|
Minutes for the Meeting of November 20, 1989 2
<br /> --)
<br /> Emerson Garden Condominium, Emerson Gardens, Inc. , variance, to allow a
<br /> swimming pool shed with a front yard setback of 41 feet instead of the
<br /> 50 feet required. The Board noted that none of the statutory criteria
<br /> for a variance has been met. They agreed that if the applicant thinks
<br /> the shed would create visual problems for the condominium residents,
<br /> additional plantings to screen the shed should be considered. On the
<br /> motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 4-1-0
<br /> (Mr. Williams voted in the negative) to recommend the variance be
<br /> denied, since the petition fails to meet the criteria in Chapter 40A,
<br /> the Zoning Act, dealing with soil conditions, shape or topography.
<br /> 121 Hartwell Ave. , Varian Associates, determination that relocating a
<br /> building holding hazardous materials, and enlarging it slightly is a
<br /> minor revision and a public hearing will not be required. On the motion
<br /> of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted unanimously to
<br /> recommend that this addition be considered a minor revision to the spe-
<br /> cial permit granted 9/20/84, and that a public hearing not be required.
<br /> Farm Road, Anthony Busa, variance from Section 9.3.2 of the Zoning By-
<br /> Law to extend the dead end street to a length of 875 feet, instead of
<br /> the maximum of 650 feet allowed by the By-Law. The Board agreed that no
<br /> connecting road is proposed by Mr. Busa, and that this would be the only
<br /> way under the Zoning By-Law, except by variance, for him to gain access
<br /> to the land he wishes to develop.
<br /> 1
<br /> , 1 The Board did not accept Mr. Busa's rationale that problems with the
<br /> shape of this land fit the statutory criteria for granting a variance,
<br /> and they did not see that other statutory tests for a variance had been
<br /> met either. Furthermore, the Board noted that in a letter from Mr.
<br /> Bowyer to Mr. Marshall, dated November 14, 1989, Section 9.3.2 and
<br /> Section 6.5.6 of the Development Regulations were quoted as restrictions
<br /> on developing the Pine Meadows/Meagherville site without a through
<br /> connecting road and they felt that that principle should apply through-
<br /> out Town. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer,
<br /> it was voted unanimously to recommend the variance be denied on the
<br /> grounds that the petition fails to meet the criteria in Chapter 40A, the
<br /> Zoning Act, Section 10, dealing with soil conditions, shape or topo-
<br /> graphy, required for granting a variance.
<br /> 151 Grove Street, Marcel Gaudreau: The Board agreed to make no recom-
<br /> mendation on the petition to renew a special permit to continue the
<br /> operation of a consulting business from his residence.
<br /> 276. Simonds Estates, Tidd Circle: Ms. Nordby reported that a previous Plan-
<br /> ning Board had voted to release these two lots, but the document had never
<br /> been recorded. The developer needs to have the vote reaffirmed for record-
<br /> ing. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted
<br /> unanimously:
<br /> to reaffirm the vote, made on April 4, 1983, for the release of lots 1
<br /> and 16, in the Simonds Estate subdivision,
<br />
|