Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-01-07Honday - -January ?, 197~ Regular meeting The Planning Board held its regular meeting on Monday evening, January 7, 197& at ?:30 P.E. in the Fire Station meeting room. The following members were present and voting: William Chepulis, Chairman; John J. Monteiro, Vice. Chairman; Paul N. Lamprey, Clerk; Donald N. Keirstead and Fritz Oetherr. There were 15 people present for the meeting. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to accept the minutes of the previous meetings - 12/3 and 12/17/73. Mr. Ostharr seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mark Henry requested the release of the $~,000 bank bookbeing held for the completion of work on Evergreen Drive. Letters were received from the Highway Surveyor which stated that the work had been completed ,and was satisfactory. Mr. Ostherrmade a motion to release the bank book for $~,000; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Keirsteadmade a motion to place the file in the completed subdivision file; Mr. Ostherr seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. BOARD OF APPEALS HE~RI~.' Archdiocese. The Board received legal* notices of hearings to be held by the Board of Appeals on January 14, 197~. 1. Joseph Flynn - special permit to convert third floor to a fifth apartment. Mr. Lamprey made a motion that the Board w~ ll make no comment; Mr. Keirstead seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 2. Archdiocese of Boston- 230 Iow and moderate,~_ucome~ housing. Mr. Chepulis read a letter the Plar~g Board received from Atty. Dolan (Archdiocese) which stated they are seeking a Comprehensive Permit from the Board of Appeals under Chapter 77~ for 230 low and moderate income housing units. They said they are proceeding in this manner ~In view of the ownership problem and in view of the difficulties we have encountered in attempting to work within the subdivision law, we have decided that further time and expense in pursuing the plan submitted to the Planning Board would prove fruitless." Mr. Ostherr pointed out that the two reasons given in the letter have nothing to do with the reasons that the Planning Board denied the subdivision. The Board looked at the plans that the Archdiocese submitted and held lengthy discussion. The plans do not chauge the effect of the drainage problem, traffic problem, safety, etc. and found them to be incomplete so that proper determination could not be made from them for a report to the Board of Appeals. James Beattie, Waverly Rd., an abutter to the development, questioned Highway Surveyor Cyr as to the use of Chapter 90 funds being diverted from Salem Street for work on WaverlyRd., which he felt was being done to help the developer. Mr. Cyr said he did whatever work was necessary for the safety of the town and would be doing more work there next summer. January 7, 1974 - cont. Mr. Chepulis read the letter of application to th® Board of Appeals from the Archdiocese in which they do not want to meet ~ of the town's requirements, not only as to zoning. Mr. 0hepulis said it appears that they want sub-standard housing - not subsidized housing. He does not think North Andover can be con- sidered as "snob zoning". They have shown by previous plane that meeting the dimensional requirements poses no problem. He can't understand how they can ask for deviation from all town regulations that were meant for the .health, safety and welfare of the town. Be the Conservation Commission, he does not think they can circumvent a state statute, of which the ~ons. Comm. is a local arm of a state act. Mr. Keirstead thinks that the Zoning By-Law and Subdivision regulations are unreasonable. Mr. Ostherr pointed out that the subdivision was not rejected for social reasons. Mr. Montairo suggested that Mr. Chepulis be authorized to pre- pare a report to be submitted to the Board of Appeals for the hearing. Mr. Keirstead %hen made the following motion$ that the Chairman be authorized to prepare a report and that this report be reviewed at a special meeting to be c-lled on January l~th at 7:00 P.M. $ Mr. Ostherr seconded the motion and the vote was II.rA~rd mOllS. AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONi-~ BY-LAW: Mrs. Pat Trombly, chairman of the Conservation Commission, submitted a proposal to change Section 5, concerning earth removal operations, of the Zoning By-Law, She read the changes to the Board end several suggestions were made. Mrs. Trombly will make the necessary changes and re-submit it to the Board. at its Feb. ~th meeting. Mr. Ostherr made a motion to advise the Selectmen that we intend to sponsor a revision of Section 5 of the ZBL,: a draft of which will be available in the final wording; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Frank Gelinas and other members of the Municipal Garage Facility 0o~mlttee were present and submitted an amendment as follows: Section 4.122: Strike para. (10) and insert in its place the following new para. "(10) Municipal building and public service corporation. (SPecial Permit re- quired. )" Mr. Kairstead and Mr. Ostharr were still opposed to that change and lengthy dis- cussion was held. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to support the article as presented end sponsor it; Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion end the vote was ~-yes and 2-no - members Osbherr and Keirstead voting no. Building Inspector Charles Foster discussed several amendments to the Zoning By- Law and after discussion the following will be sponsored by the Board: January 7, 1974 - cont. He Add new number to Section 4.121: "(14-A) Municipal Recreation areas." Add new number to Section 4.122: "(15) Mnn~cipal recreation areas." Section 4.129 - Industrial 1 District: (3) Strike the first word "Limited- and insert in its place the word "AcCessory". Section 4.130 - Lndustrial 2 District: (3) Strike the first word "Limited" and insert in its place the word "Accessory'. Table 2 - Summary of Dimensional Requirements: Amend Table 2byaddingto footnote 8 the following: "Buildings on corner lots sh-l~ have the required front setback from both streets except in Residence 4 District where setback from the side street shall be 20 feet Section 6.3: Insert in first sentence after the words "Table 2." the following new sentence. "(Except for eaves and uncovered steps.)- Section 6.8 -Exceptions: (1) 8th line - Strike "the effective date of this By-Law" ~n~ insert in its place "June 30, 1956". Also, add after last sentence the following: "and further provided, that such lot shall have a minimum street frontage of 50 feet and a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet." (2) 8th line ~ Strike "the effective date of thA~ By-Law" and insert in its place "June 30, 1956". New Section 9.12 - existing 9.12 to be made 9.13: 9.12 - Certificate of Use and Occupancy No building hereafter erected, enlarged,~ extended or altered shall be used or occupied in whole or in part until a certificate of use and occupancy has been issued by the ~uildingInspector. No building or land changedfrom one use to another, in whole or i.n part, shall be oc=upied or used until a certificate of use and occupancy has been issuedbytheBuildingInspector. The certificate shall certify compliance with the provisions of this By-Law and of all applicable Codes. .Mr. Lamprey submitted, the following: Definitions: Section 2.2 - Driveway: A means of vehicular access to a lot, either through the frontage or from ~ streets adjacent to the side or rear lot lines. Each driveway shall service no more than one lot. Mr. Ostherr and Mr. Lamprey submitted the following definitions of frontage: (The final wor~ingwill be decided later). Frontage: The frontage requirement shalI also pertain at a line pare~lel to the street ]~e and at a distance back from it equal tO the front setback requirement of the moningdistrict. (Fritz Ostherr). Jan,,_a?y 7, 197~ - cont. Frontage.' The distance along the street line measured between the side lot 14nos. Th~s~distance shall not decrease to less than that req,,4-ed by Table 2 of this By-Law back to the rear of the main building or buildings, and at least (9. %) (50% ?) of this frontage shall provide easy and normal access to the lot. (Paul PROPOSED SUBDIVISION'. Mr. Peter Ogren, engineer for Hayes Engineering, _~ Charles Mills, a developer, appeared before the Board to discuss a proposed subdivision near the Boxford line. They showed a prelim~-_ery plan and wanted to get the Board's feeling on What could be done. There is no water service available and the only access to the lots at the end of the subdivision would be from Boxford; 13 lots would be in North And,ver. Mr. Ogren said the road will be held and maintained as a private way. Lengthy discussion was held and the Board feels it is not feasible. Mr. Ogren and Mr. Wills will discuss it with Boxford. The meeting adjourned at 12:30 A.M. ihairman ecretary