of Appeals to clarify their
decision and they came up With a Memo which made no reference to the original decision. ....
The Board of: Appeals has an inherent power to amend the original decision by filing
this type of Nemo~ said Ralph Joyce. The purpose of the renewal, said Mr. Frizelle,
is to keep the Board of Appeals informed as to what is happening.
The two Boards then invited the Board of Selectmen to the meeting. ~'hey were told
that the Boards con~red that Section 5 of the ZBL could be practically resolved
within a 6 month period by doing the following: adding "and/or annual review" in
paragraph 5.1 (5). They informed the Board of Selectmen that in order to implement
that as fas% as possible it would be necessary to inser~ an article in the Town
Warrant sponsored by the two Boards. Selectman Coady felt that this could be done.
If this is adopted at Town Meeting the length of time Hereford Corp. is allowed to
operate is 6 months and this is a tolerable situation which will also be in line with
the new By-Law. It was agreed to enter this as an arrogant.
The meeting adjourned at 8 P.M.~--~~~~k~an~ ~e~io, jr~,~a~rman
Willia~ 0h~pulis ~ Chairman
× Gilda ~la'c~stock, Secretary