The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1974-01-14Monday - January 14, 1974 Special Meeting The PLANNI~ BOARD held a special meeting on Monday evening, January 14, 1974 at 7:00 P.M. at the Middle School cafeteria. The following members were present and voting: William Chep,,lts, Ch.twman; John J. Monteire, Vice Chair- man; Paul R. Lamprey, Clerk and Fritz Ostherr. This special meeting was called in order that the members could read the letter prepared by Mr. Chepulis relative to the Board of Appeals hearing for the Archdiocese of Boston for 230 housing units. The letter is as follows: "Gentlemen: The Planning Board has reviewed the submitted plan and offers the following comments. These. plans are an expansion of a l~6-unit townhouse subdivision pro- posal on the same locus that did not receive Planning Board approval in 1973. The former plan was not denied for social or economic reasons, but for the incompleteness, vagueness, and omissions on the pl~.n. The Planning Board is well aware of the realities of subsidized iow-and-moderate-income housing and the provisions of Chapter 774 of the Acts of 1969. We feel that our Zoning By-Law adopted by the Town are reaso-_~ble, equitable, and consistent with our local needs and conditions. With reference to Chapter 774, our Town's Comprehensive Pl~-n states in part" ..... North Am/over does not appear to characterize the type of town at which the legislation is directed," and further states "regulations and re- quirements for subsidized housing should be consistent with local needs and apply as equally as possible to both subsidized and nonsubsidized housing. Therefore, the provisions of the local zoning, building, subdivision and other by-laws should also apply to subsidized housing developments, unless set aside. Whenever any provision of such local by-laws is set aside by a Board of Appeals variance or by a decision of the State Housing Appeals Committee (under Chapter 774 of General Laws), such waiver should not be more extensive th_~n necessary av~i should be compatible with ..... planning and design standards (or with even more restrictive provisions if warranted in a specific case)." A Special Summary Report from CHPA on a Mass. S-JO decision upholding Chapter 7?4 relates that "local hoards should apply municipal requirements and regulations equally to subsidized and u~mubsidized housing applications." Oace again, the submitted plans are vagne amd incomplete. Insufficient data has been submitted to show deviations from our by-laws, rules and regu- lations, and, more importantly, no information as to why any such deviations are necessary. Therefore, specific recommendations cannot be made at this time but the following points can be raised: Foremost is the drainage problem (which was not solved in the previous application). No details are given as to size of pipe, pitch, run-off, volumes, etc. No information presented to assure that surrou~t~gareas will not be burdened bythis system. January 14, 197~- cont. 2. Inadequate numbers of fire hydrants, only 3 for 24 buildings cont~4~tng 230 dwelling units scattered over 31 acres. e Some buildings do not have paved driveways or paved walks adequate to accommodate emergency vehicles within 50 feet of the outside entrance of each dwelling unit. The t~o emergency access roads are not sho~n as extensions of any road or driveway but as overlays across sidewalks and landscaped terrain to a paper street. 5. Set back distances in several locatioms appear to violate setback re- quirement s. 6. Grades of roadways not sho~n especially at its intersection with Waverly Road. · ' 7. Number of contiguous units in some buil~tugs exceeds 10. 8. The density of 7.37 units per acre is not considered unreasonable. 9. Plan does not show locus boundary ~mensions. 10. Sizes and frontages of townhouse lots are not sho~n. 11. Also lacking are details of utility inet~ations (sewers, water, gas, electricity), roadway construction (widths, curbing, sidewalks, shoulders, etc.), easements (where necessary), materials, etc. From the above, it is apparent that the plan as submitted is at best a pictorial sketch of a proposed idea and certainly not one on which a definitive decision can be made. Even though application has bean made under Chapter it is not unreasonable to expect a detailed definitive plan so that proper analyses and judgments may be made. It is unfair and almost unjust to expect an~ board to render a proper decision on such meagre information. The inadequacy of the subject plan seems to indicate that a "wholesale" exemption from all by-laws, rules and regulations is being requested. Although the intent of Chapter 77~ is to provide relief from overly-restrictive measures which might hamper subsidized housing, it is inconceivable that every by-law, rule and regulation of the Town of North Andover hampers or is inconsistent with well-planned subsidized housing. Deviating from the lines and pictures on the sheets of paper called the plan, other aspects much be considered for a project of this type (and which were not included with the plan). These are: 1. Why was this site chosen? What are its qualities and advantages? January 14, 197~ - cont. Are urban services such as .shopping, medical services, churches, and cultural facilities within safe walking distance or easily accessible by public transportation? e Since a significant portion of the occupants of s=_bsidized housing may be either elderly or at an economic level which prohibits auto- mobile ownership (or in some cases, a second automobile), is public transportation readily available? Also, many occupants of subsidized housing must rely on public transportation to get to and from their place of employment. Without this availability, residents could become isolated. ~hat ~ be the impact on property values? Any possible adverse environmental influences? ~hat are the aesthetic considerations? 5. What will be the traffic impact, i.e., both pedestrian and vehicular movements? 6. Are there any engineering and/or soil problems ~n this site? We hope the above will be of some assistance te your Board in evaluating the application under Chapter 7% of the Planning Office for Urban Aff*~S, ~n agency of the Archdiocese of Boston. Very truly yours, etc." Mr. Osth~rr made a motion, t° adopt the chairman's letter, ~ated J.anuary 14, 197~, as the PlanningBoard's report to the Board of Appeals; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The meeting adJourned at 7:15 P.M. (William Secretary