January 3, 2013
Minutes of Meeting
In attendance: JD, AP, JS, MarioC, BS, NF and MChaves
LR
PD absent
7:00 PM
JD opened the meeting.
53- 55 Hghridge Road – Appeal of Building Inspector Decision – Timothy Jones
53 – 55 Highridge Road – Variance Request for less than 10 lots in major residential development
Sitting In: MarioC, AP, JS, PD and BS
Timothy Jones was in attendance and stated his attorney Edward J. Quinlan, Esq. will be handling his hearings. JD stated at the last meeting the board wanted to know how the hardship criteria related to this particular property. Their Attorney stated that Mr. Jones should really be before the Planning Board. The Attorney felt this should be clarified with the PB first. The Attorney thought there should be a modification instead of a variance request. They said they didn’t have the ability to deal with it. The applicants’ attorney would like to request a continuance to March to be able to meet with the Planning Board.
AP motion to grant a continuance to March 7, 2013 at 7:00 PM.
JS second.
All in favor to continue to March.
JD stated we would be combining both hearings into one for 341 Pulaski Blvd.
Continuance – 341 Pulaski Blvd. – Ronald Lussier
Appeal of Building Permit
Continuance - Appeal of Class II License, fencing and town ordinance
Sitting IN: JD, AP, PD, JS and NF
JD read the letter from the PB (Dated December 18th) stating they felt that there is no Planning Board involvement in this case nor were there any safety concerns. Attorney Gayle Basler, representing Mr. Lussier stated she had been out of town had not seen this letter nor has she had a chance to speak with the PB informally yet. JD requested exactly what they were before the ZBA for as he felt that the Right of Way issues were not ZBA, the fence safety hazard would be the Safety Officer and Building Official and the Development Plan Review is the PB. Attorney Basler stated that the person in question must follow the zoning regulations and they are not: the fence and enforcement of that is an issue, the fence is within 10 feet of the side lot line and it is in wrong location. This is a non-conforming use made
more non-conforming with the fence. All those issues need to be addressed. There are parking space issues; there are safety issues as there is only one entrance/exit. MA Highway put the criteria in place and you cannot just eliminate an entrance or exit, that is unsafe and there could be liability issues for the town. Members from the ZBA stated they have been to the site or drive by their frequently and do not see any issues with safety. MC stated he could safely see on both sides. NF said she went in her van and thought the area was wide enough for 2 vehicles to go in and out. Mr. Lussier stated that the reason there was no site blockage was due to the fact there were no cars in the lot at this time but he was granted a 40 car license. Also the MA Highway Standard states the width of the entrance/exit must be 20’ wide and this one is only 18’ wide. Mr. Lussier felt that when there is a non-conforming property
with a non-conforming use and it is changed or altered then a special permit form the ZBA is needed (Section 2310). He would be making it more detrimental. JS stated that if they needed to go the PB to take care of those issues then they should continue the hearing to do that. The applicant requested a continuance to February 7, 2013.
AP motion to grant the continuance as requested.
JS second.
All in favor to continue to February 7, 2013 at 7:00 PM.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM.
Approved 2/7/2013
| 
