Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-06-11 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting Minutes1i1 ADJOURNED ANNUAL TOWN MEETING Reading Memorial High School Auditorium June 11, 1979 The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, John W. Faria, at 8:00 P. M. The invocation was given by the Rev. David W. Reid of the First Baptist Church, followed by the Pledge of'Allegiance to the Flag. On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr. it was voted to take Article 3 from the table. ARTICLE 3. On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr. it was voted that the School Committee be, and they hereby are, instructed to report to the next Town Meeting on their school building needs based upon the declining enrollment data made available to them by the Superintendent of Schools in April of 1979. Specifically, what, if any, school(s) closings are under consideration and what plans are being considered for disposal or utilization of" school facilities that are projected as becoming surplus in the years ahead. On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr. it was voted to lay Article 3 on the table. On motion of Douglas A. Cowell it was voted that Article 44 be taken up out of order. ARTICLE 44. Douglas A. Cowell moved that the Town under and pursuant to authority granted in General Laws Chapter 40D, Section 21 (g), as amended, authorize the Board of Public Works to negotiate a contract with the operator of solid waste disposal facilities to be established in the Town of North Andover for the use of by- products resulting from the operation of such facilities, which contract will: 1. Be for a term of'twenty years, more or less; 2. Include provisions for the delivery of minimum amounts of refuse, garbage and waste and payments for the use of the facilities to be based thereon; 3. Provide for unit prices that will be graduated and for adjustments thereof and for the use of'steam, electricity and other by- products resulting from the use of the facilities and for credits or payments of the Town resulting therefrom; 4. The use by the Town or other municipalities of the uncommitted capacity of such f acilities; 5. Contain other provisions incidental and related to the foregoing general matters; and 6. Be generally in the form of proposed contract negotiated by representatives of the member communities of the Northeast Solid Waste Committee (NESWC) with such changes therein as may be approved by said Board of Public Works or take any other action with respect thereto. This motion did not pass. On motion of Douglas A.Cowell it was voted unanimously to reconsider previous vote under Article 44. Reconsideration of ARTICLE 44. On motion of Douglas A.Cowell as amended by George V.Hines it was voted that the Town under and pursuant to authority granted in General Laws Chapter 40D., Section 21 (g), as amended, authorize the Board of PublicWorks to negotiate but not sign a contract with the operator of'solid waste disposal facilities to be established in the Town of North Andover for the use of by- products resulting from the operation of such facilities, which contract will: 1. Be for a term of twenty years, more or less; 2. Include provisions for the delivery of minimum amounts of refuse, garbage and waste and payments for the use of the facilities to be based thereon; 3. Provide for unit prices that will be graduated and for adjustments thereof and for the use of'steam, electricity and other by- products resulting from the use of the facilities and for credits or payments of the Town resulting therefrom; 4. The use by the Town or other municipalities of the uncommitted capacity of such f acilities; 5. Contain other provisions incidental and related to the foregoing general matters; and 6. Be generally in the form of proposed contract negotiated by representatives of the member communities of the Northeast Solid Waste Committee (NESWC) with such changes therein as may be approved by said Board of Public Works or take any other action with respect thereto. The Board of Public Works will hold no less than three public hearings on the details of the final contract with NESWC and all alternative means of' solid waste disposal investi- gated. 172 Adjourned AnnualTown Meeting June 11, 1979 ARTICLE 34. Marvin M. Rosenthal moved that the Board of Selectmen are hereby authorized to petition and /or approve the filing of a petition to the General Court for a special act authorizing the Town to rescind its acceptance of Section 42 of Chapter 48 of the General Laws or corresponding provisions of earlier laws and to authorize the Town to accept the provisions of Section 42 of Chapter 48 of the General Laws or corresponding provisions of earlier laws and to authorize the Town to accept the provisions of Section 42A of Chapter 48 of the General Laws and to authorize that the psoition of Fire Chief be subject to the Civil Service, General Laws Chapter 31, and that the special act shall provide that it shall take effect upon its passage. This motion did not pass. On motion of Joseph C. Sturm it was voted to take Article 2 from the table. ARTICLE 2. The following report was read by Joseph C. Sturm, Chairman of the Planning Board. PLANNING BOARD REPORT ARTICLES 38 and 39 Pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 40A, General Laws, the Planning Board held duly advertised public hearings on two alternative non - conforming lot amendments to the Zoning By -laws on Thursday, April 19, 1979 in Room 17 of the Community Center. One, sponsored by the Planning Board, and appearing as Article 38 on the Warrant for this meeting, was heard at 8:00 P. M. The other, Article 39, sponsored by the Board of Selectmen for the Small Lots Committee, was heard at 8:30 P. M. Approximately 40 persons attended the two hearings, during which every facet of this complex and time - consuming problem was reviewed for the unpteenth time. There is probably no other issue of public policy which has received more attention with less satisfactory results than this one over the past year. The Planning Board expended an average of several hours per week on it since last June. The Small Lots Committee probably spent an equivalent amount of' time in its labors. Both the Board and the Committee explored and discarded many approaches, tried to work both together and apart, and each finally decided to present alternate drafts reflecting the remaining unreconciled differences between their two approaches, for consideration by the present Planning Board and this Town Meeting. Even after all of this long and arduous effort by the Board and the Committee, we conclude that we cannot in good conscience recommend the products of their work, - either Article 38 or 39. We believe that each is flawed to the extent that they are not salvageable by amendment. Most importantly, we conclude that the approach taken in each of the two proposals would not only be cumbersome to administer, but also self - defeating in their results. Each Article takes the approach of delineating in detailed specifics the attributes of the properties that are to come under the umbrella of its new, easier standard for construction. The numerous clauses and great complexity of each only begins to reflect the almost innumerable variables of shape, size, neighborhood patterns, zoning dimensional and use restrictions, ownership patterns, subdivision and recording history, etc. that differen- tiate one property f rom another. The cumbersome administrative problems with each should be self - evident from the texts of the Articles themselves, and we will not dwell further on this point. We direct your attention to the problem of properties that would fail to qualify under either provision, if either one were to be adopted. It is most important to note here that the number of properties falling within the ambit of either Article is unknown, unknowable and perhaps insignificant. The Town would have cast in concrete a very well- defined and somewhat arbitrary line between those that qualify and those that don't. Owners of the latter would also find that they no longer have available the same flexible rules in any recourse to the Board of Appeals for a variance, no matter what the merits of their individual case might be. The statutory rule for a variance, that it not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the By -Law, would have taken on a very specific and inflexible meaning for owners of* such lots, - one that would pose an essentially rigid and insurmountable barrier. Under the present provisions of the By -law we have as simply stated a rule on non- conforming lots as the statute would permit. Those who feel that the rule unfairly infringes on their property rights have recourse to the Board of Appeals operating 'under broad statutory guidelines under which the merits and circumstances of each case are individually reviewed. We fail to see how adoption of a new zoning provision which would superficially structure this process, but in fact would destroy it, would be considered good law or good practice. Adjourned Annual Town Meeting .i f1 t June 11, 1979 With regard to the specifics of each proposal, - we appreciate the option afforded us by the prior Planning Board to evaluate their alternate approach contained in Article 38. Their narrowly drawn clauses reflecting the limited applicability they were seeking achieves benefits for only the very few, however, and additional problems for everyone else. In our opinion the foreseeable disadvantages clearly outweigh the benefits. Legal constraints prevented us from pursuing an enlargement of its scope that might have made the balance more even. Article 39, in contrast, opens so many large holes in existing standards that we fear little is left between. Some specific examples should illustrate the point. First, Article 39 permits building on isolated, vacant lots when both the lot to be built Now on and its abutting lots are as small as 5,000 square feet. This could have a significant impact on the Libby Avenue area, for example, which is almost wholly made up of 2,500 square foot recorded lots! Any adjacent vacant pair of these could qualify for a building permit under Article 39, as long as the built upon lots it adjoins were also made up of at least two of the old recorded lots. Another point relates to Article 39's treatment of two or more abutting, vacant non- conforming lots. These represent instances where there is often an opportunity to combine them and create one or more lots which conform with the By -law's standards. This opportunity is to be forgone and replaced by a lesser standard. Article 39 specifically allows such lots to be individually built upon if they and their abutting lots meet 80% of the zoning requirement. I should also be pointed out that while the provision as written does control density, it cannot guarantee that all resulting lots will meet the 80% standard for size and shape. Another problem that we have with Article 39 is the use of the phrases 'similar to' and 'substantial number' as standards in the fourth clause. Use of these terms is defended as affording some judgmental powers and discretion to the Board of Appeals. This view assumes that the Board can tailor its judgments of what these terms mean to reflect its opinion on other unrelated aspects of the case, completely overlooking the precedent that each Board of Appeals decision establishes for subsequent cases. We believe that the imprecision in these terms is likely to cause serious interpretive and administrative problems if this Article were to be adopted. Finally we note that Article 39 is mandatory rather than permissive. Its preamble r.m states that the Board of Appeals 'shall' grant a permit. The word 'shall' in this context means that the Board will have no discretion if all of the following enumerated requirements are met, and that they must essentially act as a rubber stamp no matter how unwise the proposal, how dangerous the site or how objectionable the development may be to the neighbors. In the case of Article 39, we were constrained by practical rather than legal considerations from attempting to amend. In brief, there was so much to change that the offspring would have been unrecognizable to its parent. We were faced with a choice among three imperfect alternatives, the two Articles on the Warrant and the present provision. None are perfect. We believe that, among these, the present provision is the better by far. This report was accepted as a report of progress. The following report was read by Gail F. Wood, Chairman of the Non - Conforming Lots Committee. REPORT OF THE NON - CONFORMING LOTS COMMITTEE This is the report of the Non - Conforming Lots Committee. A report of progress was given at the Subsequent Town Meeting on November 13, 1978 and appears on pages 338, 340 and 341 of the 1978 Annual Town Report. To summarize that report: The Non - Conforming Lots Committee was appointed to study the problems caused by Section 6.3.1.2 of the Zoning By -Laws under which a non - conforming lot may be built upon if it is NOT adjacent to a lot owned by the same person. Some lots may no longer be built upon because they were not included in this section. These are the "next door lots ". This section of the By -Law as it stands, appears to discriminate against those people who purchased an adjacent lot as a retirement income or as a "Widow's Nest Egg." 1 t e� " Adjourned Annual Town Meeting June 11, 1979 In our deliberation this committee considered eight (8) alternatives. They are: 1. No change 2. Short Term Time Fuse. Allowing owners of common ownership lots three (3) to five (5) years to build without restrictions. This is similar to Section 5A, Chapter 435 of the Acts of 1961. 3. Long Term Time Fuse. That is, allowing owners of common ownership lots five (5) to fifteen (15) years to build, without restrictions. 4. District Zoning. Creating small separate zoning districts within the larger zoning districts. 5. Same Privileges. Giving all owners of common ownership lots the same building privileges as owners of non- common ownership lots. 6. Variance. 7. Special Permits. 8. Combination. Various methods of combining two (2) or more of the above. After much consideration it was decided that a change was in order and that the Special Permit was the best method for that change. Many points were discussed before arriving at the clauses of the amendment in Article 39 of the Warrant. During these discussbns, three (3) major criteria were considered: 1. Is it workable? 2. Is it in the best interests of the Town and the people concerned? 3. Would there be great harm to either the Town or the individuals concerned? Those ideas that did not meet these criteria were discarded. The committee feels that Article 39 is the best possible solution of this problem at the present REPORT OF THE NON - CONFORMING LOTS COMMITTEE ON ARTICLE 39 Proposed Amendment 6.3.1.3 of the Zoning By -Laws When Reading enacted new zoning by -laws including increased area and frontage requirements for residential lots, many lotsrecorded under previous, less restrictive require- ments were too small to conform to the new standards. Most of these lots had been built upon years ago, but some, left vacant as an investment for the future, suddenly were declared unusable under the new requirements. To be consistent with State Law, Reading enacted zoning by -law 6.3.1.2, which provides that detached non - conforming lots, NOT owned in common with adjacent land, must be exempted from the new zoning requirements. Unfortunately, State Law does NOT require an equivalent exemption for non - conforming lots which are owned in common with adjacent land so the by -laws provide what amounts to a special privilege to owners of recorded, detached, non - conforming lots. The purpose of Article 39 is to provide a limited, controlled, and reasonable similar privilege for owners of adjacent non - conforming lots. The spirit of this amendment is to prevent unfair or arbitrarily unbalanced sacrifices to be required of a few individuals when the resulting benefit to the public good is minimal and the damage to the public good by providing an exemption is also minimal. A previous special permit amendment was presented on the 1978 Town Meeting Warrant. Unfortunately, the original amendment tried to be too concise and was flawed by vagueness resulting from its brevity. The new amendment is much more complicated and lengthy, but this detail is needed to produce a workable by -law in this complicated situation. The new amendment is broken into a series of clauses separated by semicolons. Each clause states a specific and concise condition which must be met before a special permit can be issued. These clauses are not alternatives; they must all be satisfied for a special permit to be issued. The principal requirements and their intended meanings are as follows: We have incuded an "Intent Clause" with our amendment so that the express purpose of this by -law addition will not be subject to loss or misinterpretation at some time in the future. This idea comes to us from the Planner who assures us the precedent has been set with favorable results by other Town. Adjourned AnnualTown Meeting 175 June 11, 1979 The first part of this amendment directs the Board of Appeals to issue a Special Permit for a single family house if the requirements are met. Multiple family houses on undersized lots are clearly not in the public interest. The nature of a Special Permit is to grant the applicant a permit if all the conditions are met. There is written into this Special Permit enough judgementary latitude of the Board of Appeals as to make each case a special case in point. The permit applicant is required to convince the Special Permit Board that his lot satisfied all of the conditions. This places the burden of proof where it belongs: with the person who stands to profit. Clause l: Special permits are applicable only to lots which conformed when they were recorded or endorsed. Zoning requirements for new lots are not affected. Clause 2: Special permits are available only for land held in common with an adjacent lot. February 2, 1978 is the date on which the current By -Law covering non- conforming lots became effective. Specifying a date of common ownership eliminates legal complications with lots which were owned in common when they were recorded but were long since sold. Clause 3: Absolute minimum standards for frontages and area are set. Clause 4: This clause intentionally provides some judgemental powers to the Board of Appeals to prevent unreasonable abuses of the Special Permit. The lot is required to be at least as large as is typical in its neighborhood. However, the exact standards on which this comparison must be made are left to the discretion of the Board. This clause also provides a point at which the neighbors can object to the proposed use of the lot. The distance within which neighborhood character must be considered is set at three hundred (300) feet. It is our opinion that using a three hundred (300) foot radius gives more opportunity for the impact on the whole neighborhood to be considered. It is felt that there are occasions where neighborhood character should not necessarily be determined only by one street. (One example: a corner lot). Clause 5: Building is allowed on an isolated lot because circumstances make it impossible to make the lot conform to the now existing standard. Where adjacent vacant lots could be merged to create conforming lots, this is clearly desirable. However, the combinations of non- isolated lots which have eighty percent (80 %) or more of the existing minimum standards could result in lots that would be more than w.0 one and one -half OW times the size of standard building lots in the district. This retroactive zoning would in actuality be forcing an unreasonable penalty upon owners of lots that are not of conforming size. Clause 6: The Special Permit is available only for lots which are buildable under all requirements other than area or frontage. For example, a lot which would require an additional variance because of wetlands would not qualify. This clause reflects the philosophy that a lot must represent a substantial and otherwise usable investment to merit a Special Permit. Respectfully submitted Gail F. Wood, Chairman Stephen Baumgartner, Secretary Carol B. Cotreau This report was accepted as a report of progress. ARTICLE 38. On motion of Joseph C. Sturm it was voted to lay Article 38 on the table. ARTICLE 39. Gail F. Wood moved that the Town vote to amend the Zoning By -Laws by adding the following as paragraph 6.3.1.3: 6.3.1.3 INTENT vow It is the intent of this paragraph to provide a limited, controlled and reasonable vehicle for lots which do not conform to existing standards to be built upon and prevent unfair or arbitrarily unbalanced sacrifices to be required of a few individuals when the resulting benefit to the public good is minimal, and the damage to the public good by providing an exemption is also minimal. The Board of'Appeals shall grant a Special Permit to build upon a non - conforming lot for one family use in any district permitting such use provided the applicant establishes: - at the time of its recording or endorsement, whichever occurred sooner, the lot conformed to the then existing requirements; 176 Adjourned AnnualTown Meeting June 11, 1979 - the lot was held in common ownership with adjoining land onFebruary 2, 1978; - the lot has at least five thousand (5,000) square feet of area and fifty (50) feet of frontage; - the area and frontage of the lot are similar to or greater than the area and frontage of a substantial number of built -upon lots which are located wholly or partly within three hundred (300) feet of the property line and in the same district; - all abutting lots, excepting lots in recreational, public or quasi -public use and lots located in an overlay district, are built upon, and such lots have at least five thousand (5,000) square feet of area and fifty (50) feet of frontage, or the lot and each abutting vacant lot(s), irrespective of ownership, has at least eighty (80) percent of the minimum area and frontage required in the district; and - all zoning requirements other than area and frontage are met. On motion of Roberta G. Botticelli it was voted that this meeting stand adjourned to meet at 8:00 P. M. on Thursday, June 14th, 1979, in the Reading Memorial High School auditorium. Meeting adjourned at 11:12 P. M. 155 Town Meeting members were present. A true copy. Attest: Lawrence Drew Town Clerk ADJOURNED ANNUAL TOWN MEETING Reading Memorial High School Auditorium June 14, 1979 The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, John W. Faria, at 8:00 P. M. The invocation was given by the Rev. Willard C. Arnold, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ARTICLE 39. On motion of Gail F. Wood as amended by James R. Boucher it was voted that the Town amend the Zoning By -Laws by adding the following as paragraph 6.3.1.3: 6.3.1.3 INTENT It is the intent of this paragraph to provide a limited, controlled and reasonable vehicle for lots which do not conform to existing standards to be built upon and prevent unfair or arbitrarily unbalanced sacrifices to be required of a few individuals when the resulting benefit to the public good is minimal, and the damage to the public good by providing an exemption is also minimal. The Board of Appeals may grant a Special Permit to build upon a non - conforming lot for one family use in any district permitting such use provided the applicant establishes: - at the time of its recording or endorsement, whichever occurred sooner, the lot conformed to the then existing requirements; - the lot was held in common ownership with adjoining land on February 2, 1978; - the lot has at least five thousand (5,000) square feet of area and fifty (50) feet of f rontage; - the area and frontage of the lot are similar to or greater than the area and frontage of a substantial number of built -upon lots which are located wholly or partly within three hundred (300) feet of the property line and in the same district;