Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-01-19January 19, 1976 - Monday Regular Meeting The PLANNING BOARD held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, January 19~ 1976 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: William Chepulis, Chairman; William N. Salemme, 01erk; Paul R. Lamprey and John J. Monteiro. There were mpproxima%ely 10 visitors present. John Monteiro made a motion to accept the minutes of the January 5, 1976 meeting as received. Mr. Salemme seconded and the vote was uuaaimous. PLANS rOT REQUIRING APPROVAL: 1. Marbleridge l~a'rm - Marbleridge & Great Pond Rds.: Edmund P. Lelaad, owaer of the land was present. Mr. Leland stated that the plan showed an inventory of the land he presently ownss there is no subdivision involved. Much of the land was sold in the past and this is what remains of it. The lots are recorded as separate lots, he said. Mr. Chepulis questioned the fact that no boundaries are shown. Mr. Leland stated these lots are on separate deeds. It was noted that the Borders of combined Lots 1, 2, and 3 are all spelled out and the question was brought up why the parcels were broken up into lA & IB, etc. There is no description of the sub-~aroels. The plan does not defind the parcels, give markings as to area. Mr. Lamprey made a motion to disapprove $he plan because there are no definite lot lines, frontage on streets, and Lot 2B does not show admquate area. Mr. Salemme seconded due to the fact that the information is incomplete. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to amend the motion to take the matter under advisement. The amendment did not receive a second. The vote on the original motion was unanimous. 1. Nary Moody Selden - Moody & Prescott Sts.: A m*tion was made by Mr. Monteiro, following BOARD review of the plan, to disapprove as presented because there is no setback on Lots 56 & 57 for the existing building on Lot 57 and there is no sign of the existing culvert between Lots 54, 55, and 56 (no established easement was shown). Mr. Salemme seconded. During a short discussion, the members agreed that the lack of this easement could present a problem. The vote on the motion was unanimous. SUBMISSION OF DEFINITIVE PLANS: 1. WILLOW RIDGE ESTATES, SCOTT PROPERTIES, INC., BOSTON ST.: Mr. Lamprey made a motion to refer these plans to the Subdivision Control Subcommittees set a hea~ing date for Pebruar~ 17, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. Mr'. Mouteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. 2. ~IDGE ESTATES, BARCO CORP., ~IDGE RD.: The plans were submitted along with a conceptual subdivision plan to accompany the abutters listing. Mr. Salemme made a motion ti refer the plans to the Subdivision Control Subcommittee and set a hearing date for February 17, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. LOIS SIMMONDS, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS RE NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY AND ~EETING WITH BOB MORENOUSE, DISTRICT O(~tSERVATIONIST: Mrs. Simmonds appeared before the BOARD stating that the League has offered to coor- dinate land use in Town because they felt the organization had enough manpower to get some of the informati, on in line. A Natural REsources Inventory, it was felt, would be useful to the Planning Board, Con. Com., Watershed Sutdy Committee and the new Growth Policy Committee. She then invited the BOARD to a meeting on Jan. 28th at 7:30 P.M. at the Library at which Bob Norehouse would speak at a '~uestion and answer" type meeting January 19, 1976 - cont. to find out how those interested ~ould use the information and what sort of information would be forthcoming. The Natural Resources Inventory is a contract between the Town and the Conservation District, but there is no point of undertaking it if there is not a need for it and a good deal of support is not generated for it. Mrs. Simmonds felt that the need is there because of Campion Hall and Waverly Rd. projects. Mr. chepulis commented that we can either contract or set it up by ourselves, but it does require alot of manpower. Member Monteiro requested that the BOARD members accept the infm~ma - tion and all that can make it should attend the meeting. WIN~ILL ESTATES - DISCUSSION OF PR~,ININARY PLANS: Letters from the various Town DePartments (F~re Chief; BPW; Highway Surveyor) were read and are on file. Mr. Lamprey stated that Fritz Ostherr and himself had gone over the site and ~de a motion to grant tentative approval of the plans which shall include the letters from the Highway Surveyor, Board of Public Works and the North Andover Fire Dept. Mr. Monteiro seconded. The vote on the motion was unanimous. Frank Gelinas stated that the parcel is unusual in terms of diversity of the v~rious land features and wondered at what point are we in Town and people like me going to advance in cluster zoning concepts. He had spoken to his client and had been asked in- formally to submit to the PLANNING BOARD some cluster comcepts on this piece of land. The hopes were, when talking about it informally, that we could do it in time for this Town Meeting but he didn't feel this was possible. The cluster by-law is controversial enc~Agh in itself that it would take a couple of workings at PLANNING' BOARD level and, also, Town Meeting level. The time to come up with a cluster concept, he said, is not when you are acting on a ~pecific piece of land, but outside this pressure area; however, he and his client would be willing to work with 2he BOARD either with this piece of land or without it. Mr. Gelinas voiced a concern with Mr. Cyr's feeling that this kind of land planning is detrimental to snow plowing and although the BOARD has approved the plan subject to ~he letters from the ~arious departments what Bud Cyr is asking is that no cul de sacs be used. This would mean the connection of the roads and this is working in an opposite direction of neighborhood planning and cluster comcepts that are available. On this subdivision, without the cul de sacs, we would have severe slopes and would encroach on the meadows. We have tried to eliminate large cuts and fills and encroachment on meadows. If we do it in a linear fashion it would be at a great cost to the environment. He further stated that he would need some direction as to what to do with the comment that the cul de sacs be oounected. Mr. Lamprey felt that the intent was not to connect every one of them, but to cut down. We have never seen a cluster zoning proposal, he said. MF client, said Gelinas, cam probably connect the two cul de sacs but he may be stopped by the Conserva- tion Ccem~ission because of meadows and streams. Mr. Chepulis qtAest'ioned Mr. Cyr relative to cost to the Town if the cul de sacs were joined together. Mr. Cyr said it would be far less expensive this way and couldn't understand why they couldn't be connected wi%h- out taking away from the natural beauty of the existing brocks and meadows. Mr. Gelinas said that he had tried it this way 2 or 3 times but found that the meadows had to be crossed more of%eh. Another factor he brought out w~s his obser~amce through To~a~ of some of the most desirable streets which were cul de sacs or dead ends. Mr. Chepulis asked George Barker i~ there was a difference in taxes on houses on a through street and those on a cul de sac to which Mr. Barker said there was not. Marketability-wise, lots on a cul de sac will sell much faster that those on a through street. Mr. Cyr mentioned that this affects all the general services of the Town. The BOARD concurred that this was something to be worked out between now and before definitive plans are drawn up. DISCUSSION: SARCIONERE~.ONINGARTICLE FOR TOWN WARRANT-FrankGelinas appeared before the BOARD and explained that the land in located adjacent to Highland Terrace and mn article is going to be entered into the Town Warrant to rezone the parcel from Residential to B-1. It is the intent of the client to build a 3300 ft. building for purposes of office January 19, 1976 - cont. use ora bank. "l't is not a street, Flatley is behind it; it was discontinued by Land Cour~ decree. They have several options - B-l, B-2 or B-3 - but when looking at the B-1 District they felt it came the closes% to the permitted use and also the table coverage in the Zoning By-Law. The area has a gift shop, restaurant, professional building into which this would blend itself. Mr. Gelinas showed the BOARD photos of the area. He commented that they are open to advice from the BOARD for input as to what best protects the Town. The other alternative, he mentioned, was to write a new district ouch as B-5 which would be similar to B-4 without the 80,000 s.f. required. The owner of the property is a Town resident, F. S. Davis, and residents tend to be more concerned. Members Ohepulis and Msnteiro questioned the traffic evolving from this. It was stated that undoubtedly there would be a little more. ZONING' ARTICLE DRAFT BT LAKE COCHICHEWICK WATERS.W~n STUDY COMMITTEE: Mr. Salemme introduced the article amd ~%ated that the Committee was looking for input from the BOARD. Donald Keirstead presented a map to the BOARD showing the watershed. He said that they would like to b~ve the Town give direction to the various Boards as to whet~er or not to puroue the subject. The map, he explained, just creates a Watershed area, it does not change any of the various zones. They would~ i%xrthe$., like direction to take any action necessary to protect the water supply, but it would be encumbent on the Boards and groups to come b~ck to a future Town Meeting to request fun~ing. We are also asking that the vari~.~s Boards require a statement as to how development wil~ impact the water quality and we will suggest to them as the year goes on as to what something like this might say. Perhaps the PLANNING BOARD could sponsor the article, he said, or at least not oppose it. We do not want to create any new zoning but we could put restrictions through our subdivision Rules & Regulations. The action should come from existing Town agencies which are well structured for this. There is a major recharge area in the Lake which, if lost, the Lake will die. Mr. Ohepulis aske~ how this watershed area was dsterminaA. Mr. Keirstead stated that they started with Camp, Dresser, & McEee with input from at least 4 different engineers, and with- out doing test borings throughout this is probably as accurate as we can get. Ben OsgOod asked how the developer would submit this report (referred to above) when the legislation isn't under Ch. 40A. Keirstead said that we are trying to get the · BOARD to take whatever legal power they have under existing statute' and under Oh. 41 the Planning Board develops their own subdivision regulations. If it cOmes out that they can't get what they waat under these regulations then they would bare to go for further legislation. We looked at the zoning route, but it is very cumbersome. Mr. Osgood suggested defining it as a watershed district on the zoning maF. Mr. Eeirstead stated that he has a list of 27 regulations that can be applied here in alread~ existing by-laws. Mr. Chmpulis stated that it looked as though it would somehow eventually have to tie in with the Zoning By-Law. Quite often, he said, articles l~ke this might be passed and then that is the end of it. He thought' a requirement from the Town Boards at the nex~ Town Meeting as to status in order to keep it alive. ~r. Keirstead did not agree, but in the CommAttee's report at the nex~ TOWn Meeting there will be more defin- ite recommendations. Mr. Chepulis thought they should so state this in their article. Mr. Lamprey made a motion that the PLANNING BOARD co-sponsor an article for establishing a watershed area with the Watershed S~udy ~onunittee. Mr. Monteiro seconded. ~mch dis- cussion followed in which Ben Osgoed stated that the PLANNING BOARD was powerless to do anything unless it came under Ch. 40A or the Subdivision Rules & Regs. Pat Trembly ~ stated that everyone was losing site Of the fact that the article doesn't just involve the Planning Board. It is pointless to put in a new district without regu~tions - a week is not enough time and even a year is not enough, She said. We brought it up to the PLANNING BOARD first because you are the primary land planning board. She didn't see why ~hey should skip to the second step; it will be s~mandate from the Town to give order to what they do. Chairman Chepulis felt that in order for such mn article to have any effectiveness at all it should be in the By-Laws or even au ordinance. This would January 19, 1976 - cont. give some foundation on which the various boards could act. The resolution by itself should have some sort of method of seeing that something is done besides having the watershed committee continue to function. George Barker requested that the landowners have a chance to consult with the Committee when these plans are drawn up. He mentioned that the run-off on some of his land does not go into the watershed. Gay~on 0sgood stated that he agreed with Mr. Barker, that there should be a public hearing ~t not necessarily under Ch. 40A. A similar thingwas dc~e by the State Dept. of Environmental Affairs where they did not change the zoning. More discussion followed between Mr. Osgood and Mr. Eeirstead regarding their opposite points of view. Mr. Chepulis asked who changed the map and Mr. Keirstead said that it was V. Turano, R. Pojafek, J. ~cshingand some other input he couldn't remember. Mr. Chepulis felt. ~hat i~ should be signed so that someone is listed responsible. He also suggested changing the word "creaSe" to "identify" or "designate". Mr. Gelinas added that when youget into a map which is in suppor~ of something very general you ge~ nothing. He thought that the ~p would destroy the real thru~ of what is being done. He suggested a resolution like the one Bud Cyr had submitted on the disposal site would be proper. Gayton Osgood felt Shat the map may get them into more trouble than it is worth and inas- much as the Lake is self-defining the article could be worded to give the direction that is needed. Mr. Keirstead then withdrew his request; Mr. Lamprey withdrew his motion and Mr. Monteiro withdrew his second. The Building Imspector brought up the fact that he had wished to put an article in the Warrant regarding the by-law on requirements for animals but was informed by the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen that he could not submit an ar~le. He asked the BOARD if he could submit wb~t he had fo~-mulated to them and they could develop the article plus two others and sponsor them for the Warrant. The following articles were discussed briefly to ascertain whether or not the PLANNING BOARD would be willing to insert them: 1. Keeping of animals and amount of acreage required - reduction of acreage to a lesser amoun~ possibly by special permit to reduce the acreage after a public hearing. The possibility of eliminating the word "lot" so as to allow for leaSing was also discussed. Mr. Foster thaught that all were in agreement that as long as the people had the amount of land available it would be permissable to keep the animals. He noted that he had submitted this to the Selectmen and the Chairman informed him that it should come in another form and in another way. Mr. Lamprey stated that the PLANNING BOARD'S letter to the Board of Appeals supported the Building Inspector's position on this. He then made a motion to submit the article. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. 2. IndusSrial S District - She pa~ which refers to accessory uses, etc. was left out and he would like it inserted to make it uniform with She rest of the districts. Mr. Keirstemd interjected that the feeling earlier was no~ to add a~thing that isn't there from the old by-law. Mr. Foster told the BOARD that this was b~ought out at a Board of Appeals hearing by someone who is in I-S now, but was in E-L, who felt that his use was severly restricted because of this. He rielt that it was an oversight but Mr. Keirstead stated that it was done on pttrpose however, he has no feeling on what is happening now. Mr. Lamprey made a motion to use the same wording that is contained in R-4. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. 3. Section 4.121 (4) - in all ~he residence districts regarding home occupations. Mr. Foster said that he finds iS very difficult to limit home occupations when we have 5 people allowed to work there. We do not require the owner to live on the premises and what has happened iSsthat someone who works for him will occupy the house. This was not the intent - the intent was that the owner live there which would also ensure that the property be kept up to par. He felt, also, that the allowance of 5 people in a home occupation could become noxious to the neighborhood and at this point an orifice or a~inic can be established. This was star~ed, he said, with Foulds Bakery because there January 19, 1976 - cont. was a family arrangement in that situation. He stated that he is constantly pushed for people to use their homes for businesses and this wording is too open for resi- dential areas. Mr. Nonteiro made the motion to decrease the number of persons allowed to work on the premises to 3 and t~ require the owner to reside there. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote was unanimous. Member Monteiro noted that there are no changes in the memorandum whatsoever and stated that he was of the same opinion as before. ~Ir. Saleratus added that he still did not agree with the Kelleher V. Pembroke case as cited in the memo nor the fact %bat the sentence regarding the waiver of all provisions of Secticm 5 of the ZBL was left in the decision. He felt that they could not waive all these provisions because Section 5 does apply but is not retroactive. Paul Lamprey stated that he had a~tended the Board of Appeals meeting ia the week prior and told the BOARD that Ralph $oyce polled the Appeals Board to see if they felt it was a permit in perpetuity or not and they seemed to feel that it was. We have said all along that it was a 1-year permit that had expired and if the majority of this BOARD still feels that way we should stand by our original decision on the' matter. Messers Salemme and Monteiro voiced agreement. Mr. Lamprey continued to say that Mr. Joyce felt it was a matter of discretion and if-it did go to cou~ the judge would side with the Board that had made the decision. The Board of Appeals .has no intention of changing their decision at all. and .the memo does not change their decision in any way, it just clarifies what we already knew. Mr. Chepulis added that the filing of this memo did not complete the picture - there was no. mention made cf a filing fee nor plans - and felt that the BOAI~'S original decision still s~ands. was unfortunate tha~ we couldn't have had a two-way conMersatien with the Board of Appeals at the proper time, he said. Upon motion of Mr. Saleratus to authorize the Chairman to write a letter to the Board of Selectmen advising them to take further action by appointing an attorney for the BOARI% Mr. Monteiro seconded and a discus, sion followed.~ During the discussion the members cited the following avenues that could be taken: 1) Town Counsel to go to the coups for a declaratory judgment; 2) the . Selectmen to appoint an attorney for the BOARD; 3) put an article in the Warrant to raise f~muds for an attorney. Mr. Saleratus and Mr. Monteiro withdrew their respectiye motion and second. A motion was then made by Mr. Lamprey to authorize the Chairman to attend the Selectmen's meeting on Jan. 26 and propose the above-stated alternatives. Mr. Salemme secouded and the vote was unanimous. Letter from Selectmen Re "Growth Policy" Committee was read and received. is on file. The letter Letter from Old North Andover Realty Trust to Mr. Ottaviano, Coachman's Lane; regarding a parcel of land which is to remain unbuildable was received and read. The letter is on file. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS: Received from the Nass. Federation of Planning Beards ~ copy of ~he new Oh. 40A revi- sions. The meeting adjourned a~ ~ midnight. (WiliiamChepulis) ' Seoretary