Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-03-15 N~rch 15, 1976 - Monday BOARD OF APPEALS & PLANNING BOARD JOINT The BOARD OF APPEALS AND PLANNl~G BOARD held a joint meeting on Monday evening, Narch 15, 1976 at 6:45 P.M.' in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting - Board of Appeals: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairm~n; Alfred E. Frizelle, Vice-Chairm~n; Ralph R. Joyce, Alternate Nember; Planning Board: William Chepulis, Chairman; ~k'i%z Ostherr, Vice Chairman; Paul R. Lamprey; John J. Monteiro and William N. S~lemme, Clerk. SUBJECT: HERE~RD ~TTER - Mr. Chepulis opened the meeting by stating that the purpose is to see if the alleged dispute can, be resolved by arriving at a mutually agreeable solution. He reminded all present of what had already transpired on the oaSee Mr. Serio commented that it appears the problem is that the BOARD O1~ APPEALS inter- prets it one way and the PLANNING BOARD interprets it another. The Appeals Board members interpret it to be a perpetual permit with a yearly review. The Planning Board members felt %hat although Hereford is a pit that really has no new areas to develop they should still follow the new rules %0 a point of exception - when this happens then there is flexibility in the By-Law. A discussion followed in which both Boards aired their views. Mr. Frizelle stated th~% in their research nothing had ever been found that showed the permit had expired. He also felt %hat, in some instances, %he conditions imposed through the years were more stringent %hah the By -Law. Mr. Salemme inquired if the Board of Appeals felt it was setting a precedent or not to which Mr. Prizelle replied %hat would be only if the permit had ex~ired. Mr. Lamprey mentioned that in John Willis' letter he used the word '~rpire". Mr. Ostherr asked what would be done in the future. Mr. Frizelle said that he wou/d analize each on a case to case baeis and g~ve an example of Gil Rea's pi%. Mr. Lamprey's opinion was that if they couldn't live with any part of the By-Law they would have a logical reason for a variance. Mr. Joyue suggested .i~koosing the new By-Law under the conditions of %he decision. Mr. Frizelle then asked what the Plan- ning Board would like the Board of Appeals %o do. ~r. Chepulis told %he others that the Planning Board had originally asked for the Board of Appeals to clarify their decision and they came up with a Memo which m~de no reference to the original deoision~ The Board of. Appeals has an inherent power to amend the original decision by filing this type of Memo~ s~id Ralph Joyce. The purpose of the renewal, said Mr. Frizelle, is to keep the Board of Appeals informed as to what is happening. The two Boards then invited the Board of Selectmen to the meeting. They were told that the Boards concurred that Section 5 of the ZBL could be practically resolved within a 6 month period by doing the following: adding "and/or annual review" in paragraph 5.1 (5). They informed the Board of Selectmen that in order to implement th~% as fast as possible it would be necessary to insert an article in the Town Warrant sponsored by the two Boards. Selectmea Coady felt that %his could be done. If this is adopted at Town Neeting the length of time Hereford Corp. is allowed %o operate is 6 months and this is a tolerable situation which will also be in line with the new By-Law. It was agreed to enter this as an article in the Town Warrant. The meeting adjourned at 8 P.M. William Ch~pulis , ~hairmml /6ild~ Blaokstock, Secretary March 15, 1976 - M~nday Regular Meeting The PLANNING BOARD held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, March 15, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: William Chepulis, Chairman; Fritz Ostherr, Vice-Chairman; William N. Saleratus, Clerk; Paul R. Lamprey and John J. Monteiro. There were 15 visitors present. The minutes of Feb~ary 17, 1976 were unanimously accepted as received upon motion of Mr. Monteiro and second by Mr. 0stherr. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL: 1. JOSEPH OTTAVIANO - Coachman's Lane: Mr. O~taviano stated that the purpose of the request is to combine lots 4, 4A and 4B. The BOARD suggested that' he have a heavy line drawn on the plan surrounding the whole parcel with broken lines be- tween the original lots. A motion was made by Mr. Ostherr to endorse a plan of land located in North Andover, Ma., dated Jan. 5, 1976 as not requiring approval under subdivision control law showing a combination of lots 4, 4A and 4B on Coach- man's Lane following the heavy outlining of the combined lots with a broken line showing the division of the old lots. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion. It was mentioned that Ben Osgood had send a letter to Ottaviano on Jan. 7, 1976 stating that this addition to the parcel was never to be used as a building lot. Mr. Chepulis reasoned that it is not within the PLANNING BOARD'S jurisdiction to g~vern what goes on between the seller and buyer as long as it does not violate the Zoning By-Law. The vote on the motion was .-,,~animous. PLANNING BOARD/BOARD OF APPEALS JOINT Nk~TING: As an outcome of the meeting, Mr. Ostherr made a motion that the PLANNING BOARD in concurrence with the BOARD C~ APPEALS shall sponsor an article amendment to the Zoning By-Law at the Annual Town Meeting by adding at the end of the second sentence of Section 5, (5.1) (5), the following: their expiration date "and/or annual review". Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Zoning Amendments: A) Sec. 4.129 (14) and B) Sec. 4.129 (14) primary use with a special permit. George Sehruender stated that he has ~ad inquiries for warehousing and distributing either under the Building Department or through a special permit and informed the BOARD that he preferred the first article (to have it as an allowed use in the ZBL). He requested having one of the articles approved and would strike the other at Meeting. He described a distributer as somewhat similar to Capital Distributing. Mr. Chepulis said this relies heavily on trucking. John Monteiro felt that distribut- ing means sometimes heavy trucking as opposed to light t~_~g and questioned if what was being requested was what was really desired. He suggested warehousing and whole- saling only beoause the other route could create a traffic problem. The Building Inspector stated that wholesaling andwarehousing as shallowed use or a permitted use is one of the differences between I-2 and I-1 and is probably one of the factors in the lack of development along Rte. 114. This rather restrictive zoning policy has certainly played its part, he thought. He didn't see anything wrong with having distributing or warehousing as part of an industrial district. linch 15, 1976 - con'l:, Mr. Poster also went into the history of the Zoning ~y-Law regarding the differ- ence between a warehouse and a di_s_$~butorship~ it deserves possible change in order to get some revenue in this/~he Town. 'led Phelan stated that he has been Chairman of the Industrial Commissiou for several years and recently have had many inquiries from people who have found it complex and restrictive so would go over the border and build. He also stated that he lives in the area and wouldn't mind a ~arehousing type building as ~ong as the grounds were kept nicely, etc. It is important for the tax base and employment. Chairman Chepulis noted that, according to the map, we have more area in Z-1 ~h~_n I--2 but in some respects it would make I-1 more equivalent to I-2. Mr. Monteiro stated that he had no objection to either ~ne of these articles and would li~e to see the Town Meeting vote on it. He also specified that he is in favor of special permits. Mr. Chepulis brought up having a site review but it was questioned whether or not this would be legal under the new Ch. 808. Another area ques%ioued ~as that if this was opened up would it have any impact on the State to adopt necessary recon- struction of the highway. 0~e of the problems with a special permit is that the petitioner exposes himself to any particular citizen who wishes to appeal the decision. Mr. Ostherr noted that the Regional Planning District b_~_~ suggested that all the land along 114 be re-zoned back to Residential. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to take amendments A & B under advisement and insert in place the following.- warehousing, wholesaling and distritr~ting. Mr. Ostherr seconded and the vote was unanimous. C) Sec. 4.121 (4) and ~.122 (4) and 4.123 (4): ~"he PLANNYNO BOARD'S intention to amend or change this particular by-law ~as to eliminate home factories rather than home occupations and by allowing people to be hired to work there who go home at night so that the owner will reside in the dwelling. Also, this article purports that the number of people be changed from 5 to 3. Mr. Os~herr stated that normally we don't go after something unless there is a problem and asked for an explanation. Charles Poster, Building Inspector, told the ROARD that on several occasions requests for a ruling on how many people were allowed had come before him. 0~e of the most recent ones was from a psychiatrist who planned a clinic for his home. It seemed that with 5 persons allowed the whole first floor of a dwelling could be used to con- duct the business. Re noted that this same thing happens with Real Estate people operating out of their home which creates alot of traffic. Re said that he was the one who suggested this modification. ~ne 5 people being involved generates from Foulds Bakery on Beverly ~. which was a family arrangement. Mr. Chepulis asked if he knew of any that employ more than 3 persons to which Mr. Foster replied yes, in some of the beauty shops; however, those that are in existence would not be effected unless they reduce their staff for more than 2 years. Re commented tb~t one thing he had seen happen was that the professional person only works there during the day and the janitor or some relative actually lives there. Mr. Ostherr made a motion to take Article C under advisement. Mr. Menteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. D) Sec. 4.121 (6) ~) thru 4.130 (13) (B): Insert in place thereof the following - "0~ any parcel of land of at least~hree (3) acres owned or lawfully occupied and used by a single person,e~tity, or group of persons, ... one such additional animal or bird~" Ail of the above paragraphs refer to zoning districts regarding the keeping of.animals on ~ acres. Some problems have arisen in the past with the semi-tics. Basically, this does not change the number of animals that may be kept on the specified site, but specifies leasing, renting, etc. If someone has a piece of March 15, 1976 ~ cont. land over three acres he can b~ lease get sufficient land to keep his animal. Anthony Campagna, 114 Boxford SS.: referred to "any lot" which now has been changed to "parcel of land" and in the definition "lot" means "pl~t" or "parcel" and felt that it means the same things. Mr. Chepulis informed him that the key phrase is "single ownership". This means sufficient acreage lawfully obtained. He also questioned the amount of time involved with a lease because someone can take a lease and immediately break it. Mr. Chepulis told him that if this happened to him it should be brought up before the proper authority, the ~uilding Inspector. Campagna then told the BOARD about his experience with the pony nex~ door. ~he letter from Town Counsel, dated 10/9/75, to Dr. Ray ~as read regarding a lessee and length of time. Mr. Ostherr brought out the fact that this amendment is an attempt to clarify that issue. Mr. Monteiro felt there was a definite health hazard involved; the problem can only be solved by the Board of Health. Carroll ~aylor, "useable land". three acres w~s neighbors. Charles Foster, sentence addition District of a lot. A motion seconded 940 Johnson SS.: Asked if this could be defined in the By-Law as His opinion was that there areno teeth in the amendment. ~ne not so much to protect the amimal as to provide a buffer for the Building Inspector, suggested a change in the wording of the final which now reads: "...of a family living on ouch parcel" to read "... in to household pets". Essentially it would be eliminated in an Industrial or Business District and it would be better if the 3 acres were not part where people live. ~he intention is to h~ndle non-commercial animals. was made by Mr. Monteiro to take the matter under advisement. Mr. Ostherr and the vote was unanimous. E) Sec. 4.132: Add new paragraph 12...injurious, noxious or offensive... Member Ostherr stated that some of the wording of the By-Law was not changed on purpose and added that we are not totally without provision for other non-retail, commercial activity. Parking is one of the accessory uses. He then made a motion to take the proposed amendment under advisement. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote was unani- mous. SUESSION OF PR'~.IMINARY PLANS: 1 · T~rtle Hill 2. Paddock Estates 3. Greenwood West A motion was made by Mr. 0stherr that the plans be referred to the Subdivision Control Subcommittee for review and comments. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote was unani- mot~s. Hearing on Article amending Sec. 5 ' Mr. 0stherr made a motion t°se$ a hearing date for Saturday, April 3, 1976 at 9 A.M. in the Town Meeting Room. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote was u~mimous. PRESCOTT ST. NURSING H0~: Represented by Kenneth Zimble who stated his case regarding the Covenant running with the land and the later modification that was filed. He felt it would be prurient to have the covenant cl&rified so that i~ will be clear that it regards the lots and site as it now exists. A letter along with a proposed clarification is on file. The clarification states that parcel B is not subject to the provisions of a certain Covenant running with the land. He admitted that they could be going overboard with caution but would like it cleared up so financing will March 15, 1976 - cont. not be delayed. William Cyr, H~gh~ay Surveyor, brought up the drainage on this parcel to which Mr. Zimble replied that he was happy to be alerted to the problem. Mr. Chepulis oommented on C~ndition ~ on the plan and Mr. Zimble stated that, as a matter of law, the Town doesn't lose leverage by virtue of the Building Permit issuance. He also told the BOARD that the drainage problem would be rectified before they proceed· The Building Inspector said that he had looked at the plan previously and that he amd Mr. Cyr will make sure it is satisfactory. A motion was made by Mr. Ostherr thatthe PLANNING BOARD execute the clarification as read by Mr. Zimble. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote w~s unanimous. The clarifica- tion will be signed following submission of the recorded plan number by Mr. Zimble. DECISIONS: 1. ~IDGE ESTATES: Mr. Ostherr stated that the Subdivision Control Committee has reviewed all the information submitted to date, has walked the l~nd and met with other Town Departments. The Subdivision Control Subcommittee made a motion to approve the definitive subdivision plan subject to the following conditions: 1) the usual terms regarding Covenant running with the land; 2)all improvements shall be in accordance with the Rules & Regulations regarding the Subdivision of Land for the Town of North Andovers 3) that wate~ and seWer if applicabl~be in accordance with the BPW; 4) that fire protection improvements be constructed in accordance with the standards of the Board of l~ire Engineers; 5) that roadway and surface drainage be constructed in accord- anoe with the standards of the Highway Surveyor; 6) that no lot may be built upon until a subsurface sewage disposal system permit be granted by the Board of Healths 7) that the proposed 50 foot roadway easement from the turn-~round be aligned along the lot line between lots 6 & 7S 8) that the drainage easement between lots 1 & 2 be ~eleted and that the drainage easement between lots 3 & 4-be continued to approximately con- tour 65 as shown on the definitive plan, and that all land below such contour be restricted by placement in similar drainage easements to the Town; the street.drain- age will then be continuous from Nerbleridge Road to approximately station 4+255 9) that the locus plan be corrected to scale and the proposed roadway shown; IO) that the paved roadway be 26 feet in width, with an 18" gravel overlap on either sides 11) that the two additional catch basins be shown at approximately station 2+50; 12) that final location and installations of catch basins be performed under the- direction of the Highway Surveyor during constructions 13) that two hydrants be located along the proposed s~reet at locations to be d~termined by the Board of Fire ~gineers. Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion. Mr. Barbagallo, the developer, wanted to know about the drainage easements and whether or not he had to do it. Mr. Gelinas said that he didn't believe he was giving up the fee on the property. He also question- ed the 3 ~i~e hydram~ Mr. Gelinas stated that he ~ld see the Chief and ask him to write a letter for tn, placement of the 2 hydrants. The vote on the mo~ion was unanimous · 2. Willow Ridge Estates: The subdivison Control Suboommitte~oved approval of ~he defi~iti~sul~livi sion plan subject to the followin~ conditions: 1) usual 2) usual 3)all fire protection improvements shall be Constructed in'accordance with the s~and- ards of the Board cf Fire Engineers$ 4) that roadway and surface drainage be con- s~ructed in accordance with the standards of the Highway Surveyor; 5) that no lot may be built upcn until a subsurface sewage disposal system permit be granted by the Board of Healths 6) that the turn-around drainage be piped approximately 75 feet ina northerly direction to a natural drainage swaleS 7) that sloped granite curbing run from the catch basins at station 0+85 to station 7,~30S 8) that a surface water drain be shown entering at the 0+85 catch basin; entry to provide relief from sur- face water in the swale on lot 5 (not a part of the subdivision)$ 9) that catch basin swales and curbing be constructed to catch the street surface water; 10) that gravel under-base ex~end 18" beyond the pavement on each side. March 15, ~976 - cont. Nr. Ls~rey seconded the motion and the vote of the BOARD w~s unanimous. DISCUSSION - WIN~ HILL ESTATES CUL DE SACS: Mr. Gelinas informed the BOARD that one of the conditions imposed by the Town Departments was unacceptable to his client.. Nr. C2T suggested the connection of the cul de sacs in this subdivision andMr. Gelinas said that he could not do this. They hav~ eliminated one of the cul de sacs but the issue before us is that we shouldn't h~ve these. He felt that they are a tremendous advantage to the community, it is a land planning issue and a sacrilege to connect these two roads. He mentioned how he has a very difficult time selling the idea of not using grid subdivisions to developers and proper~y owners and if we connect these roads we will create a grid. Mr. Gelinas said that he was at an impasse with the Highway Surveyor and that is the reason he came to the BOARD. It would eliminate beautifUl stone walls and cause alot of cut and fill to which Mr. Cyr retorted that there would not be much cut and fill. Any circle street, said 0yr, is put in with the understanding of the possibility of a future street. Gelinas stated that there are some that are put in that are explicitly not to be ex~ended~ and you want them connected for ease of snow plowing and m~intenance. And, for fire protection added 02~. The discussion continued along this vein. The BOARD decided to discuss it fu~her at the hex% meeting. BOARD C~ APPEALS LEGAL NOTICES: F, S. Davis- no comment Ninety-Nine North - no comment The meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M. ~~ ~ Chairma,~ W~liam Chepulis / Oilda Blackstook