HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-08-06Mond~ - ~u~ust 6~ 1973 .
~.rchdioeese ~eaz~n~
The P~ BOARD met at ?:30 P.M. at the N. A. Middle School (Old High
School) auditorium. The following members were present and voting: ~illiam
Chepulis, Ohairman; John J. Monteirot Vice Chairman; Paul R; Lamprey, Clerkl
Donald N. Kelts:sad and Fritz Os:herr.
Mr. Os:herr made a notion to accept the minutes of the previous meeting; Mr.
Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous.
#JOHNSON OIEOLS~ SUBDIVISION:
Atty. John Willist :vepresentfu~ Richard Benoon, .presented corrected Plans
of the Johnson Circle subdivision to the Board, which were in accordance with
the requirements of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Ohep-~4 s read the report
received from the Conservation
Mr. £eirstead noted that the plans were stamped as not roquiring approval and
asked if this was what they were asking of the Board. Mr. ~illis said they are .
Just askin~ for app~o~-al to the plan as an omend~ent to the ~ubd~vision plans.
Mr. Kelts:sad read from the statute as to the submission of plans. He does not
want, any le~a~ c~oud on the matter and therefore s~kea a ~otion to set a d~te
for a pub~Lc hearin~ on the ,onanded plan. Mr. Lumprey seoonded the motion.
Mr. Ostherr~said that at the last discussion of this matter by the Board: the
Board felt that if the Cons. Comm. approved, the Board would sign the .plan.
Mr. Monteiro agreed. Mr. Lamprey feels there should Be a public hearing.
Mr. Willis disagreed with what Mr. Kelts:earl said and exp]A4-ed what the statute
says. He stated that at the last meeting the Board said they would adopt the
plan if the Cons. Comm. approved it. The law suit would not c~nern this Board.
The vote to Mr. Kelts:cad's motion was Mr. Keirstead and Mr. Lamprey, yes
Mr. Montairo, Mr. Os:herr and Mr. Chep,,l~s - ne.
M~. Ostharr sa~d,followin~ the Board's action of the July 2nd meeting, he sakes a
motion that the plAn~ he si~ed. Mr. ~onteiro seconded the motion. Mr. Kelts:earl
emended the motion by mak~ it to approve the modified plan. Mr. ~onteiro seconded
the motion and the vote was unanimous.
T. J. FLATLE~ PP~L~Y SUBDIVISION PLA~S:
Atty. ,John Willis presented preliminaz-y subdivision plans for approx. 30
acres .of land (former Melamed property) off Andover 8treet~ for T. J. Flatley Co.
Mr. Keirstead made a motion to refer the plans to the Subdivision Control Sub-
Committee and other departments for report at the next meeting. Mr. Monteiro
seconded the motion and the vote was un~m~m~s.
RALEIGH TAV]~N LANE SOUTH:
Ben Osgood appeared before the Board to request the release of lots 37 through
~ inclusive, on Raleigh Tavern Lone So. :~ud that the Board keep the bank book
for $16,000 to cover the completion of the roadway. Mr. Xeirstead made a motion to
refer the matter to the Subdivision Control Sub-committee for report at the next
meeting. Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion. Further discussion was held because Mr.
Osgood didn't want to wait that lon~.
August 6, 1973 - cont.
"WIL,50~ DR['t/S" S'u'BDIVIS;[O~
~r. Ostherr reported that the Sub-committee end others viewed the site of
the Wilson subdivision. He said there are several items that d6 not .meet the
requirements Of the ne~ Subdivision regulations. He listed the several i~ems
and discussion was held on them. Hr. Ohepulis read letters received from the
various departments and officials.
Hr. Ostherr made a motion to give tentative approval ~ith conditions as specified;
Hr. Nontoiro seconded the motion and the vote was t~,~-4~mus.
The conditions are as follows:, ,
;1. Locus plan should be made to sc~e - 1" - 600 ft~
2. Should show that it is en R-3 zone. ,
3. Form S must be filed listing abutters.
4. No paving cross section is shown for the road.
5. Road "B* should be straightened out to show possible connec~Lon
with Hark Road.
6. Several grades are greater than ~ and should have sloped granite curbing.
7. There should.be another catch bas~.~ at the intersection of the t~o roads.
8. The subdivision should sho~ only to the back lot lines of tho proposed lots.
9. Tho surface dra4n l~_~j should show on the profiler on the southerly side.
10. There should be a manhole on the storm drain at the southerly end of the
proper~¥. (The run as sho~n is greater than is -~e~ed in the regulations.)
11. The title of the subdivision should be shown. ~
Hr. Xeirstead then made a motion to table all other items on ,the agenda until after
the hearing for the Archdiocese. Hr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was
UlMF]imo~As.
8~00 P.M. - H~dtZMG= Archdiocese of Boston:
There were abOut 70 people present for the meeting. (This hearing was taped.) :
Hr. Lamprey read the legal notice in the appeal of RO~AN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF
BOSTON: PLA~i~ OFFICE FOR URBAN AFFAIRS for a proposed ~Abdivision off Wavarly
Road, containing approx. 31 acres of land.
Hr. Ohelm,3~s explained the ground rules for the hearing. He first read tho letter
frQm the Building Inspector which asked that before starting a public hearing,
the Planning Board should state whether they are in agreement with his r-~4ng on
t~is townhouse proposal or are they proceeding in spite of his ruling; and whether
the old or the new subdivision regulations are beix~ applied and if a~ are being waived.
Hr. Ostherr said that as he understands it the subdivision consists of five lots
and makes no mention of the type of housing or d~e314ug units. He is very dis-
turbed at the presentation of these plans.
~tr. Chep,,~s exp~;*qed that definitive p21~ were submitted to the ?o~n Clerk and
to the Planning Board and that in addition, sxp'~,,.,~atory plans shoeing ind~ldua~
lot aiass for ~he ~;:;: townhouees 'that ere eonteuplated. The subd~v~i~n plan that
is before the ?~m~2 Board is a five-lot subdivision.
August 6, 1973 - cont.
Mr. Monteiro stated that he agrees with the Building Taspector's interpretsti~n of
the Zoning By-Law and until that is decided upon by this Board, he feels we cannot
make an~ consideration on a~hing to do with this subdivision. He feels the
interpretsti~n Should be decided upon first. He asks that the Board go along with
the zoning officer; that the plan as presented is not allowed in an R-~ district.
He makes the motion that the Board accept the B-4~4ug Inspector's interpretation.
Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion*
Mr. Xeirstead said a letter was volunteered by Town Counsel and asked that it be
read.
Mr. Chepulis read the May 17th letter from the Building Inspector and the June 7th
letter from ?o~n Counsel. The Bldg. Inspector's letter states that the cooperative
aspect of the townhouse development violates the z~r~ng regolations for R-~ district
and that they are not "capable of being sold with its own lot." Town C~unsel's
letter states he does not agree with Mr. Foster and that #~uch land is capable of
being Sold."
Mr. Keirstead Said he doesn't feel the Board should endorse it at this point; that
it ~ould be premature.
Mr. Lamprey said' that Town Counsel's letter says nothing about being sold independently.
He feels it is the responsibility of the Pla~-A~2 Board to make the' decision of
whether or not this is' legal or illegal in this zone. He feels the Board can make a
decision before any time is wasted.
Mr. Ostherr said he is somewhat confused about the e~tire situation. Fast they are
really talking about is a 1~:~: unit to~nhouse development and what they are sho~J~g
us is a five-lot subdivision, we know that re~y isn't the case. He feels rather
put-out that we are being asked to act on this subdivision.
Mr. Chepulis feels that everyone that has said arothing is right; he feels the
Planning Board should have something to say also. He said To~n Counsel was invited
to this meeting but he felt that in the best interests! of everyone, it would be
better if he did not attend. He feels both the Bldg. Inspector's and To-~ Counsel's
opinions bear merit. He feels we should have a hearing and see what is presented
and either support it or demolish it. Can the petitioner back up everything?
Everyone ~tll have a chance to present their arguments. He doesn't believe it is
within the purvue of tho Pl_~,~4~g Board to decide about o~nership. He feels both
the Buil~-~ Inspector and Town Counsel are correct.
Mr. £eirstead spoke on the ~erits. He referred to the Bldg. Inspector's letter on
poliCy, etc. and p~ted tbat~previous tc~nhouse development that was approved and
had been stated at that time that it would be a co~Mcminium ownership and that at
that time the B. I. had no objection. He feels t~t the Prescott St. development
and the Stevens Mill development are much the same and the Bldg. Inspector ruled
favorably on both of these. Be dOesn't know whether the B. I. is ~en~ or ~own
Counsel is wrong. He doesn't think a precedent is all that clear. He thinks it
would be presumptious of the Board to cancel the hearing.
Mr. Honteiro said he has no objection to the hearing. He wants the Board to vote
to accept the Bldg. Inspector's interpretation.
August 6, 197~ - cont.
Mr. Keiretead ssid that a vo~e to acce~ is a vote to adopt end it ~d mean that
this hearing could not be held.
Atty. Dolan said that the legal adviser is. To~n Counsel~ he is a trAtued legal
adviser and should be listened to. The'fact that no reference is made to the
type of ownership does not make it invAl~ d. This isa plan for a definitive
subdivision. There is another plan that each member has that show individual
house lots. He is asking the Board to allow the hear~-~ to be conducted; they
have acted in good faith and feel they have submitted prOper pl~-~. He disagree~
with the Bldg. Lnspector's opinion that it ~ould be t'atile to conduct a hearing.
Atty. DOlan said there are two differing opl-4ons and the Board should t~lfe~the
one of the tr-~-ed legal adviser, Town Counsel.
Mr. CheF~8 state~ that if Mr. Monteiro has no',°bJectiom to a hearing, then the
motion should be nullified.
Atty. Robert ~nasian~spokeas representing some of the abutters to this Subdivision.
He said one of the Board's specific powers is to enfOrce the Zoning By-Law and make
sure that everyone complies for the safety and we~are of the inhabitant~ of the
town ofNorthAndover. The Board should make a determ~v~tion of what this plan is
since it makes mention of coopertive on the plan.
Atty. Minasian said he also takes is~ae with ?o~n Counsel's ~,l~-~. He said nowhere
in Town Counsel's letter does he mention capable of beiag sold independontly and
cited the definition from the Zoning By-law as to to~houses. He explained the
concept of cooperative and ownership by shares, etc. and that accordiag to the
Zoning By-Law, each individual ~uld not own their o~n lot, with frontage, etc.
He questions whether the se,-,lces will be individual ones or served by cue
l~ne.
He feels the Boa~ shoul~ make a deteru,4-~tion p~or to ~stenin~ to the ~e~i%~oner~
~s s ~ooperative end a townheuse one an~ the sene?
Atty. Do3_~ cited Ohapter ~, ~ene~al Laws, as to sub.visions, estab~s~
cedures, pr~ and definitive Plans, public hearings, etc. He cant' find
a law case ~here o~nership is involved. He asks the Board to proceed ~ith the
Mr. Keirstead thinks that th~ matter before the Board is to decide ~hether this
Mr. Ostherr made a motion to table Mr. Monteiro's motion; Mr. Keirstead seccaded
the motion and explained this motion was undebatable. The vote was 3 members yes
and members Lamprey & Monteiro voted no. The Board will proceed with the hearing.
Bldg. Insp. Fobter asked the Board to act on the rest of his letter' hav~ to do
with whether these Plans were under the old or the new Subdivision Rules and
Regulations of the Planning Board and if an~ rules end r~gulations, are being
waived by the Board.
August 6, 1973 - cont.
~r. Ohep,,14$ said the Board is not wa:l.~g a~' rules or regulations at this
Mr. Keirstead said he didntt think an~ have been waived. Mr. M~nte~ro said not
deliveretely, but we did (be did not elaborate).
Mr. Dewhiret, an abutter, asked the Board to rescind its motion to table the
motion and give the people a chance to hear the Boardts honest opi~on on
Foster's letter.
Mr. Monteiro made a ~mo~ion to reconsider reconsideration of the tabling motion;
Mr. Lanpray seconded the motion.
Mr. Ostherr said we can each give our opinion but he doesn't t-h4w~ this is the
proper procedure.
Mr. Lamprey feels Mr. Foster should have his say~ then we can go back and continue
the meeting and when a vote is taken on the subdivision, Mr. ~onteirots motion
should be the first iten to be cop~idered.
Mr. Foster said he wanted to set the record straight as to the statenents made by
Mr. Keirstead on the issuance of other townhouas ~,4]d4~g per,its. On the Hughes
development, he issued one permit for ~ to~houses fronting on Prescott St., a
public way, ~ith Mr. Hughes' full knowledge that condouiniums are not allowed ~
an R-~ district, as ruled by Town Counsel. He expl_~ued that the Stevens Mill
tounhouses all front on public ways, ~dt each unit will be sold with its own lot
as required in the Zoning By-Law. The toWnhouses on East #ater Street all front
on public says and will be sold with its own lot as req-~red.
He said this developer has not changed his application in any way to conform with
the ruling of the zoning officer. At some point this issue must be faced; by
putting it off you are only prolonging things. The Archdiocese is cell aware of
it. Many efforts were made to got a r-~,g from Town Counsel and one was volunteered
from him, as was mine. The Planning Board did not make cae. If your Board pro-
ceeds with the hearing for this subdivision, perhaps eventually approves the plan,
then the developer can proceed by putting in streets, services, etc. and doesn't
co~e to the Building Inspector for a building permit until he has expended a
largo amount of money; for the Bldg. Tn*pester to take the matter to Court at that
time would be ridiculous.
Mr. Honteiro said the matter should be straightened out at this point.
Atty. Dolan explained that this program has certain basic alamente~ they are
attenpting to house low and ~ederate inceae families and they have to utilize the
governmental programs that exist. At thio time it is a program that i~v~lves
cooperative ownership. They cannot develop the site using a program of conventional
housing sales.
Mr. Monteiro feels that it is his duty to see that ~e zoning regulations are
adhered to.
Atty. Dolan feels that they are conforming to the zoning regulations; the teen's
legal a~.[ser also agrees. It has been confirmed by Town Counsel.
August 6, 197~ - co~r~.
James Beattie, Waverly Rd., an abutter, read from a booklet what vas required ~
in order to get funding from a state organisation and cited several steps which
must be met.
~r. Dewhiret stated there are other ways to provide :low ~come ~usi~ by
private developers and subsidizing low income people to buy the pr~per~y.
A vote was taken on the motion to reconsider . -- ~ the tabl:!ng
motion. Mr. Lamprey end Mr. Monteiro voted yes and the rem~ three members
voted no. The motion is defeated.
Atty. Dolan said the Board has 60 days to make a decision and he .will object t~
allowing an extension to the 60 days. He will stay this evening until whatever
time is necessary.
Mr. Ohe~,~e asked Atty. ~lan why the definitive plans were filed on july 3rd,
the da~ after the P!~-~ng Board meeting.
Atty. Dolan said he doesn't care to answer that question. He said it ~ould be
acceptable to adjourn this meeting to another evening this week, but they are not
in a position to allow an extansion upon the 60 da~. ·
Mr. Beattie reminded the Board of the previous commitment of the Archdiocese to
meet with the Planning Board and they never showed up; they had ~ coaaideration
for us then. He would like a little consideration now.
Mr. Foster asked the Board which set of rules and regulations these plans will be
considered under.
Mr. Ohepulis said the preliminary plans were filed in December so that they ere
within the 7 month period of the regulations and would come under the old regu-
lations as to legality, land use, etc..
Mr. Foster said he ~eels the ~ans are not properly submitted since' they were
filed under the forms of the new regulations. The zoning that allows townhouses is
no longer in effect and they have lost their locked-in zoning.
Atty. Dolan said he talked over the phone with Mr. Chep,,~s and discussed this .
question ~ith him and he said to file the new form render the new regalations. He
was advised by Mr. Ohe~l~s to file the new form. Mr, Ohepulis said he was asked
if it was necessary to file the description and he answered that it could be on
an attached copy. Mr. Ohepulis said how important is a piece of paper; a form is
a form Just to present an application.
Atty. Dolan then proceeded with his presentation. He stated the proposed subdivision
plan consists of five lots on a 31 acre parcel. It is their intention to construct
146 townhousee as follows.' 73 - 2 bedroom units; 56 3-bedroom units~ 17 ~-bedroom
units. There will be 17 buildings and one community b,,~g and 22~ parking spaces.
LOt~i will have two buildings wit~ 8 dws~ng units each. Lot ~2 will have the
community building; lot ~3 will have 5 buildings with ~2 dwelling mxits; lot #~
will have 5 buildings with ~6 dwelling units; lot #5 will have 5 buildings with
42 dwelling units. The total lot coverage would be 6%. The average density is
&.7 dwelling units to the acre.
August 6, 1973 - cont.
Peter Ogren, Vice Pres. of Hayes Engineering, Belrose and engineer for the peti-
tioner proceeded to explain the technicalities of the proposed subdivision. He
believes that the five lots do conform to the requirements of the Zoning By-Law.
He stated there are 3300 feet of street. The design and utilities conform to the
plan that was shown previously to the Board.
He said there is one major problem; a discharge that enters the site from an
adjacent abutter. The plan calls for removal of this water from the site. One
brook flows through the site. They propose to enclose it with a 24, culvert to
discharge to a 36~ culvert under Waverly Road. 12~ pipes show on the plan and
profile.
The sewer starts at Waverly Road in an existing 15" sewer. An 8~ sanitary swear,
as required by the to~n, shows on the plan and conforms with the requirements.
They will connect to the existi~ water supply line on Waverly Road a~M connect
to Farrwood Avenue water wystom. They have talked with the Fire Chief and have
added fire hydrants as suggested by him.
~r. Ostherr asked what is going to happen to the water at the top of the area,
which is the ~ problem.
Atty. Dolan said they have ~tscussed it with the abutter and the Highway ~rveyor
who has indicated how he wants the water L~ndled and they ~ do what is satis-
factory to him. Be said they will follow the recommendations of Camp, Dresser &
BcXee as stated in their report.
Mr. Che~,,]~s said the Board ~ould have to get in ~rit~.~g what the proposed solution
is definitively. The Camp, Dresser & McXee report does not mention this area at
all. He noted also that the plan should show that it is true North'.
Mr. Ogren then outlined what was included in the 0amp, Dresser & McKee report for
this area.
F~ighwey Surveyor Oyr asked that his recemmendations be read. He also stated that
the Camp, Dresser & BcXee report is dated 1967 and has never been implemented.
He said it's good but an expensive survey.
Vincent Turano, Cons. Comm. member, asked Mr. Ogran what the volume of the run-off
is at Waverly Road and have they made some assessment of the additional run-off
not on the property.
Mr. Ogren said one brook flows 24 cubic feet per second and will flo~ through the
24" culvert. The other flow is 35 CF$. The flow computed this day was 63
The future flow would be about 35 CF$, if it is according to this plan and a 36"
dra~ would be adequate to handle it. There will he less water under this plan.
Several questions were asked ~r. Ogren by the abutters. He explained that data
is collected over a period of years and they generate an expected flow. He
explained where the culverts are located.
Atty. Minaaian said that if this proposed system is going to be more efficient,
then the existing culvert won't be able to handle it.
August 6, 1973 - cont.
Mr. Ohepulis read Highwa~ Surveyor Cyr's report which cited several .p~obleos
in the area,
Atty. Dolen objected to the handling of the meeting; the petitioner should be
~llowed to make his presentation. He does not see any reason whY ~r. Ogren
should be harrassed.
Mr. Chep,,1 ~ s feels that questio~ can be asked but he would not like any
harrasament.
Mr. Ostherr mentioned the traffic consultant's report submitted to the Board.
He does not see an e~ergeney exit on the plan.
Mr. Diamond said it is Still a part of their plan. They can add the 14-es on
the plan submitted to the Board. The other plan was sub~tted after a discussion
with the Building Inspector, so they put the information on two separate plans.
They are willing to add then if this is how the Board wants them.
Atty. Dolan said they had discussed the filing of the plans with the Bldg. Inspector
and~as a result, to save them the eXpense of laying out .the lots for the 1~6 units,
did not show them.
Mr. Ogren then proceeded to discuss the Camp, Dresser & McKee report and' showed a
plan of what was proposed in the report.
Mr. Chepulis asked who is the owner of the property.
Atty. Dolan said the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. The P!enningOffice is
an agency of the Archdiocese.
~r. Eeirstead gave a lengthy dissertation on drainage and asked several questions.
Atty. Dolan stated they willhave the waterdiverted, either byHeritageGreen
apartments or themselves and it would be done at the first stages of the site
work on the property. Hr. Xeirstead said that you are then suggesting that about
h-~* of the water nowgoingacross the site will be diverted and the town of
North Andover will have the responsibility of taking care of the rest of it.
Mr~ Chepulis asked if%he services would be ur~erground or o~erhea~. Hr. Diamond
said they would be undergrount. Hr. ~hepulis said this is contrary to the plans
given to the PlanningBoard members which say theywill be overhead.
Mr. Diamond expl~ed that the plan is a survey of the existing comditiohs; services
will beunderground,
M~. Monteiroasked what happens when the dr-~m~-ggoes onto the DeMoulas property.
Hr. DeMoulas said nobody has contacted him to discuss the matter. Atty. Dolan
said they have tried to reach Mr. DeMoulas end were not successful. Mr. Monteiro
feels that'is a serious problem of water going through to their property.
Highway SurveyorOyr said he is ready to put in a four-foot culvert becauee the
sitUation is so serious and dengerous. He was afraid some cb~ldwouldbe drowned.
It is a very serious condition.
August 6, 1973 - cont.
Atty. Dolan said the Board can make a conditio-~_l approval,hep lan that thework
be done on the site. It is not conditioned upon any legal process. If that is
the first step of what is to be done on the property then nothing else will be
done.
Mr. Keirstead asked if they 'e~0~ct to take Ware of the water before they start
any construction.
Atty. Dolan said they expect to take it to a point within the legal right of way.
They ~.] ] return the water to its natUral water course to a point on ~ood Lane
and Autren Ave.
Mr. Donahue, Wood Lane, an abutter, asked if they were going to divert the water
to flow over his property.
Atty. Dolan said they are not going on his property~ and explai~e~d that Heritage
Green originally diverted the water.
Mr. DeStefano, Waverly Rd., an abutter, asked if test borings have been taken on
the site.
Mr. Ogren said no, they have not but they have dug several pits to dateraine the
character of the soil, which they find to be basically cla~ soil, which is not a
problem because it can be dried out.
Mr. Hess, Waverly Road, explained that he has a culvert going under his driveway.
He has to put in cinderblocks, drainage pipes, etc. because the water cascades
~ownhis drive from the site and has caused a lot of erosion on the back of his
lot. Once the land is cleared on the site, there will be even more water. Alot
of water will go onto ~averly Road.
Mr. Roche, an immediate' abutter, cempl~ued that they. are changing the course of
the water onto private property - it's ~ong.
Atty. Minasian asked Ogran if it is not true that there would be more surface
water when the trees are removed and the land is developed..
Mr. Ogren explal-ed the run-off and said the volume is important - the increase
has been accountedfor. They found out only recently that the trench to the rear
of the cemete~! was done only about 3years ago. This came about after the apart-
ments were built.
James Barman asked if the houses are going to Iow income and high income and Just
what is low income?
Atty. Dolan said they will be iow amd moderate income; 2~ ~ill be Iow income.
Families ~hose income would make them eligible for assistance under the conditions
of the North Andover Housing Authority.
Mr. Barmen asked wh~ was going to b. tld them.
August 6, 1973 - cor~.
of
Atty. Dolan said that the p1 _~,,t,g Office will become the initial mortgagor
and will serve as the developer. They will receive the mortgage from Mass.
Housing Finance Agency who will select the architectt engineer and the con-
tractor who will b-~ld the houses. After the houses have been built, it is
proposed to turn the development over, at no profit.
Mr. Ogren then proceeded to explain the sewer systom. They ~Lll' co~ect to the
existing 18~ sewer. Adequate manholes have been provided. He does not think
it is one of the major problems of the site. The 18" pipe on Waverly Road
would be adequate to handle this development. They only need an 8~ Pipe to
service the area within itself.
Mr. Ohepulis read the letter fro~ the Board of'Public WorkS, which stated what~
that department required.
Atty. ~-~sian wanted to know'if the B.P.W. was asked if the existing system'
could handle this development. Mr. Chepulis said he assumes they are aware of
it or they would have said so.
Mr. Ohepults then read letters from various departments and officials as~ follows:
Board of Health= Because public sewerage is available, they defer a~ approval
to the Board of Public Works.
Police Chief= Commented that it appears that traffic at an Already dangerous
intersection, Wavarly Road and Turnpike Street, would be g~eatly increased.
Fire Chief: Suggested than another hydrant be installed as he marked on the plan.
Conservation Co~ssion: In their opinion, the entire project comes under the
purview of the Wetlands Protection Act (Mass. G.L.c. 131, S. ~0) and they must
file a "Notice of Intent" with the Conservation C~m~issien on approved plans bY
the Planning Board.
Jemes Beattie, Waverly Road, an abutter, read a prepared statement of S pages,(a copy
which is in the Board'S files). He urged the Board to dew the petition because
they have failed to correct the items listed in Mr. Foster's letter and the reasons
for denial of the preliminary plans have not been corrected. He brought out the
seriousness of the dr~ge problem, the increase in traffic which would add to
the existing traffic problem, the increase in the number of school children and
the increase in taxes.
Atty. Robert Minasian spoke next, as representing some of the abutters in the area.
He said he would like to confine himself to some of the points which he feels the
Board should rule on.
1. The acute drA~uage problem, which this proposed plan does not remedy. Mr.
Borgesi (B.P.W. engineer) should be asked if the existing sewer can take this
development.
2. ~averly Road is not wide - this proposed subdivision with 2~6 parking spaces
indicates there would be that many cars which would cause a severe traffic
problem.
August 6, 1973 - cont.
3. This development would be a burden on the taxes and the schools.
The ten points for disapproving the prel4m~ry plan have not been corrected
by the definitive plan.
5. There is only one exit - there should be a secondary access.
This subdivision is not in the best interests of the to~n of North Andover and to
the people that live in that area. You as a Planning Board have to consider the
people of the community. He asks that the plenbe disapproved. He added that if
it is allowed, the people in the areawill appeal it. He is indicating this to
show the strong feeling these people have. The proposa~of li:6units is tOO
dense for that area.
Atty. Angelo Fisichella then spoke, as representing RoyFarr, o~ner of Heritage
Green apartments. He spoke about the emergency roadandexit into Fart's land.
He said these are privately owned roads and on that basis it is unfairthat the
Planuing Board or any abutter should ask to have access on their private land.
~ho has the right to put a gate and go over private l~d?
He pointed out that at the top of the loop, the subdivision road runs parallel
to Wood Lane. As a member oftheMethuen P]~mmingBoard, he is familiar with
this type of arrangement and would suggest that a greenarea or a buffer zone be
provided;with access~a~atting to the property line~ Wood Lane is being used as a
buffer zone. If Wood Lane is opened up in the future, it would be a dangerous
situation to have the roads parallel.
With only one access to WaverlyRoad, there wouldbe a need in the future for
access and Hr. Farrwould not be receptive to this; this should be decided now.
He objected to the five lot layout on the plan. He said each of these lots would
be on a way open to the public. This fact w~llmakeit possible for them to come
re '
in with a plan not equiring approval and than you will have to approve it. (This
part isn't clearl, to
me).
It is a poor plan to have ~79 feet of roadway abut a public way. It is a
dangerous and hazardous situation. They are using the town's land as a green area.
The Board asked for a show of hands of th~se present ag_~tust the petition; ~lmost
all of the people were aga~est it.
Mr. Keirstead made a motion to refer the matter to the Subdivision Control Sub-
committee for review and report and to take definitive action at a special meeting
on August 27th, in order to take action prior to the 60-daytime limit. Mr. Ostherr
seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. This meeting will replace the
regular September meeting.
The meating adJourned at 12:30 A.M. ~ . ~
~Chepu~is
Secretary