Minutes of Meeting
August 2, 2012
In attendance: MC, JD, JS, AP, PD, BS and NF
(LR Absent)
7:00 PM
New – 60 Indian Run road – Special Permit
Sitting In: MC, JD, JS, AP, PD
The applicants, Richard and Helen Marcoux were in attendance to seek a special Permit for a family apartment. Richard explained that the proposed apartment will be for his sister as she was taking care of their father and he recently passed away. The proposed apartment would be constructed as a second story to the existing home. This would not change the footprint of the property. The applicant acknowledged he would have to expand the septic system. There are 4 parking spaces and only 2 are currently used. The applicants will continue to reside in the home. It was explained to the applicant that he must come back every 5 years for a renewal of this permit and it was not to be used as a 2 family home for rental in the future. It was advised the property had to be converted back to a
single family when not used for the original purpose. There was no audience input.
AP motion to close.
JD second.
AP motion to grant the request for a family apartment. Denise Costello, the applicants sister will be using the apartment.
PD second.
All in favor to grant.
In favor: MC, JD, PD, AP and BS
Continuation – North Street at Blackstone Street – Foresight Enterprises
Sitting In: MC, JD, PD, AP and BS
Attorney Robert Knapik represented the applicant, Foresight Enterprises. A revised plan was presented showing a relocation of the proposed home in a more southerly direction away from the direct abutter. Also showing the placement of the 2 leaching pits. The DPW agreed to permit drainage into the municipal system. This would not change the setback requirements. A request for a new curb cut would be requested. The applicant met with the direct neighbor regarding the revised plan and drainage as this neighbor had concerns about flooding in the past meeting. There were also prior concerns about street flooding and the board questioned if this new plan would aggravate the street flooding. Attorney Knapik stated the DPW would not have approved it otherwise. PD asked if there were any negatives
with regards to the new plan. Attorney Knapik stated it was more costly for his applicant. This parcel does border the residential zoning district and the shape is unique and therefore supports the hardship. There are other allowable uses but none that are practical enough in keeping within the characteristics of the neighborhood. Public housing is permissible however the shape and size of the lot is not conducive to public housing. PD stated he agreed that subparts A and C of the bylaw are met and requested explanation for how it satisfies subpart B. It was stated that the soil conditions meet this criteria, topography is not an issue and the lot is not oddly shaped. The size and the proximity to the zoning is the hardship. BS asked how the size and shape was not conducive to a possibility of public housing. Attorney Knapik stated the applicant would need to build a number of units to be cost effective where this lot could not accommodate the
number of units to make it cost effective. Public housing units are not in keeping within the neighborhood characteristic. There are also no municipal services in this area. JD asked why a 40B request was not feasible. Attorney Knapik stated that it is feasible but that building a single unit would not cover the costs to develop. Two or three units could possibly fit on this lot but this use does not fit within the characteristic of this neighborhood of single family homes. AP noted this situation is covered under case law as stated by applicant (Kirkwood Case). The shape, including size can work as a hardship. AP felt it did fit within the community. PD stated the board had the right to grant a variance if it benefited the street, neighborhood and town. He felt this fit in with the community and was a good use of the land. The audience was allowed to speak. Mary Chaves of 289 Blackstone Street asked if the
board spoke with Town Counsel about the previous petition and a possible 40B permit. PD stated he did leave a message with him but felt he personally didn’t need his input. PD stated prior decisions do not need to be weighed in on a new request but if the board and applicant agreed they could continue the hearing to have Town Counsel’s input. Mary Chaves read aloud a prepared statement. She is in objection as she felt that the applicant has not met the criteria for a variance under the bylaw. Attorney Knapick stated the applicant could not be judged on past hearings. He stated there are two direct abutters in favor of this new proposed plan that show drainage concerns. There is also no factual support to Ms. Chaves claim that the criteria has not been met. Abutter Mike Thurston, 295 Blackstone Street stated he supports this single family home as the lot is an eyesore. Abutter Joe Chappie, 292 Blackstone Street stated he met with
the applicants several times and also spoke to an engineer and this proposed plan is as good as anything and is in favor of a single family home also. Each abutter stated they prefer not to have affordable housing in their neighborhood on this lot. Continuing the hearing was discussed for Town Counsel input. Attorney Knupik stated there was a timing issue. JD stated he did see how this benefited the community but also could see how the criteria may not be met. Attorney Knupick stated the applicant chose the correct steps when he went for his foundation permit and did their best to explore information on the lot as when lots four and six were developed a variance was not required at that time so none would be on file in town records.
AP motion to close the hearing.
JD second.
All in favor to close the hearing.
AP motion to grant the variance as requested as submitted in the most recent plan dated 7/24/2012 as indicated by 102 south side yard.
JD second.
All in favor.
In favor:
MC, JD, AP, PD an BS
Opposed:
None
The variance request is granted and there is a 20-day appeal period from the date the decision is posted at the Town Clerks Office.
New – 201 Pulaski Blvd. – Hilltop Farms, Mr. Steve Gurwitz
Sitting in: MC, JD, AP, PD and JD
All fees paid.
The applicant is represented by Christopher Crook of CJC Construction and Attorney Howard Kroll. Attorney Kroll stated they are seeking a Special Permit (Section 2310) to allow for an extension of use to enclose and incorporate the existing recycling operations. This is an existing non-conforming use in a business zone. The building was broken into and set on fire. The building is too close to the boundary line and it was built before zoning changes. The request is to enclose the vending recycling machines. The cement blocks will be fire resistant, help soundproof the vending machines and eliminate sight of the recycling machines. There will be privacy fencing erected and also the applicant plans to spend $ 3,000.00 to plant trees. There are currently trailers on site, which will
be eliminated. This will move the current structure farther from the lot line from 2 to 4.5 feet. The selectmen do require a license for the recycling operation and the hours are reduced due to concerns of the neighbors. The proposed plan will be an overall improvement. AP felt this to be true. JD asked if there would be any increase in interior and the applicant stated there would not be. JD asked if they would show the complete outline of the old structure on the plan. The audience was asked if anyone wanted to speak. Mr. Jacques of 63 Trenton Street and Mr. Burns (for Natalie Mutaschio of 64 Trenton Street) both had concerns of trash from recycling customers that goes into their properties, an unsightly area and also noisy from the bottles and cans. Attorney Kroll stated the fencing would be four feet higher at the property lines and there would be 90 feet of chain link which would keep the trash from blowing. The
roofline over the machines would serve as a buffer for noise along with insulation throughout the building. Mr. Gurwitz purchased the abutting property in 2011 which will allow him to be able to increase the ability to keep both properties clean. He felt it is a total improvement overall.
AP motion to close.
JS second.
All in favor to close.
JS motion to grant this Special Permit as requested.
PD second.
JS amends motion to grant a Special Permit for an extension of current use to allow the proposed addition to be built (including fence structure) in place of the old wooden structure which was destroyed by fire less than 2 years ago.
PD seconds amendment.
All in for to grant this request.
In favor:
MC, JD, PD, AP and BS
Opposed:
None
Other Business:
Donna Johnson, alternate member has recently resigned. The board wished her well.
PD motion to delay approving of minutes.
JS second.
All in favor to wait to September meeting to approve minutes.
PD motion to adjourn.
MC second.
Meeting ending at 9:50 PM.
Approved 10/04/2012
| 
