Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-01-08Monday - January 8, 1973 Regular Meeting The PLANNING BOARD held its regular meeting on Monday evening, January 8, 1973, at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building meeting room, with the following members present and voting: Charles W. Trombly, Jr., Esq., Chairman; Donald N. Keirstead, Vice Chairman; Fritz Ostherr, Clerk; William Chepulis and John J. Monteiro. Because there were over 35 people present, the meeting was adjourned to the fire station meeting room. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to accept the minutes, with a ~or correction for clarification; Mr. Chepulis seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. PRELIMYNARY SUBDMSION PLANS: SORB0. Atty. Maurice Schwartz and Mr. Rand, surveyor, of Pembroke Land Survey appeared before the Board relative to preliminary subdivision plans of part of the Melamed property on Andover Street. Mr. Rand asked if they could increase the ~iam~$er of the circle to 220 feet. The subdivisionwould then comprise 12 lots; the road would be located in the same way.as shown on the first plan; the utilities will remain the same. He showed anamended plan and explained that they were just increasing the radius of the turnaround and adding a lot. Mr. Monteiro said the Subdivision Control Sub-committee had looked at the property and found no objections to the plan. The land features are ~11 right. They did question that the road came out to Andover Street and Dufton Road also came out a short distance away. Mr. Rand said they measured 125 feet from centerline to centerline of the streets and feel that is adequate distance. Mr. Rand said he has already discussed the water and sewer facilities with Board of Public Works Supt. Joe Borgesi. He said there is an existing 6" line which is adequate. There would be no need to extend the roadway from the turnaround because it is Franklin School land and the road would never be continued. The Board said the paved width of the roadway could be 22 feet wide. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to approve the preliminary amended plan dated Jan. 8, 1973 and entitled "Progress Print - Andrew Circle" and the paved roadway shall be 22 feet wide; Mr. Ostherr seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. PLAN NOTREQUIRING APPROVAL: Mr. Scott Giles presented a plan to the Board as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. The plan showed two lots and a 5C-ft. roadway fronting on Campbell Road, land of Carney. After thorough discussion, Mr. Ostherr made a motion to disapprove the plan because it shows a subdivision; Mr. Keirstead seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Board agreed that if Mr. Giles showed the road line drawn straight to Campbell Road and a notation put on the plan that it did not constitute a lot, they would approve the plan. January ~, 1973 - cont. "JOHNSON CIRCLE" SUBDIVISION: Atty. John Willis and Mr. Benson appeared before the Board relativ~ to the "Johnson Circle" subdivision. Atty. Clifford'Elias was also present and as a point of order questioned whether the Board should hear Mr. Willis. Mr. Willis said there is a request before the Board to be heard and he doesn't see why he shouldn't be heard. Mr. Willis had requested clarification of the decision of the Board in their den~.al of the subdivision. Mr. Keirstead said he saw no reason ~y the Board couldn't take any t~stimony or listen to any- thing. Mr. Willis felt the decision was not properly written since part of the form said it was approved and on the same page it said the plan is disapproved. He pointed out that the statute says a subdivision can be denied if it does not meet the Rules and Regulations; it should be cited specifically what Rules and Regulations have not been met and what he has to do to comply. The plans made provisions to take care of the two brooks. On page 7 of the Rules and Regulations, it says natural features must be protected; they have done so by channeling the brook under the road to protect it. Tf this is not right then how does the Board want it done? They have done everything to meet the requirements of the Subdivision Control Law. He is aware that the Board is concerned with wetlands, conservation, etc. but this is beyond the Planning Board's province. The sub- division was referred to the Conservation Commission and they never notified the petitioner that they were considering the matter. It was referred to the Essex County Conservation Commission; a recommendation was sent beck to the Board and they raised certain objections. The storm dr~tn system was accepted by the Highway Surveyor. The sewer system was approved by the Board of Public Works. He questions the adequacy of the report from the Conservation Commissions. The Hatch Act has nothing to do with the Planning Board. He read parts of the Essex County report which stated the area consisted of 208 acres when it actually consists of approx. 12 acres. They have not disagreed with the relocation of the brooks, they have just made suggestions. He asked the Board in what respect have they made inadequate provisions for the natural water course - what do they have to do to get approval? There is nothing to show how we should conform to the regulations. Mr. Monteiro suggested that they not move the brook. Mr. Keirstead said Section B,2 of the regulations gives the Board the right to require that a water course remain in its existing location. The Board feels that the water course should follow its existing course. Mr. Keirstead then explained what the Essex Conservation District, its membership, etc. Mr. Willis asked in what respect does the Board suggest the alteration will benefit the town. Mr. Keirstead said they don't feel the brook should be conducted twice under a roadway. A small deviation of the brook would be acceptable~ The Board agreed that they have nothing to do with the Hatch Act. Mr. Willis objected to a report the Board received that had been addressed to Mr. Kittredge from Clinton Goodwin, Reg. Prof. Engineer. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to send a letter with what changes should made to meet the requirements and re-open the hearing. Mr. Keirstead then made a motion to restate the reasons for denial of the plan, for clarification; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion. Atty. Elias objected to any implementation of January 8, 1973 - cont. the motion because it is not provided in the statute. Mr. Willis said they will leave the brook exactly where it is and the road where it is; moving the brook is Conservation Commission province. Mr. Keirstead withdrew the motion. Mr. Trombly said if new plans are submitted and other conditions are met, then the Board can reconsider the subdivision. Mr. Hamlen and Mr. Perkins of Land, est, Inc. appeared before the Board. The Planning Board had sent thom a letter informing them that nothing would be done on planned unit development for this March town meeting. Mr. Trombly explained that at present the Planning Board does not have the time to prepare something for this town meeting. Mr. Ostherr said the P.U.D. Study Committee has not met since their last report to the Planning Board. Mr. Monteiro said he is opposed to anything coming before next town meeting - he has not had enough time to study it. Mr. Keirstead said they are sympathetic with the floating district approach and with minimizing apartments. Mr. Perkins said they don't want to let the matter just drop; they want to continue with the project. Mr. Monteiro stated that the townspeople don't want any more apartments. Mr. Hamlan said he checked with legal counsel on the ability of the Attorney General to approve the P.U.D. laws and there would be no problems. Mr. Keirstead explained PRD (PUD) legislation to everyone present and said that we hope to draft a law for North Andover that would comply with State legis- lation. Public meetings and hearings will be held when the time comes. Mr. Perkins wanted to be sure that the Board had a continued interest in PRD. Mr. Ostherr said the PUD Study Committee will meet again probably at the end of January or the beginning of February. Mr. Monteiro sug~Eested to Mr. Hamlen and Mr. Perkins that they contact the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission; that they would have information available to them relative to PRD. JHUGHES TOWNHOUSE SUBDMSION: Mr. Trombly read letters from the Highway Surveyor and Board of Public Works and the developer had agreed to what they wanted. After some discussion, Mr. Ostherr made a motion to approve the definitive plans with the usual conditions January 8, 1973 - cont. and the stipulation that water facilities be connected to the existing main on Chickering Road; the dr-tnage swail along Prescott Street be continued to prevent the drainage of water onto Prescott Street and that the plans be · changed to reflect these conditions; Mr. Monte,to seconded the motion and the vote was unanimou~ S~T~.M STREET SUBDMSION (SULLIVAN): Mr. Monte,to said the Subdivision Control Sub-corm,tee reviewed the plans and the premises and have a report to make. Mr. Chepulis reported that near the center of the area is a little pond; that a brook runs through the property and there is a wet area near the abutting Smith property, an accumulation of surface water and the water was high. The Hatch-Jones Act should be complied with in this instance. At the present time he would have to disapprove the subdivision and have corrected plans show how to take care of the water problem. No topographical plan has been submitted. The plans do not show adequate drainage. Mr. Trombly read a letter from the Highway Surveyor which stated that drainage should be provided to prevent water from flowing onto Salem Street. The letter from the Board of Public Works Supt. states that the water system is in con- formance with their requirements. The Conservation Commission reported that there are wetlands making it subject to the Hatch-Jones Act. There was a telephone memo from the Board of Health requesting a percolation test on every lot by an engineer before they will approve anything. After some discussion, Mr. Keirstead made a motion to disapprove the "Salem Gardens" subdivision for the following reasons: The plans are not adequate under our existing regulations. 2. No topographical map was submitted with the definitive plan and one is required. 3. The topographical map should show existing natural features, particularly a ponded area in the general vicinity of lots ~1, 7, 8 & 9. A. Additional drainage mast be shown; specifically, two catch basins at the junction of Bannan Drive and Salem Street to intercept water that would enter from Salem Street. 5. Additional substantial drainage should be provided for drainage of the ponded area, as previously mentioned. 6. The Board of Health has advised that they require percolation tests by a sanitary engineer on each lot before the lot will be approved for building purposes. Mr. Monte,to seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Keirstead anno-~nced to everyone that a letter had bean received from the North Andover Improvement Society to notify several town boards and officials of ,a meeting to be held on Jan. 2Ath at the Textile Museum to discuss the Hatch Act, wetlands, etc. However, this meeting is not open to the public. January 8, 1973 - cont. CHESTNUT COURT SUBDIVISION: Jay Burke appeared before the Board to request the release of the lots on the "Chestnut Court" subdivision. He will submit a bank book in ~n amount specified by the Board to cover the completion of the subdivision. A letter was received from the Board of Public Works stating everything complied with their requirements. A letter was received from the Highway Surveyor recommending an amount of $10,&OO as being sufficient for the completion of Chestnut Court. Mr. Burke said the sewer and water is in and completed. 9~% of the gravel is in. He will put the first coat of hot-top on in the spring and he expects total completion in June. It could be written into the bond that the time of com- pletion would be by September 15, 1973. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to accept a bond in the amount suggested by the Highway Surveyor ($10,~00) and the date of completion be September 15, 1973 and release the covenant on condition of acceptance of a bond approved by Town Counsel; Mr. Keirstead seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. ARCHDIOCESE TOWNHOUSE PROPOSAL: A letter was received from Town Counsel,along with copies of correspondence with Atty. Dolan of the Archdiocese of Boston, relative to the townhouse pro- posal on cemetery land on WaverlyRoad. Mr. Salisbury said he would not give an opinion unt~_l the Planning Board has taken some action; the Board should first determine whether or not they favor the proposal. There were many people present that wanted to be heard on this matter. Atty. Dolan and Mr. Diamond were also present. After some discussion, Mr. Keirstead made a motion to call a special meeting on Monday evening, January 22, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. in the fire station meeting room to discuss the Archdiocese preliminary plans and any other matters; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Atty. Dolan said he would attend the meeting. MISC~.AN~OUSMATTERS: Because it was a lengthy meeting, several items on the agenda will be taken up at the Jan. 22nd meeting. PLANS ~OTREQUIRINGPLANNINGBOARDAPPROVAL: The Board voted to si~n the following plans as not requiring approval -under the Subdivision Control Law: 1. Dan Murphy, Great Pond Road. 2. Two sets of plans for G~orge Farr on Salem Street. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. (Charles W. Trombly, Jr. Secretary