Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-02-02February 2, 1976 - Monday REgular Meeting The PLANNING.BOARD held a regalar monthly meeting on Monday evening, l~ebruary 2, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: William Ch~pulis, Chairman; William N. Salemme, Clerk; and Paul R. Lamprey. There were 7 visitors present. The members decided to held the minutes in abeyance until the nex~t meeting. PLANS NOT REQUIRINGAPPROVAL: 1. George Farr - Salem St.: John Tattle and Bob Dion present. A pond isilocated where the frontage is for the property and to get access into the backland there is a right of way on Salem St. There are previous plans f~aorose the front of the land, l~t the back- land was never recorded as such. Mr. Ch~pulis noted that, for practi~G1 purposes, because of the pond they do not have access on to the street. A motion was made by Mr. Lamprey to endorse as not requiring approval under ~ubdivision control law a plan of land dated Jan. 25, 1976 and owned by George & Wands Farr. Mr. Salemme seconded and the vote was unanimous. 2. C~y& Julia Salerno- tale~ St.: The plan showed 2lots. to endorse as not requiring approval under subdivision control Jan. 21, 1976, o~nedby Guy~alerno. Mr. talemme seconded and Mr. Lamprey made a motion law a plan of land dated the vote ~i'as 3- Greenvood Assoc. (North by~ealeytt.) and Greenwood Assoc. (North by Bushy): Ben Osgo~dstatedthat this parcel is & bit south of the area presentlyheingdeveloped on Chestnut St. On the first plan, Victor Hatem signed for Desun Corp., a general partner of Greenwood Assoc. A motion was made hYMr. Lamprey to endorse as not requiring approval under subdivision control law 2 plans of la~d in North Andover, Ma. owned by Greenwood Assoc., mne dated Jan. 20, 1975, drawing~Dl050, and the other dated Jan. 21, 197~, draw- ing~C1056. Mr. ~al__~__e seconded and the vote was unanimous. ~. Daniel J. Murphy, Jr., & W~iam and Irene Langone - Great Pond Rd.: Harold Morley, Esq., appeared before the Board and showed a prior plan approved for Mr. Murphy contain- lng 5 lots. He sold Lots 1 A 2 and recently sold Lot ~ to the La-gone's. In the course of the archita~t laying out the plan, a tree Line on Lots 2 & 3 interfered with the access he originally plamaed and if they went through the tree line it ~ould damage the value of Lots 2, 3, & ~. They have put an easamant across Lots 3 & ~ for access only, Just to preserve the line of trees. The utilities for all of these lots have to be under ground. The purpose of this p~_~u is for recor~-~ a cress-easement from one party to ~ other. Upon motion of Mr. Lamprey and second by Mr. Salemme to endorse as not requiring approval under subdivision control law the plan of land of Murphy & Langone, dated Nov. ~97~ the BOARD voted unanimoa~$y. ~JB~ISSION O~ DEFIniTIVE PLANS: 1. BENCHMARI( ESTATES - Benchmark Censtruction Co., Ino. - Mr. Ch~pulis noted that the application does not state that the preliminary plan was approved. A motion was made by Mr. Lamprey to refer the plans to the Subdivision Control Subcommittee and set a hearing date for March 1, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Meeting Room. Mr. Salemme seoonded and the vote was unanimous. 1. THE ANDOV~2~S - Scott Properties, Inc. - It was noted that there is 1.18 acres in North Andoverand ~.39 acres, in Andover. Mr. Gelinas appeared for Scot~ Properties and stated that the reason 2hey started with this BOARD was because the street is in North Andover. AlSo, the~ had ~lksd $~Andover about and they wanted it to come to North Andover FebrUary 2, 1976 - cont. first and until there is a ruling made on the street the Town of Andover cannot pro- cess the plan. ~ne RF~st~ will not accept the plan unless the Boards of Both towns sing off on it. He felt that he would be able to process it as a Form A in Andover, and even though it is an unusual situation it does fulfill the requirements of the PLANNING BOARD. Mr. Lamprey made a motion t~ refer the plans to the Subdivision Con- trol Subcommittee and designate Mar. 1, 1976 for ~ Hearing at 7:30 P.M. in .the Office Meeting Room. Mr. S~lemme seconded and the vote was unanimous. APPLEDO~E - PARTTAT. RELEASE: Victor Harem was 'not p~sent 'So Ben Osgood spoke for the request. The letters from Victor H~tem dated Jan. 30, 1975 and the Highway Surveyor, d~ted Feb. 2, 1976 were read by the Chairman. The H/ghway Surveyor recommended that $20,000 be removed from the bond for work that has been completed. Both letters are on file. Mr. Lamprey made a motion to release $20,000 for workdone to date accord- ing to the Highway Surveyor's letter. Mr. Salemme seconded amd the .vote .was unanimous. S~T,k~ FOREST - COVENANT: Mr. Farr had to re~ll out the form as the date on the .plans was incorrect; also, the covenant needs the signature of the banker. A motion was made by Mr. Lamprey to accept the covenant on Salem Forest (Granville Lane), plans ~%ed Sept. 17, 1975 subject to approval by the bank. Mr. Saleratus secdnded and the vote ~imous. BOARD OF APPEALS LEGAL NOTICE: Merrimme Valley Medical Center - They are changing ~he original plot plan which was submitted by C, Lincoln Giles for a hearing o~Mar. 28, 1974. Atty. John ~. Willis, Sr., brought out the fact that .their application states it is a modi'ffication of an existing approved plot plan. He did not feel that they need a special and that this is a new petition. Mr. Chepulis commented that w~her it is a new permit, a special permit or any permit at all is strictly in the purview of ~he Board of Appeals. Mr. Willis said heunders~oodth~t But wanted to Mnow what NING BOARD's concern would be if they were presented with such a plan. Mr. Chepulis answered that whether or not the use is in conflict with the surrounding area and the access would be two main concerns. Traffic w~s discussed and the fine point of who decides what is a serious hazard. Mr. Cyr mentioned the drainage and Mr. Lamprey sug- gested that Mr. Cyr attend the Board of Appeals hearing to voice hisconcern. Mr. Foster stated'that the Board of Appeals can get into that area in their special permit procedure. Mr. Willis said that it seemed that the BOAPd) would not be taking a Posi- tion on any of these and the report that was made last time will be the same repor~ made this time. Mr. Lamprey suggested that the BOARD send a representative.~o the Board of Appeals meeting. He then made a motion to send a letter to ~he Beard of Appeals advising that we will be in attendance at the public hearing, and will made any comments or answerquestious at that time. Mr. Salemme seconded and the vote was unanimo~s.. 3 EONINGARTICLESFORTOWNWARRANT: The BOARD felt they should prepare the wording for'the article that was dented by t~e Selectmen so that they may open the Warrant and submit it. The intent cf this article is ta modify the section on the keeping of animals. The feeling of the members was to act on this as soon as possible so as not to jeapardize its inclusion in the Town Warrant. The Building Inspector brought it to the BOAi~'S attention that they may want to include this section in the apartment district and in some of the Business areas. Mr. Lamprey commented that the main feeling is that .as long as the land is owned or leased or rented it should be avail-table to the a~mal, .This involves changing the word "lot". Mr. Foster felt that we are much more restrictive in our acrea~ requirement than other towns, and he said further that he would rather.see the acreage lowered But the c~rraling subject to the normal setbacks. Mr. Foster stated that we are really talking about 1 acre per animal until you get to 10 and felt that 3 acres for one Feb. 2, 1976 - cont.. animal ~atunreallstlc bec~uae the whd~e, thing is set up for one acr~ per animal. Mr, Chep~i~ thought ~h~t this might'm~ke a,steckyard out of one acre ef 1.an'd. Mr. Fester s~ggeeted. ~educing the recpAirement to'2 acres and then., ~with. ~ special ~ermit,te go to . 1 acre with 'the neighbors being"notifi~dj H~rold GrmVe~ breu~t, out 'the fact that a ch~ge shOUld be made .regar~lng ,...persons in residen~e, on .su6h ~ot'!. ' Mm.. Lamprey made a me,ion ~t~ting ithe Droposed,. change ~s follJws:, "on. m~y parcel[ of land 'either in single ownership 'or in cOm~ination with adjacent land..'? amd '"an~ for each additional acre of said p~r. cel size..;M, "~...bird~." Mr. Salemme.secqnded and ~he vote w~s unanimOUs. [The wording of this article..was 'cha~ged ~pon Town ~eun~el~W =ec6mmenda~io~. Ail members were in agreement., The ar~i'cl~ is .as .foll6ws: "On s~y~ar~el,of 'lmnd of~at least three (3) acres'owneg o~ lawTUlly.occupi~d and'.~used by.a singIe pe~son, en~i2[, or .grou~ of persOms, the keeping .of a total of n0~ more than thr~e ,(,3~ ,f a~y. ki~d o~ 'assortment of animals or birds in addition to' the h~useho[d pe~s of ~ fam~ty living.on such 'parcel, and fo= each .additional ~cre o£ said par~ce!, size to nine (9.)'.acres the keep£ng of one .additional .animal Or bird~'"] . 2. Z-S District Sec. 4.~'32' J -Th~ BC~ decided to. leav~ ~h8 ~resent. Wording un~il the public hearing. '" 3.~ Home Occupations - the BO~ di$cue~ed s~yin~ "prinqiple-~eaidemt, rather than "owner". Mr. Lamprey made a motion to word the article asffollo~g:. Wdwellin~uch home occupations shall 'be carried on by not mo~e..than t~re~ persons,-one of"~h~ shall he'the owner of the home occupation and..residing in such d~elling." Mr. 8ale~me s~co~d and ~He 'vote 'was unanimous. - , · Letter f~om C.. W.. Trembly., Esq.- dated ~eb. 2, t976 regard'ing .zoo. lng article for Francis Trembly w~s read and is'on £1.1e for .public hearing Letter from .Select~nen Re Gr~lth P$1icy Committee Appointm~n'ts"waS read and is on File, 'Cop~ of letter ~rom Philip Busby~ Sr. tO E.Q.E. 'Re G~eenwoodAssoc.. was read and is on file. H~ requested being ~ ~a~ty to.the appeal.of %he. Co~. Co~ OrderS. Mr. d~Athrie told the BOAP~ that.the .'Selectmen have decided' to go, for a 'declarator~ judgment and are ~equesting each'Boa~d to come up"with a reoomm~ndati6n for.counsel to represent %hem.. Mr. Chepu~is st~t~d.tha% he ~h~d gone befor& the'~electmen and als6 contacted Julian D'Agostine, Ne 'spoke wi~h Mr~ D'Agostine's partner *ho'co~veyed that, ~if there was no conflict of the Firm representing a~o%h~r party in.the Town,. they.would, be willing to represent the PLANNING BOARD.: The BOARD chose to gtay .~ith MrJ. D'Ag0st'ine and to submit D'Agostine's name to the,Selectmen. Mr. Ohepulis reported t,:th~'BOARD that we. were out Dy' th~ AdV~S~O~ Boa~-'on"conference and,mileage to $200: and,printing ~orms t~ $100. ' ' '' MISCELLA ~.~dS MATTERS: League of.Women'Voters need the P~ANNING BOARD'S',approval".of,this Natural P~ource~ Inventory in writing, if posSible. They ~ould ~lso AlEe the',BOARD'to.appoint a member to attend-the'nex~ meeting of the' Conservation s~aff,,,.Mr. '. S~le~me. volunteered t6 be the repreeentm%ive at the'meeting. The BOARD approved'.i Meeting adjourned at 12 midnight. Chairman ~Gilda Blackst ock)