Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-10-07Monday, October 7, ~974 Regular Meeting On Monday evening, October 7, 1974, the PLANNING ~ held it .regular meeting:at 7.'30 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. Members Fritz Ostherr, Vice Chairman; William Salemme, Clerk; Paul R..~,Lamprey and John J. Monteiro were present and voting. Chairman, William Chepulis arrived shOrtly after, due to a prior cc~mittment. Fritz Ostherr was Acting Chairman until the arrival of Mr. Chepulis. ~he motion was made by Mr. Lamprey to table the minutes of the previous meeiing until %.he October 23, 1974 meeting inasmuch as the members have not had an opportunity to go over them. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. PLANS NO~ REqUIRIN~ APPROVAL: 1. BARCO CORP., l~oster St. Mr. Mc~teiro made a motion to accept the plan of land of Rarco Corp. dated September 27, 1974 as not requiring approval under Subdivision Con- trol Law. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lamprey and the vote was unanimous. 2. EVANgeLINE DC~OVA~, ~rgent St. Miss Donovan represented herself and stated that ori~Anally ~hields had owned the land abutting here. She had the l~nd eurveyed recently and found that 21~ ft. still belonged to Sh~.elds and her original stake had been removed. MiSs Donovan now holds the deed to this small ribbon of land. Mr. Monteiro ;_~le a motion that for recording pttrposes and with the approval of the P~JA~INO ]~OARD that the addition to Lot 9 he accepted. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote was unanimous. 3. NORTH ANDOVER ASSOCIATES, (former Teal Farm land). ~r. LamPrey stated that it is clear in the law that it has to be on an acceptable street. This parcel is to he added to the adjacent land of Love. Mr. Lamprey made a motion that the .PLANNIN~ BO_A_~j) not endorse the plan of North Andover Associates, dated October ~, 1~74, because it is a subdivision and does not show adequate frontage. The motion was seconded by Mr. l~onteiro and the vote was unanimous. ~ SC~CR~SCC~ITTEEREPORT: John Monteiro gave a report as to what transpired at the October meeting. The Committee will hold another meeting in November. From knowledge received, they concluded that they cannot implement any rules and regulations to the Scenic Roads Law. The cc~,mittee will have to use what the ~tate has laid out. The Attorney ~eneral said that he will verify this in ~riting. A shor~ discussion took place. Mr. Lamprey said he thought that one of the objectives of the C~mmit%ee was to get up a list of Scenic Roads, not just one. Mr. Ostherr s~ated that the issues are: ~) to develop c~lteria; 2) if, in fact, we have the hearing power and permit power to allow things under the Scenic Roads Law, then we have the right to set reasonable regulations to control the Scenic Roads Law. Mr. Monteiro stated the~ are looking into whather we can have a t~n by-law which was a suggestion from the Selectmen. Requesting copies from other tc~ns as ~o what is going on in the C~nmonwealth. Mr. Cyr is against the Scenic Roads Law and continuously talks in that vein. It is not true that Great Pond Rd. is already listed as a Scenic Road with the State. There has been some con,sion with Scenic Roads be~ established by the Town in ~c~m with the Bi-Centennial. About funding on Beautification, Mr. Monteiro stated that he th~ks it is out-funded by now, but will report on it at the nex~ meeting. Mr. Ostherr said that it is not up to the Committee to argue whether or not we have Scenic Roads. October 7, 1974 - cont. DISCUSSION: ~EVISIONS TO RULES AND REGULATI~S: SECTION II A: Mr. Lamprey suggested adding "except for multi-family dwellings." Mr. Ostherr felt that we should put in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations that any means of vehicular ~ocess shall be considered a street and should be in the legal text. Mr. Lamprey made a motion that we accept the definition with the above change and Mr. Ostherr seconded. The BOARD decided it would i~e advisable to go through the revisions one by one and have them typed up before voting on them. SECTION II B: Mr. O~therr thinks that the reasons that the PLANNING BOARD ham given for setting up a fee structure are not good enough and personally doesn't feel that we should be exacting fees from people because we do not have a clear need for the money. Last year the Building In'spector~s office took in enough money .to handle our budget. The question of imposing a fee to ensure good engineering, etc. will not work. Part of the job of us being on the PLANNING BOARD is to deal with Subdivision Control. Member Ostherr feels that we should handle it on a non-fee Basis. Mr. M~mteiro goes along with Paul ~mmprey because more and more to~m~s are doing this. Mr. Chepulis feels a fee is necessary, but not justifiable at the present time. Mr-8alemme made a motion to table.the mat%er uu%il %he 23, 1974 meeting. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. SECTION II O: 4. Add "includTM the la~d owned by the applicant." Motion was made by Mr. Monteiro to accept this wording and was seconded by Mr. 0stherr. The vote Wa~ unanimous, S~CTION II O: 5. Motion was made by Mr. Lamprey to accept as written. Mr.' Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. SECTION II 0: 6. Add "after action of the Board." Mr.' Nonteiro made a motion to accept and Mr. 0stherr seconded. The vote was unanimous. SECTION II O: 7- Mr. Os%herr made a motion to exclude it from the Rules and ~la- tions because it is clear it is against the Enabling Act. Mr. Ohepulis stated that he has written to Town Counsel and will wait until we hear from him before taking a vote. Mr. Lamprey m~de a motion to table the matter until the .October 23, 1974 meeting. There was a second by Mr. Monteiro and the vote was 4 in favor with Mr. 0s~herr voting in %he negative. SECTION III E: 1-c. Mr. Ostherr ma~e a motion to add the words "and width" and Mr. Monteiro seconded. The vote w~s unanimous. SECTION III F: Add as last line of the paragraph, "No such action ~hall take place except at a regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting." A motion .was made by Mr. Non- teiro accepting the addition and Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion. The vote was mnani- eons. SECTION III G: Mr. Ostherr made a motion to table until the October 23, 1974 meeting. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. /~CTION III H: 3. Add "after action of the Board." Mr. Monteiro made a motion to accept the addition and was seconded by Mr. Ostherr. The vote was unanimous. October 7, 1974 - cont. S~"TIC~ III H: 4- After ...no later than 20 days add "(the 20-da~ appeal period)". Mr. Ostherr made the motion to add the phrase and Mr. Nonteiro seconded. The vote wa~ una.~mons. SECTION III N: 5. The motion was made by Mr. Monteiro to include the paragraph as presented and seconded by Mr. Ostherr. The vote wasunanimous. SECTION III H: 6. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to insert "or any other appellate bodies..." Mr. Ostherr seconded and the vote was unanimous. SECTIGN IV A: 1. k. The motion was made by Mr. Monteiro to delete and seconded by Mr. Ostherr. The vote was unanimous. SECTION IV E. Mr. Ostherr made a motion to replace original statement with rewritten version and Mr. Nonteiro seconded. The vote was unanimous. ~ECTION IV F. 4. Mr. Ostherr made a motion to accept as written without any Further modifications. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. ~ECTIONV B: 6. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to accept the'increased thickness on Minor and Secondary ttreets as presented by the Highway Surveyor. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote was unanimous. SECTION V H: 3. Mr. Ostherr made a motion to accept the changes under Concrete and Stone Headwalls which was seconded by Mr. Monteiro. The vote was unanimous. A motion to adOPt as pa~t of the P~G BOAKD's Rules and Regulations, Form Eand Form N as redrawn was made by Mr. Ostherr. Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion. Mr. Ostherr amended his motion to specify delete the word "Certified" on Form E. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote was unanim~us~on the motion. CONFERENCE FOR MASS. FEDERATION OF ~0 BOARDS: The Conference is to be held in H~fannis. The members decided that someone should attend to represent the BOARD. l~ritz Ostherr stated that he may go and, if not, John Monteiro will attend. VAL PLAm "n O coN IsszON: A letter of invitation was received referring to a meeting on Water Pollution Control at Northern Essex Community College. Mr. Monteiro said that he is planning on going. BOARD 01~ APPEALS HEARINGS: 1. A-ha Donahue - A motion was made by Mr. Monteiro %hat the Planning Board had no comment and Mr. Lamprey seconded. The vote was unanimous. 2. Christopher Adams - Mr. Menteiro made a motion that the Board had no comment to make and Mr. Lamprey .seconded. The vote was unanimous. 3. Na~old A. &Beverly S. Whipple - Mr. Ostherr made a motion that the Pla~_ning Board insist on a 100 ft. front setback as called for in Footnote 1 Table II inasmuch as considerable thought and planning had gone into arriving at this number. The rear set- back could be reduced with no apParent problem; no comment regarding the area required. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote was unanimous. October 7, 1974 - cont. 4- Anthony & Sharon Reynolds.- the BOARD members felt that they acted in the best interest of the Town and the Zoning By-Law. BOARD O~ APPEALS DEGIBION: Decision on Paul Crete, plan of land on Adams Ave. was received and read by the BOARD. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS: Member 8alemme brought it %o the attention of the BOARD ~hat there is-an Earth Removal operation being conducted on Mill St. and no permit has been issued for it. The Building Inspector stated that the land is ow~edbyBill Cyr. He stated, further, that this has been used as a gravel pit for many yeare although no~hing has been hauled out in the last 4 years. The matter has to go before the Board of Appeals who will advise the Building Inspector. Chairman Chepulis noted that Mr. Edward $canlon's appearance before ~he selectmen stirred ale% of comment and interest, and asked whatever happened %o our Watershed Committee. Mr. Ostherr said that none of the Boards, other than the Board of Health, came up with anything concrete. The question was raised concerning a revival of that Committee. The Planning '~Newslet%er" and "Commerce" paper were noted as received. A notice for a reception for Myrtle Mayer, retired from Assessor's Office, and Mrs. King, retired from the Library, was read. Memo from the Board of Selectmen announcing the new PA employees was received. RAT~IUNTAVERN LAN~ -Bond Release: It was noted that our records show that we hold 2 bonds; $10,O00 for Raleigh Taverm South and$3,000 for Raleigh Tavern North. Ail of Mr. Cyr's commentsper~ain to Raleigh Tavern North. Mr. Ostherr said he saw Mr. Cyr and asked for a price list and~ when s~mitte~i% came up to $3,300. It was noted that the turn-~_~und is undersized ~nd irregular2~ shaped. Mr. 0stherr felt that Mr. Osgood should get all th~n~s completed. The iubdivisi~ Control SuM- c~ittee decided ~ get together with Bud Oyr amd look over Raleigh Taverm N~rth. Mtsce~neeusMatters: Mr. Mauteiro stated that ia regard to Mr. Oetherr's suggestive of sprmciag up the dowa- t~wa area (p~nds behind Madm St., etc.) he will have ~fermatiea for the BOARD at the ~ext meeting. The matter of a letter to the MVPC regarding Bike Tr~t~ and a study of a roadway c~ng ia from Rte. l~J+to the Laud-Veet property was discussed. N~. Oetherr amd Mr, Lamprey theugh~ that it is a little %00 premature to take action at this time. SCOTT PROPER.T~: The BOAUD approved a Pre, traCery Plan subject to 9 o~ents which are on file in the Planning B~ard office. Mr. 2~linas was present. The me,ting adjourned at 11 P.M. c toe )