Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-02 Planning Board MinutesMinutes of the Meeting of November 2, 1983. Chairman Kenneth Messina called the meeting to order in Room 11, the Community Center, 52 Sanborn Street with all Board members: M. Rich, J. Shaw, C. Arthur and B. Mitchel present. The Board opened their deliberations.on the matter of Repetitive Petition for Stoneham Savings Bank, Haverhill Street land. The Chairman noted that all discussion will be limited to "material and substantive"changes fromthe plan submitted to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the Zoning relating to Wetlands. The Chairman deferred any further discussion on Planning Board matters and called the public hearing to order. Recordings were made of the proceedings. There were approximately 25 citizens present. At 9:50 P.M., the Chairman reconvened the meeting of the Planning Board. Scenic Roads Ms. Rich had previous commitments and excused herself before discussion on final wording for regulations of Scenic Roads ensued. The Board reviewed the final draft prepared by Mr. Arthur and upon a motion duly made and seconded, the following changes were recommended: In Section 1.4 - add "or,portion thereof"; approved (4-0) In section 1.6 - add "on either side of"...the center line; approved (4-0) ; In Section 3.0 - fee of "Forty dollars ($40.00); approved (4-0) There being no further business before the Board, it was unanimously voted to adjourn at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Barry J. Mitchel, Clerk Rep Petition Stoneham Savings Bank 11/2/83 Page 2 Questions from Board members included: Could this granting by the Board set a precedent? OBL - Each case is unique and must be considered on its own merits. The particular configuration of this property is unique and he then presented a map which showed properties that would have similar problems. Was there a compensatorystorage area on the original plan presented to Board of Appeals? OBL - In original drainage design such area was to be'.placed behind lot 2. There is still plans to keep this area for other drainage. Can compensatory storage replace volume of what they are planning to fill? OBL - Sub-soil conditions are the same as within the area field. They will remove this layer, if necessary, and replace it elsewhere. Plans are to still have drainage deposited away from the FP area. Why was this not part of the original plan? OBL - From an engineering persepective, the previous plan was not detrimental to the FP, but the ZBA had trouble with the filling of 5320 sq ft of FP and so the new design was conceived to deal with that problem and to affect the FP area as little as possible. Why was roadway extended 100 feet? OBL - Because of change of roadway entrance, one lot was lost and roadway was extended to compensate for that and allow them to build the same number of houses as on the original proposal. Have you investigated alternate access, especially from paper street on Rustic Lane? OBL - There has been no change on the Rustic Lane access. Because the Town did not keep its rights to that access, they were lost and owners of that property have no interest in deeding over that right to Stoneham' Savings Bank. At this point of the meeting, the public was allowed to direct questions to be answered. Former chairman of the ZBA, John Anderson spoke to Board on not allowing the right to a repetitive petition as they are still encroaching on the overlay district. OBL answered that if they did not have to encroach on the overlay district, there would be no need for a request for a variance. Because of the unusual configuration of this particular parcel of property, there is no.access to over 24 acres of high, dry land. By not allowing access to this land is providing substan- tial hardship to the owners. Rep Petition Stoneham Savings Bank 11/2/83 Page 3 The Chairman of the Conservation Commission and former chairman spoke against allowing any encroachment on the Flood Plain. A brief history of the conservation laws for this Town was given and the Board was asked to uphold the intention of the 2/3 vote of Town Meeting which asked that no filling, dumping, earth removal, etc. be allowed in an overlay area. Mrs. Anderson asked that a lawyer from the Mass. Association of Conservation Commission, Alexandra Dawson, be allowed to speak to the Board. Miss Dawson stated that it was germaine for the Board to remember the 3 points on which the Board of Appeals decision was based: 1) - the land was signiificantly not unique; 2) - such granting would not intend to the public good; and 3) - such granting would derogate from the Flood Plain section of the Townr'°;s Zoning By-laws. Miss Dawson asked the Board not to grant the petition. She felt it would be detrimental not only to this Town's zoning laws, but would affect other towns as well. She asked that the Board consider her opinion that there has been nothing heard that shows a material and significant change. Chairman Messina then quoted the applicable section of the MGL and also excerpted from the "Ranney v. Board of Appeals of Nantucket" case in which the judge states that the Planning Board may give weight to differences or changes in a plan which are relatively minor. Colonel Anderson stated that the change proposed is not one of intent, the intent remains the same. A significant change he stated would be one to allow driving for pilings for bridging the overlay district. Conservation Chairman Sally Hoyt read a letter into the record stating their objections. Mr. Mitchel raised the question that the intent of the zoning in this regard meant that the land must be completely removed from the Flood Plain District. Dr. Nickerson, a well-known conservationist, stated that the original intent under Section 44 was that there was to be no-:change to any part of a Flood Plain. The question was then raised that this would not apply to drive- ways, they would be allowed, why then roadways? In response it was noted that current owners of land may be unnecessarily penalized from building on their property and a driveway was a minor varia- tion and such encroachment would not be significantly detrimental to the FP. A roadway would require greater earth removal in depth and width and such an encroachment would cause a significant adverse impact to the FP. The Chairman was asked to allow Colonel Anderson to submit another S Rep Petition Stoneham Savings Bank 11/2/83 Page 4 map in rebuttal of the map presented by Attorney Latham.. The Chairman agreed that such a map could be presented to the Board members after the close of the public hearing, but no other material or testimony would be allowed. It was then determined that the Board will meet to consider its decision on this matter on November 9, 1983 at 8 P.M. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Board closed its hearing at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Barry J. Mitchel Clerk