HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-12 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Minutes of the Meeting:
Zoning Board of Appeals
Senior Center
120R Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
January 12, 199~ .~
The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday
evening, January 12, 1999, in the Senior Center at 7:30
p.m. The following members were present: William J.
Sullivan, Chairman; Walter F. Soule, Vice Chairman; Raymond
Vivenzio; John Pallone; Ellen McIntyre; Robert Ford; Scott
Karpinski; and George Earley.
Chairman Sullivan explained the procedure of the hearing to
the public assembly. The following are some verbatim
excerpts of the meeting along with the minutes.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: So everybody who is here
tonight I would like you all %o come forward quickly
and close so that we can hear you with the recorder,
and we need you to identify yourself and your address
maybe or who you're representing when you're being
called upon or when you wish to speak.
I'll give you what our procedure normally is.
The legal notice is read, the chair will then
recognize whoever the agent or the petitioner may be.
When we have all the information for those who are
favoring the petition we will then read any
correspondence we may have, and then we'll listen to
anybody who is opposed to the petition. Then there
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
anybody who is opposed to the petition. Then there
will be some discussion amongst the board members'and
maybe the people who are here in attendance ~onight,
but I wish you to follow where you may be. Depending
whether you're favorable or opposed to the petition
you'll know approximately where to speak up and talk.
And I need you to talk loud, and I need you to
identify yourself with whatever address you might
have. Everybody understand that procedure?
The first thing we have on the agenda here
would be to approve the minutes for the three meetings
that we have here. One is the 11/10, 12/8, and
another one is 12/17. Can I have a motion on that.
MR. VIVENZIO: So moved.
MR. SOULE: Second.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: Motion made and seconded
to approve the three sets of minutes. All those in
favor.
Pass.
Continued Public Hearinq:
DONNA WHIPPLE
37 Columbia Road
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN:
We can listen to the
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
first one, that is Donna Whipple, that's on here.
This is a continued meeting, so we do not have to read
the legal notice on a continued hearing.
Is there anybody here to represent Donna
Whipple?
MR. SOULE: Mr. Sullivan, I ask you, who are
the five members.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: There were six members
that heard the evidence, and of that we have five of
those here now, and that is Sullivan, Soule, Ford,
McIntyre, and Scott Karpinski.
MR. SCALISE: Mr. chairman and members of the
board, for the record, my name is Dominic Scalise.
I'm here on behalf of the petitioner. You will
remember this is a matter that started back in August
at our first meeting in August, and we've been off and
on before the board. I think the only issue, if I'm
not mistaken, is the actual final presentation was
made at the last meeting where we hit most of the
issues, and I think at the last meeting the board
directed two questions of issues they had concerns
with.
One of them was the parking and whether or
not the plan that we had presented with a stack type
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
of parking two, two, and two, if that was going to be
sufficient, and the other issue I believe was whether
or not there were other lots in the area that may in
the future be subdivided in a similar manner. As far
as the other lots'in the area, I think certainly if
any of the board members were able to go out and look
at those lots, what we did, you will see that most of
the lots that we showed on an original assessor's plan
have been built on. I can show a. plan, I can show the
assessor's plan that's been up there, and we did the
updating because the assessor's plans are not updated
as you can see from the annex. This is the assessor's
plan that I had originally provided to the board, and
where you see penciled in on vacant lots are the
houses as they exist today. You'll find that most of
them, most of them are houses, that either cover --
most of the newer lot houses cover the lots because
the setback requirements are located on -- most of
them are in the center of the lots.
There are a few here and there that are on
lots that are larger lots, but for the most part the
question I think that was presented last time was
whether or not there were other lots in the area that
could be subdivided, and I think that by looking at
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
this plan there may be one or two vacant lots but the
rest of them are -- basically the lots are covered
with houses. And I can certainly review that plan,
and I hope that answers that issue of whether or not
there are other lots that are still vacant.
As far as the parking, I talked to
Mr. Nicetta. Well, actually, I think I was directed
to talk to Mr. Nicetta. We talked about whether or
not this type of parking was going to be adequate.'
The issue here is that there are three apartments, and
every apartment would have two parking spaces, so the
parking is basically sufficient for the building.
It's just the configuration of having them stacked
behind each other, and I think that was addressed by
Mr. Nicetta. He would prefer to see parking off the
street and individual parking% so what we did do
is I had Mr. Curren from Appleton show us a proposal
that I'm going to present to the board. This is not a
mylar. I didn't go through the expense of a mylar
because at this point the Whipple family has been
revising plans. I can provide the board with a final
plan of this, but I would like to show what the
proposal was.
This is the existing house, the proposed new
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
one, and the driveway with parking at a 45 degree
angle. This parking configuration is doable because
there certainly is enough land next to the house, and
it would eliminate the garage, the barn that's there
now, and the cars'would go down the driveway and park
next to the house. And if this is an acceptable plan
and the board sees fit to allow this, then we would
provide the board with a mylar that would show the
actual parking scheme in it.
I don't know if there are any other
questions. We've been over this a number of times,
and I think we've addressed the issues they have been
presented to us.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: Just a question I have
here at the moment. Do we have any further
correspondence since our last~meeting on this, Bob?
MR. VIVENZIO: We don't have the original
file, Bill.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: There is nothing I know
of. We did dig into this quite a bit, and I went down
and visited the area, and it is quite congested, and
there are quite a few other lots that have similar
size lots, and they have one house on one side. There
is a lot of congestion in the area. I looked at the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Chapter 40A to find out about a variance, and I
personally do not think this meets the requirement for
the variance. And I also do not think that this thing
here is in the best intent of that area to have two
substandard lots, so that's my position there.
I would like you to address that if you can.
MR. SCALISE: I know the chairman is
concerned with their proposal, and there is no
question that it creates smaller sized lots by taking
their large lot. The good factor here is that the
existing house sits right on the, or a matter of four
or five feet from the side, the boundary line, and I
think that leaves enough land, a sufficient amount of
land to put in a smaller, single-family house.
The last meeting we addressed the issue of
the runoff, the location of the house, how the house
could be refined so there would be no runoff, it would
be down the side of the house, run down the lot. And
I think that was the concern that the abutters had,
that they're suffering from water that runs through
this empty, vacant lot into their property. The last
time we were here Mr. Curren addressed the issue of
runoff, and by situating the house the way we had by
redesigning it there would not be any runoff of water
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
that would proceed across the lot. The best way to
address this kind of a subdivision I think is to iook
at the overall neighborhood. There are a lot of lots
5,000 square feet. My concern is that if we were
going from one acre lots to half acre lots then I
think there would be a problem, but if you look at the
overall neighbor, you will find that most of the lots
are in that range of 7,000 to 10,000 square feet, and
I think this lot lends itself this kind of
subdivision.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: We'll go on with the
meeting. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak
against this petition?
There was an open discussion on whether building permits
were done properly, and through Chairman Sullivan it was
found through research that there was a sufficient amount
of building permits that looked like they were done
properly.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: I'm still very much
against creating the subdivision. I guess the
substandard lots, you're going to go from 12,500 to
7500 now. zoning is changed over many, many years,
and it's done to try and prevent the crowding. It's
also done to try to prevent this density from parking.
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
Most of these buildings were built within walking
distance of the mills many years ago. There are
automobiles there now. I think that this is just a
very, very dense area, and I don't think that we as a
board have a right to make substandard lots based on
all the things that we have that are before us.
First of all, there is the growth bylaw that
we incorporated two to three years ago at the town
meeting which is saying that they~don't want this~
growth growing, and we're going to create substandard
lots to allow the growth to grow. I personally am
against granting this petition. I'm sorry, Mr.
Whipple, but that's my feeling on this particular
issue, and the zoning in that area.
If anybody else has any comments, please feel
free to give them.
Mr. Ford asked how many families were in the existing house
now, and a discussion ensued on what the intentions and
reasons were to create one three-family house plus one
single-family home. Chairman Sullivan talked about court
cases which referenced that planning boards and the board
of appeals need to make findings that the substantial
hardships be based upon the soil, shape, and topography of
the land.
In further discussion from the board Mr. Soule talked about
the to incorporate elevation plans and front views would
have to incorporated into the decision, and he did not know
if the proponent was aware of that requirement. Mr.
Scalise felt that the last plan they submitted showed the
Addendum date: February 4~ 1999
The following information is the amended minutes to the January 12, 1999
"Minutes of the Meeting". Please reference page 10 of the attached document to see
edits made by Walter F. Soule, Vice Chairman of the ZBA.
Note: Not one ZBA member was forthcoming with a motion~ therefore, Chairman
Sullivan handed the gavel to Vice Chairman Soule aooointing him the acting
Chairman so that he could have forward motion on the application for relief.
Therefore~ under Robert's Rules the chairman made the motion accordine to proper
parliamentary procedure.
Mr. Sullivan: I make a motion that we deny this for the reasons that it does not
conform with the Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts state laws~ that the variance
does not meet the criteria of the four items that is necessary, which is the - it has to
do with the soft and the land~ soil~ shape, and topography. I make that as a denial.
Acting Chairman: Mr. Soule: I'll second it.
Mr. Sullivan: Motion made and seconded that this petition be denied. Any
questions on the motion and the second?
Ml/Janmt~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
footprint of the house with a driveway that entered from
the front and also showed the style of the house with the
driveway. In speaking for himself Mr. Soule said he would
not be able to vote on anything speculative. Mr. Karpinski
did not agree stating that they are not submitting a set of
house plans for our approval.
Mr. Nicetta pointed out that the driveway has to be 25
feet, and it did not appear as though it was 25 feet and
that there would not be room for a car to turn around in
that location. Mr. Curren tried to explain that there was
sufficient room until he was interrupted by Chairman
Sullivan.
Attorney Scalise discussed the intentions of the Whipple
family and the hardships they were faced with and the
neighbors that were in their favor.
Mr. Ford asked whether they were looking for an in-law
apartment. Attorney Scalise responded no. Mr. Soule said
that they were going to have to address the special permit,
and Mr. Karpinski suggested they withdraw the special
12 I permit.
13 I Chairman Sullivan called for a motion.
14 ~ ~~'~ : I make a
for reasons that it
.at we
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
!~'~l~"~he Chapte~- ~0~ of ~assachusetts state laws, that
the variance does not meet the criteria of the four
items that is necessary, which is the -- it has to
do with the soil and the land; soil, shape, and
topography. I make that as a denial.
C~-~ ~ MR. SOULE: I'll second it.
~~) Motion made and seconded.
that this petition be denied. Any questions on the
motion and the second?
11
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. SOULE: Yes. I would just like to
question briefly the intent of your motion. I think I
understand. Did you want to include in that motion
also something to do with --
CHAIRMAN~SULLIVAN: I do not want to create
any substandard lots in a congested area such as this
particular one.
MR. SOULE: And do you want also something to
do with --
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: I think if this is
denied -- I don't want to address the parking. It is
going to be denied. The reason for that there is that
it's already an existing precondition down there that
they have to have some parking. I don't want to
address that and make a decision that has to be
enforced and it forces a harder, a bigger hardship on
the people that are living there.
MR. SOULE: I should have withdrawn my
second. I'll withdraw my second, and I will second
his revised motion ifithat's all right with you.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: So we understand the
motion, it has to do With four variance issues and
substandard lots. Any more discussion from the
members of the board
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
@
18
2O
22
23
MR. KARPINSKI: So parking isn't the issue.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: Parking is not the issue.
It's the substandard lots, and also the variance does
not meet the criteria that is necessary.
There was a discussion on the motion.
C~~MR' SOULE: All right. The motion has been
made and seconded. We have had b~ard discussion. ,
Without further adieu I will call for a vote.
SULLIVAN:
it fails. It is denied.
So it's four to one, and
Continued Public Hearinq:
Eric & Lisa Dahl
65 Weyland Circle (Lot # 6)
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: The next one we have
is that of Eric and Lisa Dahl, and that is a
continued, so we don't have to read the legal notice.
Attorney James DiGiulio presented to the board the existing
nonconforming zoning setback issues with a set of plans.
He explained through applying to refinance and a survey
that was conducted on their property they found out of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
existing problems. Mr. and Mrs. Dahl purchased the
property believing that the property did conform and had
every reason to believe so based upon the certification,
based upon the fact that there were no issues raised.
It was also understood that the builder had also received
an as-built plan or a plot plan prior to applying for the
certificate of occupancy and that plot plan was also a
certification that the permits complied with the zoning.
Lisa Dahl explained her issues of having the possibility of
being relocated at any time and feeling as if they were
being held hostage to the town of North Andover. She
suggested sanctioning the builder or placing fines on them,.
that the builders were accepting responsibility for this
problem.
Thomas Hurley from Evergreen spoke of ~he steps they were
taking to try to correct the problem of setbacks and trying
to purchase property from Mr. Burke to be in conformance
and his refusal to sell.
reason?
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: Did he give you any
MR. HURLEY: He verbally -- he didn't. He
just said that he was unwilling.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: Just that he was
unwilling?
MR. HURLEY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: That's all you have at
the moment?
MR. HURLEY: That's all I can tell you.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: What does the future look
like, Tom? Does this thing look like this litigation
is going to get resolved?
14
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. HURLEY: There was no time table that he
could put on it.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: Would you people be able
to buy a piece of land if that litigation went away?
MR. HURLEY: That would be Mr. Burke's
decision. He didn't speculate one way or the other.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: I'm going to make a
proposal to the board. First of all, I would like to
know if they have any questions..
MR. HURLEY: I'm really not up to speed as to
what the issues are. I personally am not aware of all
the specifics of what Mr. Burke's reasons are for not
making that land available to us.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: I have some suggestions,
but first of all I need to know if the board members
here have any questions or any thoughts along that
line.
Mr. Soule asked what Tom Hurley's work was related to this
development, and he said his official status is the
construction supervisor for Evergreen Management. He
didn't personally construct Lisa and Eric's home, that
there was another supervisor at that time who pulled the
permit and he was responsible for that home, and he
couldn't speak for him why it was an oversight. Mr. Soule
asked how this plan fit with the'building department's
as-built plan and the plan of design before it was built
and why they did not build what they were suppose to build.
That question could not be answered by Mr. Hurley.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: Can I have the floor.
again. I would like to make -- I've been through
gymnastics on how we may be able to resolve this, and
because Mr. Burke is not being very cooperative I
would like to have you continue going in that
direction?
I would like you to, I would like to propose
that we grant the variance at the very beginning here
which is about three-quarters of a foot, .8 feet I
think it is, so it's approximately three-quarters of a
foot on the front, and what I would like to do as a
condition in the rear, that the builder, which would
be the Evergreen Management people, oontinue to
pursue, and we'll give you up to a certain period of
time, whatever the board decides, six months, nine
months, a year to buy the piece of property in the
back and resolve it in some manner that way.
But I want to see legal documents, registered
letters sent to the people, and I want to see more
than one, I want to see many, that you are actually
pursuing doing something along that line, and we'll
condition that, and then you'll have to come back here
before the board to show us what you did.
Now, if you are successful in getting this
16
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
piece of land this becomes mute and you get what you
want or Mrs. Dahl will; and if you don't, then we;ll
take it up as a hardship issue a year from now or
whatever. But I want to see response back from
Mr. Burke, and I want to see you, and I want to see
registered letters so that we will know that these
things actually happened, not hearsay.
Mr. Karpinski stressed that if they were going to put
conditions on the property to be sure to put them not on
the owners of the home but with the builders. Further
discussion ensued on the language of the condition and what
Evergreen Management was willing to do to make the lot
conforming.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: The condition will be a
separate item from the variance. You still can handle
it as a cloud over the property, but the cloud will be
his not hers.
MR. SOULE: I don't know if you can do that,
but --
MR. VIVENZIO: She's the applicant, Bill. He
is not the applicant.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: But he is the builder,
and he also signed the application.
MR. SOULE: But he's gone in the sense that
he's got his building permit. In order to bind
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
him now you would have to get a separate agreement
from him.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: The variance in the front
which is the three-quarters of a foot, that there can
be made legal. The condition here, they will have to
agree to it, and they'll have to do that in writing.
MR. VIVENZIO: They'll have to do that by a
separate document, but her variance ought to be
absolute without anything that he. does.
MR. SOULE: It seems to me that what we're
doing in that case would be asking to continue the
request of the variance on the rear, technically
speaking.
Further discussion was held on how to hold Evergreen to
continue to seek the variance.
MR. VIVENZIO: Before the time this decision
is filed, and there is 14 days to file it, Mr. Hurley
of Evergreen will submit a letter to the board stating
what his company is agreeing to do by a separate
document addressed to the board and signed by an
officer of Evergreen management. That way we have
that, and that way we get it before the time we give
her decision, and I think that's the only way we
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
can realistically do it.
MR. HURLEY: That is something we're going to
actively, we're going to actively pursue with Jay
Burke to get that property.
CHAIRMAN-SULLIVAN: We want a letter within
the next week to tell us that you're going to do this,
that you're going to cite the property, you're going
to cite the lot number, you're going to cite the
address, you're going to cite all. the things that 'will
tie this right down to here signed by an officer of
the corporation, not your yourself. You can
countersign it, but I want to see it signed by
Mr. Davis or whoever else
MR. HURLEY: I'll have Mark Johnson draft
something up.
Further discussion on how the Zoning Board will be able to
hold Evergreen responsible.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: Have we kind of resolved
this? We need a motion.
MR. HURLEY: You'll have the letter by the
end of this week.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: We'll have it by Friday?
MR. HURLEY: Yes.
19
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: Make sure that it's
per the wording that we would like to have in the~e.
MR. HURLEY: I'll talk to Mark Johnson
tomorrow morning, and we'll get that wrapped up.
CHAIRMAN~SULLIVAN: Can we have a motion.
MR. KARPINSKI: I would like to make a motion
to grant the variance for 65 Weyland Circle for a
front setback of .8 feet and a rear set back of 8 feet
as requested. No conditions.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: Do we have a second on
that? Do we have some questions on the motion?
MR. VIVENZIO: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: Motion seconded. Do we
have any questions on the second?
MR. KARPINSKI: No conditions.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: 7o conditions per relief
that she needs to settle. It also gives relief to her
attorney for his money, but it also holds them
responsible because the condition is going to
put -- there will be no conditions, but there is a
part in our decision that they owe us a letter to
assume responsibility to correct this.
MR. VIVENZIO: It won't be part of our
decision.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: But it will be part of
the discussion.
MR. VIVENZIO: Part of the minutes of the
meeting.
CHAIRMAN'SULLIVAN: I'm trying to get her off
the hook, but I don't want him off the hook.
Everybody understands the motion and the second. No
further questions.
All those in favor. Fou. r to one. It
carries.
MR. SOULE: It passed. You're all set.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: I would like to suggest
twelve months you come back before us and tell us, and
we'll find some way to rescind what has to be done.
MR. HURLEY: I have no problem, and I can cc
you guys whatever I send to Jay Burke and give it back
to Mary and she can put it in the file.
CHAIRMAN SULLIVAN: I want it binded by a
registered letter so that we know it and we get a copy
and so forth.
MR. KARPINSKI: Can I ask when they come in
that they bring the final plot plan, too.
MR. HURLEY: You've got four of them now.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
Public Hearinq:
Vice Chairman Soule is now acting as Chairman.
William L. & Glendys A. Phelan
29 Richardson Ave.
MR. SOULE: New public hearings. We'll
continue along. First we have William and Glendys
Phelan.
Raymond vivenzio read the legal notice~ William and
Glendys Phelan are requesting a variance from the
requirements of Section 7, paragraphs 7.1, 7.2, & 7.3 of
Table 2, for relief of lot area, street frontage setback
and side setback, and for a Special Permit from the
requirements of Section 9, paragraph 9.1 & 9.2 to remove an
existing sun room and to rebuild and enlarge the size f the
proposed sun room which is located on the Southwest side of
the existing house, on a pre-existing non-conforming
structure.
After a brief discussion it was recommended by Mr. Soule
that they continue the hearing until next month due to the
plan and the application for permit do not agree. There
was a discussion off the record between the petitioners and
Mr. Nicetta on what they need in order to bring their
petition forward to the board. The petitioners are going
to come back to the board with a new set of plans.
Mr. Vivenzio made a motion to continue the public hear on
this matter, until next month. Mr. Ford seconds the motion.
Mr. Soule called for a vote to continue the hearing. The
motion passed to continue to next month.
Public Hearinq:
Thomas Laudani of Atlantic
Realty Trust for Premises
at 740 Turnpike Street
Mr. Vivenzio read the legal notice.
Atlantic Realty Trust
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
is requestion a variance from the requirements of Section
7, paragraph 7.3 of Table 2, of the Zoning Bylaw for relief
of a side setback in order to construct a commercial office
building.
Attorney Scalise presented.the petition for variance to the
Board with a description of the location of the property.
and the request for a variance from the side line. The
reason for the request of the variance is that the
applicant having already submitted preliminary plans to the
conservation commission, the conservation commission in
reviewing the plans suggested that prior to the notice of
intent being filed and final plans being submitted that the
building be moved in order to maximize the area to Mosquito
Brook. Mr. Scalise presented plans to the Board so they
get an idea of what the site looks like.
Thomas Laudani pointed out that the wetland line was
established which was approved for three years, and that
based on a request from the conservation commission they're
coming before the zoning board for approximately a 13,
12.8 or 13 foot setback, and that their building basically
fits on the site without the variance, but conservation
commission requested to pull the building even from
Mosquito Brook. Mr. Laudani pointed out that they were ~
before the Zoning Board in an effort to comply with the
wishes of the conservation commission.
Mr. Scalise will submit a letter from Merrimack Engineering
on their calculations and offered that they were in
attendance to substantiate that. Mr. Scalise also
requested that a letter from Mike Howard dated January 8,
also be read into the record.
Mr. Soule pointed out that he feels that this is still more
of a planning stage and that more information was still
needed. Mr. Ford read the memorandum from Mike Howard into
the record. Attorney Scalise addressed the TRC issue.
Steve Stapinski discussed the issue of obtaining the curb
cut along Route 114. Mr. Soule asked question on the
parking plan number and what the square footage was.
Chairman Sullivan brought up the issue of the drawing not
being delivered to board 30 days'before the meeting. Mr.
Soule brought up the discussion on the height of the
building and said he wanted to know what that would be.
Mr. Manicucci offered to do a site walk with the members of
the Board at a time convenient to them.
23
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
Mr. Pallone suggested that the Board furnish the
petitioners with a list of things that the Board would'like
to have from the petitioners. Mr. Soule cited that he would
like a site visit. He would like some substantiation of
the contiguous buildable area other than just the
calculation. Intent to be shown regarding how high the
building is. After further discussion on possibly deeding
land back, Mr. Soule called for a motion to continue the
public hearing. Mr. Pallone made a motion to continue to
the next regular monthly meeting. Motion was seconded by
Mr. Ford. Mr. Soule called for a vote. Motion passed to
continue the public hearing.
Public Hearinq:
Mesiti Moore's Falls, LLC
for premises: Lots # 1 through 92
Forest View Estates a/k/a
1939 Turnpike Street
Mr. Vivenzio read the legal notice. The petitioner is
requesting a variance/variati6n from the requirements of
Section 4, paragraph 4.2.1, (the phased development bylaw)
and Section 8.7, paragraph 8.7.4 (the growth management
bylaw) of the Zoning Bylaws and all such other zoning
relief so as to allow construction of 23 homes by 6/30/99;
23 homes by 6/30/00; 23 homes by 6/30/01; 22 homes by
6/30/02.
Attorney Robert Lavoie presented the case for the
petitioner. As explained by Mr. Lavoie the petitioner is
seeking from the Board a lifting of the Growth Bylaw and
the Phased Development Bylaw in an attempt to build more
houses in a given year citing that it had been granted in
other developments throughout the town.
Mr. Grandstaff who is one of the principals of Mesiti
Moore's Falls spoke about the time and effort that went
into coordinating a project that fell in the village
residential zoning and the fact that they would be adding
three and a half miles of sewer line that will do nothing
but benefit the 114 corridor. He also spoke of how they
were trying to create neighborhoods and that a long, drawn
out development phase would be tough on the neighborhood.
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Peter Ihingorani spoke in favor of the petition.
Chairman Sullivan though not voting on this petition gave
input that he had talked to the board of selectmen, and
they reminded him of what the reason is for the growth
management bylaw which was to allow the town to recover on
-services that are necessary, both police, fire, schools,
and all the other things that are used, and that he felt
that by allowing this to be built in approximately half the
time was going to put a tremendous burden on the town for
taxes to try and support this for services. He also
mentioned that the projects that they are holding were put
in long before the growth management bylaw.
Mr. Vivenzio also noted that the prior variations of the
development bylaw were done pursuant to specific requests,
requests of the planning board.
Mr. Soule after reiterating the burden a development of
this size would place on the town called for a motion. Mr.
Vivenzio made a motion to deny the petition. Mr. Pallone
seconded the motion.
Mr. Nicetta also commented on how a development of this
size would tax the infrastructures of the town, the school
system, and the water supply.
Mr. Soule called for a vote on the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Ford~to adjourn, the meeting
adjourned at 11 p.m.
Minutes prepared by Jeanne M. Bramanti, RPR
APPROVED: