Minutes of Meeting
February 7, 2008
11 Hartford Avenue
Sitting in: JS, BA, DC, MC and PH
Applicant requested to withdraw without prejudice.
MC motioned to accept the request.
AP seconded.
All in favor to accept the request to withdraw without prejudice.
316 Hartford Avenue
Sitting in: JS, BA, DC, MC and PH
Attorney Roche, representing the client, Scott Dwyer, presented a brief asking for a Special Permit (Section 2310) to construct a 22, 400 sq building. The board felt that the appropriate request would be a variance for lot frontage and front yard setback (Section 2600). Attorney Roche requested a continuance to research this request.
MB motioned to accept the request.
PH seconded.
All in favor to accept the request to continue until March 6, 2008 at 7:00 PM.
12 A Pearl Street – Jeremy Ballerino
Sitting in: JS, BA, DC, MC and PH
Attorney Antonellis representing the client, Jeremy Ballerino, stated that the reason they are at this hearing is based on 2 factors, one being an appeal of the building inspector’s decision or a variance request based on the special conditions of the lot. The applicant provided a certification of isolation for this lot showing it was not owned in common ownership with any abutting properties and the question was as to what was behind it. The applicant provided the assessors maps for Medway and Bellingham and it shows that the rear of the lot is the Medway town line and the actual property line is the Charles River. The question was whether or not you have a parcel that is isolated prior to zoning.
JS stated if that parcel splits between 2 towns then you would have one buildable lot. The boundary still means that if you take the parcel and divide it up you still have common ownership and it would need to meet the requirements of a variance. Attorney Antonellis felt that they could meet the criteria of a variance. There was discussion of the existing foundation, the existing septic system and the financial loss if this property could not be sold as a duplex as requested. Attorney Antonellis stated that this property was cut off in August 22, 1959. The board stated they would like to visit the lot and would like the applicant to provide a deed showing that the property was not held in common ownership with any adjourning land. PD suggested seeking town counsels opinion. The applicant
requested a continuance.
MC motioned to accept the request.
PD seconded the motion.
All in favor to accept the request to continue to March 6, 2008 at 7:00 P.M.
High Street/Maple Street
Sitting in: JS, BA, PD, MC and PH
Attorney Antonellis represented the applicant, LIG Development. There was discussion on the height request as it is required for the functionality of this project, the hours of operation including outside lighting and traffic issues. The applicant provided a traffic comparison study. Residents spoke in favor of the project but expressed their concerns about lighting and the height of the structure going above the tree line in their neighborhood. Attorney Antonellis requested a continuance. He would like to get clarification on whether or not the Board of Selectmen can grant the hours of operation and/or exception of special event hours. He will provide the board with a sketch plan and a deed restriction showing the 25’ buffer, the driveway location and will also provide an outline of a
proposed decision for the board to review.
PD motioned to accept the request to continue.
MC – Seconded the request.
All in favor to accept the request to continue to March 6, 2008 at 7:00 PM.
41, 45 and 51 Pulaski Blvd. & 100 Salisbury Street – Jolicouer and Chariette
Sitting in: JS, BA, MC, DC and PH
Attorney Lasorsa represented the applicants, Mr. Jolicuer and Mr. Chariette for a Special Permit under section 2300 to construct the requested auto parts facility. The board referred to a letter from Milford Town Counsel, Gerry Moody confirming that section 2300 was the correct way to handle the request and felt this project would not be more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. MC referred to case law and felt that after combining the lots they would still be non-conforming and this project is new construction which is not following the bylaw and they should be applying for a variance.
AP motioned to close the hearing.
All in favor to close the hearing.
AP motioned to grant a Special Permit as requested.
BA seconded the motion.
Voting in favor: JS, BA, DC and PH
Voting in Opposition: MC
The Special Permit was granted as requested with a 20 day appeal period.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
Approved on 3/6/08
| 
