Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-08-27Monday - August 27, 1973 Special Meeting The PLANNING BOARD met on Monday evening, August 27, 1973, at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building meeting room. The following members were present and voting: William Chepulis~ Chairman; John J. Monteiro, Vice Chairman; Paul R. Lamprey, Clerks Donald N. Keirstead and Fritz Ostherr. There were 35 people present for the meeting. Mr. Chepulis commended the late George B. Farley for his ten years of service On the Planning Board and mourned his recent death. His efforts, his work and loyalty to the town will not be forgotten. He dedicates this evening's meeting to the memory of ~orge Farley. Mr. Monteiro made a motion that the Planning Board send a letter to the Mass. League of Cities and Towns endorsing John J. Lyons, Town Clerk as the outstanding employee of the year of the town of North Andover. Mr. Ostherr seconded the motion and the vote was ur~ous. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to accept the minutes, seconded by Mr. Ostherr. Mr. Ostherr then made a motion to correct the minutes to state that the meeting to be held on August 27th would replace the regular September monthly meeting. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The vote to accept the minutes was unanimous. ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON: Mr. Monteiro said, as a member of the Subdivision Control Sub-committee, that a written report will be submitted to the Board,'.~'A copy of which should be given to the Town Clerk as soon as possible. Mr. Ostherr read the report, as follows: "The Subdivision Control Sub-committee of the North Andover Planning Board has reviewed the Definitive Subdivision Plan "North Andover Cooperative Homes" sub- mitred by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston on 3 JulY for compliance with both the Town's Zoning By-Law and the Rules and Regulations ~verning the Sub- division of Land and recommends that the Board disapprove the Plan for the following reasons: (1) The plan submitted does not completely or accurately depict the sub- division as it is intended to be built. Five lots are shown on the plan submitted; the petitioner admits to planning 146 dwelling units, vs. 14& on the Preliminary Plan - each of which, in a townhouse development, must be shown with its own lot. Specifically, this lack of completeness makes it impossible for the Board to assess the compliance of the proposed subdivision with applicable zorning laws or to assess the adequacy of necessary public utilities. This latter point is especially important in that we recognize that certain engineering innovations, or features, must be included to maintain the "capable of being sold.., with its own lot" feature of each and every townhouse unit. (2) Details of utility installation, parking area provision, roadway con- struction (width, curbing, sidewalks, shoulders, etc.) are impossible to evaluate August 27, 1973 - cont. due to the imcomplete nature of the plan sub,fitted (in the context of the intended 146-unit townhouse eemplex.) We do not consider it in the spirit of the zoning or subdivision control laws or fair to the Plannin~ Board or the Town of North Andover to be asked to evaluate a subdivision on the bas'is of partial or misleading plans. Cert-i-~ly the time to review the whole proposal in as open a fashi°n as possible is at the definitive plan stage; and all factors ~ithin the purview of subdivision control should be defined on the plan at that time in order that they may be controlled, or enforced, during construction. (3) The plan i~nores and the' petitioner did not adequately address at the public hearing, a solution to the drainage problem acknowledged (by ~im) to exist at the northeast corner of the proposed subdivision. The petitioner, rather than attempt to coordinate and work with his neighbors and appropriate Town Departments to develop an adequate solution to this problem, has suggested a rather vague piping of the drainage in question from its present terminus to a point in Wood Lane near Autran Avenue, presumably to be dealt with from there by either the Town or abutting private landowners. The petitioner, in this and other matters has taken a singularly parochial view of the problem and, for this stage in the planning and design process, does not present an acceptable approach. (~) A second, emergency, roadway access to the subdivision, recommended by the petitioner's traffic consultant and endorsed by North Andover public safety officials, is not shown on the plan. It developed during public hearing that no agreement has been achieved on this matter between the petitioner and Farrwood Realty Trust, over whose private way such access was proposed. ~(5) The impact of new traffic generated by the subdiy~sion on Waverly Road and its intersection with Route 114 has not been treated adequately. Again, the developer, wet,trig with the Town Highway and Police Departments and the State Department of Public Works, planning such features as paved roadway widenings, additional lanes, signalization, signs, sidewalks~ etc., could minimize this impact. There is ample precedent, for both this and the drainage problems, of a major developer contributing to or paying for, a Town sponsored public improvement (historically sewer and water extensions, roads, sidewalks). (6) Specific points observed on the plan: (a) Easements should be shown for all dr-tnage ditches as well as for buried pipe (b) Sewer pipe material should be as specified by the Bd. of Public Works. (c) Hydrant location should be as specified by the Fire Department. (d) Roadway, headwall, and drainage construction should be as specified by the Highway Surveyor." Mr. Monteiro made a motion that the report of the Sub-committee be accepted at this time; Mr. Keirstead seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Ostherr then made a motion that the Board disapprove the subdivision plan. for the reaaems as stated in the re~rt.. Mr, Keirstead seconded the motion and offered several amendmants to the wording in the reasons stated.~ That is~ to just state the August 27, 1973 - cont. the first sentence of each item as the reasons and leave out the additional wording but state all of Item ~6. These would be the reasons for denial and we can then give a copy of the report to the 'developer. Mr. Monteiro said that in anticipation of going to Court, it was felt that we should so state the reasons and make them extensive. Mr. Oetharr also felt that the explanation was necessary in order to be fully understood. Mr. Keirstead suggested leaving out "and i~s intersection with le~ll~", item ~5. Mr. Lamprey said he would like to see "emergency" taken out and would rather see an open access road in item #~. He asked if the sub-committee had c~nsidered the roadway where it runs parallel with Wood Lane. Mr. Chepulis said we don't have to offer a solution but we have to consider whether the plan submitted is good planning in having the roads run parallel. Mr. Lamprey said if it is not in the conditions then nothing will ever be done about it. He said he would also like to see a fence along the ~ ~roperty of the cemetery so that it wouldn't become a playground. Mr. Keirstead re-stated his amendments so that we present the reasons as in the report with the exception that items ~1 through ~5, the first sentences be stated as the reasons and the explanation, s be included as sub-paragraphs; delete "at its intersection with Rte. llA" in item #5 end include all of item ~. Mr. Ostherr objected to eleminating "Rte. 11~, in item ~5. Mr. Keirstead made a motion to delete "Rte. ll&". There was no second. Mr. Lamprey made a motion to amend Mr. Keirstead's motion to also include in item ~, sub-para. (e) That no buffer zone is shown on the roadway parallel to Wood Lane. There was no second. Mr. Chepulis then gave the chair to Mr. Monteiro and seconded the motion. The vote was 3-2. The motion was defeated. Mr. Chepulis noted that the plans do not show the owners of the property. Mr. Lamprey said he checked over the reasons for disapproval of the preliminary plans to see if they had been corrected. He believes there should be a seco-Nary access. The vote was taken on the motion to disapprove the subdivision for the six reasons as stated, and which motion Mr. Monteiro seconded. The vote was unanimous for disapproval. T.J. FLATLEY PRw~.IMINARY SUBDIVISION PLANS: Jay Willls, Mark Donovan and Jud Kanet the engineer were present. Mr. Ostherr submitted a report from the Subdivision Control Sub-committee and stated that last Friday afternoon a meeting was held with the developer to discuss the proposed subdivision. Mr. Lamprey, Mr. Monteiro, Mr. Borgesi, Mr. Cyr were all present. Mr. Ostherr pointed out the dr-~nage problem from the apartment development that goes through this subdivision. He said part of the area is dry and part is wet. August 27, 1973 - cont. The following letters were read by Mr. Che~,lts: 1. State Dept. of Public Works: They pointed out that there is a drainage prob- lem on the highway caused by the apartment development. They are recommending that the development drainage system, as well as the driveway opening onto State Highway be reviewed and approved by their department. 2. Highway Surveyor William Cyr: He stated that until a fool-proof solution is found on the dr-tnage problem, he cannot see how this subdivision can be further executed. 3. Board of Public Works: Mr. Borgesi stated that the preliminary plans do not show the proposed water and sewer lines, although they are readily available in that area. More comments can be made when more complete plans are submitted. ~. Conservation Commission: They submitted a copy of the Wetlands Protection Act f~r the developer. Building Inspector Charles Foster was present and spoke about the configuration and shape of the lots. He said one of the requiramentm should be that the lots be shown on the preliminary plan- he presumes they are for townhouses. Mr. Ostherr said they intend to show them on the definitive plans. Mr. Lamprey said they are contemplating condominiums and Tow~. Counsel says they are not allowed in an R-~ district. Mark Donovan, a Flatley representative, said what they are really asking is the approval of the basic subdivision. They are contemplating condominiums but the form of ownership has not been developed yet. The form of ownership is not before the Board now. If it is legally necessary to do so then they will sell them as townhouses. Mr. Foster felt the Plarn~ingBoard should go on record as to the form of owner- ship before everyone goes through any more. Further discussion was held on this, but nothing was settled. Mr. Donovan said the Board could give conditional approval as to the (1) drainage on Andover Street. 2. They will engage a traffic expert to study the impact of traffic and discuss it with the State. 7. They are willing to accept any kind of conditions having to do with the type of buildings, being legally sold, etc. He said they plan a total of 138 units on approx. 25 acres of land. About two acres would be for roads. One lot will be for a recreation area. Mr. Foster pointed out that the lots shown on the preliminary plans are undersized for townhouse lots. There are only two lots that show over one .~acre. Discussion was held as to the interpretation of the Zoning By-Law and the lot size required for townhouses. Mr. Keirstead agreed with Mr. Foster, that each townhouse lot must be one acre. Mr. Foster asked if approval of the project depended upon State approval for access and drainage. August 27, 1973 - cont. Mr. Kane, the engineer, explained that the proposed pond will help the drainage problem, which would store water to approx. & ft. deep. They wan% to try and work something out with the state. They also propose a "sluice gate". Mr. Cyr, Highway Surveyor, sai~e normal water table in the Spring, this pond will in no way hold hack the water. Mr. Keirstead suggested submitting the plan to the Eslex County Conservation Commission for report. Mr. Ksne said there ~l~ be no cellars for the units - they will be on slabs, and would be ~-5 feet above water. Mr. Cyr said this is not atrictlya State problem~ it is a to~nproblem too. The water goes onto town roads; over Andover Street, Becky's Pond, Peters St., etc. down to the Shawsheen River. Mr. Keirstead asked about them connecting to some of the other streets shown on thespian. Mr. Kane said Land Court considers them a private way and cannot be connect to. Mr. Foster spoke about the lot lines going to the center ~fne of some of the streets. Mr. Kane said he talked with the abutters and that will be changed. Mr. Ostherr asked if there was any way of providing emergency access. Mr. Kane said they would be willing to provide it if it was possible. Mr. Ostherr listed the major points of the subdivision. 1. State approval and Town of North Andover Highway surveyor's approval as to the drainage. 2. The definitive plans shall show to~nhouse lots. 3. There should be an easement for emergency access at a~ appropriate point, as discussed. 4. The lot 11ues should be reviaed to show the full width of the existing private and public ways. 5. Control of the level of the proposed pond should rest with the town, 6. The development's entrance onto Andover Street must be approved by the State D.P.W. and the town's Police Department. Mr. Foster asked if the Board was going to do anything about ownership. Mr. Keir- stead said that is not before the Board. Mr. Donovan said they will sell them separately or cooperatively; they are not sure how they will be sold Just now. Mr. Foster said this issue should be fully resolved and discussed before you go any further. Town Counsel has ruled that condominiums are not allowed in an R-~ District. Your project is based upon something; you must know what your are going to do. This question has never been resolved. Mr. Keirstead said it is not before us; he doesn't think ownership belongs before our Board. August 27, 1973 - cont. Mr. Lamprey said we should be able to decide whether something is legal in a zoning district, instead of passing it on to somebody else. Mike Schena said, after having served on the P.A.C., that he can't understand how ownership is so important if everything on the plan conforms. Why are we getting into a hassle every time over o~nership. These concepts are going on throughout the country. Mr. Keirstead said we can't police the ownership of land. The matter of owner- ship has nothing to do with the subdivision before us. Lengthy discussion was ! held on this point. Mr. Ostherr made a motion, that in accordance with our procedures, the Board grant tentative approval, with Binor modifications as he had previously listed tO the subdivision; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was ~-1, Mr. Lamprey voted No. Mr. Keirstead announced that his term expires this March and he will not seek re-election. R~IC~TAVERN LANE SOUTH: A request for release of the covenant on Raleigh Tavern Lane ~outh had been received from Ben Osgood. Mr. Chepulis read a letter from Highway Surveyor Cyr stating that the amount of bond should be $24,000 and he listed a number of things to be done by the developer. A letter was read from the B.P.W. stating that everything was satisfactory. A copy of Mr. Cyr's letter will be sent to Mr. Osgood and also to request Mr. Osgood to attend the next Planning Board meeting. A letter will also be sent to the Fire Dept. for their comments on the fire alarm system and hydrants, whether the wires are installed and the system is working. SCENIC ROADS: Mr. Monteiro made a motion that Salem St., Great Pond Road, Waverly Road, Sutton St., Johnson St. and Dale St. be designated as scenic roads by the Planning Board of North Andover and to recommend to ~his to Town Meeting and the Planning Board to take action at the November meeting. Mr. Ostherr seconded the motion. Mr. Monteiro explained that an Act was passed by the State legislature relative to scenic roads. Mr. Ostherr suggested including Osgood Street from Andover to Chickering Road. Highway Surveyor Cyr said there is enough red tape now without getting any more. This should be looked into thoroughly. He doesn't want any more State control. Mr. Keirstead felt that we shouldn't rush into anything and asked that the motion be re-stated so that everyone has a chance to study this. Mr. Cyr said they are going to make his position harder than it is now if they adopt something like this. August 27, 1973 - cont. ~r. Monteiro amended his motion to have the Board study the matter; and the vote was unanimous. He also suggested that the reporter make an announcement in the paper relative to the scenic roads and that the Planning Board would be receptive to any suggestions from the people. Mr. Monteiro said he would like to attend the conference at U-Mass. in October on Planning and Conservation. Mr. Lamprey said he would also like to go. Mr. Chepulis said he would probably attend through the Conservation Commission. PLANS NOT REQUIRIN~ APPROVAL: Mr. Keirstead made a motion to ~i~n the plans for the land-taking for the walkway on Chickering Road for the new High School; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Chai~man Secretary