Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-21January 21, 1985 Regular Meeting The Planning Board held a regular meeting on Monday evening, January 21, 1985 in the Town Office Meeting Room with the following members present and voting: Michael P. Roberts, Vice Chiarman, who left the meeting early; John A. James, Jr., Clerk, who arrived late; John J. Burke; and Erich W. Nitzsche. Highway Surveyor William Cyr and Town Planner Karen Nelson were present. PUBLIC gF~%RINGS Campion Hall - Definitive Plan Mr. Burke read the legal notice. Letters from the following were read and placed on file: Highway Surveyor Board of Public Works Board of Health Tree Warden Fire Chief (2 letters) Conservation Commission Mr. James Curren of Cyr Engineering, project engineer, made the following presentation: - The first plan is the identification of the lots and the total area. - There are 31 acres of land. The interior is subdivided into 22 lots each containing an acre or better. The frontages are 150 feet or better. - The proposed street names are Cochichewick Drive and Campion Road. - The topography dictated the roadway. The lots are generally larger than what is required. It will be an aesthetically balanced subdivision. - In the Environmental Impact Statement, they said the layout of the individual buildings will be in the area of 2,400 square feet to 3,000 square feet. - There is an aesthetic atmosphere already established. It will remain harmonious with the mansion. - The homes will be between $465,000 and $565,000. The mansion will dictate what the buildings will look like. They have complemented the Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board. When you look into the subdivision, some of the lots are 200 to 250 feet. The paved roadway area is 2.3 acres. The entire roadway area is 3.3 acres. The development will be 1.6 to 1.8 depending on the floor layout of the homes. They are leaving an open area of approximately 26 acres. The remaining part will remain in its vegetative state. The easements are shown on the plan. The lighter green easement is a 25 foot wide lake access easement for those in the subdivision. It will allow people in the subdivision to walk down to the lake. It is strictly for walking with no other traffic. The yellow lines are easements which will be for sewer. These easements will be used by the applicants and are part of an easement plan already on record. There will also be a utility easement for the town to sewer Bonny Lane. If a lift station is established on the end of the cul-de-sac on Bonny Lane they can come on to their property. The subdivision will be facilitated with water, sewer, and drainage. In designing something of this nature, the topographic characteristics dictated what the lots will be. This area warrants sewer. It has always been the direction of the applicants to impliment a sewer. It has been reviewed by Mr. Borgesi, Superintendent of Public Works. On the plan the red is sewer and the blue is the water system. There will be a gravity system to a proposed manhole which will be implemented by the applicants and connect to the lift station at Rea's Pond. The water will be from an existing 12 inch main and traverse through the subdivision for tie-in to all the houses. Mr. Borgesi said he would prefer to have the water extend directly across. He has no reason not to go along with it. Looping the water system to Bonny Lane is a commitment. The sewer is designed for gravity. It is placed in the middle of the road. There will be approximately 17 manholes. On the lots on the lower end (Lots 9, 10, and 11), they will be further developed by a utility easement that can go gravity and down the line and tie into a future lift station and come back up to the forced line with gravity. Those three lots might be subject to lift stations in their own homes. With regard to the Fire Chief's letter, the law says a hydrant every 500 feet and they have shown them. If the Fire Chief wants a hydrant at the intersection of Great Pond Road they will go along with it. On the catch basins and drainage system, he talked with the Highway Surveyor several months ago. The drainage shown on the plan is consistent with the town's Rules and Regulations. The dark line is the proposed center line grade of base line "B". The short lines and light lines are the existing center line grades with the area of modification in between it. They will collect the water into the subdivision. No water will go in the street. All the intentions are to keep minimal slopes. The strongest is 6% in the area of the loop. The topography dictated it. The plans show the catch basin system and the drainage system. The pipes are large enough to transfer it in the subdivision and then out to the street. Note: Mr. Curren displayed a new drainage plan at this point. The main objective was to put in sewer. The second main objective was to consider what surface waters and what adverse affect, if any, they would have on the lake. They then designed the subdivision knowing that it would have a net run off in the general direction of Lake Cochichewick. The total area of contribution to the lake is shown in green. That area of 17.64 acres is the catalyst of contribution of what will go to the lake. It is shown in two areas~ DA1 and DA2. DA1 is 13.88 acres and DA2 is 4.33 acres. In a pre-development state, the area running off there now was 26.9 csf's. They dropped the elevation of the roadway and brought the increased run off down the roadway and into a sedimentation area. After development, adding in DA1 and DA2, it will be 33.66 csf's. They have increased it by the management of the topsoils and the change in the pervious state to impervious state. When you alter land, you increase it. In order to afford not to increase it, they have established the sedimentation basin which will collect all additional run offs. - The driveways are large and long. Note: Member James arrived here. Note: Mr. Curren introduced a new plan on Concrete Sedimenta- tion Detention Basin It is a large basin but the Planning Board determined that the existing facilities available to them and the one on Bonny Lane is just about adequate to not being adequate. It is 43 x 30 and varies in height. The water from the subdiviison and roadway area will be permitted to come in at 12 feet rcp and spill in the structure. Sediments and silts will be trapped in the stone and sediments will go out the other end. The number of 6.7 that is allowed to come in is further decreased to 4.8. In observing the area and the drainage facilities, and to control the run offs, the construction of this basin should prevent any seepage. They have placed a double row of staked haybales. The haybales will be 350 feet away from the edge of the lake. Member Roberts announced that the Planning Board will be using an independent engineering firm to review the plan. The following citizens spoke at the hearing: Mr. Barone Mr. Savage Mr. Steven Murphy Mr. Barone asked how close Lot 20 would be to his land and Mr. Curren responded that it would be approximately 50 feet from the property line. The edge of the right-of-way will be 100 feet away from his home. No run off will go on his property. Some area might be granted to the town of North Andover for maintenance of the green area. Mr. Cyr stated that this is a poor situation. The town is not looking for 6,000 square feet of road or additional maintenance. The abutters will maintain their Property. The engineer should not be telling people there will be berm because there will not be berm there. He added that he is not satisfied with the responses to his concerns. Mr. Savage asked to see the boundaries of Lot 19 and Mr. Curren showed him on the plan. He said it was dictated by a previous lot. Lot 19 is a building lot. Mr. Savage said the topography lines are not shown. There is a large drop off. He asked what they intend to do to protect homes on Bonny Lane. Mr. Curren responded that Lot 19 is not a potential drainage problem. With development, whatever is existing now and if modificatins are done in a minimum state, it should not change. He cannot control what is there now. It will not change if the lot is not developed. Mr. Savage added that unless some protective actions are taken, they will be adversely affected. Mr. Curren stated that because of the existing slopes, the drive- ways will be designed to allow water to go back to the street. Mr. Savage argued that it will be uphill. Mr. Curren responded that not all lots on every street require what he may require. The dormitory will be removed and drop down the amount of run off. What the developers will do will be less than what he is getting now. Mr. Savage asked about the crushed stone and said it gets filled with silt. Mr. Curren explained about the manholes. After normal sand use, they have two manholes which will be opened up and the silt can be extracted. They could put in another one. Mr. Steven Murphy asked about the existing structures on Lot 14. Mr. Curren responded that the pool on Lot 14 will remain if the new owners want it. MOTION: by Mr. Burke to continue the public hearing to 2/4/85 SECOND: by Mr. James VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries DeSilets, Joseph - Special Permit - Watershed District The Clerk read the legal notice. Letters from the following were read and placed on file: Fire Chief Conservation Commission Board of Health Mr. Jospeh Cushing, project engineer, made the following pre- sentation: This will be a 44,000 square foot lot on Essex Street between Great Pond Road and the town line. They tried to site the house on the front portion of the parcel. In order to maintain the 10 foot setback from the property line, it is not possible to maintain the 100 foot setback from the tributary. They are in front of the Planning Board to explain what they intend to do. The access to the rear portion of the site is along an existing cart path so no wood cutting will be necessary. Mr. Michael Leary informed the Board that he is a direct abutter and did not receive a legal notice for the hearing. He asked about the siting of the house and the septic tank. He questioned the placement of the drainage field and the leaching field. He also questioned the slope and the sewage being pumped uphill. Member James stated that while he cannot answer what Mr. Leary's rights are concerning the legal notice, he is here and it is a procedural issue. Mr. Cushing responded that it will be pumped to the leaching field. Mr. Leary added that the 20% slope is a conservative number. His concern to the Board and to the new owner is a steep hill. He personally knows that people have tried to pump up hill and it does not work. His main concern is that they have a situation in this town where the lake is being polluted. There is a stream running through the land and that is why they did not build their house on Essex Street. Also, there is no such thing as a wood road. People cut the trees down with a bulldozer. Mr. Cushing responded that a letter is on record that the sub- surface disposal system is on record with the town and it has been stated that Title V requirements and the town's requirements have been satisfied. There are many instances in the town that require pumping up. On the wood road, Mr. Leary is stating that the informatin he put on his plan is in error. There is a~o a wood path from the East portion of the site but they will not use it because they would have to cut trees. With regard to the lake, when the town Health Inspector says it is O.K., we have to go by what he says. Mr. James Scully, Essex Street, stated that his family has owned the 14-15 acres abutting this parcel and there has been no wood path for a number of years. He is concerned with the fact that there is a stream. The wall was broken this past summer. Mr. Cushing stated that there is a stream and the question is how to handle it. They propose to install a 12 inch metal pipe and as they cross the stream with the driveway, they will rip rap the up side of the driveway and the downstream side of the drive- way. They anticipate that the capacity of the pipe will be accessed and the driveway will breach. Member Nitzsche asked what elevation the intercepted drainage will be. Mr. Cushing responded that the bottom of it will be above the bottom of the trench. The bottom of the leaching field will be at elevation 106. It will be 6 feet from where it is now. Mr. Nitzsche asked why they don't put the water service in the driveway. Mr. Cushing respodned that it is no problem. They can put it up the middle of the driveway. MOTION: by Mr. James to close the public hearing and take the plan under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Nitzsche VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries The Willows Industrial Park Extension - Rescission of Subdivision (continued public hearing) A letter from Attorney Ralph Joyce, Town Counsel, dated 1/21/85 was read and placed on file. Attorney Nicholas DeNitto, representing Mr. and Mrs. Goodrich of Marion Drive, was present and made the following statements: A plan was submitted with a Form C. In reading the minutes, there was a motion with conditions. A final plan was supposed to be resubmitted to the Board for signature or endorsement. His understanding is that the plan that was recorded two years ago was not endorsed. No Planning Board signatures or Town Clerk signature are on it. Who follows up a final plan as to compliance. Member James stated that the people who signed it are responsible to make sure it conforms to the motion. It is the practice of the Planning Board to require Registry copies of the documents. Attorney DeNitto continued with: - How was the property conveyed if the plan was not recorded? Member James added that the plan had to be recorded prior to con- veying the lot to A.R.C. The applicant must record the order of conditions and return a copy to the office. Member James also asked the abutters to tell the Planning Board what lots have been conveyed and to ask the Selectmen to author- ize a title search. Attorney DeNitto stated they have not done any research on the balance of the property, but they will. He added that when the Planning Board makes conditions and they 'are not appealed, it is his understanding that the applicant agrees to them. His understanding of the law is that the Building Inspector nor the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to override them. Even if it was a decision that reasonable people would come to but different that what a judge says, the judgement says the judge shall defer to the decision of the Planning Board. The Building Inspector did not have the authority to make an independent decision. He did it twice. He added that they will provide information of Registry data. Member Burke said it must be certified by an attorney and Member Nitzsche said it must be certified by the Registry of Deeds. Hillside Realty Trust - Special Permit - Common Driveway The Clerk read the legal notice Member Burke stated that he has a Hillside Realty Trust and is not a party to this application. Attorney Gary Ritter, representing the petitioner, made the following presentation: They are requesting a Special Permit to service two homes off one driveway. - The parcel is on Hillside Road near the Andover town line. - There is frontage on Route 125. The parcel is large, just under 120,000 square feet, or almost three acres. It has been subdivided into two lots. - The two proposed homes are situated on the plan. There is a large wetland area on the lot so the engineer placed them as shown. The proposed plans are within the Zoning By Law for area, frontage, and setbacks and the only thing they need is a Special Permit to have two homes off one driveway. He has prepared a covenant which would run with the land and would provide for the owners of both parcels to equally maintain the common driveway (maintenance, snow removal, etc). Crossing the wetlands would require filing with the Conser- vation Commission. Mr. Alton Bailey, 347 Hillside Road, asked if the proposed drive- way would come from Hillside Road and Attorney Ritter said it would. Mr. Bailey added that there is a culvert and there are no catch basins there. There is a stream going under the road with a large pond and wet area. His land is low. His concern is with the driveway and what will happen to the water in the wet area. If the flow is increased going under the road between the two houses on the other side, there is a possibility of water backing up through a drain system which goes through the property and to a brook. Attorney Ritter responded that there is no intention of filling in the wet area. They do not want to produce any new culverts and that is why they are requesting a Special Permit. Mr. Kenneth Hoffman asked what legal grounds he has if his property is under water. Member James responded that the Conservation Commission would have to decide if the land is wet. The focus of this discussion is whether or not to grant permission for a common driveway. Mrs. Sandra Shaker asked if they are planning to fill in anything on the single driveway. Mr. Michael DeBitetto stated that the plan has gone to the Con- servation Commission. No filling is proposed. Haybales are shown along the wetland area to prevent any filling of wetlands. The Conservation Commission addressed the driveway location and an order of conditions was issued. He presented a copy. Mr. Bailey asked if the driveway will be slanted toward Hillside Road and Mr. DeBitetto responded that it will not pitch to Hill- side Road. It will pitch away from it and then up again. With a large wetland area there is no problem draining the site. The design calls for no increase in runoff and the Conservation Commission approved it. Attorney Ritter added that no Certificate of Compliance will be issued until the Conservation Commission's conditions are met. He added that the Town of Andover will permit them to connect to sewer. They have written approval and permits. Mrs. Shaker said that she is 75% in Andover and they were not notified of any changes. They have trouble with their sewer. Attorney Ritter responded that it was handled by the Board of Public Works and no public hearings were necessary, Member James asked if the driveway access could be widened for two driveways and Atty. Ritter responded that it makes sense to have two driveways but it might push the house back to a wetland area. It would also mean more paved area. Member Nitzsche stated that there should be a low point noted on the plan. The plans call for a crushed stone driveway. Mr. DeBitetto responded that they want to pave it. They will approach Con. Com. about it. Mr. Bailey added that there is a tremendous amount of water that runs on Hillside Road from Highland Avenue in the vicinity of the culvert that goes under Hillside Road. He has a case in court against the builder who built his house. He does not have an adequate drainage system. His litigation should be settled before this proposal goes forward. His problem could be made worse. His concern is whether or not the water comes rapidly. Mrs. Shaker added that there is a natural flow of water on two lots that are not built on. It is a gushing flow in the spring. They get water down Kathleen Drive. She wants something in writing that they will not have more problems. Mr. DeBitetto added that the driveway will remain crushed stone as shown on the plan. MOTION: by Mr. James to close the public hearing and take the plan and application under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Nitzsche VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries DECISIONS Lot 32A - Sandra Lane - Special Permit - Watershed Town Planner Nelson presented a revised plan. The driveway is closer to Segal's property and further away from the tributary to the lake. It was 55 feet and the proposal is now 70 feet. The house is~lO0 feet away from the wetland. Mrs. Mary Armitage, present for Mrs. Segal, stated that Mrs. Segal thanks the Board for their consideration. There is over 300 feet of driveway. She asked if there is any possibility that it could give access to the lot behind her house to relieve her of the second driveway. It would keep it 100 feet from the pond and give access without a second driveway. Ms. Nelson said it is not possible. Ben Osgood said he will supply the Board with the documentation on Glen Road. It is with the Bradley's and Cami's. MOTION: by Mr. Burke to grant the Special Permit subject to the submittal of the covenant of Glen Road which states that only two driveways can come off Glen Road and subject to a future order of conditions and subsequent approval by the Board. SECOND: by Mr. James VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Cobble Lane - Definitive Subdivision Member Burke asked if Special Permits will be necessary for these lots and John McGarry said not to his knowledge. He added that he would like an extension and will grant one. MOTION: by Mr. James to accept the extension and render a decision at the next meeting. SECOND: by Mr. Burke VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Note: Member Roberts left the meeting due to illness. Spring Hill - Definitive Plan MOTION: by Mr. Nitzsche to approve the plan subject to the following conditions: SECOND: by Mr. Burke VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Note: The decision is made part of these minutes Ridgewood - Preliminary Plan MOTION: by Mr. Nitzsche to approve the plan subject to the following conditions: SECOND: by Mr. Burke VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Note: the decision is made part of these minutes SITE PLAN REVIEW Interdesign No applicant present - tabled. BUSINESS Crossbow T~e - Status Report and Request for Release of Funds Town Planner Nelson reported that they met in the field and went over the Highway Surveyor's list. She, Mr. Cyr and Mr. Barbagallo agreed on a final completion date of 5/1/85 for the remaining work to be done and that no release of funds will be made until progress was made. MOTION: by Mr. Nitzsche to extend the completion date to 5/1/85 and deny the request for a release of funds. SECOND: by Mr. Burke VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Mill Trust - Revision to plan - Lot 5A Salem Street Mr. Joe Cushing, project engineer, stated that a Special Permit was granted to Mr. Robert Forget by the Planning Board. They had to move the lot line and in order to maintain the zoning setbacks, they have to move the house back. The grading associated with the house had to be moved back. Rather than having a 46 foot setback between the line of grading and the designated wetland it was going to be 36 feet. At the Con. Com. meeting he explained the dilema and they took the position that the differences between the work originally proposed and the work now proposed did not significantly change their order of conditions. He wants to explain to the Planning Board that the location of the house on the lot is different than what was originally proposed but its impact on the wetland area will not be significant. He wants the Planning Board to make a determination that it is not significantly different and change their original order of conditions, citing this plan. Mr. Cyr said the driveway cannot go as it is shown on the plan. MOTION: by Mr. Burke to grant the revision and add this plan to the list of conditions as the revised plan under which the Planning Board's conditions pertain, subject to Mr. Nitzsche's review. SECOND: by Mr. Nitzsche VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries James Rand - Revision to plan - Lot 4A Salem Street Mr. Rand was present and explained that the Board granted a Special Permit to Mr. Robert Forget and the Permit was very specific as to the size of the house (28' x 68'). He presented a plan of his proposed dwelling, which is slightly different. Also, they were showing a fill along the back. He wants to put a retaining wall. He wants a walk-out. The plan specifically says that all the fill must be placed up against it. He want to hide the driveway. By reducing the house, the footprint would be 1,761. MOTION: by Mr. Burke to approve the change subject to review by Mr. Nitzsche and Ms. Nelson and subject to approval by the Conservation Commission. SECOND: by Mr. Nitzsche VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries North Andover Business Park - discussion with Tom Neve Mr. Neve was present and said they are trying to work out an arrangement with the abutters of the road. He submitted a letter from Bill Dalton. The pavement is now 18 feet and they are working out an arrangement with the tennis club. They have given them approval to rebuild the island. They can get 33 feet of pavement with a 40 foot right-of-way. They are seeking an access. Mr. Cyr is still talking about the 60 foot wide road. No action - the Board will discuss this with Mr. Cyr. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL Milltown Realty - Foster Street (Lots 3 and 4 created) General Store Trust - Johnn~cake Street (creating Lot 14B) General Store Trust - Carlton Lane (Lot line changes and create Lots 34A and B Forbes - Marblerid~e (Lot line changes) KH Trust - Salem and Forest Streets (creating several lots) Great Fond Road Realty Trust - Bradford Street/Great Pond Road (creating 3 lots) Alexanian - Bear Hill Road (lot line changes) MOTION: by Mr. Burke to approve all the above plans under Sub- division Control Law Not required subject to review by Mr. Nitzsche SECOND: by Mr. Nitzsche VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries SET PUBLIC ~ARING AND DISCUSSION DATES Equestrian Estates - Definitive Plan Public Hearing set for 2/25/85 Meadowview - Preliminary Plan Discussion set for 2/25/85 The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Michael P. Roberts, Vice Chairman Jean E. White, Secretary John A. James, Jr., Clerk