Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962-01-15Mcada~, ~anuary 15, 1962 Regular Meeting & Hearings The Board of Appeals held their regular meeting ca Mcada~ evening, Jamaary 15, 1962 at ?:30 P.M. in the T~¥~ Bui~d~ng. Members present and voting were: Daniel T. O'Leary, Chairman; Harold Morley, Secretary; Robert J. Burke and Associate Member Alfred Boeglin, who sat in place of regular member ~enry E. Innd. Building Inspector Charles Foster was present. There were approximately 25 people present for the five hearings to be held. 1. NEARING: Sidney C. & Adah L. Rea. This hearing was in the appeal of Sidney a. & Adah L. Rea, requesting a variatica of Sec. 6, para. 6.33 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the conveyance of good title to a non-conforming lot on the pr~ses, located at 120 Winter St., Nest. Secretary Morley read the legal notice of the hearing. Atty. Bradley represented Mr. Rea, who was also present. Mr. Bradley showed the plans and e~pl~ued that there was ample frontage onthe lot but not enough area; 44,000 ft. required and there are only ~!l,OOO ft.; however it is in accord with other houses in the area. There were no abutters present and there was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Burke rode a motiou to take the petitica under advisement. Mr. Morley secouded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 2. HEARING: Jemp_ie Faraci. This hearing was in the appeal of Jennie Faraci, requesting a variatiou of Sec. 4, para. 4~ll(A) of the Zoning By-L~w so that a special permit may be issued for the con- version of a second story of one duplex apartment to an additional dwelling unit, thus makimg a total of 3 dwelling units for the entire house, on the premises located at 49 Maple Avenue. Secretary Morley read the legal notice of the hearing. Mrs. Farani and daughter, Mrs. ~icais, were present to explain the requested con- versi~. She wants to convert the upstairs of her duplex apartment into another apartment, so that the upstairs rooms will be the s~ne as downstairs. Bldg. Insp. Foster helped to explain the conversion. The plans presented were not acceptable since they were not stamped by a Certified Engineer. Mrs. Ferani said she wt1~ ge% the proper plans. There were no abutters present and there was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Burke made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Boegliu seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 3. HEARING: Joseph Zappala. This hearing was in the appeal of Joseph Zappala, requesting a variation of Sec. 6, para. 6.31 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the placing of a house that requires removal from its present location, for highway construction, on the premises located at the west side of Massachusetts Avenue, 50 feet distant from the corner of Harwood Street. Secretary Morley read the legal notice of the hearing. January lS, 1962 - Cont. -2- Atty. John J. ~illis represented the petitioner and explair~d that Mrs. McCracken of Bruce St. would like to move her house to this location because the State is taking her property for highway construction and will purchase this land from the petitioner. This is a single fam.tly house and measures 25.4 feet wide. This area is developed on 50 x 1OO ft. lots and would be in conformity to the neighborhood. Mrs. Zappala and Mrs. McCracken were present and in all five hands were raised in favor. Mr. Benedict Perrone objected and asked if there was ~y chance of dymamiting in order to place foundation. Mr. Licciardello questioned the amount of feet from the back lot lime to the house, which was over 30 feet. Mr~ Burke made a motien to take ~he petition under advisement. Mr. Boeg~tu seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 4e HEARING: L~,~ ~ Nardozza. This hearing was in the appeal of Louis Nardozza, requesting a variation of Sec. para. 6.32 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the construction of two wood frame single resident homes on the premises, located at the east side of Waw~rty Road, 1,~ feet distant from the corner of Greene Street, known as Lots Nos. 13, 1~! & 15. Secretary Morley read the legal notice of the hearing. La~rence P~lm~sano, a builder, represented Mr. Nardozza. The Board explained that ~2 y had no jurisdiction on ~.s petition since the land is zoned for Country residence an therefore e~_~not be divided into two lots. There were three abutters present who asked questions. THIS PETITION WAS ~THDRAWN AT THE PETITIO~R,S ~EQUEST. 5. NEARING: Tidewater Oil Company. This hearing was in the appeal of Tidewater Oil Cempauy, requesting a variatiou Sec. 6, para. 6.41 and Sec. ?, para. 7.3 of the Zoning By-La~ so as to permit the erectien and operation of a gasoline service station, on the premises, located at the northeast side of Massachusetts Ave., 300 feet e~rex., distant from the corner ef' Perry Street. Secretary Morley read the legal notice of the hearing. Mr. Lurid sat ca this hearing. Mr. Ralph Warringt~, real estate representative for Tidewater Oil Co.' s~d_ Mr. R. Smith, Engineer f,r Tidewater Oil Company appeared before the Board and shewed plans ami pictures of the proposed station. There is a frontage of 170 feet. They questi~ d whether or not the canopy is a part of the buildinE. There will be a single island, with indirect lighting, set back ten feet from the street. Mr. Foster asked if there will be a fence along the river bank. They ss~ they will have one. There w~re ne abutters present and there was no opposition. Mr. BurMe made a motion to take the petition under advisemeat. Mr. Morley seecmded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Atty. Willis appeared before the Board ~lth an application for a hearing f~r Joseph Forgetta on Belmcmt Street. A hearing date will be set for Feb. 9, 1962. Atty. Fredric O'Rrien appeared as representing Charles Perry and he along with Atty. Trembly (representing the Ha~es family, abutters in opposition) discmssed the past January 15, 1962 -Cont. -3- hearing for Charles Perry requesting moving his house to ~be corner of Union & Beverly Street. Atty. OtBrien stated that according to the decision made by the Board, it is not clear just what variance was granted. The Board does not say precisely what he can do and do not spell out their reasons for the decision. Something has to be done very quickly because Mr. Perry has to be out by mid-March or the 1st of April. He, Atty. Salisbury and At~. Trombly have been conferring to decide what would be the best steps to take. The Board can do one of ~o things. 1. Give a s~pplement decision by spelling out what variance was granted or, 2. Have another rapid hearing. Atty. 0'Brian ~lained that the danger of giving a supplement decision would be whether or not Shey would be able to amend She case by a · -~pple~ant, which has to go back to Saperior Court. Chairman OILeary read a letter frc~ Town Counsel w~ich says that it is all right for the Board to file a supplement. Atty. Trombly said that the Board had a hearing and rendered their decision. A supplemental' decision is no good and he will fight it. The Board ~ould not enter themselves into this position. They would be getting themselves into something. Would they re~der supplemental decisions on other cases? He does not believe that the Board has the right to render a ~upplemental decision. Mr. Morley asked Atty. Trombly what he would do with the case in court if a new hearing is held. Atty. Tr~mbl~ said the Board should have a new hearing and will realize their error and then deny the variance next time. Atty. O'Brien quoted a case of a supplemental decision in So,~-rville. He stated he would rather have a new hearing and be safer. Mr. B~rke stated that he voted Just to make it unanimous but that he did not like the decision. Atty. O~Brie~ stated that the decision was a faulty one and w~nts reasons for the decisio~ and would like a new he,ring as soon as possible. ~e hearing date will be F~iday, Feb. 9, 1962 at 7:30 P.M. The Board then discussed the charge for filing variances with the ~egistry of Deeds which will be required on ~is evening,s hearings and all future Mariances. The fee is $4.00'. The clerk ~ notify all petitioners by letter when notifying them of certified ~ fees. Bldg. Insp. Foster told the Board that he ~ appear at all f~ture Board meetings in order to answer an~ questions which ma~ c~e about on applications. He also asked if it was permissable to grant building permits on nc~-accepted streets; which the Board said w~s all right. The Board than proceeded to discuss and vote on She eveningsls hearings. 1. Sidney C. and Adah L. Rea, ~he Board discussed and voted on the petition. Mr. Burke made a motion to 6RANT the variance. Mr. Boeglin seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. This petition ~f for a variance fr~ ~rea in a zone that req~res 44,000 sq. feet. The adjoi~ing lots in the neighborhood all contain less tha~ 44,000 sq. ft., so that this lot is in accord with the ars~ January 15, 1962 - Cont. 2o Jennie Faraci. The Board discussed and ~ted on the petition. ~r. Burke made a motion to GRANT the variance, subject to the proper plans. Mr. Boeglin seconded the motion and ~ vote was unanimous. The proposed conversion conforms to the existing houses in the area and complies with the requirements as set forth in the Zoning By-L~,. 3. Joseph Zappala. The Board discussed and voted on the petition. Mr. Burke m~de a motion to GRANT the variance. Mr. Boeglin seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The proposed dwelling conforms to the area as set forth in the Zoning By-La~ and also conforms to the existing houses in the area. 4' Louis Nardozza. Withdra.n at petitioner's request. 5. Tidewater Oil Company. The Board discussed and voted on the petition. Mr. Burke made a motion to G~ANT the variance. Mr. Boeglin seconded the motion and the vote ~as unanimous. This is an appeal from that portion of section 6.41 of th. 9 Zen~E~y-Law- remuiring each lot in a general business area to contain not less ~nan z>,ut~ square ree~, the subject lot conta~_ning 18,000 square feet, more or less, and a further appeal from that portion of section 7.3 requiring no buildiug or structure to be erected within 25 feet of the front lot line. The lot in question is bounded northwesterly and northerly by the Shaw~hee~ River, southeasterly by property currently used as a restaurant and southwesterly by Massachusetts Avenue, a state highway. The only possible business use for a parcel of this size is one that requires the erection efa sm~l~ ~,~l~ug, such as a gas station as in the present instance, and the variance under section 6.41 is hereby The m~n building to be erected as shown on applicant,s plan, is set back the required twenty-five feet, the c~ly structure lying within the front yard space being a permanent-type canopy cont~uing fluorescent lighting and the gas pumps. The pur- pose of this particular type of canopy being to better serve the cmmmanity in a protected atmosphere and to keep the lighting on the service area rather tha~ the geaeral area. The variance requested to construct the canopy and pumDs withiu the twenty-five foot front yard area as shown on applicant,s plan is hereby granted. O~ing to c~nditions especially affecting this parcel of land but not generally affecting the zoning district, a literal enforceme~ tef the provisions of the by-la~ would involve substantial hardship to the appellant and the granting of these' variances will enhance the general appearance of the area without substantially derogating frcm the intent and purpose of the zoning by-law. The meeting adjo~d at 10:30 P.M. AD Bills approved: Clerk