Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-12-15December 15, 1975 - Monday Regular Meeting The PLAN1TING BOARD held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, December 15, 1975 at 7:45 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: William Chepulis, Chairm~n; Fritz Ostherr, Vice-Chairman; William N. S~lemme, Clerk; Paul R. Lamprey and John J. Monteiro. There were 5 visitors. Mr. Chepulis noted that a correction to the minutes of Nov. 29 should be made as follows: change the word between the attorneys names on page 2 from "and" to "or". Mr. Monteiro made a motion to approve the minutes subject to the above amendment. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote w~s'4 in favor wither. Ostherr abstaining. HEREFORD CASE: Chairman Chepulis commented t~at %he Board of Appeals had held a meeting last Monday night a~id at that time specified that it was not their intention to ignore Sec. 5 of the By-Law~ entirely and, ak that meeting, came up with a one statement memorandum. Mr. Chepulis read the statement which is on file. In the meantime another statement on that subject was prepared and dated Dec. 15, 1975. This was a draft and the Board of Appeals had not met at that time. This is to be a substitute for the one-statement memo. At their meeting tonight they changed a few words (see copy on file) and this draft is what is before our BOARD now. Mr. Ostherr felt that if what the Board of Appeals says in this draft is what they mean then of what impor~ is the memorandum to be filed once the decision has been filed? It would seem to me, he said, that this was not what the Hereford Corporation went away from the Board of Appeals hearing with. Mr. Lamprey felt that they are attempting to clarify their decision to everyone. Mr. Chepulis said that this would follow the same procedure as the original decision - filed with the Town Clerk and passed on to the necessary parties. This does not nullify the previous decision but explains in detail wh~t was to have been said in the decision. Mr. Os~herr questioned whether or not the Board of Appeals had discussed this with Town Counsel. No one thought that it had. Mr. Lmmprey commented that if they had asked him prior to the PLANNING BOARD involvement he ~would have had to answer their question. The question was raised as to what the BOARD would have done if this draft had been in the original decision. Mr. Chepulis asked whether it would satisfy the position of the BOARD at the present time, do we or do we not agree? And, supposing we are in agreement with this, can it be adhered to legally? Mr. Lamprey felt that he was not in a position to give an opinion because the draft w~s just received 10 minutes earlier an~also, Town Cotutsel should give an opinion on this. Mr. Ostherr noted that there is no provision for a filing fee and also that it states that Hereford Corp. is "requested to" submit a plan. Mr. Chepulis stated that he was told that what is before the BOARD should have been in the original decision. Ben Osgood, a visitor, stated that e~ffeoj~ively t~e memorand~unmeans nothing - they are exempting Hereford from cleaning up~~kT~xe~\~their actions on Kelleher vs. Pembroke case and he didn't, feel that the Board of Appeals should be acting as judge and jury on the case. This memorandum is not going to effect the site one iota, he said. The Building Inspector agreed with Mr. Osgood that it had all been pretty well all worked over. Mr. Osgood's opinion w~s that these permits are 1-year renewable permits. Mr. Foster stated that the right is built into the new By-Law that the operator has a right to continue, but he can be regulated by the new provisions. There is a limit as to how much of the new By-Law can be imposed before it becomes an undue burden o~ the operator$~normal restoration should be a continuing thing. Mr. Osgood ~dded that it is absolutely imperative that the plans are on file so that the Town knows what is going on from year to year. December 15, 1975 - cont. 1 Mr. Poster commented that wh~t the ultimate use of the land would be should have been developed at the hearing before the permit was issued. Member Ostherr questioned what the BOARD is really being asked to do and suggested that when it does get a clean copy of the Memorandum (as the Board of Appeals voted on it this evening) it should be placed c~ the Agenda for a subsequent meeting and, further, that the BOARD'S decision to date stands. Mr. Lamprey ~greed; Mr. Chepulis thought the matter should be tabled for a later meeting when a clean copy is available. Mr. Ostherr stated that the onus is on the Board of Appeals. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to reaffirm the position taken at the last meeting until further information is given appropriate to the PLANNING BOARD. The motion did not receive a second so it was denied. Mr. Ostherr stated that there are 2 questions before the BOARD - 1 ) what does this piece of paper say and, 2) if we agree with what it s~ys, wB~t is the legal status? Hr. L~m- prey suggested that the first thingsis to study the Memo and made a motion to take the matter under advisement in order that the members may study and vote on it at the next meeting. Mr. Ostherr seconded the motion. The BOARD decided to place it on the Agend~ for the Jan. 5th meeting. Mr. Monteiro felt that a decision should be made at this time. The vote on the motion was as follows - Messere Ostherr, Chepulis and Lamprey in favor and Mr. Salemme and Mr. Monteiro opposed. The meeting then recessed (8:30 P.M.) in order that the BOAP~ could attend the Board. of Selectmen's meeting. The meeting reassembled at 9:05 P.M. Mr. Monteiro m~de a mo~ion to resume the discussion of the Hereford matter. did not receive a second. The motion NORTH ANDOVER ASSOCIATES - Submission of Preliminary Plan, Winter St.: The application was filed with the Town C~erk on Dec. 15, 1975. An abutters' sketch was submitted with the application. The proposed subdivision is named Winter Hill Estates. A motion was made by Mr. Ostherrto refer the plans to the subdivision control subcommittee for a report mt the Jan. 19, 1976 meeting; copies of the plan to be distributed to the appro- priate dep~r~ments. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote was unanimous. LE~ FR0~ BPWRE~ING WITH PLAN~G BOAP~D: The Board of Public Works (letter dated ~ec. 8) requested a meeting to discuss information flow between the Boards. Mr. 0etherr suggested that we put this request on the Jan. 5th Agenda, Item~2, and inform all the members of the BPW. COPY~T.w~I~(~~.k~I~OREASSOC.: Letter received and read by the Chair~m~n and is on file with the subdivision file. COPY 0FLETT~FROMMRS. ARMITAGEREAPPLEDORE: Letter received and read by the Chair- man. He added that a personal visit to this site indicated a tremendous amount of sil- tation caused by the construction going on in that area. Mr. Ostherrasked wha~ action had been taken by the Conservation Commission and was answered by Mr. Ohepulis that they h~ve recommended plaoing h~y to reduce this d~m~ge. LET~ ~ROM MRS. BUSBY RE GR~00D WEST: Letter received and read by the Chairmmn. December 15, 1975 - cont. Mr. Os%herr suggested %hat, rather than take up Board time reading all of these letters, we circulate them for the members to permse at their convenience. The Highway Surveyor reques%ed receiving an Agenda or any correspondence concerning his ~epar~ment because he is interested in all aspects of development. LETTER FROMWM. N. S~LW~4E, BOARD OF APPEALS, RE CHANGES IN B. A. RULES &REGS. AND POPe, S: Mr. Chepulis suggested that each individual review and submit anychanges or recommenda- tions in these Rules or Forms for the next meeting. The Building Inspector added that one area that the PLANNING BOARD might be interested in would be special permits as covered by the ZOning By-L~w. MINUTES OF ESSEX COUNTY HISTORIC & SCENIS PT~NNING COMMISSION: Mr. Os%herr made a motion to refer %his to the Regional Planning Subcommittee for review and filing. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Salemme stated that he had reviewed the letters from the County Plamner on Bike ~fety and suggested that the BOARD might request a subcommittee review or a plan of some kind in order to interconmect the various communities with bike trails. The BOARD decided to put the letter on file. Mr. Ohepulis informed ~he members that the Mass. Federation of Planning Boards m~y hold its meeting in North Andover in Nay. Voucher from Sheriff for Cour~ Case (Hereford Decision) Summonses. A motion Was m~de by Mr. Os%herr to return the invoice to the Board of Selectmen for processing. Mr. Monteirc seconded ands%he vote was unanimous. Notice from the Board of Selectmen regarding the opening cf the Wmrra~lt for Town Meeting w~s received and filed. MVPC NOVember News was received and filed. BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS "Bulletim" for December was received and filed. The meeting adjourned at 10 P.M. Chairman (William Chepulis) retary