1985-04-29 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Planning Board Minutes: April 29, 1985 2 The Board reviewed its report, already issued, on Article 16 which said if Article 11, Planned Residential Development, were approved, the objectives for congregate living would have been met. The rest of the report on Article 16 dealt with what the Board would support if Article 11 was not approved. Mrs. Uhrig said she understood Mr. Weiss would not proceed with Article 16 if Article 11 were approved. Mr. Weiss said that was not the case. Mrs. Flemings commented that the Selectmen had appointed a committee on congre- gate living and the proposed amendment should be worked out with them. The Board of Health may need to be involved because of its role in rooming houses. She thought the draft was too limiting if it was to serve the purpose of promoting congregate living. Mrs. Smith questioned whether the Town Meeting should do anything further on congregate living now. She suggested that Mr. Weiss work with the Selectmen's congregate living committee and with the Board of Appeals who has the power to include certain provisions in their rules. She noted that several sections in the proposed amendment are covered by the building code and other sections are covered elsewhere in the Zoning By -Law. For the moment, Article 11 should be sufficient. It is not likely that a conversion would be presented to the Board of Appeals before a revision would be on the warrant for next year's town meeting because since 1979, no petition for the conversion of an existing dwelling had been presented. ' In a poll of the Board, Mr. Sorensen said he would support the motion. He thought the question of the conversion of an existing dwelling to a congregate living facility was still open and this amendment would clarify it. Mrs. Uhrig and Mr. Cripps want to stay with the original report on Article 16. No addition- al amendments to the conversion provision are needed and they will not support the proposed amendment. Mrs. Flemings would prefer to wait until next year's town meeting but would support the article. Mrs. Smith said that she did not have a problem with the general concept but did have problems with the specific language of this proposal as written. She noted there were problems with the old Section 9.2 and the amendment as drafted appears to put some of those problems back in the Zoning By -Law. She does not support the amendment. Thus, three members of the Board do not support the amendment; two do. 118. Article 22, RM, Lowell Street: Frederick DeAngelis and Robert Cataldo were present to inquire what changes would need to be made to obtain the Planning Board's support. The Board did not have much opportunity to discuss this matter as it was hurrying to adjourn to be on time for the start of the Town Meeting session. Mrs. Smith commented that the Board would only support an RD develop- ment and she understood the current RM petition could not be changed to an RD petition this year. She said the Board would be pleased to discuss an RD devel- opment with the applicants after this year's Town Meeting is over. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Judith J. 6rig, Clerk