 |
July 5, 2012
Minutes of Meeting
In attendance: MC, JD, AP, PD, BS, NF
LR
(DJ and JS absent)
7:00 PM
MC opened the hearing.
New – North and Blackstone Street – Foresight Inc.
Sitting In: MC, JD, AP, PD, BS
MC read the legal notice.
All fees paid.
Attorney Robert Knapick explained that there were prior proceedings before the board. This is a new application for a variance request for a single family home. It is a pre-existing non-conforming lot and is deficient in area. This is lot 5 which is the last of 7 lots where the other 6 are undersized. This is an agriculture zone abutting a residential zone. The minimum requirements are 80,000 square feet and this is about 45,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing a 1900 square foot dwelling. The size has decreased and it does meet the setbacks for this zone. The hardship is due to the unique shape. Jeff Gagnon, VP for Foresight Enterprises explained that in the spring of 2009 they got a foundation permit which allowed them to close on the loan. They then found out that it was zoned agricultural which brought them to their original zba hearing. MC asked if this was the only lot zoned agriculture. Attorney Knapick stated it was not and most of the lots are 40,000
square feet, none meeting the agriculture setbacks. AP sated they are all grandfathered in. BS questioned if there were any other uses for this lot. Mr. Gagnon sated there were but none made any sense. (Vegetable stand, farming, etc.) The past minutes were presented and reviewed by some of the board members. MC asked if there were any audience members that would like to speak. Many spoke in favor of issuing this permit as they felt this lot was an abandoned eyesore as there was a rusted truck with a tree growing out of it, an un-kept piece of property that wasn’t going to get any better unless a home was allowed on it. Some neighbors felt their own homes had less than ½ an acre with an 1800 square foot home so their proposal would fit within the neighborhood. One abutter from 292 Blackstone Street stated he felt this could be a worsening issue with flooding as his home currently has water problems. The runoff could
make it worse for him if a new home was built here. The applicant stated they could build a swale, maybe help his problem by directing water away. PD stated that the board would like to see it on a plan. Another abutter, Mary Chaves of 289 Blackstone Street, said when they were in court for their first appeal the judge advised them they could go back to the owner for a refund or apply for a 40B permit. She stated she felt there were other options that would help the town. Issuing this variance would have a negative effect as every 1 house built effects 10 others and the judge gave them their advice, they chose not to take it and that is why they were back here. PD stated that maybe they should speak with Town Counsel to get his opinion on the court case. Attorney Knupick stated that there is a tax benefit to the town. Another abutter at 75 North Street felt that the board should put the blame in the past and think about what’s best
use for the neighborhood, which is a single family home. BS stated he felt that all parties had good input but he was on the fence in regards to the hardship. He feels the burden of proof had not been met yet. He asked for more proof of the hardship. AP stated that the board must look at the whole picture and take each case on an individual basis as this lot was originally for a single family home. The board asked if the applicant could present an engineered plan showing a proposed water runoff, allow the board time to speak with town counsel and review the past minutes. The applicant requested a continuation to August 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM.
AP motion to allow to continue.
PD second.
All in favor to continue.
Meeting adjourned 8:15 PM
Approved 9/6/12
| |
