Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-05-17The Board of Appeals held a Special Meeting on Wednesday evening, May 17, 1989 in the Library/Conference room of the Town Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present and voting: William Sullivan, Acting Chairman, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, Walter Soule, Anna O'Connor and Louis Rissin. Elbrid§e Leland Party A~reived - 11 Marblerid~e Rd. The Board held a discussion on this petition and how it should be handled by them. Questioned if the Building Inspector's decision is upheld, could the petitioner come in for a Special Permit, also business/commercial in an R-1 zone? Glass glazing, is it legal under any conditions and if so, where is it covered in the bylaws. Mr. Soule felt that it was grandfathered in, but Mr. Rissin corrected him stating that only the farm was grandfathered. Mr. Sullivan stated that this is the first time that this has come to the attention of the Town, and Mr. Rissin questioned whether it should come before the Town Meeting for a definition and if so could we give him a temporary permit until he has the time to get it changed at the Town Meeting? The Board requested that the Town Counsel be contacted and asked to clarify this complicated situation and explain how ~r can make this legally conforming. Robert Batal Builders Variance - Route 114, Turmpike St. Mr. Robert represented Mr. R. Batal and said that the plans had been done the way they were in order to save trees. Mr. Nickerson said that he felt the 50' between buildings should be kept as is, Mr. Rissin agreed with that and said he felt that everything was being pushed to one side, and they could have a fewer number of buildings. Mr. Nickerson stressed that building on a hillside is not a hardship because it of their own choice. Mr. Soule stated that he feels this belongs in the planning area and that the density if too high in the area and would like to see another plan. Mr. $oule stated that if a new plan is presented to the Board, with less density, he could con- sider it. Mr. Nickerson said the felt that all four variances have one purpose and that is to get more buildings on the site. Ms. O'Connor said that there is not enough open land there. Mr. Dunn stated that the Planning Board is the one that asked to have the buildings moved so they would not be seen from the street. Mr. Nickerson stated that if that is the case, there are not enough trees big enough to hide the buildings. Mr. Sullivan feels that the number of units and the density is to high and the variance requested should not be granted. This discussion concerned Section 8.5(6)(c): 50-foot distance between structures. The Board agreed that 22' wide streets was acceptable. This covers Section 8.1(7). Regarding Section 8.5(6), 30-foot height limit, Mr. Sullivan stated the the new bylaw is 40' so he feels that it is ok to do it now. Mr. Rissin feels it is ok too and the only thing that concerns him is the density. They stated that the new bylaw has more restrictions and is more definitive. Mr. Dunn stressed that the height should only be 37-37' Mr. Sullivan said the Board should act with the work of the new bylaw. In regard to Section 8.5(6)(c), 50-foot buffer zone; Mr. Nickerson stated that this should be no hassle, three(3) sides are open land now and the landscaping is the concern of the petitioner. They should leave as many of the trees there as possible. Chris Huntress, Enviromental Planner, spoke for the Planning Board and he agrees with the plans the petitioner presented to the Board as far as the buffer, height and streets are concerned. Mr. Rissin asked how about the Planning Board saying that there are too many buildings? Mr. Huntress said the developers always come in with the most that they can allow. Mr. Soule and Mr. Rissin said that we should realize that all the Planning Board's work has now been dropped on our table. Mr. Nickerson asked why, if we insist on 50', should this be infeasible? Mr. Huntress said that the Planning Board has worked with the petitioner and the original plans have been changed very much. Looking at the site realistically, this is the best use for this land and for a better quality development. Robert Batal Bldrs - con'd Page 2 Mr. Nickerson said he has a problem with the industrial side buffer zone. Mr. Dunn assured him that it would be completely landscaped so that no one will see the street from the buildings and it has been planned by a designers. He also said that the trees are 35-40' tall, not 25' as Mr. Nickerson said. Mr. Nickerson said that he had walked the hill and thought the trees were lower. Mr. Huntress stated that they wanted 50% open space and the petitioner has given 79% open space. This is undisturbed area and the trade-off of this open space is worth it. Mr. Soule asked why the commercial building could not be moved back, and Mr. Dunn said that there are three (3) lots and it is zoned GB and will be for eight (8) years. The 70+% of the land being given is cannot be used. Mr. Rissin stated that a lot of the land cannot be developed so they are not giving us a lot of good land and asked why not have one less unit and leave the 50' zone between the units. Mr. Nickerson questioned the water supply to the project. Mr. Huntress said that a booster will be put in. Mr. Sullivan said that there should be less units, it looks like it is too crowded. Less density would mean less buildings. Mr. Dunn showed the Board pictures of the two (2) types of garages used in the complex. Mr. Huntress said the Planning Board had discussed all the variances and feel that they can be worked out. Mr. Rissin asked, if every Board approves ant then it comes to the ZBA, do you feel that because it is approved by you that it should be approved by us? Mr, Dunn said that a TRC meeting was held and Mr. Nicetta was asked to attend. Mr. Soule stressed that the Board should be acting on only what is presented to us and not trying to be Planners. Mr. Sullivan asked if the Board could give the petitioner some idea of that we can accept, and Mr. Rissin said, why not let the petitioner withdraw without prejudice or give an extension so that he can present plans with less density because of the 50' between buildings. Mr. Soule requested plans for the landscaping as well. Mr. Sullivan asked if the Board was receptive to less than 50' and they agreed. He asked if the mew plans could be prepared and given to the Board, showing less density and the landscaping. The petitioner stated yes, so Mr. Sullivan said they would discuss it at the June 13th meeting and asked the petitioner for a letter extending the time limit to June 20, 1989. Mr. Dunn wrote the letter while at the meeting and presented it to the Board. The Board stated that the garages side by side are less of a problem, and question the garage to residence. The residence to residence side by side are more of a problem. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held on June 13, 1989 at 7:30 in the Library/Conference room of the Town Building. Audrey W~Taylor, S~retary William SU ~ivan~ Acting Chairman