Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-07-26July 26, 1976 - Monday Regular Meeting The PLANNING BOARD held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, July 26, 1976 at 1.30 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: Fritz Ostherr, Chairman; William Chepulis, Vice-Chairman; John J. Monteiro, Clerk; Paul Ri Lamprey, and William N. ~lemme. There were 1~ visitors present for the meeting. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL: 1. JOHN THOMPSON (ELIZABETH ELLIOTLAND) -Berkeley Rd. &Turnpike S~.: Fa-. Ohepulis reiterated what had transpired at the previous meeting and action taken for the benefit of Mm. Ostherr who had no% been present. Mr. OStherr then read the letter alond that Mr. Chepulis had written to Arnold Salisbury on July 19, 1976 and also Mr. Salisbury's reply in which he adv~se~ that the BO~3~must endorse the plan. Reason: it does not show a subdivision ~ud the new Lot B is not land-locked. The BOARD reviewed Ch. 41. Mr. Monteiro stated that he was against Berkeley Rd. being a thorofare due to the heavy traffic on Rte. 114. A motion was made by Mr. Monteiro to endorse the plan of land owned by Elizabeth Elliot, dated April, 1976 as not requiring approval under subdivision control law. ~m. Chepulis seconded and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Cyr commented that this action was very discouraging. 2. Mg%ULRT 5T~S - Rea St.: Mr. Summers presented the plan which he had outlined at the previous meeting. A motion was made by Mr. Monteiro and seconded by Mr. Lamprey to endorse as not requiring approval under subdivision control law a plan of land in North Andover for Stuart Summers, dated July 1976. The vote w~s unanimous. 3. DAVID W. ABBOTT - Johnson St.: This land had already received approval from the Board of Appeals by way of a variance. The house was set too close to the lot line. Upon motion of Mr. Monteiro and second by Mr. Chepulis to endorse the plan as not re- quiring approval under subdivision control law, plan of ~. Abbott dated June.1976~ the vo%e was unanimous. 4. FRANCIS W. TR0~BLY - Hillside Road : Charles W. Trombly, Sr., attorney for his brother, stated that title is now going to go through on the purchase of the land. They request signatures in order that they may put the plan on record at the Registry of Deeds. Iir. Ostherr requested being informed of the endorsement that will be given by the Andover Planning Board. Mr. Lamprey's opinion was that the plan should be identified further - it states "Plan of Land located in North ;mdover and Andover, Ma. A motion was made by }.~. Lamprey to endorse the plan as no% requiring approval under subdivision control law and seconded by I,~. Monteiro. The plan date is Feb. 4, 1976. The Purchase & Sales Agreement will go through on Friday, said Atty. Trombly. The vote on the motion was 1/na~imous, DISCUSSION O~ PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE AT ANDOVER BY-PASS - C~ W. Trombly, Sr., Francis Trombly and Harold Morley w~re present and presented their proposal to the BOARD. They are going to re-zone /~r~neral Business to an Industrial District and requested input as to what theoB~ARD would be in favor of re~rding this matter. It was noted that a bus terminal is permitted in I-2 and I-S, there are 13~ acres in the parcel. Mr. Chepulis mentioned that the intent was not to create new Industrial districts when the new By-Law was written. The dimensional table was reviewed to make sure they would be within the requirements of I-2. ~.~. Trombly, Sr. requested submitting an article for a public hearing so that it would be ready in the event of a Special Town Meeting. The BO;~D ~reed to do so. July 2~, ~75 - cont. VICTOR HAT~,! - DISCUSSION OF PORN A, APPLEDORE ASSOC.: Atty. Harem spoke for the developer stating that it is ~ rearrangement of interior lot lines and ~uaranteed that nobody would be able to disturn the ponds. He is having Prank Gelinas prepare a plan showing where the sewer lines will go and is also drawing up a preliminary plan of subdivisiou because someone from the audience indicated that they would prefer this. They will have to resubmit the plan because of ~ few minor modifications. Asked why the BOARD members thought it was violative of the subdivision control law. ~,~. Chepulis told him that it sort of meets the words on ~ piece of paper and lines on a plan, however he felt that the main discussion revolves around the frontage. Even though it is shown on Sandra Lane the actual access would be at the rear of these 2 lots. Since there is a ~mter course here practical access cannot be gained through the frontage and by providing entrance to the lots from the other end a ~ubdivision is being created, said ~4r. Chepulis. He added, that although they are called driveways they are essentially roadways. Mr. ~.tem retorted that Glen Rd. has been e~:isting as a driveway since Sutton Hill Rd. was created~ ~nd there are several roads in Town like this. It technically complies and practically it is a better solution~ he said. ~,~r. Ostherr asked who had title to Glen Rd. The presumption was that Messers Bradley & Calmi 8md Dr. Armi%age may have feeto the middle of the road but Atty. Harem contended differently. He claimed that this r~d came into being about 30 years ago ~nd was cree.ted so that the land. would not be land locked. Mr. Monteiro voiced concern about ~he effect on abutters and requested an opinion from ~m. Cyr. Atty. A! Bradley, an abutter, stated that he ~ms to the middle of the street and like- wise does ~Ir. Caimi ~nd cited the Ceplikas dilemma. Nobody has the right to touch the street without our permission and I,~r. Bradley disputed the right of access over Glen Rd. He felt that %he frontage on Sandra Lane is of no v~lue and the situation ought to be looked into because he was going to suffer by it. ~,~r. Harem stated that the deeds describe it as '~oeing bordered by Glen P~d.". N~. Bradley mentioned a new statute that ~ supposed to give them right to the center of the ro~d. Mr. Ostherr commented that if, in fact, these lots show adecfuate frontage on Sandra Lane then the developer can adjust roads within the approved subdivision as long as he retains enough frontage to build. Fr. Bradley brought out the fact that these lots are not the s~me as was shown on the approved subdivision. Mm. Ostherr interjected that once a subdivision is approved the lot lines csm be moved. Mm. Harem said that he couldn't believe that the people would really want a 4 or 5 lot subdivision there. The High, my Sm~veyor, Mr. Cyr, com- mented that at the last meeting the developer said these lots were to be sewered but didn't know how. He felt that it is poor planning to come in with a subdivision and not know where the sewer was going. At To~m Meeting, he stated, it ~s a unanimous vote not to sewer Sutton Hill Rd. and his pl~us are to re-surface from Heath Rd. to Sandra Lane. He didn't want to commence his plans to have them ruined by being dug up in the future. Mr. Harem asked him how any developer could second guess when he was going to re-surface. Fr. Cyr answered that if they h~d asked he could have told him a year ago. Frs. Segal, Sutton Hill Rd., was concerned by the easement shown on Lot 33 because of the cutting down of trees and drainage; this was not shown on the previous subdivision plan. ~,irs. Armitage concerned because Dr. Seccareccio and ~. Nazarian will get the run-off. Also, Dr. Seccareccio has done considerable work on his land based on the other plan and asked what takes precedence - %.zatershed or subdivision regulations? Is there a map that can show the relationship of the easement to the pond? ~ud, is it true that the easement is for the Town to maintain the pond? If they choose to, said Mr. Os%herr. ~r. }~on~eiro's personal opinion was that watershed should ta/<e precedence; Mr. Ostherr's viewpoint differed~- the BO~tRD is more closely governed by the ~ab!ing legislation and told Frs. Armitage that she may not ever obtain an answer from the BOARD as "the BOARD thinks"... Mrs. Armitage went on to say that she has requested the Pire Chief to look into this for public safety reasons. ~.~. Chepulis felt that this was a major modifica- tion as presented and wondered if it should be considered for a re-hearing. Wn~. Lamprey July 26, !976 - cont. added that when looking at a plan to determine whether it is or is not a subdivision ~uuder the ~orm A's access has to be considered and this clearly shows a subdivision. MARy MOODY SELDENEASTMENT- submitted byAtty. Earl and the description was read. The necessary easement is on file ~nd the plan will be signed when the easement is executed by N~s. Selden. Mr. Chepulis advised Mr. Karl to notify the BOARD upon receipt of the signed easement in order that the plan may be signed. GP~E~B~OOD mST - COVENANT SUBMI~VSAL: Victor Hatem told the membership that Town Counsel had seen the document. The BOARD agreed to accept the Covenant and directed the Secre- tary to notify the Building Inspector of the release of Lot ~ and the existence of the Covenant. ~.~. H~tem to record the papers. 5~. Monteiro made the motion to release Lot ~2~ Greenwood East, and Mr. Lamprey seconded. The vote was unanimous. B~wS~CP3~RKESTATES - COVEnANT SUBMITTAL: it covers 5 lots and filed by John Comeau. Arnold Salisbury had given approval. The Covenant was accepted by unanimous vote of the BO~L~D and the definitive plans were signed. STATUS I~QUIRY ON Ah~REg~ CIRCLE - Sorbo: A motion was made by Mr. Nontefro and seconded ~y M~. Lamprey that a letter be written to the Insurance Company with a copy to Mr. Sorbo stating that not only has nothing ~aken place since their last inquiry but we are considering strongly exercising the bond to complete the work. Give them until August 16th to reply and send back the form without signatures. Nm. Cyr to give the BOARD a list of other incompleted subdivisions at the next meeting. BOARD S~SCUSSION: Flood Hazard Areas - ~. Chepulis stated that there was notking to report at this time. ~. Monteiro said he would have a reply from the Attorney General by the end of the week ~nd if it is received the m~tter will be taken up at the ~ug. 2 meeting. Robert Pojasek Letter - read and filed. Check with the BPW or Phil Busby a~ to progress on Lake Monitoring Program. Invite Joe Cushing, B~ and Lake Study Committee to the next meeting for discussion of project. MVPC/N.A. ~TING ON REGIONAL LAND USE PROGRAM - to be held on Sept. 23rd at 7:30 P.M. at Stevens Hall. Send letter of invitation to Chairman of Andover Planning Board and letter to D~-PC confirming the meeting. ZONING MAP P~VISION - Chairman suggested that the members review the plan. Post the map with noSe that this is up for PLA~NI~I~G BOARD review. Mr. Monteiro withdrew his motion to correct Nina~es of July 12 regarding Appledore Release and Mr. Salemme withdrew his second. The minutes were correct as they were~ originally submitted. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Fritz Osth~rr Gilda Blackstock Chairman .... Secretary