Legal Notice Hobby Shop by xej82032


More Info
									Minutes – January 21, 2010

                      DRACUT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. @ Harmony Hall, 1660 Lakeview
Avenue, Dracut.

Continued BOA 2009-07 @ 4 Broadway Road – Variance for relief from side yard
buffering requirements of Section 3.14.40 and for relief from entrance/exit requirements
of Section 3.10.41. Petitioner: GB New England 2, LLC.
Attorney Fadden, Mr. Patrick Dunford and Mr. AJ Barbato will be presenting for the
petitioner. Attorney Fadden updated the Board about the discussions between the
development team and the peer review engineer who was retained by the town to review
the traffic at this particular site over the past couple of months.
Chairman Crowley signed in a new set of prints drawn by Russell J. Bousquet,
Professional Land Surveyor dated January 21, 2010.
Attorney Fadden stated that an agreement has been reached as to the concept of the traffic
for this site and last Wednesday the new concept was brought to the Planning Board. The
Planning Board reached a consensus that this would be the preferred traffic configuration.
The variances they are requesting this evening are for the relocation of the northerly
access to the property that will now be shared with the adjoining property. Due to the
curb that is there at the entrance, the town’s peer review believes for site distance
purposes it would be better to relocate it farther to the north. As a result of this, they are
eliminating all of the buffering area for a substantial portion off of Broadway Road and
as you get further into the property, there is buffering relief requested along the north
drive. The second issue they are seeking variance relief from is the southerly driveway
that is being relocated further south on the curb with a right turn in and right turn out.
They were initially looking for relief because it was located within 50 feet of the
intersection. They believe that the relocation of the driveway further south has pulled it a
greater distance than 50 feet from the intersection. Attorney Fadden has submitted the
plan to the Building Inspector for review to find out if a variance relief is required for this
location and if it is, they will proceed with the variance request.
Attorney Fadden noted that the mitigation proposed to be performed by the developer on
behalf of the town is approximately $115,000 to $125,000.
Chairman Crowley cautions the Board that discussion of traffic should be done as it
pertains to the driveways not to the whole project as that is more the purview of the
Planning Board. However, failure to grant a variance by this Board would negate the
work of the Planning Board and require them to change the plan or appeal the Board’s
decision. The only variance being discussed at this hearing is the side yard buffering.
Chairman Crowley asked Mr. Dunford what the level of service is for the intersection at
Arlington and Broadway. Level of service C! Mr. Dunford stated that without CVS the
level is at the threshold of B and C, and then with CVS slips slightly to C. Mr. Dunford
showed the Board the mitigation measures they are proposing to address this intersection
as a result of meetings with MDM, the town’s peer reviewer. The sidewalk will be
wrapped around the corner from Arlington Street to Broadway Road with a new

Minutes – January 21, 2010

signalized pedestrian crossing and emergency vehicle preemption to be installed at the
lights. Chairman Crowley asked Mr. Dunford to transmit electronically the final traffic
report with changes to him and he will send to the Board members.
Chairman Crowley asked what the level of service is for the intersection at Loon Hill.
Mr. Dunford stated today it has a failing level of service and obviously cannot get any
worse than that. There is no mitigation proposed to address issues at this intersection.
Mr. Dunford noted there is other mitigation proposed for the intersection of Rt. 38 and
Bridge Street. MDM thought this was sufficient.
Chairman Crowley asked for the purposes of the buffering is this staying one lot.
Attorney Fadden stated it would be kept as two separate lots. Mr. Campbell asked what
is the hardship for granting the variance. Attorney Fadden will have an answer for the
next meeting.
Ms. Hakkila thought that a driveway could only have one use on a property. Is this
different for commercial? She noted in residential you cannot share a driveway with
another house. Mr. McLaughlin will research and have an answer for the next meeting.
Attorney Fadden noted that a cross easement would be granted.
Mr. Campbell had a question about the south driveway with the ramp coming off
Broadway onto Arlington with someone turning right, what is the mitigation there to slow
the traffic down off that section of 113. Mr. Dunford did speak with MDM about this
and initially his preference was to have the driveway where they originally had it, but
after discussions with MDM they wanted it relocated. The main concern he has with this
approach is the visibility, but looking at it you would have adequate site line to see
vehicles turning. Coming out of CVS, the parking will be set far enough back to be able
to see up the roadway. They can amplify the existing yield sign with yield lines on the
roadway to make it clear that it is not a free right turn. Chairman Crowley noted that it
might be confusing for people pulling out of CVS if cars are signaling right, are they
taking the turn onto the connector or going into CVS. Mr. Dunford said this will be a
concern and you would have to stop for them. He noted that there is a similar condition
at the other CVS on Lakeview Avenue with a bank on the other side of the site that has a
similar configuration. He has watched this site and people seem to understand that they
have to make sure the person turning is going into the site. Mr. Mallory questioned if the
road was wide enough at the south entrance for two lanes. Attorney Fadden noted that
the issue came up for a deceleration lane, but MDM nixed it. When the final traffic
report is received with the peer review comments, the Board will review and comment.
Attorney Fadden stated they would be going back to the Planning Board the first meeting
in February.
Ms. Hakkila asked if signage could be put up on Broadway for entering and exiting
traffic. Mr. Campbell asked if there was any discussion on reworking the island at the
Arlington and Broadway intersection to widen road so the light would stop all Rt. 113
traffic with a right turn only at the light instead of right in front of the proposed CVS.
Mr. Dunford noted that you would be taking 500 vehicles and putting them under signal
control which they don’t today. He does not know what that would do to the level of
service, but guarantees it would cause additional delays and longer cues.
Abutters: Who came forward in favor or in opposition? None.

Minutes – January 21, 2010

A motion to continue to the February 25, 2010 meeting was made by Mr. Hamilton and
seconded by Mr. Mallory. Attorney Fadden signed an Extension of Time Agreement
Form. The Board voted unanimously to continue.
2010-1 & 2 @ 138 Lakeshore Drive – Special permit 2.16.25 and Variance 2.12.50
for four (4) foot addition to garage with insufficient front yard setback. Petitioner:
Emile Demers.
A motion to take this case out of order was made by Mr. Hamilton and seconded by Ms.
Hakkila. The Board voted unanimously to take out of order.
Chairman Crowley opened the meeting and asked who will be presenting. Mr. Demers
introduced himself and will be presenting. Chairman Crowley asked Mr. Demers if there
were any changes in the print submitted and he stated there was a minor change. Mr.
Demers stated that he was going to shorten the back piece of the proposed addition to the
garage to stay away from the water. Chairman Crowley noted he was ninety-one (91)
feet away from the water now and Mr. Demers agreed. Chairman Crowley stated that the
prints submitted will be adequate for the purpose of this discussion and the Board can
determine if they need any additional information.
Chairman Crowley signed in a set of prints drawn by James D. Aho, Registered Land
Surveyor dated December 10, 2008.
Chairman Crowley asked who was the owner of this property? Mr. Demers said it was
his father-in-law Mr. Tripathi and introduced him.
Mr. Demers noted that the present garage is quite narrow and tight to work inside. He
would like to widen by four (4) feet so he can move around and also put in a larger door.
The garage is too close to the street so he is trying to go wider continuing on the property
Chairman Crowley noted that it appears from the print that the garage is actually built a
little over or on the property line. He asked if Mr. Demers had ever considered knocking
the garage down and moving it back so it is not on the property line. No! Mr. Demers
showed the Board the print with the change of the back piece shortened. Chairman
Crowley asked who lives in the house on the property. Mr. Demers stated it is rented to a
Chairman Crowley noted that there was already a forty (40) foot garage and asked what
was being kept in it. Mr. Demers stated that he does hobby shop work and wants to use
as a work shop. Chairman Crowley stated that one of the things he has to prove is a
hardship. He noted there is beneficial use of the property with a garage and house
already on it and it is a rental property. Chairman Crowley is having a difficult time
figuring out what the hardship is. Mr. Demers stated with regards to the shape, soil
conditions and topography there is no hardship.
Mr. Mallory asked when the house was built? Between 1948-1952!
Mr. Demers also presented copies of variances received by other neighbors in the past.
Chairman Crowley explained the difference with this case is the garage is right on the lot
line and kind of difficult to prove a hardship. He went on to explain that if it wasn’t right
on the lot line it might be a different story. There is enough space if you wanted to move
the garage and create a bigger space further back on the property. Mr. Campbell noted it
was still very unclear as it really does look like the garage is over the lot line. Mr.
Campbell questioned what the optimal space from the water’s edge to the back of the

Minutes – January 21, 2010

garage should be. Mr. Demers was not quite sure, thought it might be 250 feet from the
wetlands. Mr. Demers was not sure if he would need to go to Conservation, but the
Building Department did not mention that.
Abutters: Who came forward in favor or in opposition?
James Desmarais, 148 Lakeshore Drive – in favor.
Brian Mullen, 123 Lakeshore Drive – in favor.
Brian Bettencourt, 144 Lakeshore Drive – in favor.
Mr. Demers presented for the record a petition with the abutters signatures in favor.
Mr. Hamilton recused himself from the vote as he represents one of the abutters.
A motion to approve the Special Permit was made by Mr. Scott Mallory and seconded by
Mr. John Campbell. Mr. Mallory noted this was a very difficult structure as it sits right
on the lot line and reading through the by-law it does not appear that there is qualification
to allow this to go forward. In altering the size of the structure, but maintaining the non-
conformity of the building, then he would not see this going forward. Mr. Campbell read
the Special Permit requirements and based upon the words, if you look in that area it isn’t
unusual to see such a structure and as a result of that wording, he thinks it would apply to
the Special Permit. Chairman Crowley concurs, although he does not agree with the way
it is laid out, the fact that it is on the property, he does not think it is any more detrimental
than what is there so technically he might be in favor of voting on the Special Permit
piece as he thinks it meets that prerequisite, but will take the rest of it up under the
Variance. The Board finds that the petitioner does not meet the following three
requirements of the Special Permit: that the change does not (1) substantially impinge
upon any public right of way that adjoins the lot on which the structure is to be
constructed; (2) create a danger to public safety by reason of traffic access, flow and
circulation; and (3) be out of character with the traditional settlement and construction
patterns of the area in which it is to be reconstructed. Those voting in favor of granting
the Special Permit were Mr. John Campbell, Ms. Ina Hakkila and Mr. David Meli with
Mr. John Crowley and Mr. Scott Mallory voting opposed. The motion failed on a three
(3) to two (2) vote.
A motion to approve the Variance was made by Mr. Scott Mallory and seconded by Ms.
Ina Hakkila. Mr. Campbell stated there are very specific requirements for a variance
under this by-law and none were presented to show that a variance would apply to this
project. Chairman Crowley noted that the petitioner would have to provide proof of a
hardship as defined by the by-laws and regulations and there has been no demonstration
of any hardship with regard to this property and this particular request. The Board finds
the petitioner does not meet the requirements of a Variance as follows: that there is a
hardship on the use of the land based on the shape and topography, this requested use
does not derogate from the intent of the zoning by-law, and it is not injurious to the
neighborhood. The Board voted unanimously to deny.
2010-3 @ 6 Red Gate Road – An appeal to the decision of the Building Commissioner
for removal of an existing deck, platform and Jacuzzi tub and/or granting of a Variance
to the building setback requirements to allow for an existing deck, new platform and
Jacuzzi. Petitioner: Daniel & Jaelithe Brodeur.

Minutes – January 21, 2010

Chairman Crowley opened the meeting and sign in a set of prints drawn by James D.
Aho, Registered Land Surveyor dated December 1, 2009.
Mr. Brodeur introduced himself stating he is here seeking to keep his existing deck,
Jacuzzi and new platform and obtain a variance to allow for this. Chairman Crowley
asked if when he went to get the building permit for the deck if anyone told him it was in
the wrong spot. Mr. Brodeur did not get a permit as he was building a platform that was
not high off the ground and did not consider it a deck. The existing deck was built with
the house and was there when he bought it.
Chairman Crowley asked if the new deck was on the ground? 18” off the ground!
Chairman Crowley asked if he got a permit for the Jacuzzi? No! Chairman Crowley
noted that he would have known if he went through the proper channels that is would not
have been allowed. Mr. Brodeur never saw anything saying that he needed a permit for
the Jacuzzi other than an electrical permit that he did not get. The Jacuzzi is portable and
he did not think it needed a permit, but he was wrong.
Chairman Crowley asked how he found out there was a problem. The Building Inspector
made a visit to the house acting on a complaint from a neighbor. Mr. McLaughlin,
Building Inspector, noted that he found the existing deck was built outside the approved
build line by the developer and was failed to be picked up on plan review and final
building inspection. He presented the Certified Plot Plan done by the developer showing
the house in the correct place with no deck on it. Mr. McLaughlin is confident that the
deck was there at the time when the house was built for after further review of the
building prints, the deck was notated in writing, but now drawn in.
Mr. Hamilton read the letter from the Building Inspector dated November 10, 2009
ordering the removal of the recent deck addition, the hot tub and part of the original deck
which impinges on the required forty (40) foot rear yard. Mr. Hamilton confirmed with
Mr. McLaughlin that this was one of the four lots that had to meet the forty (40) foot rear
yard setback that was part of the original 40B decision.
Mr. Hamilton asked if Mr. McLaughlin was planning to visit the project to see if there are
any more decks built by the developer like this. No! Mr. Hamilton would like to request
the Building Inspector to go to this 40B development to inspect all the premises to see if
there are any more decks built in defiance of the Comprehensive Permit and if found,
issue immediate orders that they be removed before we get to a six or ten year period
where this cannot be done anymore. Chairman Crowley thinks this is an excellent idea as
this is a very difficult and different project, however had this call not been received, the
deck after a period of time would have become an as of right and clouds the issue. He
will send a letter to the Building Inspector as Chairman of the Board requesting that a
review of all the lots be done. Mr. Campbell noted that the occupancy was granted to the
builder and the present owner has an occupancy from the Town of Dracut. As far as he is
concerned, they are not the party to this issue, it is really the builder. There was some
confusion about the lot numbers. The original plan for the project had this address as lot
number 22, but a new plan was submitted changing this lot number to 39. Mr.
McLaughlin has verified it is the same lot. There was further discussion of the original
Comprehensive Permit agreement with regards to these lots and the issues brought up by
the neighbors at the time. Chairman Crowley is not sure why it does not show on the
deed, but the Certified Plot Plan they received did show the no build line.

Minutes – January 21, 2010

Chairman Crowley asked what the hardship on the property was. Mrs. Brodeur stated
that the hardship was the fact that the setback line is so tight to the house that they would
basically be able to have two steps down to the back yard and that is it. There is no other
use of the property and if they had known the setback, they probably would not have
purchased the house. They were told by the builder that they could specifically pick this
lot out so that they could have a large back with a little bit more room than most lots.
She presented pictures of her property showing the back yard and what they have done to
create privacy. Mr. Brodeur said they tried to keep the deck low to the ground and feel
there is no detriment to the neighborhood as they put a fence around their yard and
planted trees. Mr. Campbell asked when they purchased the property if they knew it was
a 40B development. Yes! Mr. Campbell reviewed the plot plan they had received which
shows the buildable area. Mr. Brodeur thought that is where you had to put the house.
Mr. Campbell reviewed that they had a deck, added another deck with a hot tub which
would require electricity and permits. It was noted permits were not pulled for the added
deck or hot tub. He asked if at some point they felt or knew that in a municipality you
need permits for this type of work. Mr. Brodeur said he knew about the electrical
needing a permit but did not get one, and thought that since he was building a platform,
not a deck, would not need a permit for this work. Mr. Campbell asked what are their
grounds for the Board to appeal this based upon a situation where they have not gone
through the proper permits. Mr. Brodeur said he would have to go for an electrical
permit for the Jacuzzi, but does not feel the Jacuzzi is a pool and did not see anything in
the by-laws saying that a permit was needed. He is here now to ask for a variance to keep
the deck, as all he is trying to do is raise the value of his house and be able for his family
to enjoy the back yard.
Chairman Crowley asked Mr. McLaughlin with regards to permitted structures and
structures that need to comply with setbacks, what is the standard regarding grade level
platforms. Mr. McLaughlin noted that in this case he has guidance from the Board of
Appeals with conditions on it. Condition #27 states: “No single family dwelling or
extension thereof, accessory building, tennis court, swimming pool, or the like shall be
located on any lot outside the building envelopes shown on the plan of record. This
condition shall be placed in the deed to each lot. The Zoning Board of Appeals, by
variance, may adjust this requirement. The building envelope for each lot is as follows:
side yard: 15 feet, rear yard: 35 feet; provided, however, 40 feet for Lots 20, 21, 22 and
23, front yard: 25 feet.” Chairman Crowley understands the condition for this property,
but from a building standpoint by definition the difference between a deck and a
platform. Mr. McLaughlin said that a patio made out of stone would not be a problem
and this can be done without a permit. Chairman Crowley noted there is the capability of
being able to put an area to recreate in the yard that doesn’t need a permit. The Jacuzzi is
another issue.
Chairman Crowley explained that Comprehensive Permits under Chapter 40B are very
contentious many times because people are having denser than otherwise would be
allowed for a development to come into their neighborhood. In this case it is a very nice
development, has worked out well and is an asset to the community, but during the

Minutes – January 21, 2010

course of the process there were negotiations done to meet the needs of the neighbors and
address their concerns. With regards to this particular lot, Chairman Crowley recalls that
the neighbors were concerned about the fact that there was wetlands and this area did
accumulate water at the time which may have been addressed with the grading, but part
of the conditions were that in this case we were going keep an excessive back yard for
that property.
There was a discussion among the Board Members that if they approve this variance
because it was already built, what would happen if other neighbors want to do the same
and are not allowed and want to know what the hardship was for this to go through. Mr.
Campbell questioned why the restriction was not reflected on the Quitclaim Deed from
the Registry of Deeds. Mr. Hamilton noted it was not the Board’s problem and the action
is against the developer. It does refer to registered plans associated with the deed.
Chairman Crowley noted the Board does have the ability to grant a variance, but the
problem is what is the hardship. The restriction was there when the house was purchased
even though they may not have been aware of it. It was a restriction that was on the land
and should have been made aware to them. He also noted that if permits were obtained
this would have been picked up before the expense was made. Mr. Campbell noted a lot
of work went into this project and the development would not have happened without this
work being done to allow the smaller lots and addressing the neighbors concerns. The
issue is not with this Board, but with the builder who sold the house. Mr. Hamilton said
that it has to be shown there is a hardship on the land due to shape, topography or soil
conditions that requires a variance.
There was some discussion why the original deck was not picked up during the
inspections when the house was built. Mr. McLaughlin agreed it was missed. Chairman
Crowley is inclined to grant the variance for the 8X10 deck as it was shown on the
original application, shown on the literature the petitioner was given and should have
been picked up by the town during inspections. Mr. Hamilton does not agree with this
and feels that any developer who wants to contravene a Comprehensive Permit can build
in defiance of it, sell the property and then this Board is stuck with it. There was further
discussion on this.
Mr. Brodeur would like to keep the existing deck and Jacuzzi, but will take down the
extra deck he put on. He does not understand how the Jacuzzi is considered a pool, as it
is a portable tub. He will get the necessary wiring permits for it. Mr.Campbell asked the
Building Inspector under Mass State Code what is the definition for a Jacuzzi. Mr.
McLaughlin stated the definition of a pool is 24 inches or more so a little kiddie pool is
not included. If a device is hard wired it is not portable so it is very close to being an
above ground swimming pool. He also noted that the other issue is whether or not the 6
inch high deck is a deck at all. There is an argument that if the 6 inch high deck had been
built in the back yard not connected to anything and clearly not part of the structure, it
could stay where it is. It was clearly evident that this deck was attached as a continuance
of the existing deck. Mr. Campbell would probably go along with the Chairman’s first
discussion that he would get rid of everything, but leave the original deck. He absolutely
agrees with what Mr. Hamilton said, but at the same time the town provides building
inspectional services to protect the public good. If the town does not have enough
resources to make sure that very specific inspections are done, that is the town’s issue in

Minutes – January 21, 2010

his opinion. But now that he is hearing that this might be rampant throughout the
neighborhood potentially, he is seriously pulling back and might want to suggest that
before the Board’s makes any decision we seek council to see how we would approach
something like this. Chairman Crowley noted that not all the building envelopes are as
tight as this one. Those four lots were the tightest.
Chairman Crowley feels that the more he thinks about it and the more he listens to what
is being said, the Board already had this discussion and a determination was made, he
will be hard pressed to vote in favor of allowing any of it to stay. Mr. Hamilton noted
that on the building plan presented by the petitioner with the deck in red around it does
not show where that is in relation to the rear lot line or show that it is outside the building
envelope. If this is what the Building Inspector is being castigated for not realizing it is
outside the building envelope, how was he supposed to know from this drawing.
Chairman Crowley noted it was shown on the building application, not clarified well, but
could see how it could be missed.
Chairman Crowley feels the Board does have the ability to vary it. Mr. Hamilton does
not feel the Board has the ability to vary when it goes beyond shape, soil conditions and
topography. Chairman Crowley feels they do to the extent that they are talking about
shape and a condition that this Board put on not varying a by-law. He is concerned about
the fact that going forward there may be more of these. Chairman Crowley agrees that
anything except the original deck should be taken down and removed. With regard to the
original deck, what if the Board was to say that the enforcement action would be delayed
for a period of sixty (60) days or whatever adequate time it might be for the Building
Inspector to determine whether or not there are other issues. The Board reviewed the
original drawing of the plots with the Building Inspector. The other lots have large back
yards, it is only the lots at the front that are in question. Chairman Crowley noted that
this house was built larger than what was shown on the print to take advantage of the
total no build line.
Ms. Hakkila noted that there was no complaint before this for the deck built by the
builder until now. Mrs. Hurley was asked why she did not complain earlier about the
deck. Mrs. Hurley explained that as far as the existing deck, she assumed it was
inspected by the Building Inspector before the occupancy was issued and that it would
have met all the requirements. As far as the hot tub she honestly did not know whether or
not it was in violation, but when the lumber arrived and there was building going on with
no building permit posted, that is when she notified the Building Department.
Mr. Brodeur noted they have had the hot tub for a year and if it isn’t bothering her, he is
asking the Board to let them keep it. He will take the deck down if they can just leave the
hot tub. There was some discussion whether or not the hot tub if moved would fit within
the envelope. It would be close and there is a bulkhead on the other side of the house.
Mr. Hamilton moved to close the hearing.
Abutters: Who came forward in favor or in opposition?
Elaine Hurley, 17 Park Terrace – Opposed to the granting of a variance to the building
setback of this property and supports the Building Commissioner’s decision for the
removal of everything that violates the 40 foot rear setback requirement. Submitted a
petition signed by Rita Hurley, John Hurley and herself. The approved Comprehensive
Permit included a 40 foot rear setback agreement on the first four (4) lots on the left hand

Minutes – January 21, 2010

side of Redgate Road specifically for the proximity of these homes to the homes on Park
Terrace. This restriction was to be on the deed.
She presented a picture showing the rear of her property.
Danielle & Robert Plourde, 10 Redgate Road – in favor. She noted that the deck is quite
a distance from the property line, will not bring the value down and does not know why it
is an issue. Mr. Plourde noted there are no wetlands in this area. He noted there were
other decks added on.
George Leclair, 22 Long Pond Path – Letter submitted in favor.
Anne Marie Leclair, 22 Long Pond Path – Letter submitted in favor.
Russell Webster, 655 Nashua Road - Letter submitted in favor.
Becky Correa, 671 Nashua Road – Letter submitted in favor.
A motion to close was made by Mr. Hamilton and seconded by Mr. Mallory. Ms.
Hakkila would like to visit the property and keep the hearing open. Mr. Hamilton will
not withdraw his motion to close. Mr. Mallory is concerned that if the Board approves
the old deck, what is the plan going forward with other decks that may be in the same
situation. Chairman Crowley agreed that it would be cleaner and better for the Board to
start off on day one staying with the original decision unless there is an overriding reason
why the Board would want to start varying stuff. Mr. Campbell agrees with what
everybody is saying that this has far deeper issues if the Board varies one and then says
no to others. At this point we have to look at it as straight across the board. The Board
voted unanimously to close.
A motion to Uphold the Building Inspector’s decision was made by Mr. Stephen
Hamilton and seconded by Mr. Scott Mallory. Mr. Hamilton has not heard anything said
that the Building Commissioner did anything outside the scope of his office, everything
seemed to be within the contours of the zoning and the Comprehensive Permit.
Chairman Crowley verified with Mr. McLaughlin that everything that is past the no build
line comes down and he agreed. It was agreed by Mr. McLaughlin and the Board that the
original deck would be taken back to the acceptable building code egress regulation even
if it extends over the no build line. The Board voted unanimously to uphold the decision
of the Building Inspector.
A motion to deny the Variance was made by Mr. John Campbell and seconded by Mr.
Stephen Hamilton. Chairman Crowley noted that this variance was requested as part of
an alternative to the findings of the Building Inspector. The findings of the Building
Inspector have been upheld nor was it shown that there was any hardship relative to the
shape, soil conditions or topography of the land to justify approving a variance. Mr.
Hamilton quotes by reference everything he said in argument for the first motion. The
Board finds the petitioner does not meet the requirements of a Variance as follows: that
there is a hardship on the use of the land based on the shape and topography, this
requested use does not derogate from the intent of the zoning by-law, and it is not
injurious to the neighborhood. The Board voted unanimously to deny.

Minutes – January 21, 2010

Other Business:
615 Nashua Road: Chairman Crowley updated the Board on the status of the $200,000
for traffic improvements that is part of the conditions on this project. The last six (6)
foundation permits were granted on January 8, 2010. He read a letter from the Building
Inspector to Mr. Marcoux with regards to Condition C.14 that he will expect all
conditions of the comprehensive permit to have been satisfied prior to issuing certificates
of occupancy for the final building, with the exception of those that allow for bonding. In
particular, he will expect all traffic improvements to be in place prior to the issuance of
any further occupancy permits, as required by paragraph E.l of the decision. It went on to
say that Mr. Marcoux has expressed an interest in having Condition H.3 amended. It
ended with Condition N.1 addresses this possibility and he should act accordingly. After
a brief discussion, it was noted that Mr. Marcoux will have to come before the Board to
amend the condition and if this does not happen, the Board will pursue further action.
Robbins Nest: Mr. McLaughlin informed the Board that Mr. Lussier is still thinking
about the proposition. Mr. McLaughlin will monitor.
Grassfield Commons & Masscuppic Village Time Extension Request: Mr. Steve
Coravos asked the Board to extend both of these projects for two (2) years. The current
expiration date of the projects are August 15, 2010. After some discussion it was agreed
that the Board would grant the two (2) year extension. A motion to grant a two (2) year
time extension on both projects to August 15, 2012 was made by Ms. Ina Hakkila and
seconded by Mr. Stephen Hamilton. The Board voted unanimously to approve.
40R @ 760 Nashua Road: Mr. Coravos reviewed a preliminary elderly housing project
consisting of two buildings with 30 units each as rental for people over 62 at this location
to be built under a Federal Program. He will pay for the heat and hot water with rent
around $950. Each unit will have two bedrooms. The only variance that will be needed
is density and permitting. This project will be done with private money and Dracut
companies will be hired to do the work. All units will count towards the town’s
affordable housing, about 1.06 towards the affordable housing. The whole parcel of land
is 3.7 acres with a density of 16 per acre. The buildings will be three stories with an
elevator in the middle. Chairman Crowley noted the basic concept is good, but reserves
judgment on the density and parking. He feels the project has a lot of potential. After a
brief discussion, the Board noted they will review this project closely when presented,
but looks forward to working with Mr. Coravos on it.
Old Business:
Chairman Crowley reviewed a letter received from Citizens’ Housing and Planning
Association regarding the resale of an affordable unit located at 42 Joseph Avenue in
response to a letter sent by Mr. Glen Edwards. The letter explained the procedure used
and understands the concern of the town that the unit may no longer be affordable. It
went on to say that as the monitoring agent, they do not feel as though they can restrict
the unit from being sold on the open market due to the provisions of the deed rider. It
noted that the town does have the right to refuse to accept a lower sales price and can
demand that they receive full proceeds regardless of what the unit ultimately sells for.

Minutes – January 21, 2010

Chairman Crowley noted that a package was received from Dennis Piendak, Town
Manager dated December 15, 2009 containing an update of the latest filings from the
Town’s attorney regarding the appeal in the Severance matter.
Acceptance of Minutes:
A motion to accept the December 10, 2009 minutes was made by Ms. Ina Hakkila and
seconded by Mr. John Campbell. The Board voted unanimously to accept the minutes.
A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. John Campbell and seconded by Ms. Ina Hakkila.
The Board voted unanimously to adjourn.

              Board of Appeals Members

              __________________________         ____________________________
              Chairman, John Crowley             Vice Chairman, John Campbell

              __________________________         _________________ ___________
              Clerk, Stephen Hamilton            Member, R. Scott Mallory

              ________Absent_____________        _____________________________
              Member, Andrew LaCourse            Alternate Member, Ina Hakkila

              Alternate Member, David Meli


To top