Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-07-29-BOS-min SPECIAL SELECTMEN'S MEETING July 29, 1971 A special meeting of the Board of Selectmen was held in the Bird Room, Cary Memorial Building, on Thursday evening, July 29, 1971 , at 7 30 p.m Chairman Cataldo, Messrs Kenney, Bailey and Buse, Mrs Riff in; Mr Legro, Town Counsel ; Mr. O'Connell , Town Manager and Mrs McCurdy, Executive Clerk, were present The following members of Town Boards met with the Board of Selectmen Mr Donald Nickerson and Mr Charles Abbot of the Board of Appeals; Mr. Erik Lund, Mr Eric Clarke and Mr Donald Graham of the Planning Board; Mr Alexander V Zaleski , Planning Director; Mr Donald K Irwin, Building Inspector Chairman Cataldo opened the meeting and said that the purpOse'of the meeting is to try and resolve the situation that developed as a result of the Board of Appeals' hearing on the special permit for the Central Block At that meeting, it was the position of the Planning Board that, in their opinion of the Zoning By-Law, a 10 ft rear yard was required This was a surprise to everyone, including the Board Central of Selectmen Rather than have the Board of Appeals deny the permit, Block we felt it best to call a meeting to keep this project alive and get the building built and to have a meeting of the minds to make a recom- mendation to the Board of Appeals. I discussed this with Mr LegrO on the problem of doing the research and report on the background for tonight; I talked with the Planning Board and they, in turn, talked with Mr Legro Mr Nickerson We did not deny the permit. Chairman Cataldo. I know; we said that rather than have you deny it, we would have a meeting This is the purpose of this meet- ing. Mr Legro has researched it and he has a position to report' Mr Legro I could cover this best by reading the memorandum I prepared in which I attemped to set forth my opinion as follows SET BACK OF PROPOSED NEW CENTRAL BLOCK BUILDING FROM DEPOT PLACE I . Section 27 of the Zoning By-Law requires a minimum rear yard of 10 feet in CB - Central Business Districts The by-law con- tains no express exceptions to this requirement Whether a 10 foot set back from Depot Place is required depends, therefore, on whether the definitions of a "Rear Yard" and "Rear Line of a Lot" are appli- cable to the Central Block land which is bounded by and abuts on four public ways, namely Massachusetts Avenue, Meriam Street, Depot Place and Depot Square 1 f 1112 Prior to the recodification of the by- law voted by the Town on June 4, 1968, Section 8(c) I a (2) provided that in C 2 districts (now CB districts) there shall be provided "a rear yard of not less than 10 feet in depth, which may be used for parking area if other- wise lawful " Prior to recodification, the by-law defined side and rear yard as follows "The open space at the sides and rear of a building between the building and the boundaries, other than streets of the lot on which it stands " It also defined front yard as follows "The open space between the building and the exterior line of each street on which the lot on which it stands abuts " 3 The by-law presently in effect contains the following defini- tions a. "FRONTAGE, LOT A continuous portion of the boundary between a lot and an abutting street between lot lines or, in the case of a corner lot, between a lot line and the intersection of street lines extended." b. "FRONTAGE STREET A street which provides the required lot frontage for a building When a lot is bounded by more than one street, any one of them, but only one, may be designated as the front- age street by the owner, provided that the street meets the frontage requirement and that the principal permitted building on the lot Is numbered on such frontage street " c. "YARD, FRONT: A yard extending between lot side lines across the lot adjacent to each street it abuts." d. "YARD, REAR A yard extending between the side lines of a lot adjacent to the rear line of the lot." e. "REAR,LINE OF A LOT A line separating a lot from other lots or from land to a different ownership, being the boundary of a lot which is opposite or approximately opposite the frontage street." f. "SIDE LINE OF A LOT A line separating a lot from other lots or from land in a different ownership, other than e street tine or a rear rot line." 4 Previous to recodification, the definitions of Front Yard and Side and Rear Yard were the only definitions that were applicable to the determination of the status of the boundaries of the Central Block land as front, side, or rear yards.. There was, in my opinion, abso- lutely no ambiguity under those definitions Front yard applied to "each street on which the lot. . abuts", and Side and Rear Yard ex- pressly did not apply to boundaries of a lot that abutted on streets. Under those definitions, the by-law required no set back from any of the four streets on which the Central Block land abutted 14 5. There are under the present by-law some inconsistencies created by the definitions added or changed by the "recodification." These inconsistent definitions must be read together and, if possi- ble, so interpreted as to constitute a harmonious and workable by- law. a. By definition, LOT FRONTAGE, in the case of corner lots, is the boundary between a lot line and the intersection of street lines or of street lines extended. In the definition of FRONTAGE STREETS, when a lot is bounded by more than one street, any one of item., but only one, may be designated as the frontage street. To the degree that these provisions are inconsistent, it is my opinion that, as applied to a lot the four sides of which abut on public ways, the definition of LOT FRONTAGE permits the interpretation that the lot has frontage on all four streets, and the limitation in the definition of FRONTAGE STREET, whatever other purpose there may have been for its insertion, was not intended to, and does not, apply to lots in CB Districts that abut on two or more streets. The definition of FRONT YARD as "a yard extending between lot side lines across the lot adiacent to each street it abuts" supports the above conclusion. b. The definition of REAR LINE OF A LOT as "being the boundary of a lot which is opposite or approximately opposite the frontage street" appears to be inconsistent with the definition of FRONT YARD and LOT FRONTAGE so far as the latter may apply to corner lots. It is my opinion, however, that the principal part of the definition of rear line as "a line separating a lot from other lots or from land in a different ownership" makes this defi- nition inapplicable to a lot all four sides of which abut a street Further, the definition of SIDE LINE OF A LOT which also applies only to "A line separating a lot from other lots or land in a different ownership" and which expressly excludes "a street line" must fairly be interpreted to mean that this locus has no side lines between which the rear yard can extend as provided in the definition of REAR YARD 6 It is my conclusion that the definitions referred to above ought to be interpreted in the foregoing manner, that the boundary of the Central Block land that abuts on Depot Place is not a "rear line", and that, so interpreted, the by-law does not require that the proposed building be set back from Depot Place In interpreting the meaning and intent of the present Zoning By-Law, it is my opinion that some consideration should be given to the following I That the present by-law, except as amended subsequent to the recodification, is by its express terms "a reenactment and I } 15 continuance of" the Zoning By-Law as it existed on June 4, 1968. It was presented as a recodification that was intended to in- clude no substantive changes 2 Ptior to the recodification, the definition Side and Rear Yard expressly excluded boundaries on streets, thereby eliminating the rear yard requirement in C 2 districts where the boundary opposite the frontage street abutted upon the street The by-law was apparently so interpreted with respect to The 1775 Realty Trust building 3. Between September 20, 1968 and December 2, 1968, the Planning Board, consisting of the same members who were in office at the time of the recodification, is understood to have taken the position that the By-Law was not intended to require a build- ing on this locus to be set back from a street 4 Where there is an intention to require a set back from a frontage street, the by- law expressly so provides (Section 27, Note d., requiring a 10 foot front yard on Muzzey Street or on Bedford Street for lots abutting on these streets ) It was the opinion of the three members of the Planning Board to accept the opinion of Town Counsel and would so inform the Board of Appeals that they would withdraw their objection regard- ' ing the 10 foot rear yard This being the main purpose of the meeting being called, and the main purpose being resolved, the Board briefly discussed the traffic pattern and loading dock. The Chairman informed the Boards that the Traffic Committee would meet in the morning with the Architects and the owners to get this situation resolved Also, the Town Engineer will meet with the owners to get the areas in which he was interested re- solved Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn at 800 p.m A true record, Attest 3,, 46._ -"' Executive Clerk, Selectmen