HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-03-05 ~onda~ - ~areh ~, 1973~
I Regular Meeting - 2 Zoning Amendment
hearings
The PLA~NI~ BOARD held its regular meeting on Monday evening, ~=rch 5,' 1973
at 7:30 P.M. in the Fire Station meeting room. The following members were present
a~d voting: Do~ld N. Xeirstead, Vice Chairman; Fritz Ostherrt Clerk and William
Chepulis. Chairman Charles W. Tro~bly, Jr. and John J. Monteiro arrived lager.
Chairman Trembly did not sit on the zoning amendment hearimge since this was his
last ~eoting. ~r. Xeirstead was .Acting Chairman for the _eve~tx~g.
There were over 35 people present for the meeting.
Atty. A1 Bradley and Atty. Donald Smith 'appea~ed before the Board ~ith plans to
be signed as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Last of land
belonging to Leonard Ostes on Sylvan Terrace.
F~r. Ch'epulis 'made a motion to sign the plans; ~r. OStherr seconded the motion and
the vote was unanimous.
~EARI~G~ #Indoor Recreatinaal Fae4l!ties**
Mr. Ostherr read the legal notice upon a proposal to anend the Ze~-~ By-Law
as follows:
'?o see if the ?o~n ~ Vote to anend Section ~.129 of its Z~ei-2 BY-Law w~ich
lists the uses permitted in Inddstrial #1# District, by adding the follow£ug sub-
section
(17) Indoor recreational facilities (S~eCial Permit ~equired).~*
Mr. ~erk Henry and Atty. Stephen Duly appeared before the Board to exp!-~m the
reason for the amendmemt to the By-Law.
Mr. Henry said they had thought recroatiow-~ facilities woro -~o~ed in aa
Industrial 1 area~ but fo-~ ~he~ they tried to get a b,,~ l~g permit for a~ ice
skating rink facility, that recreational facilities ~as not included in that'
district. S~Amaing and temmie clubs are ~ a~d they want the section
clarified to i~clude recreational f~_e~ ~tias.
Atty. Duly felt that it was probably left out of that district i~adverte~ly,
since it was allowed in other areas. They feel that ice hockey should also be
included. The amendment also requires a special permit which would be further
protection to the townspeople. They feel it :fa. appropriate te add recreational
facilities to this. aectio~ ef the By-law~ ·
Mr. Xeirstead th~-~-~ that the section was left in Industrial 2 i~advertently;
that perhaps at acme future te~n meeting ~e action could be taken te take .it
out. The Board felt that ,recreational feliCities#was tee e~ooa~asai~g and
could include a number .of facilities ~minh the te~n might net want. .
Louis ~miec asked if ~ alleys and that type of .fae~lity.would then be
eluded as a recreational facility. The Board said it would. ~ that oaso~ he
stated he was oppcsed~ that there iea substantial amount of industrial land on
Rtes. 11~ and 125 and that if this amem.dment ~ through it ~mld.epea the ~oor
to other types of recreation ~reas.
March 5, 1973- coat.
Henry Fink asked if some things could be allowed ~y special permit. Some types
might be go~d and each thing could be evaluated by requiring a special permit.
Kr. Ostherr' pointed out that this anendmeat wt~! require 'a special permit.
~r. Che~,14s thinks the term of 'indoor recreational facilities' is very, very
broad. The Z~i~ By-law tends to be specific in uses allowed.
K~. Ostherr asked the potiti~ners if they ~ould be w*l~4~g to be more specific
and state an #indoor skating fac!~ty".
Nr. Hear~ said they don't 'have ~ great concera about the wording.of the article;
if the Bo~ ~d rather 1~,~ it' to a s~cific t~, th~ wo~d ~ ~ ~th
t~t ~. Th~ ~e ~ t~g ~ut 10 acres ~ ~tri~-i ~ea.
ExtenSion of the sewer Lime to that area im the future ,~ee discussed.
Mr. £eirstead suggested that no action be %akan this eve~'~ om the"zo~ng amem~-
mant hearings - that actioa be taken at a meeting to be held between now and
Mr. K~teiro made a motion to take the petition u~der adviseme~; Mr. Chepulis
seconded' 'the motion and the vote was unanimous.
Mr. Ostherr read the legal notice upon the proposal to amend the Zoning By-Law
as follows ~
"To see if the T~a will vote to amend ~ection ~.129 of its Zo~t~g By-Law which
lists the uses permitted in the Industrial "1# District* by strikiag out sub-
section (3) and inserting in place thereof the following sub-~ection-.
(3) Re, ail, perso~e~ servicer and eating and drinking uae Shall *be permitted
in an amount not to exceed ~ of the total gross floor.area ~f the principal uses.s
~. Heary and Atty. Duly spoke on this petition also. Aetv-~ ~y, the only .change
in that section ia striking out. the uord "liuited~.
Atty. Duly said they did not realize that the wo~d #linited~ was not clear in the
By-law until they tried to borrow money and the b~n~,s attorney interpreted it
~ eferently than what they thought the By-law intended.
Mr. Ostherr eaid it was inte~_ded that limited rets11 ~e e~om~s twa'thi~g~;
1) for the service of the .maployeee, such as a cafeteria, amd 2) ~robabl~ a mill
store to allow a retail outlet for things mamufaetured in the operation.. Ne
suggested somethimg that could read: rets11 use floor area limited to $ of the
total floor area; eapleyeee facilities; sale of prodaets .manufactured~ as an
Mr. Henry said they wanted to have a sport shop and a snack bar so that the
amendment as stated by Mr. Ostherr would not help. ~
March 5, 1~73- cont.
Atty. Duly said it bec~ee difficult when you try to borrow ~oney and the Zoning
By-Law is subject to a'cer~aln lawyer's in~erpretation.~
Mr. Keiretead said they did ~t want to create c~aercial districts in these
industrial areas; they wanted to limit the use.
The Board felt the section could probably be re-worded~ they ~ ~ork on it.
Mr. Chep~$ made a'~otion to take the petition ~der advisemeat;
seconded the tactics and the vote was.
Mr. Hates exp]a~-ed .that ~ethue~ Co~t. Co. is an aff4~Aate org~w~a%ie~ who
want to develop the 3utto~ Hill area ad~acea~ %o ~he reservoir. The proposed
subdivision con%alas approx. 31 l~ts a~d a t~al area of approx. ~5 acres. The
lots are more th__~_~ the required 25~000 ~q. ft.~ soae are eve~ 66,000 sq. ft.
They plan to extend Sandra Lane through the devolop~ent~ the roadway extends to
the property ]..~e.
Mr. Keirstead said the drainage pipe should be piped to the property li~e.
queeti~ned Glen R~ad and eh®thor or not it was on an ap~ved
They shooed the prof~le which indicates a ~% grade and then goes to a 9% grade.
They have to ~-~tain a 12" pipe ,that services Johnson Street froa the. ~eearvoir.
Discussion was hold. e~ the steep grade of the r~adway.
Mr. Busby said they ~ tie the water in through Sandra Lane. The top ~ots at
the turnaround ~ probably have to ge to wells.
Mr. =de a . ion =tier t° S di ,ion
committee for report at the next meetiag and distribute copies of the plans as
required under Soctic~ 3(a), .~ge 7, of the Subdivision Eules a~d Regulati~
Mr. Ostherr seconded the ~otion and the vote was u~ani~ous. ..
JOH~ON CIRCLE
The following were present concerning this subdivision; Atty. Joh~. ~illis,
Scott C-ile~,' eng~e~r~ Atty. Clifford ~as and HemW Domoven.
Mr. Chepulis reported for ~he ~ubdivisi~ Control ~ubco~ittas. ' He ~°ted. that'
there was no profile. John ~illis' stated %ba_t they have conforaed with ~ of
the Board's requests. Mr.~ Oetherr read the reasons for disapproval to see if
the re~,~ane~te are being met on the' new plan's. Mr. 0hepulis said that the
plans agree with whet the B~ard had objected to. Scott Giles said ~hey are
routing the brook a~d discussion was held o~ the 22 ft. paved r~adwa~.
Mr. Chepulis ~ade a ~otion to APPROVE the plan~ subject to tho receip~ of the
~t~en of the plan dated February 28,
Mr. ~illis said the statute requires that they now ge before the Co~ervation
Oo~isaion.
~arch 5, 197~ - cont.
Mr. Keirstead said that before the plan can be approved, the topegraphical .
and profile plan ~ust be on ~en as the regulatioms
Mr, Ostherr said he w~uld like to request that the developer take Pesitive
steps to control erosion during~the development process. This could be worded
in the condition somehow.
Mr. Willis said he ~ould like sone definitive action from thio Board t~aight
because the Board meabers are going to be changed and they have done everything
they have been asked to do.
Mr. Monteiro seconded the ~o~ion~
Atty. Elias said his clients .are objecting. He said the 'notice of .denial is
unclear. He does mot see anything to show that the natural water flow has been
protected; nothing to show that drainage ~ be In, teemed. There should be
so~e k~nd of assurance that there will ~ot be eroaion~ they should protect the
natural features. Moving of the strea~ c~ee under the Hatc~oaes Act. He
questions whether or not the Board is acting properly ~der the statute; The
petitioner should satisfy ~ regulations of the Board~ c~aplete plans are not
before the Board this eve~n~. A court ~1~ ~ot look kindly .to proeeedimge
such as this Board has bee~ having.
Both .of his clients are sot o~posed to the ontire subdivision but are concerned
about the botto~ 3 or ~ lots and the drainage of the area.
Mr. Xeir~ead said that umder the regulation, the Board has the right to require
the developer to pro~ect ,the ~atural water course. ~e referred to ~eeti~ '6 of
the Subdivision regulations which state ia part that ~strict conpliance may be
~aived~ etc.~
Mr. Detour, Johason Street, spoke agaia, objecting. He montioned traffic in
the area that ~ be caused bY the develop~eat.
The vote ~an then taken entha ~°tion to approve the subdivision; it-wasa
u~An4m~us vote by the Board. :
PR~W~T_ ATIOH TO C~A~MA~ TRO~RLY:
~r. Chep~s sade a presontation to Ch-~~man Charles W. Treably, jr. of a
placque for his ~ears of service on the Planning BOkrd. Mr. ~o~bl~'S tema
ex~ired and he chose not to run for re-election. Mr. Chepulis comemded him
for his services ~ad assistance to the Board.
Mm%~ geirstead than ce~aended ~rs. D~-__~ue, the Board'b secretary, for her ~ork.
The Planaing Board received' notices of ~ hearings to be held by the Board
of Appeals on ~arch 12~h.
They voted as follow8 on each petition:
~arch 5, 1973 - cont.
1. ~oren Re_~ty - divisio~ of land - no
2, Tro~bly Bros., Iac.- servi~e station - no coolant'
3. Louis St. Pierre - sidelime variance for additio~ - mo coe~e~t.
~. Ar~and LaPointe - division of land; no co~ent.
5. Prescott Nursing Ho~e - Special per, it for nursi~ ho~e - refer to special
dimensional requirements for nursing he,es; footnote ~9, table 2 of Z~ B~-law.
A copy of a letter fr~ Teen Coonsel to Atty.. Joha ~illis re the subdivision
bond sub,tied to the Board for J. & V. Realty was received. Atty. 3aliabury
sas reqeasting several additi~ to be ~ade to the bond for the protect~m of the
to~n. This copy was for the Board's infer~ation..
MI~RINACII VALLEr P~G COI~,IISSIDN~ '"
A letter was received from the C~~. ssion rea~mdin~ ~ha Be~ ~t'it ~
for the ~ly ap~~ of a P~ Bo~ m~ber to t~ C~ 8~on.
~ be dona ~er ~ecti~ of officers. '
AROHDIOCE~ OF BO~TOI(:
Mr. Ja~es Beattte ap~ed ~f~e t~ B~ to r~est a ehnn~:h the
~eation of the ~eh 19~ meet~ ~th t~ ~ese. He ask~ the Bo~ to
~de l~ger q~ers t~ t~ F~e Stati~ B~ti~ ~ because th~ ~ be
a l~ge ~b~ of ~ople ~ att~nce. It ~ ~8t~ t~t ~ssib~ the ~
sc~ol c~e~a ~d be a ~d location. The sec~t~ ~ see ~ it is
He also asked for clarification as ~o the grouad rules of that ~eetiag. Mr.
Ostherr exp!-4~ed that tharo ~ill be a ~orkiag session for an hour or so between
the Archdiocese and the Plamting Board sad then questions froa the floor ~ be
~ ~ owed.
The Board agreed to meet on Saturday ~dag, March l?th, at 10~00 A.M. in
the Toan Bldg. for election ef officers and also to vote on the zo~ng ~aend~ants
for which hearings were held this eve-t-g; and ~11 then attand to~n masting ia
the afternoon.
Chester $-~an was p~ooe~t. Mr. Chepulis reported for the Subdivis~n
Control Subco-~ttas. He had several questions ~d made several su~stions.
The Board a~eed that the followin~ should be done~
1. Pipe ~ust be extended at end of tur~_~r~aud, at south corner of ~ith ~
to the ~nhole shown on the profile .
2. Re-locate one catch basin at bend of road, close to lots 8 & 9, approx.
station ~5.02.
:i.973- con~.
3. Definition of type of ber~ (caP?.'Ood berm),
P1ans $~ould show~ date of revision.
5. Lo~ and seed'fr~ ~arb to property line.
6.
Delete lot numbers not applicable to this subdivision and identify abutters.
The new plans ~ill be submitted at the AI:~ 2nd meeting., .
The Board voted to sign the following plans as not requiring approval under
%he Subdivision Control Law.
1. Dorothy &, David Re~nie~ 'Chiekering Road.
2~ Mrs. Vince~zo Ippolito.
The meeting adjourned at 10=30 P.M.
(Donal~ ~. xe~steac/) '' "'- Chaiman
· (Anna Doaedme)