October 6, 2011
Minutes of Meeting
In attendance: MC, JD, JS, AP, PD, SF, DJ, BS
LR
7:00 PM
MC opened the meeting.
Renewal – 4 Charlotte Road
Sitting In: MC, JD, JS, AP, PD
Mr. and Mrs. Pearson were in attendance to seek a renewal for their family apartment which was issued in 2006. They stated everything has stayed exactly the same except their mother was now in a nursing home. The family apartment was originally for her but now their daughter, Kayla Pearson would be moving in. They stated they understood they would need to bring the paperwork to the registry of deeds and also they would need to return in another 5 years. Mr. and Mrs. Pearson would continue to occupy the main home and their daughter would occupy the apartment.
JD motion to approve the renewal as requested.
AP second.
All in favor to accept the special permit for renewal of the family apartment.
Continuation: 53/55 Highridge Road – Timothy Jones
Appeal of Building Inspector Decision
Sitting in: PD, AP, JS, and MCas and SF
Mr. Jones was in attendance. He presented the subdivision plan showing the 5 lots. He stated that Attorney Talerman, Town Counsel, Denis Fraine, Town Administrator and Don Dimartino, DPW Director were all aware of the project at this point. The next step would be to submit the proposed plan to the Planning Board. The board asked how long the process may take with the PB. Mr. Jones stated he could not put a time frame on it. The board requested that Mr. Jones check in with Town Counsel to keep him updated on the progress. AP asked LR to request updates from Stuart LeClaire, Building Commissioner and Attorney Talerman, Town Counsel. Mr. Jones requested a continuation.
PD motion to allow continuation to November 3, 2001 with communication from Attorney Talerman.
AP second.
All in favor to allow the continuation to November 3, 2011.
Continuation: 240 Maple Street – J. Day Enterprises
Special Permit for free standing sign with electronic message center
Sitting In: MC, AP, DJ, SF and PD
MC opened the hearing. There were two letters presented from abutters at 44 Ray Avenue opposing the signage. After reviewing the proposal the board determined they had no jurisdiction to issue sign permits and the applicant must keep within the bylaw. If he does not, then it is not allowed. Mr. French, owner of Recreational Trust and Land at 240 Maple Street stated the applicants proposed plan showed the signage going on his property. The applicant agreed to move it back some. JS Stated the board cannot grant a special permit for a sign, if the applicant erects the sign and it doesn’t flash or animate then it is allowed, after obtaining a building permit. The applicant asked for a withdrawal without prejudice.
PD motion to allow the applicant to withdraw his application.
JS second.
All in favor to allow the applicant to withdraw his application without prejudice.
New: 3 Roberta Lane – Nancy Fraser
Special Permit – Family Apartment
Sitting In: MC, JD, AP, JS, PD
Nancy Fraser stated she is seeking a special permit for a family apartment. She presented a plot plan showing the proposed addition. She stated she has owned the property for 48 years, she will move into the addition and her daughter, Holly Fraser, will occupy the existing home. Mrs. Fraser stated she is getting older and needs help with the property, which is why her daughter will be moving there. The addition meets the setbacks for a residential zone, not requiring a variance. The BOH was contacted and there is no change to the septic system. Mrs. Fraser stated she will be keeping the addition within the same character of the current home and neighborhood. She also stated she understood she would have to register the decision at the Registry of Deeds and that she would have to
renew the permit with the ZBA in 5 years.
AP motion to grant the Special Permit as requested.
PD seconded.
All in favor to grant the Special Permit for a family apartment.
New: 327 Lake Street – John & Eileen Tuttle
Variance to erect a garage
Sitting In: MC, JD, AP, JS, PD
John and Eileen Tuttle were in attendance and presented a proposed plot plan showing where they would like the garage to go. Mr. Tuttle explained that this would be a metal garage to store his boats in the winter. It will sit on a slab foundation. Their lot is 29,982 square feet, containing a single family ranch style home in an agricultural zone. The requirement for a side yard setback in this zone is 15’. There is currently 9’3”on the side yard. They are in need of a 6 foot variance. Mr. Tuttle stated he could not erect this structure anywhere else on the property and that is why he was seeking this variance. On the opposite side of the home there is a large amount of ledge with wires up above. The back lot, which is owned by the applicants, is not a contiguous lot,
therefore not allowing any structure be erected. The applicants stated there is currently a driveway on the north side, which would be the most appropriate place for the structure. They provided structural plans of the garage and planned on making it ascetically pleasing to the neighborhood. The board discussed if this request would derogate from the bylaw, and if the applicant did meet the hardships required in the bylaw. Some Board Members felt the structure could be put elsewhere on the property and that the applicant did not have a hardship. These members felt the applicants knew the requirements when the property was purchased. Other board members stated that they felt the applicant did prove a hardship due to the soil conditions (ledge) and the possible danger of the overhead wires. The driveway already existed and it would be the most appropriate spot for the proposed garage. After hearing from all board members the hearing was closed.
AP made a motion to grant the variance as requested.
PD second.
Voting in Favor:
MC, AP and PD
Voting in Opposition:
JS, JD
The variance request is denied. The board explained the 20 day appeal period.
New – 12 Cranberry Meadow Road – Carrie Barrett
Variance to attach addition to the existing dwelling
Sitting In: MC, JD, AP, JS and PD
Carrie Barrett was in attendance to present her request for a variance. She stated she would like to add an addition of 25’ x 33’ to the existing dwelling. She presented a proposed certified plot plan. The existing kennel and home were established in 1958. She has owned for 25 years. The proposed area would be used for a play area only. There will be no increase in creatures. The applicant felt that this proposed addition would not change the current use but enhance the noise control, safety and appearance of the property. After hearing her proposal, the board questioned as to why she was even before the board as they felt it was a pre-existing non-conforming situation. They discussed and agreed she was not making it more non-conforming. She appeared to have met
all the setback requirements for this zone. They did question a possible misprint on the plot plan and suggested she go back to her engineer to have that fixed but felt once she took care of that then she could apply for a building permit. The board wanted to get input from Town Counsel. The applicant asked for a continuance.
AP motion to allow for a continuance to November 3, 2011.
PD second.
All in favor to continue.
New – 323 Lakeshore Drive – John and Kelley Csizmesia
Variance to construct an addition
Sitting In: MC, JD, AP, JS and PD
The applicant, Jon Csizmesai and his attorney, Paul Kenney were in attendance. Attorney Kenney stated that his client currently has a single family home with a shed in a suburban zone. They are seeking a side yard setback variance of 8 feet in order to construct the proposed addition. A site plan was presented. The lot is 61,611 square feet, containing mostly wetlands which affect the soil conditions. The only portion of the lot not within the wetland area is located in the southwest corner of the lot. The proposed addition encroaches on the 15’ side yard setback. There is limited area to build upon due to the vast area of wetlands on the property. The applicant has been working with the Conservation Commission and has been issued an order of conditions. The applicant stated that
they are adding one bedroom and one bathroom. He stated due to the conservation issue it is already a lot smaller than he originally wanted. There was land lost to conservation issues. Attorney Kenney felt they met the hardship requirements related directly to soil conditions, there was no detriment to the public good, the direct abutter that would be affected by the addition is a restaurant which is owned by the applicant’s family nor would they be derogating from the intent of the bylaw by this project. Mr. Standly from the conservation commission was in attendance to answer questions from the board. He stated there were no conservation concerns with this project at this time. There was one delineation made. The board listened to the stated hardships, considered the conservation issues, the neighborhood and proposed addition size and shape.
AP motion to close the hearing.
PD second.
All in favor to close.
PD motion to grant a variance of 8 feet to allow the proposed addition.
AP second.
All in favor to grant the variance. (5 – 0)
(MC, JD, AP, JS and PD)
The 20 day appeal period was explained.
Meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM
Approved 11/3/2011
| 
