Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-09-13September 13, ~976 - Monday Regular Neeti~lg The PIANNINO ]M)ARD held a regular monthly meeting o~ Monday evening, September ~3, ~976 at 7:30 P.M. in the ~own Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting; Pritz Ostherr, Chairman; William Chepulie, ¥ice-Ch~irman; John Jo Monieiro, Clerk; Paul R. Lamprey and William N. Salemmeo There were approximately visitors present. TRONBLY MOTOR COACH. PUBLIC NEARING: The Clerk read the legal notice. The Chairman explained that the BOARD is going through the preliminary stages to get ready for any Town Meeti~j that may occur and the hearing is held in order to formulate recommendations for such Town Meeting. Atty. C. W. Trombly, Sr. appeared before the BOARD in behalf of his brother, Frank.j The attorney told the BOARD that ~tr. Trombly h~s acquired the land in the rear that Ms talked about at the last meeting they attended. He owns 11+_ acres in the rear and is the owner and operator of the motor coach service on the land in the front at the A-dover ~y-Pass. It was, he reiterated, the feeling of the BOARD that a bus area should be in an Indus- trial zone so that it would Be more restricted and, as a result, we ~ithdrew the article in April. Their present proposal is to give the business land he now has and rezone the present business land and the parcel as shown in the rear all Industrial 2. The land area is identical to that sut~nitted last March for Town Meeting. The tria~glmlar piece in Andover will be conveyed to Merrimack College for their use. The proposal for the remaining land is to put in no more that 2 single family house lots on Hillside Rd. They have reached an understanding with a~utters that they will not run any busses onto Hill- side Rd. ~r. O~therr asked if the triangular piece was now R-3 because he was under the impression that the ~eneral ~usiness area came right out to the highway. Mr. Mouteiro then asked if Fra-k Troml~ly would have any objection to granting an easement along the North Andover/ Andover line inasmuch as he is going to put 2 houses on. Hillside Rd. He also mentioned a brook in that vicinity and Mr. Trombly said it was not on the Town Line. The Town of M.A. would welcome an easement to maintain the drainage ditch. Mr. John Burns, Andover By-Pass asked for an explanation of what is going to happen - Atty. Trombly is asking for an additional area $o expand hie brother's ~us ga~e~e chm~_g- ing a piece inside a General Business parcel to Industrial 2. Ne was advised that he cannot expand into a residential area and the ~.ANNIN~ BOARD recommended that the whole parcel Be rezemed to I-2. Atty. Trombly f~rther explained that the intent is to put the busses in the rear, the i~ress and egress will be over the exit to Merrimack College. OPPOSITION: Herbert Redma~, Andover By-Pass - concerned about noise fro~ the busses and house lots - the house lots will be in a residential zone. He was also told that Merri- mack Colleg~ was no% adverse to this rezoning. Did not like the idea of a bus garage in his back ya~ and what might go in there in the future. Stephen Gorrie, Hillside Rd. - questioned how far anything would have to be fro~ his lot. The Building Inspector told him that a structure would have to Be 100 ft. from any resi- dentially zoned land but a~ parking lot would only have to be ~0 Pt. Concerned By high water table in the area and the water displacement. ~ Ann ~orrie - Hillside Rd.: Clarified their cmncern By stating that this end of Hillside Rd. is no% on sewer. ~e culverts give alo% of trouble in the winter. Virginia Shalhoup attested to the above. The Chairman asked ~d Cyr to c~ent on the potential for alleviating thsi potential problem. Mr. Oyr, re the ditch referred to Sept. 33, ~976 - cont. previously - felt that it is important to keep it open. Mr. ~rombly stated that they probably would give the To~n an easement, But it is not a condition a% this point. Mr. Ohepulis made a motion to take the proposed recommendation on re-zoning under advisement. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote was unanimous. stephen ~orrie requested that the residents remarks fro~ the hearing previously be taken into consideration. · //N~Et 2 III~IVI.~IOII - centinued hearing.. The hearing was continued because sc~e'of the members wanted ~o view the water r~tention structure and Mr~ 0etherr gave a short summary of what had transpired at the last meeting. Mr. Chepulis viewed the mini-p~rk and dam plans which had been suhnit~ed to the BOARD following the last meeting. The subdivision control subcommittee recommended approval of the subdivision subject to the usu.al security or covenant~ the usual restrictions regarding building to the requirements of the various B6ards; the set%lng aside of Lots 8 & 9 as a mini-Parki in anyevent the drainage easement shall prevail; drainage shall be provided on Winter ~t. at the intersection of the 2 access roads in accordance with Mr. Oyr's letter of 8/16/76. Mike ~no!~k, aButter, asked for a review of points asked for besides the 2 cul de sacs being joined together. Rt. O~therr =-~wered - the mainta/mnce of the poad area as a pond as opposed to building on the site; the mini-park concept involves 2 'of the lots and there are drai __r~e easements On the back side of 2 other lots. ~everal residents examined the plans for the dam. Mr. ~nolak felt that the Planning Board had been remiss in cenducting ~pl~-ning" that was to be done during the whole discussion'of moratorium. A planner person ~as brought up during discussion. Mrs. ~andra Munroe, Winter st., stated that she and others would be glad t~ aid 'the BOARD in any way possible by working with them in the future. The ~uilding Inspector felt that the onl~r way the Town is going to get anthers is to approach the Advisery Board and ultimately ?o~n Meeting for funds for a planner. Mr. Ostherr aAded that the PIAI~NINO BOARD spends much time creating technical advice but there is a need for a professional person to get us past these points. It would relieve the BOARD of technical groundwork that is needed to make decisions with the pregent lays without even considering any new laws. ~he enabling legislat'ien tells what the ~OARD Can 01' oallnot do,, The discussion reverted back to the subdivision &t band -'Mr. O~z- said'that on Poster S~t. from Henry Green% on out it would Be necessary to Be widened in the very near future~ with or without the development he thought it ~s a dangerous road. Robin Munroe, Winter St., questioned Mr. ~elinas regarding the fact that he designs the plans and also grants septic permits for the To~n. Re felt a study should be made by some outside agency to check these wa~erwa~se easements. Mrs: Mnuroe was in favor of setting an example for the ?own by doing something about these conditions. Frank ~elinas stated that alot of what had been said was worth saying. One member of the BOARD, he said, seeks to reject this plan based on the design. This plan was sub- mitted under the requirements set up and is t~e result of scrutiny of the various ~oards in ~own, then to the Con. Co~., .then to the State. He objected very strongly to [an inuendo that as a result of this plan or previous plan by him that a danger to the water supply had 'been created. Sept. 13, 1976 - cont. Mr. Ostherrthen called for a vote on the Subdivision Cantrol Subcommittee's motion, approval subject to conditions of additional ~rainage on Winter St., etc. Mr. Nonteiro stated that he intends to vote negatively on the motion because he did not think the drainage problem had Been solved, new sohools, services are goingto~e required. He felt that an outside report/studyshouldBemade. Mr. Ostherrcommented that the BOARD is obligated to adhere to the enabling legislation. Mr. Chepulis pointed that the BOARD oamnot deny & sulxlivieion due to the necessity of more To~n services, schools, ere., there is always an impact on the Town. The VOTE on the motion was as follows: Nessers Chepulis, Ostherr, Lamprey in Savor; Nesssrs Nonteiro and Salemme opposed. Minutes of 7/12 and 7/26 - A motion was made by Mr. ~anteiro to approve the minutes of 7/12/76. Mr. Lamprey seconded and vote unanimous. The BOARD vo%ed unanimously to table action an the minutes of 7/26/76 upon motion and second by same meibers. PLANS NOT REg~IRIN~ APPROVAL: Mr. Ostherr gave the gavel to Mr. Chepulis in order that he could make a motion. Mr. 0stherr's motion was to reconsider the plan of land for Appledore Assoc. dated July, 1976 and revised August 2 & 16, 1976 which was voted on at the previous meeting. Nr. Monteiro seconded and the NOTE was a~ follows: Messere 0stherr and Salemme in favor; Messers Lamprey, Nanteiro and Ohepulis opposed. Reconsideration was lost. Michael Angeloro - Linden Ave.: It was noted that 6.8 (2) was on the plan. A motion was made by Mr. Nonteiro to endorse as not requiring approval undex; subdivision control law a plan of land, 14 Linden Ave. dated ~ept. 8, 1976. ~ohn ~. Willis, ~ro, Esq. again explained about the lot and also presented appropriate Registry of Deeds history of the lot. Mr. Salemme seconded the motion and the vcte ~was unanimous. Paul & ~hirley Wood - Forest St.: Lots E& D seemed to Be in order as to area and frontage. Mr. Manteiromade a motiouto endorse as not requiring approval under sub- division oontrol law the subject plan dated August, 1976. 'Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote unanimous. Barco Corp. - Boxford St.: plan dated Sept. 11, 1976 showed Lots lA, 2A, SA & 4. The Building Inspector stated that he would not issue a building permit Because Lot is no~ included in the total package and this 5th parcel does not have the required frontage. A motion was made by Mr. Monteiro to D~ the plan by non-endorsement because the plan is incomplete. Mr. Saleratus secanded. Messers Ohepulis, Non%elto and ~lemme voted in favor; Messers Lamprey and Ostherr abstained. ~pledore Assoc. - Sandra Lane: plan dated April 19, 1976 showing Lots lA, 2A, Lot 4 is not to Be considered. Noted that the application did not specify which lots. Ben Osgood explained that there was a mistake on the original Appledore plan which shows them on a piece of Ippolito's pzoper$y. Also the plan does not refer to Ap~ledore at all. Mr. Chepulis made a motion that the subject p~_an showing Lots lA, 2A and 3A Be endorsed as not requiring approval under subdivision control law. Mr. Ronteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. Jay Philbin - Clark Rd.: plan of land for Township Realty T--~st dated ~ept. 13, 1976 showing 7 lots fronting on Rea & Abbott Sts. bordering land of Calzstta and J & V Realty Trust. The 'Chair~_n asked Bud Oyr if the construction on ABbott St. would Be suitable to service 5 or 6 more house lots. Nr. Oyr felt that from past performance he would have every reason to Believe a~good job will be done. It is a public way. ~oster questioned whether or not he had anything in 'writing on this and Mr. Cyr answered~ that there is a drainage easement already recorded. No motion was made. Sept. 13, 1976 - coot. APPLW~OREASSOC. - Request for B~d Release was referred %o the Nighway ~mrveyor for reoo~mendatioobymo~ioo of Mr. Nooteiroand secoodbyMr. Lamprey. Unanimous vote. aE~GE FARR- Request for partial release of Bond oo ~alem Forest: Notion was made By Chepulis %0 request clarification from the BPW and take ac%ice a% Sept. 2Oth meeting. Lamprey secooded and %he vote Was unanimous. JO~N TU~E- ~u~missioo of Covenant and B~nd for ~le ~11: ~. C~ ~ve a ~c~ended t~l ~ ~ ~. ~le chose ~o bre~ i~ do~. A discussi~ foll~ ~ween ~ ~d ~le re~ ~his po~. ~er ~om ~. ~ ~ted ~pt. 1~ ~s ~. ~. ~le ~o ~i~ ~ o~n~; rele~e ~d mo~ b~d refe~ed ~o T~ C~sel f~ reo~nda~i~ as to fo~ for ~pt, 2~h ~st~. Lawsuit APPLEDC~E (DESUN C0SP.) VS PLANNIN~ BOARD: referred %0 Mr. Salisbaryto answer. DAVID CARLSON - 312 Boxford St. I~E FLOOD HAZARD ZI~W3PJ~CE: Mr. Ca~lson explained that he was required to obtain Flood Plain Insurance oo the house he Built last Ma~V and requested a statement in writing from the BOA1U) %0 %he effect that he is not in a flood hazard dis%rio% (inasmUch as his house is on a knoll). The federal gev'% required %his insurance. The BOARD complied with his req-.,est by stating that it could find no evidence %0 support %he claim %ha% he ~as in this type of .dis%rio%. The letter was writ%an to Mr. Carlson. Board of PuBlic Works rec~menda%ioo on ~pinning ~heel Estates - let%er da%ed August 6, 1976 was read and is on fils. Board of Appeals Red. est for Recommendation oo Wa%Son Earth Removal Permit Renewal: Mr. Salemme was designated %0 prepare %he ~BOARDresponse. No%ice from Oapi%al I~dge% Committee Re Nestir~ was referred to Mr. Non%eiro, Ccmsamioatioo from League of Wo~en voters Re Sept. 15 meeting on Na%ural Resources Planning Program was read. Let%er from EM Re Letterhead request was also. Mr. Saleratus to attend meeting and make reeommenda%ion at our Sep%. 20th mee%i~. AO~rI0~ OM INO0~ SU/~D/VISIONS: S"J~PON INDUSTRIAL PARE=letter from F/reman's /nsu_r- anoe Co. requesting hood release. The secretary was directed to send A~%y. Ford copy of all correspondence regarding this; Mr. McAloon was send lst%ers oo Charles S~. with a cover let%er explaining that %he ~0ARD is exploring %he si%--,a%ion with the Greater Law- fence Sanitary District at present and is also interested in %he outcome. ANDP~I CIRCLE=?o~n Counsel %0 Be sen~ a let%er with copy of let%er %0 Sorbo stating %ha% the BOARD is going %0 pursue remedies %o complete this su]xlivisioo. JOI~SON CirCLe=John Millis, Sr. stated %ha't; a meeting would be sst up with Mr. Cyr. The meeting adjourned a~ 11 P.M. Chairman · z Osthe~r