Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-07-12July 12, 1976 - Monday Regular Meeting The PI~NNING BOARD held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, July 1976 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present smd voting: William Chepulis, Acting Chairms~u; John J. Monteiro, Clerk; Paul R. Lamprey and William M. Salemme. Fr. Oatherr was away on a b~siness trip. The Minutes of May ~7, 1976 were accepted by a motion of Mr. Salemme to that effect. Mr. Monteiro amended the motion that under item "Appledore Associates - Bond Release" it is to read "reduced $27,000 leaving $25,000". Mr. S~lemme seconded and the vote PLANS MOT REQUIRinG APPROVAL: 1. ~RANE B. SMER~CZYI~KI - North Andover/Middleton Line: Reason for variance which w~s granted by the Board of Appeals: necessary for set back and, also, the lot w~s divided by the Town botmdary. Routine formality that the PLA~rfNG BOARD sign plans in order that the applicant may record his plans. Mr. Mon%eiro made a motion to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under subdivision control law. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote was unanimous, 2. WILBUR B~ - Campbell Rd.: Mr. Burnham and Scott Giles were present to present the plans to the BOARD. Mr. ~amnham stated that the lots will include 2 paved drive- w~ys. A motion was made by Mm. Monteiro and seconded by Mr. Salemme ~o endorse as not recfuiring approval under subdivision control law a plan of land owned by George and Wanda Farr, dated ~une 1976. Mess,rs S~lemme, Chepulis and Monteiro voted in favor and ~m. Lamprey was opposed. The motion carried. 3. APPLEDOREASSOC~ATES - Sandra Lane: Ben 0sgood appeared before the BOARD with a redesign of the lots on Sandra Lane dated July 1976. A discussion took place regarding Glen Road and whether or not it is a paper street. Mr. Osgood stated that it is a parcel of land owned byAppledore, there is no Glen Road recorded and that it came from the original Sutton Hill master plan. The present plan shows an easement on this road. Mr. Oh,pulis~ opinion was that it is a paper street because it was on the plan even before Appledore came along. The Town already has a drainage easement in the pond area. Mr. Osgood told the BOARD that the purpose of the rearrangement is that they picked up 2 ~ots in the front and others are better designed for building. These lots are going to have driveways coming in from Sutton Hill Rd. (Glen Rd.) amd they have more than the required area, said Osgood. Mr. Cb,pulis questioned whether or not this would alter the Con. Com. requirements to which Mr. Osgood replied that it would not interfere one bit. Mrs. Mary Armitage, ~utton Hill Rd., was asked by Mr. Monteiro about the qualities of this Glen Rd. area. She explained general charac%eristics, and asked if a road used by the Town can be changed to an easement. Mr. ~onteiro felt that he would like to hear response from the neighbors in the area. More discussion took place regarding access through Glen Rd. Mrs. Armitage said she would not object to this access, but her questions were to get information. A motion was made by Mr. Lamprey to disapprove said plam because it shows a subdivision. Mr. Monteiro seconded. Eric Levine, an interested ~ud pro~abl~ buyer, asked about utilities and who holds title to the property. Mr. Osgood answered Appledore holds title and the utilities will come in from Sandra Lane. Mr. Armitage queried how sewerage would be brought into the homes that would be built on the Caimi and Bradley side of ~he pond. Mr. Osgood cited 2 or 3 alternatives -an ejector, from Sutton Hill Rd., or from Sandra Lane. He also stated~that if the Con. Com. desires them to file an amended statement they would be willing to do so. M~. Cyr questioned the 3 methods of sew, ring July 12, 1976 - cont. the properties because it was proposed at Town Meeting to sewer thmt portion of Sutton Hill Rd. and it was defeated. He felt that it is peer planning at this ~ge for a developer to Some in and not know which way hei~ going to proceed because the Town Departments aren't aware ef what is going on. ~lr. Cyr told the BOARD that he is planning to do corrective work on this road in the next two weeks. Mr. Osgoed then asked for a clarification of the motion. ~Ir. Lamprey felt that the BOARD should not have to come out with a written decision on a Form A. It is customary that frontage on a street is where access to the lot comes from. Mr. Osgood said that, obviously, we want to use this piece of land because there is almost 6 acres and didn't feel that the neighbors would want a 50 ft. paved r~d coming in there. The vote on the motion was as follows - Messers Lamprey, Chepulis and Monteiro in favor and Mr. Salemme opposed. Reason: real access to lots 30 & 31 is through a quasi street. 4. STEPHAN& DOROTHY BRENN~&N - Great Pond Rd.: Scott Giles appeared for the applicant showing a plan dated July 8, 1976 of lot ~-C containing ~0.5+ acres. The frontage would be across "Mill Pond". Mr. Chepulis objected to this. ~r. Lamprey made a motion to endorse said plan as not requiring approval under subdivision control l~w and ~. Balemme seconded. Messers Chepulis, Lamprey and S~lemme voted in f~vor and Mr. Monteiro was opposed. 5- ST~-RT SUN31ERS - Rea St.: Discussion of piece of land which he will bring in as a Form A. The por~ion in question is ~ side line conveyance from his nex~ door neighbor who is moving away. Mr. Summers feels he may lose the parcel if another owner takes over. Board agreed to meet on July 26~h at which time Mr. Summers would present his plan. 6. JOHN C. TUTT~E (GREAT PONDWOODI~ND) - Great Pond Rd.: ~, Turtle presented an over- lay of the realignment of the roadway as requested by the BOARD on the preliminary approval. The plan showed lots ~ &~2. Upon motion of Mr. Monteiro and ~cond of M~. Salemme to endorse as not requiring approval under subdivision control law a plan of land prepared for Lands~il, Inc. on Great Pond Rd., ~ted July 9, 1976 the BOARD voted unanimously in f~vor. 7. G~YSAPI-ENEA - Johnson St.: Bob Goodwin represented the applicant. The Building Inspecto~.explained that Mr. Sapienza erected a pool in his yard which was ~oo etose to the le~/Xm~e error came about because a fence e~ists between he and his neighbor which they assumed was the boundary line. This is an a~reement that the 2 owners ar~ entering into for an exchange of land so M~. Sapienza will have the recluired footage. Mr. Lamprey m~de a me, ion to endorse as not requiring~pproval under Zubdivision control law a plan of land in North Andover, ~. to accompany deeds in Exchange of Land between Sapienza and Ensdorf, dated July 9, 1976. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote w~s unanimous. 8. ELIZABETH ELLIOT - Berkeley & Turnpike St.: John Thompson, the applicant, presented a plan dated April, 1976. The Flatley development was brought up in regard to the Street. Mr. Thompson stated that trash, etc. would be brought out to Rte. 1~4 and he would main- tain the road himself. Mr. Cyr interjected that a problem arises when there is a change of ownership - this has happened all over Town on these paper streets. John Willis, Sr. who represents Fla~ley voiced concern on his client's behalf also about the street. He felt that the PLANNING BOARDwould require him to build the ro~d all thew ay to Turnpike St. when he comes in representing Mr. Flatley. Mr. Lamprey co~,en~ed that it has been a practice in the past that the BOARD does not approve Form A's of this type. Mr. Chepulis questioned whether or not the BOARD could disapprove this because it has come through the Boa~d of Appeals; probably need a legal opinion on the m~tter. M~. Lamprey then made a motion to table the application ~nd plan until the July 26th meeting in order that Town Counsel ma~vbe contacted. M~. Monteiro seconded and the vote ;~s unanimoum. July 12, 1976 - cont. 9. D~ML HOGAN - Forest St.: George Schruender represented the applicant and showed the BOARD a plan of 5 lots, dated Juue, 1976. Upon motion of ~r. Monteiro and second by Mr. Lamprey the PLANNING B0.~RD voted unanimouslyto endorse said plan as not requir- ing approval under subdivision control law. ~0. VINCENT& SREILA LANDERS - School St.: Letter from Town Counsel dated July 7, ~976 was received and all members had read it. Charles Foster, Building Inspector, brought out the fact that they may be combining some Residential with Genera/ Business because that area was changed in 1972. His question to the BOARD was whether or not the Zoning ~p in existence now is the official one or are we going by the descriptions fi-om the old By-L~w. He added that now the frontage will change from the front of his building to the width of School S~. John Willis, Sr. said that it is supposed to be one parcel but it is designed as 2 on the plan to show the portion conveyed (parcel B) by the Town to Landers. Ma% Monteiro m~de a motion to.endorse as not requiring approval under subdivision control law a plan of land for Sheila & Vincent Landers dated July 2, 1975. Mr. Chepulis seconded and more discussion followed. Mr. Lamprey restated the action taken at the last meeting and reminded the members that this is what the BOARD has always done to protect the Town. Mr. Willis said that they were not changing an~hing ~nd PL~dVNTNG BOARD jurisdiction comes over subdivisions and this is not a subdivision. The only reason they are here, he said, is because there is another law which requires PLAN~G BOARD signatures for recording purposes. He felt that if the BOARD acted contrary to this they would be putting themselves in jempardy. Member Salemme took issue with the alleged inference that he was being directed to vote one way or another. M~. Willisapologized for being misinterpreted and was just tr~ring to point out the law. Mr. Chepulis asked what he plans to do with this land, expand his building or what? Atty. Willis replied that as far as he knew - nothing. Mr. Foster then asked if he would object to it being designated as not a building lot to which Mr. Willis answered no, but he couldn't speak for his client on this factor. Since the petitioner doesn't seem to object, said ~. Foster, the suggestion w~s m~de that the fact that it would not be a building lot could be placed on the plan. Much more discussion ensued during which Mr. Willis commented that his client would not go along with such a restriction. The vote on the moti°n was as follows: Messers Chepulis and Monteiro voted in favor; N~. Salemme was opposed; Mr. Lamprey abstained. The motion passed. WILLOWHYDGEEST~TFS - Scott Properties, Ync.: Restrictive Covenant & Subdivision Control ~greemen~ were submitted previously and letter from Arnold S~lisbury, dated June 25, 1976, was read. ~n which he approved the documents as to their form. The BOARD reviewed the documents and ~r. Chepulis noted that there was a condition on the form regarding the roads that was not just as had been specified. Some discussion on this subject. N~. Lamprey m~de a motion to authorize the Vice-Chairman to sign the Covenant, Mortgage Bond and Release. Mr. Monteiro ~econded and the vote w~s unanimous. PRESCOTT ST. NURSING HOME- DISCUSSION: ~.~. Henry Fitzgerald told the members that in October they are going to the Appeals Cour~ regarding ownership of 1/2 acre of land. The construction is under FHA guaranteed mortgage and he ~mrther explained if the case were to go against his client they would have to come back. This discussion wms for informational purposes. Mr. Fitzgerald went on to say th~t they could commence con- struction of the building in the ir~nediate future which would require filing a new pavement layout. By doing so they could show ~hat they really don't need this 1/2 acre. FPL~ will accept this but feel that 70 parking spaces is much more than they need. They computed it to be 44 parking spaces and advised the Nursing Home owners to apply to the Board of Appeals for relief as to the number of spaces. They have 70 with 2 or less bedded rooms in the building and under the zoning requirements it asks for 1 parking space to every 1 or 2 bedded rooms. Fitzgerald suggested that the number of 50 parking spaces would be more reasonable. The FHA is considering allowing them to proceed pending the October hearing. If they win the case they would stay July 12, ~976 - cont. with the 70; the location of the buildings would not be changed even with the possibility of a revised plan. The only reason they would seek a v~riance, if forced to do so, is because the ~EA feels lot coverage is too high (20%~) with the loss of this land. The young lady attorney who accompanied Mr. Pitzgerald told the BOARD that when they pass title they would give ~n indemnity to F~A in the case of an adverse court decision which would go back to the original 2~ and 4'~ acre parcels and m~ke efforts within the Town %o reduce the number of parking spaces. DISCUSSION: PRE~2~T LOCATION OF CHARLES ST. - Mr. John Casale: Bud Cyr said he had suggested that Mr. Casale come before the B0~Dbecause of the status of this street. He h~d contacted Camp, Dresser & ~cKee who said they were just obtaining an easement on it. There isa 28 Ft. paved surface and when measured out the existing pavement comes within 3 feet of ~*~. Casale's land. ~m. Cyr Felt that the ro~d is not center on the right of waywhich is 40 feet. Mr. Casale said he w~s always against this but nobody took any stock of him, Charlie Foster said he wouldn't get hurt by it. Now he can't even sell the property and that it is not a legal road. ~. Cyr commented that there are no bounds and only bituminous berm and that it should be centered ~n the right of way For good construction praotice~, services. It seems as though the road has been pushed toward Mr. Camale's proper~y to gain some land, he said. John Willis, Sr. told the BOARD that in hi~ recall of the development, it w~s to be a pri. va~ely ovmed indus- trial park and a 40 ft. roadway would be okay, but the whole concept was changed with the sewerage treatment plant coming in. They only took mn easement because they were not going to use the road as a heavily traveled wmy. ~, Willis seemed to feel that all they would have to do is move the berm over and center it on the right of w~y. Also, he stated that the Sanitary Commission is supposed to resurface the road according to the court decree. Mr, Casale said that the trucks are running on his property. Mr. Willis s~id he would contact ~. ~tses to have it surveyed and then get in touch with the Sanitary District. He will also keep ~. Casale informed. C~OOD~AST - COVENANT SUBMITTAL: the covenant needed a signature. PLAN: needs to re~signed because it had not been recorded withinthe 6 month period. R.~.~ASE: Lot ~ - asked Mr. Cyr if he objected to release of this lot. Everything is done on the cul de sac except the finish cover hot top. COV~ANT (cont'd): ~.~. chepulis sta~ed that the lot numbers should be included and d~te of 6/16/75 of pla~ rather th~u 3/4Oohould be so ~ta%ed. The m~tter will be t~ken up at the July 26 meeting. BOARD OPAPPEALS LEGAL NOT~CE: DAVID ABBOTT- JohnsOn St; After a B~r~ discussion it was ~greed that this m~tter was entirely under Board of Appeals jurisdiction. CORRESPONDENCE FROM BOAR~) OF SET~T~ RE: ~,~EET~NG WITH ~%SS. E~ECTRIC & N.E. TEL~: The letter w~s read and. so noted. The Chairman %o attend the meeting on Aug-~st 16. The meeting adjourned at ~2 midnight. Chairman ~e c ret a~YBlaokst ock