Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-01 Planning Board MinutesMinutes of the-Meeting-of November 1, 1983. Chairman Messina called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. in the Community..Center. Auditorium with B. Mztch.el and _ Rich."Pre sent. In attendance was a crew from Continental Cablevision and a reporter from the Reading. Chronicle. There were approximately 20 citizens present for attendance at the.public hearing. At 7:32 .P-.M.,-`.the Chairman 'opened the public hearing on Article 34 (date change of Zoning-Maps) on the 1983 Subsequent Town Meeting Warrant. At 9 P.M., the.Board reconvened in their office to discuss other agenda items. -Repetitive - -Petition Present, at this portion of the meeting were 0. "Bradley Latham, Esq., attorney_ for Stoneham Savings.-Bank, :former Board of Appeals ,:Chair- -man,.John ,Anderson,-.Ms-,_= Virginia Adams--of- Historical Commission and a reporter from--the---Chr6ni icle: The- Board __~_rev ewed--:the-.letter-from Town: Counsel -.x-egarding_ the Planning Board's-:rights.and responsibilities-under the process -Df-"Repetitive Petition". The-Board may dear the case before it -is==tbro-ught -before .:the-- Boar-d of -Appeals -to-::see7_1f ---there-were substantive.-changes from :one -petition -to -the ..next:-:. Also, there- is a zi ght _for due` -process =by the-petitioners even.if there__ is a- Court-case -pending . A -copy-of the `"Ranney Vs. Board of Appeals of Nantucket_ aas::forwarded. Included. i-n-~this_.decision-eras the s to tem i~lhe her =the -,PlainsL-.-or~he zsurx-ound ng-L:-co i-t ons -have changed--suf-fici ently-. to-justify ,a -reapplication -during the mora- tor-iwh---period : is =principally .-for-.the '_:Iocai board to _-determine . .The .:boar-d.-may..:.give weight-to-~differen?ces-which -:in an :absolute sense- are.. relatively `minor,." For - Intormatl-onai -purposes, the Board reviewed the 13oara . or. Appeals N vision, the minutes--from the Board of Appeals hearings, and thee ummons and complaint filed on behalf 'of Stoneham Savings Bank -The -vote must=be'_=a unanimous vote by the `Board of : Appeals in order to be granted. relief. The decision in question was 2-1 spii.-t. The--gin nority'=-opinion was-=-reviewed :.and discussed. It appears from questioning of the attorney, that the current status :3..s- still -that----there -is no -other access to be gained from either Haverhill street or Rustic Lane except the one that.would' cross-the-Overlay District of the proponents' land. The possibility of bridging was'also discussed. The Board then set the ground rules for 'the meeting tomorrow evehing. The""-Board=will-try to determine if-there have been 'substantial and material" changes An the revised plan. The Chairman will then limit discussion to that area-only--.and will not discuss or allow to..be discussed'the merits of the casein any_other_regard. The presence of all 5 members of the ;Board is most• preferred: -.A polling at 4 P.M. will be taken and if there is not - a -full :Board sitting, then the meeting-will be opened and postponed to a time and-date certain. Chairman requested that the old plans and layouts be obtained from the Board-of Appeals-so that a comparative analysis can be made. The legal question is: What is different? This is what will be-heard in discussion. There being no further business before the Board, it was-unani- mously voted to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully--submitted, READING .PLANNING BOARD Barry J. Mitchel,.Clerk