June 4, 2009
Minutes of Meeting
In attendance:
Peter Delsignore (PD), Chairman
Arturo Paturzo (AP), Vice Chairman
Jeffrey Scornavacca (JS) – Member
Mario Castagna, (MCA), Member
Douglas Cochrane (DC), Member
Mary Chaves (MC), Alternate Member
Peter Harty (PH), Alternate Member
Shella Fitzpatrick (SF), Alternate Member
Laura Renaud (LR), Clerk
7:00 PD opened the meeting.
24 Chamberlain Road – Renewal Request Family Apartment
Sitting in: PD, AP, DC, JS and MC
Mr. Lind (owner) was in attendance to renew the Special Permit for the existing family apartment. His mother-in-law, Joyce Notine, will continue to live in the apartment. There have been no changes since the original decision was issued. MC requested a deed restriction be filed with the Inspectional Services Department.
AP motioned to close.
PD seconded.
All in favor to close the hearing.
JS motioned to grant the renewal for the family apartment with presentation of the deed restriction stating Joyce Notine will be the one occupying the apartment be given to Inspectional Services Department.
AP seconded.
O opposed
5 in favor
All in favor to grant as stated.
35 Brion Road – Renewal Request Family Apartment
Sitting in: PD, AP, DC, JS and MCas
Marjorie Balboni, owner of the property was not able to attend due to health issues and sent a letter requesting if the permit could be renewed in her absence as nothing had changed since the original decision. The board felt they needed to speak with Town Counsel for advice. Laura was to contact the applicant to continue the hearing.
AP motioned to continue.
JS seconded.
All board in favor to continue to July 2, 2009 at 7:00 PM
68 Pearl Street – Variance Request for Duplex
Sitting in: PD, JS, AP, DC and PH
Attorney Moody discussed the hardship of this property. He stated the land was not usable, it has no viable economic use without the variance. The owner felt he purchased it as a buildable lot under Chapter 40A, Section 6. JS stated that for a variance request under section 1322 all hardships must be met. The board did not feel the applicant met the criteria of the bylaw.
MC motioned to close.
JS seconded.
All in favor to close the hearing.
AP motioned to grant the variance as requested.
JS seconded the motion.
There was discussion on the hardships that could not be met and also that the applicant had not explored others ways this property could be developed. The board voted as follows:
0 in favor of granting the variance as requested.
5 opposed
The variance is denied.
76 Blackstone Street – Variance request for a single family home
Sitting in: PD, AP, JS, DC and MCas
Attorney Antonellis stated the taxes for this property had been paid. He discussed the hardships for this property and felt it was an overgrown nuisance and that it has a negative effect on the neighborhood and without the requested variance there is nothing else that can be done with it. He felt that the lack of area was the only downfall and it is unique as it is a corner lot, rounded off with 45, 072 square feet and that it is consistent with the other lots in the area and it would not derogate from the intent of the bylaw. Mr. Gagnon, the applicant stated it was sold to him as a buildable lot and he did receive a foundation permit. MC explained the subdivision permitting had expired and it was just not caught when it went to Inspectional Services. The burden is on the applicant to do the research. AP stated he felt that without the variance it would be more harm to the neighborhood. The neighbors were in favor of the granting of the variance as it would clean up the
neighborhood and a petition was presented in favor of the variance. AP felt it would be revenue to the town as JS thought it would be an impact. The board discussed the criteria that had to be met. Members of the audience spoke in favor of granting the variance.
AP motioned to close the hearing.
MCas seconded.
AP motioned to grant the variance request for 35, 000 square feet (plus or minus) as requested by the applicant.
JS seconded.
3 in favor
2 opposed
The variance is denied.
53/55 Highridge Road – Appeal of Building Inspector
Sitting in: PD, AP, JS, DC and MCas
Attorney Blair is representing Mr. Jones. The Building Inspector decided not to issue permits on 2 of the building lots that Mr. Jones owned due to non-payment of money due to the town under the conditions of a special permit issued by the Planning Board. Attorney Blair felt that under section 40A the Building Permits could be issued as these 2 particular lots are mortgaged by the entire subdivision. The board also discussed the list of items that still needed to be completed per the Planning Board and DPW. The board agreed to allow Mr. Jones to work on the list of items that need to be completed, no construction work to be done and they will re-visit this situation in a few months to see what is accomplished. Attorney Blair and Mr. Jones requested a continuance to September 3, 2009 at 7:00 pm.
JS motioned to continue to September 3rd at 7:00 PM as long as the order is upheld.
MC seconded the motion.
All board in favor to continue.
Maple/High Streets – Extension Request of Special Permits
Sitting in: PD, AP, JS, DC and MCas
Attorney Antonellis requested an extension for the special permit that was issued May 5, 2008 for outdoor commercial recreation, light and glare and building height on the property of Maple/High streets, Map 37, Lot1. LIG, the applicant has been continually working with the Planning Board, Conservation Commission and MEPA. Attorney Antonellis stated they have been working diligently but all of the issues have taken longer then expected. The board members felt that LIG has made good efforts with all the boards in town.
AP motioned to close the hearing.
MC seconded.
All in favor to close the hearing.
AP motioned to grant the extension for one year as requested.
MCas seconded.
O opposed
5 in favor
Extension for one year is granted.
485-489 Hartford Avenue – Variance and Special Permit
Sitting in: PD, AP, JS, DC and MCas
Attorney Antonellis explained his applicants would like to put a single family home in back of their home for their son. They do require a back lot permit from the Planning Board and currently have an application pending. The applicant is requesting a variance as the existing lot with the duplex would have to be revised requiring 80,000 square feet and the new lot would need a variance for the lot shape factor. Attorney Antonellis explained that the new lot meets the criteria as to the soil conditions and the proximity to the Charles River. He felt that by allowing the variance the impact on the wetlands would be minimized. Board Members discussed that this may be the creation of a non-conforming lot and may be more of a disturbance to the wetlands but it could possibly be a financial hardship as replicating the wetlands
is costly. Attorney Antonellis felt without the variance there may be more harm to the wetlands and felt this was a more justifiable request. JS stated he would like to have an opinion from the Conservation Commission. MC stated they had to go to the Conservation Commission if the variance is granted. Attorney Antonellis felt they met the hardship criteria due to the soil conditions and that the variance could be granted without derogating from the intent of the bylaw and requested the board vote on the issue at this time due to time constraints of the applicant.
AP motioned to close the hearing.
DC seconded the motion.
All in favor to close the hearing.
MCas motioned to grant the variance as so requested.
AP seconded.
4 in favor
1 opposed
The variance is granted as requested.
Discussion
The board, Mr. Mayhew, selectmen and Ms. Davis, selectwoman discussed the formal procedure for the appointment of board members. Mr. Mayhew stated he felt the process should be open and candid but not allow personal opinions to get in the way. He stated that the ZBA is not the deciding factor that the BOS are. AP suggested that the ZBA and BOS try and work together and an All boards meeting for the fall was suggested. The board members agreed.
Meeting adjourned 9:30 PM.
Approved 9/3/09
| 
