Above: The ANR sought by owners of 84 Main Street are for plans to raze the the stone house built by Joseph Burnett in 1850. (Image cropped from July 7th ANR materials posted to town website.)
Southborough Wicked Local covered yesterday morning’s Planning Board meeting on the estate at 84 Main Street. According to the article, the Planning Board indicated they will have to approve the ANR to split the property into four lots. [Actual demolition would still require a different permit.]
An “ANR” is issued by a Planning Board when it determines a plan has enough frontage and provides enough “vital” access to emergency vehicles that it isn’t considered a subdivision.
Those issued an ANR don’t need to go in front of the Planning Board for more intensive subdivision permits, although they still may need to get permits from other town boards as well as a demolition permit. . .
the board Tuesday discussed the substance of the application and agreed that it should be approved because it conforms to the law.
The board is likely to approve the ANR at a meeting on Monday.
Yesterday, homeowner Jon Delli Priscoli asked the board to approve the original ANR with the understanding that he was the applicant. In the end, he “agreed to withdraw [Robert] Moss’ application and submit a “clean” copy.”
While pursuing his right to raze the stone house in favor of new development, Delli Priscoli maintains he would like to avoid that:
Although Delli Priscoli later refused to sell the property to Moss, saying he wasn’t told demolition was Moss’ only plan, Delli Priscoli said he nevertheless wants to uphold the property rights the plan represents.
“We’re working with the town on coming up with concepts to protect the property in perpetuity,” Delli Priscoli said on Tuesday. “In the meantime we want to make sure our rights are protected, and this plan basically does that.”
As for what the town may be coming up with as an alternative, selectmen aren’t ready to comment.
Click here for the full SWL article.
Updated (7/30/14 2:35 pm): Inserted clarification that demolition would still require a different permit, for anyone who didn’t understand that from SWL excerpt.
Updated (7/30/14 6:00 pm): I gave Planning Board member Phil Jenks’ request to change headline more thought. I think this new headline more accurately conveys what’s happening.
Beth –
Please, please, please – correct the totally inaccurate title for your recent post “SWL: Planning Board to approve application for plan to raze Garfield/Burnett House”
First, you attribute that to SWL. I read the full SWL article and nowhere do I find that statement.
The Planning Board does not, will not, and can not grant approval for any demolition – demolition permits are not within the Planning Board’s responsibility, and Planning Board approval is not required to get a demolition permit.
The ANR plan, whether approved by the planning Board or not, does not give the property owner any additional rights to demolish the structure than he already has as its owner! He does not need, nor is he seeking Planning Board approval for demolition.
There was a lot of mention by the property owner at Tuesday morning’s meeting of wanting to go forward with the ANR plan to “protect his rights”. These rights I believe refer mainly to a three year zoning protection (relative to the “use” of the property) after recording of an ANR approved by the Planning Board. Again, nothing to do with demolition of the house.
I believe the owner when he tells us he would like to “find a solution” that will preserve the house – I also believe that he, as the owner has the right to tear it down if he and the Town cannot find that solution.
Just one Planning Board member’s opinion –
Phil Jenks
I’m sorry you are alarmed by headline. As clarified in story, it is the plan that is approved not demolition. The plan is to replace the house with 4 lots, each with a different house. The plan itself says directly on it “house to be razed”.
There is no way for the plan to proceed without the house being razed.
I do understand that the demolition permit is different. But the plan itself – to my undestanding – is to be approved.
I inserted text at top – Actual demolition would still require a different permit.
I gave it some more thought, and came up with a new headline that is more accurate.
Mr. Jenks-
Thank you for this very informative post. I also appreciate that you provided information on a matter brought before the Planning Board and that your closing was “Just one Planning Board member’s opinion –” which is the way I think EVERY board or committee member should sign there posts when commenting on a matter that has or will appear before their board.
Thank you for your service to our town.