Zoning Board of Appeals
July 2, 2015
Minutes of Meeting
In attendance: JS, BS, AP, JD, BW, and JF
LR
7:00
JS opened the hearing and welcomed Joseph Flanagan, new alternate member to the board. Attorney Paul Haverty was in attendance as representation since Attorney Talerman was out of town.
Continuance – 57B Mendon Street – Jay Edward Sturm-Hiawatha Properties
Appeal of enforcement by an administrative officer
Sitting In: JS, BS, AP, JS, BW
Attorney Ambler and his client, Mr. Sturm were in attendance. JS stated that there was a site visit done by Town Counsel, Jay Talerman and Stuart LeClaire, Building Commissioner. JS read the letter dated 6/22/15 with their findings. Attorney Ambler wanted it noted that he never consented to Town Counsel going on a site visit. Attorney Ambler said at the last meeting it was discussed that only Stuart LeClaire was meant to go on the site visit and that he spoke with Mr. LeClaire face to face after that site visit in which Mr. LeClaire stated he did not agree with the findings. Attorney Haverty stated that Mr. Leclaire was cc’d in the distribution of the letter of 6/22/15. He received a copy and if he didn’t agree then he shouldn’t have the letter sent out. The
board or Town Counsel heard nothing about Mr. LeClaire reputing the letter. Attorney Ambler stated he called Mr. LeClaire 6 times with no return call. He (Mr. LeClaire) found no violations when he was there. JS stated he was satisfied with the way the letter read and found it to be confusing that he (Mr. Leclaire) was on the site visit with Attorney Talerman and agreed to the findings in the letter but then told Attorney Ambler he found no violations. At the last meeting this site visit was planned so all parties could move forward and have better communication. The board suggested they continue the hearing so that Mr. LeClaire could attend to explain for himself. Attorney Ambler stated he would not agree to continue as he wanted to move forward with the 3 issues that were supposed to be solved. (Hand out of letter dated 7/1/15 & read by Attorney Ambler.) JD questioned the use: education vs non-education? Attorney Ambler replied
that his client went to the state, filled out necessary paperwork but the state said they are not a school. Mr. Sturm, the applicant stated he himself had a conversation with Mr. LeClaire and he indicated to him there were no violations found. JS stated more information was needed from Mr. LeClaire but the applicant is choosing not to continue to allow that. Attorney Ambler stated he felt nothing justified the cease and desist. AP questioned the trucks and repairs. Attorney Ambler responded that the bylaw says 2 or 3 light commercial or 1 heavy commercial vehicle. BS stated he has been looking at the Cranes 101 website and the calendar does show classes and licenses that are offered and he agrees with Attorney Talerman’s findings. He (BS) felt there were at least 3 uses there but questioned how they would fall under accessory uses? Attorney Ambler stated due to the fact they are all related to bucket trucks, sale of motor vehicles
and a repair shop. They all accessorize each other. Mr. Sturm stated they work in utility vehicles, repair bucket trucks, train to operation and inspect them. The seminars are all part and parcel. It’s all the same customers. They may even bring their own bucket truck to train on. The board discussed in detail the findings of Attorney Talerman/Stuart LeClaire’s site visit. They agreed with the findings of three principal uses, where only two are allowed. The predominant and principal use is a non-exempt educational business, requiring a special permit under Section 240-31. Attorney Ambler asked if the board would be inclined to consider Mr. LeClaire’s non-violations that were spoken about between the two of them. JS stated that the board would allow Mr. LeClaire to come into the next meeting if the applicant agreed to a continuation but as previously stated they did not want a continuation, therefore the board would
be considering the letter explaining the site visit. Attorney Haverty advised the board they have evidence and the power to act upon that. There are 4 potential uses on this site. Are they accessory uses or not? If it is determined they are not then a decision can be made tonight. AP felt there was a bit of ambiguity and the client should be able to run his business until the issues are rectified. The board agreed to go forward and make a decision on the original cease and desist items; if there is a rooming house, is cranes 101 an educational use and if so, a Special Permit is needed, is there a used car lot, is Flat Out Motor Sports a separate business? Attorney Flaherty explained that if the board does not make a decision then the cease and desist stands. In order to rescind the desist order then a determination has to be made.
AP motion to close.
JD second.
All in favor to close.
Discussion:
JD felt that 3 of the 4 aspects there was not enough evidence. The school and the non-exempt educational use is the question. BS agreed. JD is concerned about safety inspections. AP suggested they rescind all other issues and then have the inspector can go back. He agreed they should make a determination on the school vs. a seminar issue. BS stated that a nonprofit education corporation needs a special permit.
JD motion to vote on the items of the cease and desist:
There is insufficient evidence of a rooming house.
There is no evidence of the operation of the business Flat Out Motor Sports
There is no evidence of a used car business in operation.
There is evidence of a residential use and also a business, Cranes 101 (a non-exempt educational use). That constitutes the 2 allowed uses.
The application for the Special Permit must be filed within 60 days of the decision date. A stay will be granted for 60 days. If the 60 days go by and no application is filed the stay is over.
AP second.
All board in favor.
Minutes
June 4, 2015
AP motion to accept as amended.
JD second.
All in favor to accept as amended.
June 4, 2015 – executive session
AP motion to accept as amended.
JD second.
All in favor to accept as amended.
9:00 Executive Session
9:20 Executive Session Ended
Meeting Adjourned 9:30 PM
Approved 8/6/2015
| 
