November 3, 2016
Minutes of Meeting
Present at Meeting
Brian Salisbury, Chairman
Brian Wright, Vice Chairman
Arturo Paturzo, Member
James Dunlea - Member
Peter Gabrielle, Member
James Jeskche, Alternate Member
Joseph Flanagan, Alternate Member
Other Attendees:
James S. Kupfer (JK) – Town Planner & Zoning Compliance Officer
Laura Renaud (LR) – Zoning Clerk
Timothy Aicardi (TA) – Building Commissioner
7:00 PM
BS opened the meeting.
Continuance – 121 Plymouth Road – Stacey & Jeff Mancuso
Variance for porch
Sitting In: BS, AP, JD, PG and JJ
The applicant sent a withdrawal request by email.
AP motion to accept.
PG second.
All in favor to allow applicant to withdraw without prejudice.
New – Lot 2 Brisson Street – Mr. & Mrs. Ginand
Variance for frontage for a single family dwelling
Sitting In: BS, BW, AP, JD and PG
Attorney Antonellis passed out plans of the property. He stated it had been recorded at the Registry of Deeds. Antonellis stated that the owner does have rights to passage along the private way to the property in question. The property is located at the end of Brisson Street. It is a private way used by several homeowners. The paved area stops just before the lot frontage meets the private way. He explained that there is no turn around where the pavement stops. Antonellis asked Don DiMartino, DPW Director for advisement. Antonellis stated that the lack of a paved roadway can be fixed as the owner has the rights to improve the private way to provide safe access to the proposed residence. DPW does not have an area to turn around for plowing and has requested one if any improvements
are to be made. He stated the hardship is that the unique circumstance affecting this lot creates a financial hardship. It is directly related to the fact that the private way does not extend to the property. If this is granted it would not derogate from the bylaw as the land, other then the unique frontage issue, meets all the area, setback and lot shape factor requirements. There would be no detriment to the public good, as it would provide a turn around for the town to maintain snow removal but also for the emergency vehicles. This is a deeded right. The road was accepted up to 101 Brisson Street. There is 197 feet of frontage on Brisson Street and they have the lot shape factor. The applicant stated without the variance this lot would be useless. The board questioned if the issues with the abutter Mr. Tessier had been resolved. Attorney Antonellis stated they had come to an agreement. He had the agreement in
hand. Attorney Ambler was present and stated all parties signed voluntarily. This would also benefit Mr. Tessier with the turn around. JK asked the applicant to comment on the other roadways to the proposed property. Mr. Ginand explained that Robert Street and Liberty Street were conservation areas and no driveway could be put there. Attorney Antonellis explained the proposed property has been perked. A single- family residence can be built. The Board stated they would require that this parcel not be subdivided. The applicant acknowledged by stating he understood this. JD felt the lot was created prior to subdivision laws and this would be the best choice and less impact to the town. One abutter was in attendance to hear the proposal. Tim Aicardi, Building Commissioner was in attendance. The board reviewed all the presented materials and heard from all parties.
AP motion to close the hearing.
PG second.
All in favor to close the hearing.
BS motion to grant the variance as requested, subject to DPW approval of the turnaround, the agreed upon terms between the applicant and the owner of 101 Brisson Street shall be recorded with the Registry of Deeds and the reduction of frontage will be shown on the plan.
AP second.
All in favor to grant the variance as requested.
New – 21 Governor Avenue – Twin River Realty Trust, Mr. DaPrato
Special Permit –alteration of a pre-existing non-conforming use
Sitting In: BS, BW, AP, JD and PG
JK explained that the last time the applicant was before the board they had been issued a cease and desist. The board overturned that but required the applicant to seek a special permit for an alteration of a preexisting nonconforming use. The Board provided a 90-day grace period for the applicant to return for a Special Permit. The applicant is in attendance for a Special Permit for the alteration of a preexisting non-conforming use as an auto repair business at this property. Attorney Ambler explained the history of this property and under Section 240-30A allows an alteration as long as the same use does not have negative affects on the neighborhood. He stated it is the same business. The applicant request would be hours 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 PM on
Saturdays and they would be closed on Sundays. Parking: 18 are available but they only need 9, the repairs that would be done outside could be limited to 30 minutes for minimal repairs such as the changing of wiper blades. Most repairs are done inside. JD questioned the signage. Attorney Ambler stated that would comply with the current zoning regulations and there would not be any illuminations. There would be no auto sales. BW asked what kind of vehicles would be repaired on site. Attorney Ambler stated automobiles and trucks but all inside other than the 30 minutes requested. The board asked about the size and types of trucks; cranes, 10 wheelers, etc. The board and applicant discussed that there would be no vehicles over 25,000 GPW. There will be no pneumatic tools used outside and all fuel and oil storage will be stored inside. The board questioned long term storage of vehicles. The applicant stated that is
not economically feasible for them. They want their repairs done quickly and vehicles moved out. The board questioned if there would be unregistered vehicles allowed and if so how many. JK stated that unregistered vehicles pertain to a person and not a business. TA stated there have not been any complaints within the 90-day grace period. One abutter who lives directly across from the property and has been there 61 years stated he has never had a complaint about the business there.
AP motion to close.
PG second.
All in favor to close the hearing.
BS motion to grant the Special Permit with the conditions agreed upon.
AP second.
All in favor to grant the Special Permit with conditions.
New – 22 Bellstone Drive – John and Lillian Kauker
Amend a variance – 2 detached dwellings on one lot
Sitting In: BS, BW, AP, JD and PG
The applicants, John and Lillian Kauker were in attendance. JK explained they were in attendance as there are currently 2 detached single family homes on the property and a variance granted in 1998 that provides for an inlaw apartment. The applicant would like to rent one out. There has been some confusion. In 1998 a variance was granted for a garage with an in-law. The Town does not have in-law apartments but either family apartments or multifamily dwellings. A family apartment is granted by special permit. The decision also does not state what bylaw they are referring to and the Town only has partial minutes. The applicant would like to amend the current variance to allow for both units on one parcel. One as their primary residence and the other to be rented. The applicant passed out photos
of the property. He explained that when they applied for the permit to build the 2nd dwelling it was for his mother-in-law so they could help her out as she got older. She passed away in 2009. At that time their daughter and family lived in the dwelling. They moved out and at this time they received a call from the Building Commissioner that they could not rent out this property, as they were trying to do. There is a covenant in place for all of Bellstone Drive but they are not included in that covenant. It is a single family house with separate utilities from the primary home. It has its own address. The Kaukers stated original plans were submitted and building permits were obtained. The board reviewed the past minutes and decision from 1998. BW asked for an explanation for grandfathering rights. JK explained there are grandfathering rights for building permits but not for a use. This is a use issue as you have two single
family dwellings on one property.
JJ asked if this could be subdivided. JK stated there is no frontage and there is a common driveway. The applicant would need to have an engineer review for potential options. The board asked what the options were for the hearing. JK stated 1. Amend the permit for continued use as a Family Apartment 2. Amend the permit to grant a variance for 2 units on one property or 3. Grant a continuation to allow time to gather more information. JK stated the Public Hearing stated an amendment to the Variance so that is what we are here for. BS stated that they must meet the hardship criteria for an amendment to the variance and suggested to the applicant they may want to take time to think about this. TA stated he gave the applicant the definition for a variance. An abutter from 18
Bellstone Drive stated that in 1988 there was a covenant for Bellstone Drive and Elm Estates created. It prohibited 2nd dwellings or businesses in the neighborhood. There were 2 parcels of land removed from the covenant when the builder went bankrupt. He felt there are all single family homes in this neighborhood and it should stay that way. The board explained the Kauker’s application would be for an amendment of a variance as that what was issued in 1998. They should review the bylaw. The applicant requested a continuation to December 1, 2016 .
AP motion to grant.
PG second.
All in favor to allow applicant to continue to December 1,2 016 at 7:00 PM.
Minutes – October 6, 2016
BS motion to accept as amended.
AP second.
All in favor to accept the minutes as amended.
Meeting adjourned 8:30 PM
Approved 12/1/2016
| 
