HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-03-12M~roh 12, 1979 - MOkrDAY Regular ~eeting
The BO.~RD O? APPM&LS held a regular monthly meeting on Nonday evening, ~arch 12,
979 zt 7:30 P.~. in the Fire Station Meeting Room. The following members ~mre present
~nd voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; ~lfred E. Frizelle, Vice-Chairman; R. Louis
DiFruscio, Clerk; James D. Noble, Jr.; Rioha~ J. Trepanier; and William J. Sullivan,
Assoc. ~ember.
The BOARD welcomed Dick Trep~mier as a regular member to the Board of Appeals.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1 - E~ILE A. GIARD (Serio, Di~¥uscio, Trepanier, Noble & Sullivan sitting): the Clerk
read the legal notice. D~nny Giard, Emile's son representing requested a v~riance to
build on a parcel of land which is uniquely sized with 230 ft. frontage on ~ippleton St.
leaving 80 ft. for this lot; area is 2.7 acres; proposes a single-f~mily dwelling;
existing buildings shown on the plan will remain.
F.~VOR: James Timmons, abutter, no objection inasmuch as the house is being built for
Letter from Planning Board dated March ~2th was read.
OPPOSITION: Dom Scalise, attorney for some of the abutters spoke relative to this
petition but stated he w~s not opposed; representing ~. & Mrs. John Thompson, }.~. &
}.~s. H~shem, ~Ir. & Mrs. Ron Lebel who requested that there be some stipulation regard-
ing clearing the premises ~nd a site review of the property. They are in favor of
allowing the variance contingent upon the property being cleaned ~o of some cars,
materials, etc. Stated it w~s an eyesore to the ~rea, certain amount of refuse,
buildings non-conforming which sro right on the lot line. The Building Inspector said
he has had a number of c~lls regarding this condition.
John Thompson reiterated what Scalise had stated. Emile Giard stated that he has a
f~mi!y of 7 and then showed a snap shot of Thompson's y~rd ~t one time which has since
been cleaned up. He claimed that ~r. Thompson's children fixed their cars in his
(Giard's) y~rd when they were younger.
Mr. Foster recommended that the Board view the site.
Mr. Sulliva~made a motion to t~ke the matter under advisement and Mr. TreDanier
seconded. The vote w~s unanimous and Board to do ~ site review.
2 - P. DAVID ON~J~I~ (Serio, Frizelle, Noble, DiFruscio, Trepanier sitting): the Clerk
read the legal notice. ~ltty. Philip Sullivan representing; property located on Elm St.;
Mr. Serio told all present that the BOARD would hear the petition pending the receipt
of the rest of the plans. ~. Onanian was mlso present. Requesting a Special Permit
to convert the present dwelling to a m&ximumuse of 5 residential units; the present
building complies with the Zoning By-L~w and no intended major exterior structural
changes are to be made; it will he five 1-bedroom high cltumlity apartments; there is
enough area to meet the p~rking requirements; will not adversely effect ~e neighborhood
in that there are severml other dwellings in the mrea which are nm~lti-family; there will
be rules imposed regarding traffic in the driveway; no nuisance to pedestrians, good
visibility in ~nd out of the property. Mr. Sullivan stated that they h~ve a signed
Purchase and Sales Agreement with closing date anticipated ~s ~y 1st. Regarding the
t~rch 12, 1979 cont.
right of way, they own it and grant use to the neighbors.
Mr. Frizelle questioned if there were 5 apartments with 2 people in each and 10 cars
because there is only room to park 9 cars? Atty. Sullivan said then there would have
to be restrictions imposed.
Letter from Planning Board dated ~rch 12, 1979 ~s read.
OPPOSITION: Nat Stevens, 46 Elm St., stated that the neighbors have organized unoffi-
cially "Machine Shop Village Association" and although the plan is a geed one it will
have an adverse effect on the neighborhood; we have already seen several houses
converted to multi-family use; cited Harvard Study in that this was at one time a very
stable neighborhood which is becoming a transient neighborhood where upkeep is a pro-
blem. The upper part of Elm St. is single or double and mostly e~derly and he unoffi-
cially represented these people in opposition; concerned with cars and traffic.
Barry Run,.ch, 77 Elm St. objected beacuse of sec. 10.31(c) of the ZBL re nuisance or
serious hazard. Sullivan said there is good vision, it is set back from intersection.
R~,mack stated that it was a special use for the ABC and the children had no drivers
licenses; they share the right of way ~,~th the proposed conversion and it is a blind
drivewao~; they have taken care of the number of parking spaces but have paved the
whole back yard; one access is a problem and suggeste% if ans~hing, there be an alter-
nate access around the house permitting the freeing ~ of vehicular problems; lots of
children in the area including his own; he had suggested making a ,WJ,, right around the
house but nothing was proposed by the petitioner t6night even though'he had mentioned
this to the realtor.
Lynn Wentworth, 15 Pleasant St. & Debbie Tibert(?), 43 Pleasant S%, also objected on
the basis of traffi~ congestion, etc.
Charles Foster, Building Inspector, stated that they would be required to have a
second means of egress on the 2nd and ~rd floors, increase the inside stairways to
fire rated walls and double core doors, every dwelling ~unit would have to have two
in and out. Atty. ~llivan replied that if the Special Permit were granted they are
bound by every other To,~m regulation. Mr. Noble stated that they should ~uave shovm the
two stairways on their plans snd at this time they don't even know if 5 units are
possible. ~. Serio added that obviously the Board cannot approve a plan when we don't
know or can't see the minimum requirements.
The Board suggested a continuance of the hearing so that the petitioner can submit the
proper plans. Atty. Sullivan had no objection to this. ~ir. Sullivan w~s requested to
be prepared with plans and how m~ny units he can live with at the next meeting.
~. Prizelle made a motion, seconded ~j Mr. Trepanier, to continue the hearing until
April 2, 1979. The vote was unanimous.
3 - PAUL DONOVAN: Main St.: the Clerk read the legal notice; William Henry, builder,
represented Mr. Donovan who ;.~s also present. Only 1 plan was presented because of a
misunderstanding between him and the architect; pr~oosed one story with ~0 ft. high
balls; variance for setbacks and frontage; 9 additional parking spaces; it is a hardship
for 5~. Donov~n to operate his business at present because he has to rent other facili-
ties for stormge space; will keep the same motif; egress behind the building; 800 s.f.
expanded showroom; 1,080 s.f. of storage space and loading dock in the back off the
street; building Will flat-roofed with possibility of coming back for 2nd stony in the
future (no relative to this petition); addition will be set back 6 f~.