Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-11-20Monday- Movenbar 20, 1972 3 Subdivision Hear.in~s The PLANNI~ BOARD held a special meeting on MopMay evening, Movember 20, 1972 at 7=30 P.M. in the Town Office Buil~ug ~ith the following members present and voting= 0harles W. Trembly, Jr., O~man; Donald N. Keirstead, Vice Chairman; Fritz Ostherr, Olerk~ William 0hepulis and John J. Monteiro. There were over 50 people present so that the meeting was adjourned to the Fire Station meeting room. 1. HSARI~I~= Walter P. Hughes - Townhouse Subdivision. Mr. Ostherr read the legal notice upon the petition of Walter P. Hughest re- questing approval as a subdivision a parcel of land cont~4w~ng 7.2~acres, approx., off Prescott Street at the northwest corner of Ohickering Road. Chairman Trombly read a letter from Mary Seldon, an i~mediate abutter-living in Ann Arbor, ~ichigan, vho suggested that the Board not approve 'the subdivision until she knows more about what is planned. J. Elaine Griffin, Ohickering Road, stated that she is not for or againWt the pro- posal, but she wants to be sure that the entrance is to be from Prescott Street and not Chickering Road. Walter Stamp, Jr., P~escett Street, stated that plans are not complete and-that until proper plans have been presented, the hearing should be delayed. Mr. Keirstead noted that definitive plans have not been submitted .and that nothing further can be dope. ~r. Monteiro suggested that objections would still be in order. Nicholas Evangeloe, 126 Pre.scott St., questioned the drainage ef the area immediately adjoining his prop.erty. He feel there will still be a problem where the la~ abuts. He wants to know if the esthetics of the ,area will be maC.rained, how many trees will be removed, etc. · The petitioner, Walter Hughes and the engineer, John Oallahaa, arri~ad. Mr. Ca~lahan proceeded to explain the plans submitted. He stated he had discussed with the BuildAn~ Tn__~pector the space between the b,,~l&4-~*s, and that integration of the Zoning By-law now requires 2~ feet from the lot ]~me to the b,,!]~S, making 50' feet between buildings and the plans now show that along with the proper lot frontage and area. The to~nhouse complex ~ be made up of 31 units. They have adequate . utilities. They will follow the natural dr~t~age where possible and they want to keep the trees and .natural topography of the area. They have also developed a recreation area. The units will be available to elderly people, who will also have use of the medical services of the'nursing h$mo.. Mr.. Hughes f~rther exp]~wed that the townhouse complex ~ould be used in conjunction with the nursing home. He believes the plans now meet all requirements as to subdivision and ~ening. Mr. Evangelos was concerned about the care of t~e' grounds because the presant nursing home is poorly kept. Mr. Hughes explained that he will have ~mership ia the town- house development but ~t .~ith the nursing home. Mr. Weirstead explained that before any actica is taken by the Board, the sub- division plans are referred to various departments for recom~endetioma from them and that co~i~tions can be at%'ached ~o the ~decisiOn. November 20, 1972- cont. Mr. Stamp asked about the townhouse development being under joint ownership and condominiums. . Mr. Keirstead explained t~t condomtn_~um is a type of ownership and that it is not the Boardts concern as to how the land is sold. The lots as shown meet the ~oning requirements. The roadway, water, dr~,~-age, etc. are the concern of the Planning Board and that they are done properly. Dr~-~ge, water and sewer will be re- ferred to the proper departments. These facilities are not presently shown on the p~anS · Mr. Xeirs~ead made a motion to adjourn the hearing and continue it on D~cember on the condition that c~mpleted pl_~ns are in the ae*~= Planning Board office by November 27th. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vot~ was unaP_im~us. Nancy Stevenson, Colgate Drive,' asked if these units would be avaiIable only to the elderly. Mr. Hughes said they would Iike to sell them ~ to the elderly but that they could be av~_~able to others. 2. ~A~I~: Chester C. $,,]14van; Salem Street Subdivision. Mr. Oetherr road the legal notice upon the petition of 0hester C. S,,ll~van, requesting approval as a subdivision a parcel of land cont-~n~ug 9 lots, on Salem Street, land formerly of Peterson. . Atty. ,Xevin Sullivan, 1350 M~ St., Tewksbury, spoke as representing Chester Sullivan. Mr. Morris, the engineer, was also present. Atty. tulliv_~ said they propose to construct homes in the vie~_~ty of $~0,000. They have had percolation tests made by Sanitary Engineer Driscoll. The development contains 9 lots of 25,000 sq. ft. or more. The Board noted' that the brook should be shown on the plan with a drainage .easement. The lots should also be renumberad. Shirley Jackson, Salem Street, lives across the street and said that area is wet 9 months out of the year. They are still fightin~ with the town because of the drainage problem the n~ew street caused. Their driveway gets flooded. Mr. Morris, the engineer, said the drainage is framing to the rear of ~he sub- division to the brook. Mr. Jackson Said they~ are having j~reblems with sewerage with one acre of land. ~hat problems will there be o~ 1/2 acre lots? Discussion was held on the Hatch & Jones Act and ~etlands. Atty. Sullivan said 10 perc tests were made on the front lots. Mrs. JaCkSon asked why they were re-z~ned and the lots made smaller. Mr. Keir- stead expl~ed that the Board felt that facilities would be extended and that large lots would, not be necessary. Jeme~ Kenney, S~le~ tt.~ asked if the town would maintain the roadway. Mr. Chepulis explained that the Highway Dept. usually plows the road and services and collections are made after homes are b,~t but that the street has to be accepted by the town before maintenance of the roadway is done by the town. November 20, 1972- cont. Mr. Xeirstead made a motion to adjourn the hearing uatil Dec. ~th with the condition that cc=pleted plans are submitted by Ney. 27th. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The plan~ should show utility impr~ements, hydrants, the brook, re~m~eriug of lots, correct frontage on lot t3, profile, cross section of roadway. 3. HEARI~: Richard F. Beason; "Johnson Circle" Subdivision. Mr. OetherT read the legal notice upon the petition of Richard F. Be~son requesting approval as a subdivision of a parcel of land contnt-4-g 16 lets, approx. 12.63 acres, on Johnson Street known as "Johnson Circle". Atty. John J. Willis appeared for the petitioner, who was ~ present. Scott Giles, the engineer, was also present. Atty. W~l~s explained that there are 16 lots in the subdivision; they have pro- vided for the continuance of the roadway , if it is ever possible to extend the road. He showed the u(~lities plan and explaimed they will build a ]~t station to provide sewerage 'facilities to connect to the manhole on Johnson Street. There is a brook that ends to the rear of the property and Joins another brook on the cemetery property. They will pick up the brook on the southerly boundary to the rear of lot ~12, to pipe the brook where it ends at the turnaround. The brook will be widened, cleaned and more defined; and will pick up all the water of the area. The brook is now about 3 feet. deep; after the improvements, it ~ould be ~-5 feet deep. -The Lift statio~.~es been dasi~ned to handle the ~ire subdivision. The turnaround ts 900 feet~wice the diameter of what iS required. The development meets all of the require~hnts of the 3ubdivision Rules and Regu- lations. $ catch basins are sho~n; Rt. Nicetta requested a catch basin at ~ Johnson St., which ~ be done. All as explained by Mr. Giles, the e~gineer. Atty. ~illis said that if there is no proposal to change the .flow of the brook, then it does not come under the Hatch Act. Mr. Xeirstead said that the Planning Beard does have the authority to require an easement to preserve the dr_a~nage way of. existing brooks. He would like sene outside informatic~ before any action is taken by the Planning Beard on this petition. , , Atty. Clifford E. Elias spoke as representing the Trustees of Ridgewood Cemetery, Judge Arthur Thomson, Francis B. Xittredge & Mr. Rockwell, who were n~ ~ present; and Henry Donoven, an immediate abutter also. They are concerned that the develop- ment will alter the water table and flow of surface water so that 3 or ~ lots would not be useable ~nd would affect the Donovan property and the cemetery property. He read sections of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and cited violations. The only plan.avail'able in the office was the lot layout. No profile, tope- graphic and contour plans had been sumbitted. This plan is not properly before the Board. Ail the requirements for filing have not been met. Another section says that roads shall not be longer than 500 feet; this roadway is longer. The Board should consider any re-location of water,aye and?have proteetion of natural features. Abutters are particularly concerned about adequate disposal of surface water. Lots ?, 8, 9 & 10 are in a wet area. Actual construction and clearing of the' land will accelerate the water flow. The brook presently overflows 30 feet November 20, 1972 - cont. on either side in the Spring. He questions whether the channeling will be effective. He would like more time for an engineering study to determine whether the'drainage will be taken care of. He thinks the Hetch-Jones Act does apply to this situation. He is registering vigorous opposition to this petition. Mr. Keirstead said the pl~s and forms were submitted to the Planning Board on November 1st so that action must be takembefore December 30th. Mr. Willis said that plans were hand-deliveredbyhimtoAtty. Elias and this project had been discussed with Mr. Doncvan and the Ridgewcod Cemetery trustees 2 weeks before. He said there could be no objection if the brook was piped. The Board's concern is to the parcel itself; the petitioner has met all of the requirements. Atty. Elias questioned whether a 30" pipe would be adequate to take any flow. Scott Giles, the engineer, said the present pipe is full of muck and has not been properly maintained. Atty. Elias said he is not objecting to the entire subdivision. He is objecting to the re-location of brooks and change in weter table. ~r. Henry Donovan said he is concerned on a conservation point- this is wetland and should not be built upon. Walter Detour, 250 Johnson Street and Anthony L. lqy, Johnson Street, also felt this development comes under the Hatch-Jones Act. Arthur Sullivan, 280 Johnson St., questioned what type of power would be used on the lift of approx. 70-90 ft.; what happens in case of power failure? Mr. Giles explained that there would be an au~iary gas unit to pump it. Atty. Willis explained that this is the first time a developer has offered such a system and the town should be pleased with such a proposal. Mr. Keirstead expl~ed that the lift station would be m~tained by the town after the street is accepted. Mr. L~lly said he was not objecting to the subdivision but was concerned about how it would be developed. Atty. Willis expl~f~ed that he had bee~ to the Planning Board at a previous meeting to discuss the length of the roadway and the Board had agreed that the length as requested w~uld be all right. Mr. Keirstead made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. SPECIAL TOWNN~E. TI~: The Selectmen called the Special TowaMeeting for December 18th. Mr. Keirstead made a motion to set a hearing on the proposed zoning amendment articles for Wed. December 13th at the High School Auditorium; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. November 20, 1972 - cont. PP~.IMINART PLANS: Stevens Mill Area. Atty. John Willis presented prelim~m~li~---- the Board of the Stevens Mill area. After discussion of the plans submitted, Mr. Ostherrmade a motion to grant tentative approval to the plan entitled "Preliminary Plan of Land entitled Brookshire Village located in NorthAndover, Mass. belonging to Stevens Pond Associates# dated November 13, 1972; Mr. Honteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. PRav.IMINARY PLANS: Andrew Sorbo, off Andover St. Mr. Esposito of the Pembroke Lsnd 'Survey Co. presented preliminary sub- diVision plans for the applicant Andrew Sorbo, for a development off;Andover Street on the Melamed land. Mr. Keirstead made a motion to refer the matter to the Subdivision Control Sub- committee (Honteiro & Chepulis) for recommendations and report at the next meeting on December ~th; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unani- MOUS. "JOHNSON CIRCLE" SUBDIVISION: Mr. Keirstead made a motion to refer the "Johnson Circle" subdivision, for recommendations, to the Essex 0ounty Conservation Commission; Mr. Monteiro . seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Keirstead made another motion to refer the subdivision,~for reports, to the Board of Public Works, Highway Surveyor, Board of Health and Conservation Commission; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. PLANS NOTREQUIRINGPLAN~INGBOARDAPPROVAL: Mr. Kairstead made a motion to sign the following plans as not requiring Plannin~ Board approval under the Subdivision Control Law; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 1. Thomas J. Flatley, Braintree - land off Andover Street. 2. Davis & Furber Machine Co. - land at the corner of Elm & Water streets. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Chairman (Charles W. Trembly, Jr.) Secretary