July 7, 2016
Minutes of Meeting
Present at Meeting
Brian Salisbury, Chairman
Brian Wright, Vice Chairman
Arturo Paturzo, Member
James Dunlea, Member
Peter Gabrielle, Member
Joseph Flanagan, Alternate Member
(James Jeskche Absent)
Other Attendees:
James S. Kupfer (JK) – Town Planner & Zoning Compliance Officer
Laura Renaud (LR) – Zoning Clerk
Tim Aicardi (TA) - Building Commissioner
7:00 PM
BS opened the hearing.
New – 19 Pelletier Drive – Rita Forrester
Special Permit for Family Apartment
Sitting In: BS, BW, AP, JD and PG
JK explained that the applicant was in attendance because it was brought to the towns’ attention that she has an illegal apartment at her residence, which is a single family home. JK and TA did an inspection and advised her to come in and apply for a Speical Permit for a Family Apartment. Rita Pelletier, owner and applicant explained that her parents owned the property and it was left to her brother and herself. She stated she resides there about 4 days a week but the majority of time she stays with her boyfriend. Her brother lives in the main residence and her sister and her boys live in the basement. She stays with the sister when she is there. There is a separate entrance into the basement. TA explained there are 2 levels: the main level and the finished lower level. There are 2 meters. It is not a legal 2 family so she can keep the Family Apartment if she meets the criteria. If she does not get this permit she will have to cease and desist of the lower level. Rita
stated there were Building Permits were taken out to do all the work and they thought it was okay. Michael Catalano, BOH Agent explained they do have septic system troubles. They are currently under the towns Betterment Loan Program which is a program to fix failing septic systems. They are having it pumped every few days and will do so until it is fixed. The new septic system is designed for 5 bedrooms. It will take about 6 more weeks due to the filing that needs to be done with the Conservation Commission. Rita explained there is plenty of parking, approximately 15 cars could fit. Her hardship is that her brother is unemployed and can’t pay anything. She is carrying the mortgage. She stated she is trying to fix it up to sell as she is struggling to afford it herself. Her sister and nephews are downstairs and she helps them out also. JK explained if she sold the property then the new owners would have to re-apply all
over again as the Special Permit doesn’t carry over. The board was confused as to whether or not this was her legal residence as her statements varied. One part of the criteria is the owner must live at the residence the family apartment is at. There were many abutters in attendance. They were concerned about the number of people living there and also the revolving door of people. They (abutters) claimed many more people lived there than she was stating and that she did not even live there as she stated. JD explained one part of the criteria is that it must be owner occupied. Rita then stated her brother was also a legal owner. The board explained to the abutters that by possibly issuing a Special Permit they could monitor who actually lives there since the names go in the decision. If the Special Permit is not granted they would have to remove the kitchen, but no one would be nor can they monitor every person living or visiting there. MC explained with a 5 bedroom septic
plan, you can have 2 people per bedroom (per code) but typically the BOH does not ask people to move out. After much discussion among the applicant, board members and abutters the hearing closed.
BS motion to close.
JD second.
All board members in favor to close the hearing.
Discussion: The board discussed that it appeared Rita was not living there but she was listed on the application. Her sister and brother do live there, so it could be considered owner occupied. Rita stated she was selling anyway. She decided to withdraw without prejudice.
The board allowed the applicant to withdraw without prejudice.
Renewal – 91 Muron Avenue – Sandra Larson
Special Permit for Family Apartment
Sitting In: BS, BW, AP, JD and PG
The applicant was in attendance to renew her Family Apartment permit. TA stated he did do an inspection. All is the same expect that Sandra Larson, her husband and 2 children live in the main home and her father, Robert Larson lives in the apartment.
AP motion to close.
PG second.
All in favor to close.
AP motion to grant the Special Permit for the renewal of the Family Apartment.
BS second.
All in favor to grant.
There is a 20 day appeal period. The decision must be taken to the Registry of Deeds.
Renewal – 32 Irene Court – Peter Fortini
Special Permit for Family Apartment
Sitting In: BS, BW, AP, JD and PG
The owner was in attendance to renew the Special Permit for a Family Apartment. TA went out and did an inspection. Mr. Fortini stated there were no changes. His mother, Ethel Fortini still occupies the apartment. There are the same hardships.
AP motion to close the hearing.
BW second.
All in favor to close the hearing.
AP motion to grant the Special Permit for the renewal of the Family Apartment.
JF second.
There is a 20 day appeal period. The decision must be taken to the Registry of Deeds.
New – 10 Cross Street – Joshua Harris
Variance to convert single- family home to a two-family home
Sitting In: BS, BW, AP, JD and PG
Joshua Harris (JH), the applicant and his attorney were in attendance. They explained that when he bought this property it had 3 units: upper and lower living areas and a separate 3 bay garage. . It has been assessed as a 2 family since 2013. It is 1.57 acres. There are separate entrances and parking. JK explained there were complaints which started this process. JH came in to speak with JK told him to keep the current use a variance would be required. Attorney Teehan stated the structure was built in 1953. All permits were pulled when he (JH) gutted the apartments.JD suggested they discuss the criteria for a variance. What is the hardship? Attorney Teehan explained the applicant relies on the income from the rentals as his wife stays home with 2 young children. He also had to move his
business as this property wasn’t zoned commercial. Those would be hardships. He would also displace 2 families if he couldn't keep as a 2 family property. Attorney Teehan stated he was unsure of the interpreation of number 2 in the bylaw and asked for an explanation. The board stated that they cannot decipher the bylaw for him and if he chose to he could continue to do more research within the town bylaws. Attorney Teehan and his applicant asked for a continuance.
AP motion to allow for a continuance to August 4th at 7:00 PM.
BW second.
All in favor to allow the continuance as requested.
New – 105-107 Lake Street – James & Theresa Gaudet
Special Permit to allow multi-family housing.
Sitting In: BS, BW, AP, JD and PG
BS opened the hearing. JK explained the applicant came to him for advisement as he was looking to sell this property and in the process the bank found some problems. JK thought there might be a use issue where a special permit under 240-31, footnote 10 may be applicable. Attorney Ryan explained there are 4 units in 2 structures on a single parcel. Four of them are pre-existing and one is not. There is a 3 family house and a single family ranch style house. They are on one lot. The two houses were originally part of a total of 4 houses located on one larger lot consisting of 46,182 square feet. The previous owner went to the Planning Board in 2004 and divided the original lot into 3 smaller lots. The Gaudet’s purchase the lot in 2007.The three-family home was built in1935
and the single family built in 1967, a ranch style. This is a residential area. Attorney Ryan felt that this use does not have any adverse effect on the neighborhood or town. The community needs would be met by providing housing; traffic flow would not increase as it has been in existence for many years. There is no change to the utilities and their own septic systems did pass Title V. The neighborhood character and qualities of the natural environment will be unaffected if this is granted. The potential impact will continue to be in a positive manner. The Building Commissioner did do an inspection of the property. The board considered what the Town Planner, Building Commissioner and the applicants attorney had to say, reviewed the materials submitted and closed the hearing.
AP motion to close the hearing.
BS second.
All in favor to close the hearing.
AP motion to grant a Special Permit to continue to use the 4 existing units in 2 structures on a single parcel in accordance with the application and materials submitted.
BW second.
All in favor to grant as requested.
Continuance – 21 Governor Avenue – Twin River Realty –Alfred DaPrato
Appeal of Decision of Administrative Officer
Sitting In: BS, BW, AP, JD and PG
JK explained last time the applicant and his attorney were in attendance they asked for some type of evidence (invoice of repairs, utility bills, water usage reports) and as of the meeting the board had not received any new information. Attorney Ambler disputed that James Kupfer was not in the official capacity as Assistant Building Inspector at that time and felt he could not enforce this issue. JK presented a copy of his paperwork as to when he was sworn in, dated 10/11/2015. Attorney Ambler stated that despite that the bylaw read differenlty (didn’t say assistant, agent, etc.) but just Building Inspector. He stated they did bring in affadavitts from neighbors and the previous owner. The board felt they were not notarized but just written statements and they requested something more.
Attorney Ambler did then present a repair order dated 2/27/2014 and an affadavitt from him that he did have auto repairs done at these premises. Attorney Ambler felt that abutters were notified 2 times and not one person was in attendance nor was there one complaint in over fifty years. He felt that should speak some merit in this case. Town Counsel stated the issue was abandonment vs use and they were 2 separate issues. Was there a 2 year or more time frame that this was a discontinued use? Abandonement can happen at anytime. JF questioned how there was zero water usage for an entire year. Attorney Ambler stated that could be as they never had the need for water/bathroom usage. The board viewed the invoice that was presented. JD stated they did ask for any repair as evidence. They had hoped for something more than just one work order. The board members agreed with JD. The board discussed hours of operation (
8:00 to 8:00 Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 5:00 Saturdays and no outside repairs. BS stated this may conflict with other evidence and would request they return for a Special Permit to add conditions ( # of vehicles, time of operations, etc.). He felt that they should take away the cease and desist order and have them return for a Special Permit. Town Counsel stated that a change of use does require a Special Permit. The use will be confirmed as allowed. PG stated this would give the client protection also. JD questioned the signage stipulations. They would follow the sign bylaw regulations.
AP motion to close the hearing.
BW second.
All in favor to close.
AP motion to overturn the existing cease and desist order and allow a 90 day grace period to allow the applicant to apply for a Special Permit subject to the agreed upon stipulations.
BW second.
All Board in favor.
Minutes – June 2, 2016
AP motion to accept as amended.
JD second.
All in favor to accept the minutes.
General Business
JK stated he would have the draft of the bylaw changes for the August meeting for the board to review.
Meeting adjourned 9:30 PM
Approved 8/4/2016
| 
