Laserfiche WebLink
e %ICLE 18. <br /> see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning By-Laws by amending the zoning map to <br /> °''change from I-1 Industrial to R-3 Residential those lands shown on the 1985 Nlishpee <br /> Assessor's NL as Map 81, Plot 1 and Map 87, Plot 5, all as shover. on a map entitled <br /> "proposed Route 28 Rezoning for Action at March 23, 1987 Special man Meeting" . <br /> ;he Moderator read Article 18 <br /> i <br /> ; pff. Fudala: Motion to accept as printed with the exception of "or take any other action <br /> thereon" <br /> ':,yrderator: Do I hear a second? Notion seconded. <br /> 19r. Ferragamo: The Planning Board held a public hearing on Article 18 and voted not to <br /> approve Article 18 in its present wording We did vote to recomTend approval <br /> with a modification; changing the zoning frau R-3 to R-5; The basis being that <br /> the parcel you see before you on the screen with the cross hatching; the parcel <br /> we are taLking avout re-zoning abuts an R-5 parcel. The reason the R-5 district <br /> was originally created was to allow a larger lot size of 60,000 square feet <br /> F' which then would provide more protection to ground water and other concerns we <br /> have by wanting larger lot sizes. We questioned the validity of going with <br /> the 40,000 square foot lot sizes, in that cross-hatched area. There was some <br /> .: discussion as to whether or not we could make that recoa -tendation. (to go with <br /> ): R-5 instead of R-3) . The Town Planner was going to check with Town Counsel <br /> to see what was involved with that. Cur concern is that it is obviously being <br /> done in conjunction with the whole Forward Develocrent program with the Toon. <br /> However, if the Forward Development program does not proceed, revised zoning <br /> will stay on the on that piece of land. We thought, in that case, it would be <br /> more appropriate to have it zoned R-5 . .60,000 square feet; where its basically <br /> abutting the R-5 district and is adjacent to the Quaa'nnet River. <br /> !tderator: Any further, discussion? <br /> Mrs• Muse: I do not believe we have heard an answer from Tann Council, as to the up-gradirg <br /> of that Article. I think it is totally illegal. I believe you could go from <br /> is R-3 to a less number of square -feet but not to more making it more stringent. <br /> I'd also like it pointed out that this piece is not just the Forward Development <br /> piece. It is on the little Tax-oayers Guide that it that it is Forward <br /> Development. . . .it is not just the Forward Development piece. It is four <br /> separate pieces of land. Forward Development does make up the major pieces <br /> of land. There are three other owners of relatively mall pieces of land. <br /> They are very much affected. Thev have not even been mentioned. In addition., <br /> I do not believe that this is even necessary. The auspices of OSID with this <br /> whole plan of the forty acres can be re-zoned or not even be re-zoned but the <br /> whole plan can go immediately into effect as previously voted under OSID. I <br /> would like Joe Reardon to comrment on that. <br /> bderator: I can convey one answer . . . . . . .Town Counsel has ruled we can amend it to R-5. <br /> We do not have that motion on the floor now, but that is possible. <br /> ' Fudala: I'd like to go into the history of this change. We were approached for a <br /> change from I to R. The request was for R-4 zoning and that was rejected and <br /> _ _ <br />