Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-07-08241.. Monday - July 8, 1968 Regular Meeting & Hearings The BOARD OF APPE~T,S held their regular meeting on Monday evening, July 8, 1968 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building Meeting Room. The follow~ members were present and voting: Jame_s A. Deyo, Chairman; Arthur D~ond, Secretary; Daniel T. O'Leary, John J. Shie~lds and Donald J. Scott. There were 16 people present for the hearings of the evening. 1o HEARING: JOSEPH LONGO Mr. Drummond read the legal notice in the appeal of Joseph Longo requesting a variance under Sections 6.2 and 6.31 so as to permit the subdivision of a parcel of land into two parcels for the purpose of conveyance, located at the east side of Waverly Road and known as W.~/.~-146 and 14~-150 Waverly Road. Atty. Edward F. Cregg represented the petitioner. He said that the lot as situated with two residential buildings existing on it was not readily marketable. The applicant would suffer fi~Bcial loss if he was unable to sell the property. The proposed subdivision would create two lots, both of which would correspond closely to those existing in the immediate area. There would be no new construction in- volved and to the passer-by there would be no physical changes to be see~. No one else spoke and there was no opposition to the petition. It was noted that the lets were not clearly m~rked and Atty. Cregg said he would have the engineer mark the plans properly. Mr. OtLeary made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Shields seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 2. HEARING: JOSEPH ~EDOLO Mr. D~.~-.ond read the legal notice in the appeal of Joseph Medolo requesting a variance of Sections 6.61 and 7.23 so as to permit the remodelling and enlarging of the back of the house for use as a family ro~m at 24 Marblehead Street. Mr. Medolo appeared on his own behalf and stated that his family of weven children required more living space and the remodelling and enlargement was the only way he could reasonably provide it. The addition would not be any closer to the lot line th~n the existing dwelling and ~ould be well in keeping with dwellings in the area. There was no opposition to the petition. Tt was noted that the plans were not complete and no architectural plans had been submitted. The petitioner will supply the necessary plans. Mr. O'Leary made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Shields seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. HEARING: JOHN A. JAMES Mr. Drummond read the legal notice in the appeal of John A. James, Administrator of the Estate of Grace E. James, requesting a variance under Sections 6.31 and 7.23 so as to permit the subdivision of a 70-foot vacant lot between buildings, to increase si~e of adjacent lots for conveyance purposes at 12 Garden Street. 242 July ~, 196~- cont. Atty. Frederick Murdock represented the petitioner and said he was acting to fulfill a moral obligation. The vacant lot was to be divided into two parts with each par~ to be conveyed to the adjacent property owners. The effect would be to increase the sise of the adjacent lots. No structural change is proposed. James J. Maker and Mr. Maxwell, abutters said they h~d no objections, that the proposal would enhance the area. The was no opposition. Mr. Shields m~de a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. O'Leary seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 4. HEARING: ~t~EPH LARIVIE~E Mr. D~...~nd read the legal notice in the appeal of Joseph Lariviere for a Special Permit under Section 4.7 and a variance under Section 4.73 so as to permit the changing of the present structure of four-four roc~apartments to six - four- room apartments at 40-42 Longwood Avenue. Atty. Robert Minasian represented the petitioner and said there was an increasing need in town for the type of a. partment proposed. He stated the present building was in need of repair and that a practical mothod of affecting repairs was by the conversion proposed. He stated a financial hardship in that adequate financing could not be obtained to merely repair the building if the present four - four-room apartments were maintained. Financing was available if the conversion to six - four-room apartments could be made. He said that abutters would be screened from the parking lot of the building by a suitable fence; also, the principal means of entrance would be by a walk leading to the off-street parking lot, thus negating excess street oarking. This public hearing was continued from last month because complete plans had not been submitted by the petitioner. Joseph Doberty and Edward Sullivan,-~sbutters, voiced opposition because of added traffic, detrimental effect on the neighborhood and a potential precedent-setting situation. Mr. 0'Leafy made a motion to take the petition under, advisement. Mr. Shields seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Board members then discussed and voted as follows on the following petitions: 1. LONGO Mr. Shields made a motion to GRANT the variance; Mr. O'Leary seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The usual reasons for granting apply. A special condition attached to this approval is that a co~w~u Right of Way or driveway shell exist betwee~ the two lots for a distance of approximately 100 feet from the street line. 2 ~ JAMES Mr. O'Leary made a motion to GRANT the variance; Mr. Shields seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Granting this variance would make each lot larger and more in conformity with the requirements of the Zoning By-Law. ~uly 3, 196~- oont. 3. ~EDOLO Mr. O'Leary made a motion to grant the petition pending submission of proper architectural and plot plans. He then withdrew his motion. Mr. Dr, i~.~,,ond made a motion to t~ble the matter tmtil proper plans are received. Mr. O'Leary seconded the motion and the vote was It was noted that a similar petition had been presented to the Board slightly over a year ago, except that it was for an 8-unit apartment, and was denied at that time. Mr. O'Leary made a motion to ~NY the special permit and variance~ Mr. Shields seconded the motion and the vote was u~an~m~us. The reasons for denying are as follows: 1. Granting the petition would have resulted in a severe deviation from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law. 2. The lot si~e available was substantially below that required for the six apart- ments desired. Mr. O'Leary did not sit on this and Mr. Burke disqualified himself since there are drainage problems and it involves his property. The Board looked at the new plans that had been presented. Mr. Shields is concerned about the drainage; hydrants should be shown. The developer cannot add or divert flow of the brook on private property without getting some sort of ease- ment. A large portion of %he drainage will go over Burke's land. The Board feels that a new hearing should be called; they are now asking for the development of the entire parcel; the original hearing was for only a portion of the land. The plans should still be more detaiI~d. Mr. Scott felt that probably the situation should be discussed with Town Counsel. The Board agrees to go along with whatever Town Counsel says. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. JAD Chairman