Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-09-24Monday - September 2~, 1973 Special Meeting The PLANNING BOARD held a special meeting on Monday evening, September 2~, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building meeting room. The following members were present and voting: William Chep,,lls, Chairman; John J. Monteiro, Vice Chairman; Paul R. Lamprey, Clerk; Donald N. Keirstead and Fritz Ostherr. There were about 35 people present. This meeting was called to take care of several matters that could not wait un~il the Board's next regular meeting. 1. PI~ NOT REQUEI~ APPROVAL: Stevens Mill Townhouses. Mr. Chepulis explained that this is not a hearing; that the plans are before the Board to decide whether or not they will be signed as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. If it is necessary, the Board will ask any questions. He further explained that an appeal had been entered as to whether or not the building permit for the town-houses should be revoked and the Board of Appeals voted to revoke the permit. Now that the Board of Appeals action has been appealed to the courts, he questions whether or not the Board can legally act. Should the Court be allowed to make the decision? Would this Board's action merely be an exercise? Usually if anything is in the courts, action is tabled. Mr. Keirstead said that the statute says if no action is taken bythe Board within lA days it is aut~ma%ically approved. Do we dare to wait? Mr. Chepulis said if we teek no action then it would be automatically approved; however, if we say we take no action because a case is pendin~ in court then we have taken some kind of action on it. Mr. Keirstead said the plans do not conform ~rith our frontage requirements of the Zoning By-Law as it exists now. He referred to the plans that had previously been signed by the Board as not requiring approval. Mr. Chepulis feels that any posed construction would be from the lines of the previous plan. Mr. Keirstead asked if the prior plan gives this protection under the Zoning By-Law before the amendments took place. If not, then the lots do not have the required frontage. He read from the statute where it refers to the "use" of the land as shown on the plan. Mr. Lamprey referred to the Public Law Memo from the Dept. of Community Affairs which says Just the "use" is protected in plans not requiring approval. Mike Schena wanted it shown on the record that the person making that interpretation is not an attorney. Mr. Keirstead questioned if this plan has the protection under the Zoning By-Law before the amendments and if so, does it have the protection of dimensions also. Mr. Chepulis said the fact that there is an appeal, he feels our action might be to hold a decision until the court case has been decided. If we rule that it is a subdivision, then we still have to wait for what the court rules. Who will have the final ruling?. If we sign it as not requiring approval, then they have ammunition. September 24, 1973 - cont. Someone questioned whether the Building Inspector would issue a building permit on this plan; that a statement had been made by Towa Counsel that a building permit could be issued. ~ Mr. Chepulis said this is the same plan that was presented to the Building Inspector for the building permit and the same plan that went before the Board of Appeals, so he can't see how the Building Inspector can issue a building permit on this. Mr. Lamprey said it is in the court, our making a decision one way or the other would not decide anything. Let the court decide. Mr. Monteiro said there are legal aspects that we cannot understand. Mr. Lamprey said we should ask for an opinion from Town Counsel. Lengthy discussion was held as to what action the Planning Board should take. Atty. Mol Levine, associated with Charles Trombly, stated that this Board's decision has not been appealed and that this Board has a duty to act. In no way will your decision affect what is in court. It is the Board's duty to review and act on this plan. Mr. Chep,,11 s said that the request for the court to determine that the plan is not a subdivision nullifies your request. Atty. Herbert Phillips said if the Planning Board takes no action, it would seem that you have the same feeling as the Board of Appeals; the Planning Board did have an opportunity to disagree with the Board of Appeals at its hearing. It is incumbent upon this Board to rule that this is a subdivision. Atty. Phillips said he would file an appeal if the Board voted that it was not a subdivision. He asked the Board to rule that it is a subdivision. Atty. Levine added that the fact that the Building Inspector has given a building permit and ruled it is not a subdivision has nothing to do with this plan before you now. Town Counsel has ruled that this is not a subdivision. The Board must take some action within the 14 days. Atty. Phillips said coming here this evening is superfluous; this will "worm up the waters"fa little more between the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals. The Planning Board should adhere to what one board has already done and keep some consistency in the town. Mr. Lamprey asked why this plan was before us - it is going to be decided in the court anyway. Mr. Chepulis asked why they didn't come to the Plan~_ing Board before they applied for the building permit. Atty. Trombly expl~iued that it was not necessary to go before the Planning Board before a building permit was issued because it is not a subdivision. Mr. Lamprey felt they should have come to the Planntng Board. Atty. Trombly said under the law, there is no question that this is not a subdivision. He would take the ruling of the court, of the Building Inspector and of To~ Counsel. September 2~, 1973 - cont. Mr. Chepulis asked that if the Planning Board said it was not a subdivision, would they use that determination in court as evidence. Atty. Trombly said he would. Further discussion was held as to the 1~ day time limit. Mr. Keirstead made a motion to table action on the plan presently before us pending a decision of the court case in Superior Court, with the stipulation that we refer notice of our action tonight as soon as possible to Town Counsel for his approval of our action that it will not affect the status of this plan regarding the 14daytime limit and if he advises that we are not taking the appropriate action, then the matter, will be on the agenda for the next meeting on Monday night. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion. Atty. Trombly suggested the meeting be held on Friday night and getting an extension for filing to Monday, otherwise it will not complywith the statute. Mr. Keirstead amended his motion that a special meeting wiLlbe held on Friday night. Mike Schena gave a lengthy talk on the original drafting of the Zoning By-law by the P.A.C., Planning Board, etc. and said it was not intended that townhouses would come under subdivision Control. Mr. Chepulis said it is not a question townhouses comin~ before the Plarm/ng Board for approval, this is a division of land and the Zoning By-Law is effective in those instances. Mr. Ostherr amended the motion to add that the Board ask Town Counsel, if he determines that action must be taken, as to the second paragraph, Section 7A, Chapter ~OA, as to whether only the "use~" are protected for 3 years or uses and dimensions, on plans not requiring approval. Atty. Phillips said he feels the Board can properly take the stand of not taking any action until the court case is settled. Mr. Keirsteadfeels that the Board might be bound byTownCounsel's opinion and he prefers not to be in that position. The vote on the motion was unanimous. "ANDREW CIRCLE" SUBDIVISION: Atty. Maurice Schwartz and Mr. James Rand, engineer from Pembroke Land Survey, appeared before the Board with a copy of a proposed lot revision on the "Andrew Circle" subdivision showing a proposed townhouse layout of four buildings with eight units per building making a total of 32 townhouses. Mr. Rand expl-~ned that he has already discussed the revision with the Building Inspector. Mr. Ostherr suggested that he also talk with the Board of Public Works regarding the water and sewer. Mr. Rand said they will have individual connections. Re said he will file a planwith the Board at next Monday's meeting, as not requiring approval under the subdivision control law. Lengthy discussion was held as to the width of the roadway, total area, lot area, etc. Mr. Rand said he will show all the necessary information on the plans to be submitted. September 24, 1973 - cont. Building Inspector Charles Foster said he didn't feel it was good planning to have the Flatley apartment area~ the proposed Flatley townhouse area and this townhouse area with no connecting roads. Discussion was held with the engineer and Atty. Schwartz as to their providing possibly a 5C-foot right-of-way, or easement to Join with a road in the Flatleytownhouse development. George Gorham, Carty Circle, said he was totally opposed to this project. There are many school children in the area and there will be alot of traffic. Mr. Crittenden, Andover St., said he was at the meeting held last March and he took issue with what Mr. Keirstead said about changing the roads and lots. ~It's ridiculous to allow any more traffic in that area; it is one of the most dangerous roads and intersections. Mr. Gorham also brought up the drainage problem and asked if that has been con- sidered by th~ Board. Highway Surveyor Oyr asked if the State has approved the drainage yet; it's not a very good situation. Mr. Rand said it is before the State now, but they have not heard anything yet. They would not be tying in where Flatley is. Mr. Cyr asked the Board if it has been decided if this would now change the road from a minor road to a secondary road. Mr. Chepulis said that at present it is a minor road but if it connects to Flatley, it Would be a secondary road. Mr. Crittenden asked why Mr. Keirstead was insistinE on having a throuEh roadway. Mr. Keirstead explained that there should be a second access for emergency vehicles etc. Mr. Chepulis said that on subdivisions you should try for future connections to streets for good planning. Mr. Gorham asked if the deVeloper would place some trees and shrubs in the area. Atty. Schwartz said they would be glad to; they will put them anywhere you want. "JOHNSON CIRCLE" SUBDMSION: The Board signed the amended "Johnson Circle" subdivision plans as they had voted to do at a previous meeting. - RAI~GH TAV~N SUBDMSION: Atty. Victor Hatem appeared before the Board requesting the release of lots on Raleigh Tavern Lane North and South. Mr. Chepulis read a letter from Fire Chief Daw which stated that there is no fire alarm system within the development. He also read Highway Surveyor Oyr's letter stating that the amount of the bond should be $2~,0OO. Mr. Cyr added that the wearing surface is to be done and that the money for that is included in the $24,000. The letter'from the Board of Public Works stated that everything conforms. September 24, 1973 - cont. Atty. Harem said that Raleigh Tavern North is substantially completed. There had been some excavation in the area of Carleton Lane without the developer's knowledge. The Gas Co. cut the road and patched it. Mr. Keirstead said there is a substantial amount of standing water near the Scarborough home; water stands in a trench and doesn't drain properly. There are no stone bounds anywhere. Ben Osgood said he went over the area this day and stone bounds will be set sometime next week. Mr. 0yr said there is a driveway that protrudes about 2 ft. into the road, which he wishes the developer would take care of. Mr. Osgood said he will notify the people that they must remove the driveway. Atty. Hatem said there is a large amount of work to be done on Raleigh Tavern South and that the Board is holding $16,000 for that work. He would like to have five additional lots released; there would still be some lots held. Mr. Keirstead made a motion to increase the security required on Raleigh Tavern South, from $16,000to $24,000and release all of the remaining lots in that part of the subdivision. All workis to be completed by June 1, 1974. Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. "APPLEDORE" "'SUBDMSION'. Atty. Hatem presented definitive subdivision plans to the Board and asked to have a hearing date set. Mr. Chepulis said he had already studied the plans and presented a list it items that did not meet the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Peter Ogren, the engineer from Hayes Engineering was also present. Lengthy dis- cussion was held on the various items, drainage, contours, etc. Mr. Ogren said most of the information was shown on the preliminary plans, but he will put them on the definitive plans also. Corrected plans will be presented at Monday's meeting. Mr. Keirstead made a motion that the #Appledore" plans as submitted do not meet the subdivision rules end regulations and are deemed not to be submitted to the Planning Board, per the Rules and Regulations. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was un~,4mous. A notice to this effect will also be filed with the Town Clerk. The following reasons were given as listed by Mr. Chepulis.. 1. Section III B 1 a: 2. " III B 1 b: 3. " III B 1 c: ~. " III B 3: 5. " III B 3 b: 6. " III B 3 d: No original drawing. No FormD. No key map. 5 pages submitted but without consecutive numbering or cross- referenced tie-ins sheet-to-sheet. Zone in which subdivision is located is not shown. No Form E (list of abutters). September 24, 1973 - cont. 7. Section III B 3 8. " III B 3 9. " III B 3 10. " III B 3 11. " ~ III B 3 12. " III B 3 13. " III B 3 14. " III B 3 15. " III B 3 16. " III B 3 f: No certification of surveyor as to how surveyed. g: No proposed street names. h: Ail lots not completely numbered or area specified. i: Easement line information incomplete. J: Drainage line information incomplete. k: No contour lines of subdivision or adjacent land. 1: Wooded areas not shown. m: Existing major site features (water bodies, etc.) not shown. o: Type of directional bearing not specified. p: Insufficient legend information on profile. PLANS NOT REQUIRI~GAPPROVAL: Mr. Ostherr made a motion to sign the plan of Ben Osgood, for a lot on Coachman's Lane, as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. Mr. Keirstead seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Chairman (William Che~ulls) ~ Secretary