Canton, Massachusetts · Saved source text
Minutes April 2, 2003 PB
Saved text from 2 of 3 source pages. Transcription and OCR may contain errors; verify figures and wording against the original.
Source page 1
PLANNING BOARD MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2003 6:00 P.M. SALAH MEETING ROOM TOWN HALL MINUTES Members present: Robert MacDonald, Chairman, David Merrigan, Vice Chairman, Peter Pineo, Clerk Jeremy Comeau, and P. Christopher Podgurski. Secretary, Suzanne Feigen. Meeting came to order at 6:00 P.M. Mr. Comeau brought to the attention of the Board, a letter he received from Atty. Paul Schneiders regarding the height article Article 24. Upon a motion made by Mr. Comeau and seconded by Mr. Merrigan, the Board moved to open the Public Hearing to reconsider the vote taken on certain articles. Voted 4-0 in favor. Upon a motion made by Mr. Comeau and seconded by Mr. Merrigan, the Board moved to waive the reading of articles. Voted 4-0 in favor. Discussion on the letter regarding the height article continued with Mr. Comeau and he read the sentence to add to the article which read: "This by-law shall not apply to site plans endorsed by the Zoning Board of Appeals or building permits issued by the Town prior to May 2,2003." Mr. MacDonald stated that this be recommended to be added to the article. Mr. Comeau spoke to Town Counsel and he said it probably would go on the recommendation, not the zoning article. He "would not have a problem with that, because it was not his intention to hold up Mr. Marini's project in any way." Mr. Schneiders disagrees, because he talked to Town Counsel, and Mr. Schneiders does not feel a recommendation will do what he is trying to do. Mr. Schneiders is trying to make it clear that you are not targeting an existing project that has already been approved., as you have said that you are not. If you only put it in the recommendation, then the By-law doesn't effect the existing statute which says that that By-law doesn't take effect until the first day of advertising, sometime in February, and Mr. Marini hasn't pulled his permits, which puts that entire project in jeopardy. That is why he feels this should be in the by-law. Mr. Schneiders went on to state that the statute is very unclear. If you have your permits or your special permit, prior to the advertising, you are alright. The next sentence says, "however, you have had to actually done substantial construction work, and simply laying the foundation is not enough." Town Counsel agreed with him that 40A, sec. 6 is very ambiguous. Mr. MacDonald feels in all fairness, it should be part of the article. Upon a motion made by Mr. Comeau and seconded by Mr. Podgurski, the Board approved unanimously, to insert the sentence "This by-law shall not apply to site plans endorsed by the Zoning Board of Appeals or building permits issued by the Town prior to May 1, 2003," into the Height article, Article 24, as read.
Source page 2
Upon a motion made by Mr. Podgurski and seconded by Mr. Merrigan, the Board voted to endorse
Article 25 as most recently amended with the summary of changes in the Hotel Overlay District.
Discussion on the motion:
Continued discussion on Mr. Schneiders' article for Pinacle Partners in rezoning certain parcels on Royall
Ave. and Davenport occurred. Frank McQuade of 2736 Washington St. spoke about the way you would
look at a traffic plan in this area. He feels his property will "tank" because of the surrounding area turning
into Business. He feels also that by default, the Town will be creating spot zoning. He agrees with Mr.
Schneiders' plan. Mr. Comeau feels there is a difference in this article and the other article. He
reconsidered the other article because there were changes made to the article. He does not see any
changes to Mr. Schneiders' article.
Mr. Staiti spoke on how hard he worked on this overlay district and would appreciate wrapping this up and
then if the Board desires to discuss another article, so be it. What is before you is not spot zoning, it is an
overlay district. There are differences with his article and others. Mr. Pineo spoke on how members of the
Board worked on the Corridor Study Committee including himself, and discussed the many business there.
Of all the proposed uses, this would not have the impact of all of the potential uses that would be allowed.
Mr. Podgurski spoke to the fact that Mr. Staiti has made the point as far as not marrying the two articles, that
being his articles, and Mr. Schneiders' article.
Voting on the motion, the Board voted 4-1 in favor of endorsing Article 25 as most recently
amended with the summary of changes in the Hotel Overlay District. Voted 4-1.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Podgurski and seconded by Mr. Merrigan, the Board voted in favor of
endorsing Article 26, amending the Zoning Map to include the HOD by a vote of 4-1 in favor.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Podgurski and seconded by Mr. Merrigan, the Board voted to close the
public hearing unanimously by a vote of 5-0 in favor.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Podgurski and seconded by Mr. Merrigan, the Board voted to reconsider
Article 27, "Change in Zoning Map on Certain land on Royall Avenue and Davenport from Residental
C District to Business District". Voted 5-0 in favor. Discussion:
Mr. Schneiders addressed the Board about what spot zoning is about. The reason why the Supreme
Judicial Court and Land Court prohibit it is because of the terrible impact it might have on some individuals
who are caught in the spot. This is the most dramatic case that he can imagine, with one exception. The
sugar plant behind the Stenetsky Chapel which is the small Industrial Zone all by it self. This will be the other
smallest spot in the State and it seems that the Board feels strongly to let this go Commercial now in this Y2
of the five acres. He does not think it is fair to the people who live there, people who own it , to create a spot
zone. You are doing it indirectly. There is no one left there except those seven houses. As far as the
Master Plan Committee is concerned, he has heard that the Master Plan committee does not want to micro-
! \ 1 /"" manage this Town by getting down to a specific article. So now we are down to 2.7 acres surrounded by
01 ; \' i ( C.' ,,(1(~,j. commercial. He feels that we should do the right thing by turning the remaining residential into commercial
iI' C,1 ^./) ~ r area. Mr. Merrigan asked if there are other parcels that are not included in this by-law. Mr. Schneiders
{ f ~~ r / k~ G ~tate~ no,. this is. everything. Mr. Pin~o asked if that includes Mr. Zaniboni's house. ~r. Schneiders said that
'. . ,f' " v I It not In this section. Yet, Mr. Schneiders referred to an area across the street. Mr. Pineo stated that Mr.
I i /'-~ has been before Town Meeting several times for rezoning and has failed. Also, the
F'I \ ' ' underlying zone in Mr. Staiti's article for the HOD, is still going to be residential. Mr. Schneiders called that a
"legal fiction". Mr. Merrigan feels that we need as a Board, to do something about this parcel, whether it is at
this Town Meeting or next meeting. He does not think it can remain residential. He would like to see what
3