Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-03-08Monday - March 8, 1971 Special Meeting The PLANNING BOARD held a special meeting on Monday evening, March 8, 1971 at 8:00 P.M. in the Town Office Building. The following members were present and voting: William Chepulis, Jr., Chairman; Charles W. Tromb'ly, Jr., Vice Chairman; John J. Monteiro, Secretary; Robert J. Burke and Donald N. Keirstead. Ben Osgood, Jay Burke and Atty. Harold Morley, Jr. were also present. JAYCEE'S EXHIBIT: The Board discussed the exhibit "Know Your Town" to be held on Sunday, March 28th at the High School, and what they would need and do for the Planning Board display. Mr. Keirstead, with the help of other members, will take care of setting up the display and information sheets will be printed for distribution at that time. ~.~TION OF OFFICERS: Mr. Burke nominated Mr. ~ for Ch%?m..~a~,..; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Tromblynominated Mr. Keirstea~ for V~ce .Ohairman~ Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Keirstead nominated Mr. ot~ for Secr?~; Mr. Trombly seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Trombly nominated Mr. Mn~ as rere.~ to C.M,~m~_~$m~~ (n~e changed to Merrimack Valley Planning Commission) and the vote ~as unanimous. The Selectmen appoint the alternate member and the Planning Board usually makes a recommendation to them. Mr. Burke nominated Mr. J~to be the__~ternate member; Mr. Keirstead seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Keirstead made the following nominations for the Sub-committees: Long Range Planning: Capital Improvement: Subdivision Control: Administration: Mr. Monteiro & Mr. Keirstead Mr. Monteiro & Mr. Chepulis Mr. Burke & Mr. Chepulis Mr. Burke&Mr. Keirstead Mr. Trombly seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Keirstead nominated Mr. C~hepuli~ as the~~_~r~res~nta~e to the C§pit_al_~udget Com~.~t~te~e; the vote was unanimous. Mr. Trombly then took the Chair and thanked Mr. Chepulis for his many efforts and extended the Board's appreciation for his past work and leadership. Mr. Chepulis thanked the Board members and also wanted it shown in the records that he appreciated the assistance, etc. of the clerk, Mrs. Donahue, and that she continue her duties as clerk of the Planning Board. The Board members agreed. March 8, 1971 - cont. The Board then proceeded to vote on the re-zoning petitions for which hearings were held on the past Monday, March l, 1971. 1. SCHOOL COMMITTEE& SCHOOL BLDG. CO~. Mr. Chepulis made a motion to recommend FAVORABT~ action; Mr. Keirstead seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The following reasons are given: 1. The proposed re-zoning is a public need, and fulfills public necessity and convenience. 2. This is a proper use of the land and is in the best interests of the town. 2. VINCENT J. McALOON: Jay Burke presented a copyef;a covenant that had been given to the Board of Selectmen, from the petitioner to the Town of North Andover agreeing to place restrictions on the land by a deed to allow "single residences only, with garage". Mr. Burke disqualified himself from voting on this petition. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to recommend favorable action provided the document presented is legal as to single family homes only. A letter from Town Counsel was read which stated that such agreements are not binding and legal. Conditional zoning is illegal. Mr. Keirstead made a motion that the Planning Board recommend favorable action, to consider the proposal on its merits, without a covenant. Mr. Monteiro withdrew his motion and seconded Mr. Keirstead's motion. The vote was unanimous ~-O, with Mr. Burke not voting. The following reasons are given: 1. This re-zom4-g would be in keepingwith the surrounding area, since there are other small lots and it properly belongs in a Village Residence zone; it would be continguous with the existing zoning area. 2. This would be an appropriate use of the land since it is on existing sewer facilities. 3- BEVERLY WHIPPLE: Mr. Keirstead made a motion to recommend UNFAVORABT~ action because this would be ~spot zoning", it is not in keeping with ~a~ guidelines for proper planning. Mr. Monteiro thinks the Board should recommend favorable action. He doesn't think this would be "spot zoning" - there is business across the street. He has faith in the people. The area is detrimental the way it is now. There is a possibility for a gas station to go in there. Mr. Che~s seconded Mr. Keirstead's motion; the vote was 4 - 1 with Mr. Monteiro voting no. The following reasons are given: 1. This would be "spot zoning"; it is surrounded by residential land. March 8, 1971 - cont. 2. This is not in keeping with the guidelines for proper plsnning for the town. 3. This would not be an appropriate zoning action; the town would not benefit by re-zoning this isolated piece of land. ~. BEN OSGOOD: Mr. Osgood submitted a letter to the Board with further restrictions to the "Professional Office District". They discussed the 1OO-foot setback. Mr. Keirstead thinks there should be that restriction. Mr. Chepulis agreed; this is not an appropriate area for residential use, this type of use proposed is best. Mr. Keirstead said he would recommend favorable action with the 100 ft. setback. Mr. Osgood said he couldn't build with that much of a setback. Mr. Keirstead made a motion to recommend unfavorable action as presently written and with the amendments offered. Mr. Chepulis made a motion to recommend FAVORABLE action with amendments to be made as to building height, parking area, insertion of the word "office" in several places and a 100 foot front setback. This was discussed further. Mr. Keirstead made a motion to recommend favorable action with changes as suggested in Mr. Osgood's letter (the same changes noted in Mr. Chepulis' motion). The vote was unanimous. The following reasons are given: 1. This is not an appropriate area for residential use. 2. This proposed type of use is the best possible use for this area. 3. The Board feels that the above amendments will make the proposal more restrictive and definite and will be in keepingwith the guidelines for proper planning for the town. 5. GILBEET REA: Atty. Harold Morley, Jr. presented a written agreement to the Planning Board from Lanning Corp. with several stipulations they would hold them to their proposal. A letter was received from Town Counsel stating that the agreement was not binding. Atty. Morley said that Lanning would be willing to enter into a covenant. A bond could be put up for 2 or 3 million dollars to insure what would be going in. Mr. Keirstead said action could be postponed until something ~more bin~g is sub- mitted by Lanning. He said he is in favor of K-Mart but doesn't 1f~e to see the extra 20 acres just floating around under General Business. Mr. Trombly read a letter the Board received from Mr. & Mrs. Peter Coughlin, 75 Hillside Road, opposing the re-zoning. Mr. Chepl~lis noted there would be tax benefits but that control is the biggest problem and what is going to happen to the remaining land? The Board feels that this is an appropriate business area, this is the kind of proposal they are looking for; they feel area should be limited to 18.37 acres. They decided to postpone action and meet on Saturday, prior to Town Meeting, at 12:30 at the High School, to vote on this petition. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M. ~ ~ ~ ~ ....... (,--~'x-'"-~u~,,/-J/~ Clerk (AD)