6/4/2014 PLANNING BOARD Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

future.homeowners could request the change. Mr. Kooharian again stated that the residents-did not have the r*ght to decide for future generations and impact the safety of future generations. Mr. Kooharian added that the town appointed the address and that it was not owned by the residents and Mr. Mayo confirmed that the municipality had the authority to change or assign the address. lair_ Tomchik stated that no one had the intention of endangeringfurore generations, but emphasized the.need to correct the prod and system so as to support and protect fixture g n ndi ns. 1&. Mayo summarized that he would 1 speak to the Address Working g Group regarding-the addition of an educational component, reach out to dispatch regarding the possibility of flagging streets in the software and identify any additional questions from Sandalwood prior to the August meeting. The Sandalwood Annual Meeting has been scheduled for July 24. MOTION: Mr.Ralzarini made a motion to continue the public hearing to August 20 at 7:10 p.m. Ms. Waygan seconded the motion. All voted unanimously. DETERMINATION of ADEQUACY of STR Applicant: Marilyn 1 lar elli Location: 29 Melissa Avenue ors' Map 21,Block 12) Request: Determination under ZoningBy-law fictions 174-3 and 12 regarding adequate access for building on vacant.lot,not a Town road or previously-approved subdivision street The Chair read for the record the request. Marilyn l ar.elli was present to describe the lot at 29 Melissa Avenue, which was short on frontage by just over l yard with a question as to whether municipal vehicles would have adequate access. Ms. Marcelli reported that her home was built in 1989,just up from the lot in question. Ms. Mar elli confirmed that she never had trouble v ith ambulance, fire truck or oil truck access. lis. M rcelli's late husband acquired a variance for the lot in 2009, which was extended by their lawyer to August 2014: Ms. II Iar elli indicated that there had been some interest in purchasing the lot to build a home, and referenced her interest.in selling the property. Ms. l larcelli noted that the land was purchased as a buildable lot in 1978 and had since been paying taxes s n the property as a buildable lot. The abutting owner-was also present at the meeting. Mr. Rowley reported that the issue was not simple, adding that the lot was created in 1978 as an Approval-Not-required Plan, with a determination made at that time the the road was adequate to service the lots, setting a precedent. Additionally, two sections of the bylaw would be considered., dealing with roads of a Slightly different nature,and if not in compliance with 174. or 174.1 2, that the properprocedure may be to seek a variance for the Board of Appeals for those sections of the Zoning Bylaw since the planning Board may not have the authority to waive any of those reguMons. Mr. Rowley referenced a previous issue and letter from May 2011 v *th no changes since being considered at that time. Mr. Rowley indicated that from the subdivision point of view, the Planning Board would need to determine if the road was.adequate and the building inspector would also need to crake the same det Mna6on prior to issuing a permit. Mr. Fudala disagreed and quoted l 74.12, suggesting that it was the bylaw to be considered and referenced the definition, with the three possibilities of a public way, a public private way duly approved by the Planning Board under the Subdivision Control Statute or a way on record with