Minutes of Meeting
September 19, 2013
7:00 PM
In attendance: JD, AP, PD, JS, MarioC and BS
LR
MC absent
JD opened the hearing. The resignation for Nancy Fisk, alternate member was read.
Change Request - Taft Estates – 579 Pulaski Blvd.
Sitting In: JD, AP, PD, JS and BS
Tim Jones was in attendance to request a change in a condition of the decision that was issued for the 40B Comprehensive Permit at 579 Pulaski Blvd. He stated he misinterpreted #2 as meaning that building meant structures and not the infrastructures. He stated he discussed it with Jay Talerman, Town Counsel. He understood the complication on the wording. I am asking for relief to start the road infrastructure due to the winter coming, dust, pavement and the sales that won’t commit until I have roadwork in place. He stated he would like to have the current fall to get started. JD stated Mr. Jones is looking to strike # 2 and add the wording as submitted by TJ which had been reviewed by Town Counsel (see attachment) JS asked about final approval of the regulatory decision. TJ stated it’s in the
works, not completed fully yet. JS asked if any risk to the town to make the proposed change. JD stated he (JD) had asked Town Counsel via email if Counsel had any issues with the wording. Town Counsel reviewed the requested and replied back to JD that he had no issues with it. The board took into consideration the facts and felt it would agree to the change as requested.
JD motion to close.
JS second.
All in favor to close.
JD motion to approve the change request as stated.
PD second.
All in favor to approve the change request.
PD stated that our counsel needed to clarify if there would be a 20-day appeal period. LR to get it in writing after counsel is asked.
Continuation – 70, 80 – 90 Moody Street – Variance
Elliot Knight, applicant and Andy Bissanti, representative
Sitting In: JD, AP, JS, PD and MarioC
JD read letter from Conservation Commission (dated 8/26/13) and an email from Don Dimartino (dated 8/13/2013). Andy Bissanti, representing the applicant introduced Mr. Forte, botanist for the applicant. Mr. Forte explained the Rivers Bill, there were no limitations to use the resource area. The state allows usage of that land but the local bylaw eliminates using that as the buffer. We can use resource area as buffer. It was developed land. In January 2013 when we applied with the commission, Lot 1 was outside the 200 foot buffer zone but not outside the endangered species. We use the total area in concept but not physically. It can still be donated tot he town. PD confirmed you will use the overall space on this application but not disturb anything of the extra space being used on the
second lot. VF explained the computation used is using the upland area. VF stated this will improve lot 1. Mark Nyberg, Engineer stated there is excess of 72,000 outside of 100 and they have 41,000 of square feet of upland and require 31 to meet the 90 percent. JD stated their computation contradicts what Cliff Matthews of Conservation states in his letter. The engineer disagrees with that. He stated they physically located it. No one was in attendance from Conservation Commission. JS said they can build a single family home by right but they are before us to build a duplex. AB stated the variance is complex and he will go thru the criteria. Under section 1322 a) best use for the property, land cost and single family home is not economically feasible b) states that a duplex is a permitted use and it is of ample size but the upland increase made the lot short of square footage and there is a manmade retention pond, c) it
will be is keeping within the neighborhood, improve the site and area for town and neighbors. JD stated a 2 family may house 6 children which would be a large burden on school compared to a single family with 3 children; the tax revenue just doesn’t cover that. JS sated he felt it was a self imposed hardship due as the bylaws were in place at the time of the purchase. The buildings that were there were a grandfathered use and they no longer exist. The board felt that this is a very large variance request in terms of lot area requirement, that the lot is only approximately ½ the size required for a duplex. They need evidence to grant a variance. No public comments or questions. The prospective buyer, Elliot Knight, stated that the current owner bought it when the bylaw was not in effect and he would purchase it only if the variance was granted. The board questioned as to why he didn’t pursue a variance if the law came in to effect mid
ownership. AB stated maybe he could speak with the current owner. The board felt if the current owner purchased it pre-zoning the applicant would be a better possibility. JS stated with the facts before the board tonight he sees some hardship issues. JS stated no lot remains buildable in perpetuity. AB stated he would like to speak with the current owner. The owner requested a continuance.
MarioC motion to continue to November 7, 2013.
AP second.
All in favor to continue.
Continuation – 320 Pulaski Blvd. – Appeal
Pulbell Corporation
Sitting In: JD, AP, JS, PD and MarioC
Attorney Goodier, representing his client, Pulbell Corporation stated they submitted a memo and transcripts from the last hearing. The major issue they had was that 320 Pulaski Blvd. was that it does not meet the criteria of section 2530 because it is not a lot that was legally created as required. He also states it is not an allowed use in the B1 district, which is also required for relief of section 2530. We feel that there is insufficient evidence to support the Planning Board Decision. The integrity of the bylaws are being questioned and this is setting a precedence, major concerns as it is a severely undersized lot. Attorney Pierce, representative for Gibbs Oil of 320 Pulaski Blvd. stated that they are allowed to develop their property as proposed. They have submitted all documentation as to when
the lot was one property and then broken up but did not get the ANR approval at that time as it was 50 years ago. The lots were in excess of 20,000 square feet with 125 feet of frontage. The 81P regulates your ability to record a plan but does not regulate the ability to create a lot. He felt that it was a legally created lot and during the PB process all peer reviews were done and all necessary documents were presented to them. The ZBA members heard from both attorneys. They reviewed and considered all documentation presented to them. They (ZBA) felt that the appellant did not show sufficient evidence to reverse the PB’s decision that the lot was legally created under Section 2530, this decision did not create any public safety issues and the permitted use is an allowed use as stated under section 2530.
JD motion to close the hearing.
JS second.
All in favor to close the hearing.
JD motion to grant to overturn the decision of the Planning Board for the Development Plan Approval for Gibbs Oil Gas Station.
In Favor:
None
Opposed
JD, AP, JS, PD and MarioC
The decision will not be overturned; it stands as issued by the Planning Board.
Attorney Goodier asked for a roll call.
There is a 20 day appeal period.
New – 401 Pulaski Blvd. – Special Permit
Dr. Ally Cisse
JD read the legal notice. The fees have been paid.
Sittin In: JS, PD, AP, MarioD and JD
The applicant, Dr. Cisse explained he was applying for a Special Permit to be allowed to operate a Veterinarian Clinic. This is a commercial strip mall. It is a 2400 square foot space, care for small animals only during daytime hours with no boarding. He will have a medical waste disposal company come every night. This is an end unit and the outer walls would be where care would take place as to make the noise farthest from abutting tenant, which is a nail salon. He stated they would also be open to help care for neglect and abused animals in the area. They only do surgeries in the early morning hours, as most animals are able to go home at the end of the day as not to need any overnight stays. There are existing fire alarms and there is an online security system that whoever is on call can monitor 24
hours/7 days a week. The medications are locked at all times and only opened when medication is needed. The board was concerned if an emergency situation arose with an animal, what would be done. Dr. Cisse stated they stabilize and then send to an emergency animal center for care. If an animal was euthanized they are frozen and they have a service come weekly for pickup. The board was concerned of the size of the animals and the overnight stays. Dr. Cisse explained all patients would be small animals. They would need staff for overnights and that’s not in their plan, so they have no intentions of keeping animals overnight. The board requested an operations manual. Dr. Cisse agreed he would have one completed before opening and would supply one to the board for their records. Mr. Bissanti, broker for that building, stated there are no overnight dogs allowed stated in the lease already. No other public comments or questions.
AP motion to close.
JS second.
JD motion to grant the Special Permit (section 2400) to allow for Veterinarian Clinic at 401 Pulaski Blvd. with the condition there is no overnight stay, no dogs or animals greater then 25 lbs. and an operations manual would be presented to the ZBA prior to opening.
JS second.
All in favor to grant the Special Permit.
New – 70 Blackstone Street – Special Permit
Carin Cohen
JD read the legal ad and all fees have been paid.
Sitting In: AP, JS, PD, MarioC and BS
JD recused himself. AP will be chairing this hearing.
Carin Cohen (CC) was in attendance for a Special Permit request to be allowed to have dog’s overnight at her home. She has been in business as a pet sitter and trainer for 12 years. She explained 99 percent of the time she is away at the dog’s homes but on occasion she would like to be able to board them on the property of 70 Blackstone Street. They are asking for 15 maximum. She has over 1 acre on the property. She provided photos and letters of support. They have a plan in place as the waste will be used for compost as USDA standards and keep the number below 15, they would be there 24/7 with the animals as they live there and if for some reason they had to be elsewhere they do have 8 employees, they are only back up as this is their home and would only have an employee come if they had to be out.
The dogs are never outside unattended. They are dog trainers and keep all dogs under control. There is no excess barking or jumping. We don’t take uncontrollable dogs. We do drop offs and pickups at the dogs homes so there would be the same amount of traffic as in a normal household. Traffic would not be an issue. The yard is fenced in, shaded areas. There is one neighbor, Elizabeth Weston, 74 Blackstone Street who spoke in favor of issuing the permit as she stated it is very quiet now and she doesn’t hear any of the dogs. CC stated the dogs would stay with us as pets. JS read the kennel description as stated in bylaws. AP questioned where they would house them. CC stated the home is 1100 square feet and the basement would be finished. They take only spade and neutered animals. There were clients of the applicants in attendance who spoke in favor of the permit. The board asked LR about the legal ad stating section 2400 - to allow dog sitting and training on the
property where the application states section 2400 – animal kennel request. LR would check with Town Counsel to see if re-posting was necessary. JS stated he would like to view the property. PD stated he would like to have the Animal Control in attendance to get their opinion. LR will ask if they can attend at the next meeting. CC invited any Board Member stop over for a site visit. CC left a binder of an operations manual from their business for the board to review. CC requested a continuance to October 3, 2013.
JS motion to allow continuance as requested.
MC second.
All in favor to continue.
New – 170 Pulaski Blvd. – Special Permit
Mr. Siddique
JD read the legal notice. The fees have been paid.
Sitting In: JD, AP, JS, PD, MarioC
Attorney Joe Antonellis explained he was here to represent the client, Mr. Siddique. His client would like to have a small convenience store with tobacco products at this establishment, no smoking room. It is currently zoned business. There was a tax business prior. It is a low traffic type business, limited hours and he does not feel his client even needs this special permit as it was and is currently a business use. JD stated it is B1 area and retail use is permitted. He doesn’t feel there is a need for the applicant to have a special permit. John Murray, owner and abutter of Pool Pro was in attendance and stated he felt this was an unnecessary waste of money and time as it is allowed in this area. After reviewing the bylaw and the applicants’ information the board felt it was not necessary for
the client to seek this Special Permit as it is an allowed use. Attorney Antonellis asked to withdraw without prejudice.
JD motion to allow the withdrawal.
AP second.
All in favor.
The board asked LR to write a letter stating this outcome so the applicant could begin to open his business. LR agreed to do so.
New – Brisson Street 0087/31A – variance
Thomas and Susan Ginand
JD read the legal ad, fees are paid.
Sitting IN: JS, PD, AP MC and JD
JD began by reading a letter from Don Dimartino (DD), dated August 30, 2013. Thomas Ginand (TG) stated they own 5.3 acres and presented an engineered plan. They would like to put a single family home. The frontage is on a paper road. All environmental guidelines are met. There is no negative impact but there would be an improvement as stated in DD letter for the snow plows to turn around. There are also concrete barriers close to the driveway on 110 Brisson Street. TG engineer stated there is 197 feet of frontage on Brisson Street and they need 150 feet. The board questioned as to why they needed the variance. TG stated there is an easement, dates back to 1949, this was deeded to my wife (showing on plan), and he (Mr. Tessier) put a barrier which is on his property, and we are asking to put a
driveway here. We need access, this would be our frontage. It is a proposed road in the deed so we have an easement to allow us to get into our home. We need the variance to call this our frontage. There is no other way into this property. Attorney Lee Ambler (LA) was in attendance for Mr. Tessier, abutter at 101 Brisson Street and state this variance should not be granted as it would be on someone else’s property, there is no frontage except on Roberts Road. This could make his property a public way and it is not. The ROW has been abandoned in 1967. MC asked who owned Brisson Street. LA stated the town to a certain point but it is not an accepted public road. PD asked why the concrete barriers. The Ginand’s asked the abutter to remove the barriers for access to their property and he refused. TG stated it is on his (Tessier) property and on my easement. Mr. Tessier, abutter at 101 Brisson stated he had a fence for a pool but the
Building Inspector told him was illegal, he took down, put up a new one of chain link on his property, was accidentally driven into and he then put the concrete barriers in front of it. TG stated he has been paying taxes for this property and presented the recording (couldn’t locate at first) stating he has the rights to this property. LA disagreed with it as he felt it was abandoned. JD questioned if the easement can be used as frontage. He asked LR to get clarification from Town Counsel. JS asked if they have the rights to the easement and can it be counted as frontage. JD would like to seek counsels’ opinion; does an easement count towards frontage and we need a definitive answer if this easement has been abandoned or not. LA stated the applicant and abutter should try and have some civilized conversations with their attorneys and maybe come to some agreement. AB stated they would like a continuation to the meeting in November to
gather more information.
JD motion to allow a continuation to November 7, 2013 at 7:00 PM.
AP second.
All in favor to allow a continuation.
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 PM.
Approved 10/3/2013
| 
