HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - Exception (422)Mr. Rowen stated that we have had 3 traffic people say that the road should not be widened and
that people would speed up if it was widened and that's not what we want.
Mr. Mahoney stated that he agrees.
Mr. Shaheen stated that the applicant might contribute to the cost of the road. Mr. Shaheen
stated that we are willing to do extra to get the approval.
Jim Mcartney stated that the City of Haverhill has approved to widen Rt. 125 and they don't have
a concern with speeding. Mr. Mcartney also state that he would like the North Andover Police
Department to write a_ letter stating that it is legal for people to pass over the white line. Also he
would like it put in the decision that if the owner of the in*. goes belly up that someone has to
maintain the drainage system.
Mr. Nardella stated that there will be a bond to ensure that you would be protected.
Mark Johnson, representing Heritage Estates, disagrees with Mr. Mahoney. In section 8.3 1 A,
the purpose of it is to protect the health and safety of the residents and people. This is a site
which has a building as big as you can get on the site. The drainage is not easy to get to and if it
fails the Heritage Green people will be the only ones who will get hurt. The building is so big
they can't even put a detention pond on the site so it is underneath. The traffic configuration is
nolgood for any of the residents. Mr. Johnson stated that_his biggest concern is the statement
"we have met all requirements so you have to approve it".
Mr. Rowen stated that he shares concerns with the drainage but it would have been fool proof if
Heritage green tie into their sewer.
Jim Mcartney stated that in response to Mr. Rowen's comment, would you like it if someone used
access on your driveway. It is private property.
Mr. Rowen stated that my point was that they denied them to tie into the sewer so they will have
to live with what happens.
Elvira Curcio, 23 Edgelawn passed out packets to the Board members.
Mr. Shaheen stated that he is looking for them to accept the site plan review and close the public
hearing.
On a motion by Mr. Nardella, seconded by Mr. Rowen the Board voted 4-1 to close the public
hearing.
On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Angles, the Board voted 4-1 to direct staff to draft
a decision.
The Board agreed to set the bond for 200 Chickering Road for $25,000.
On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Mahoney the Board voted 3-2 to approve 20C
Chickering Road site plan review, the site plan review was denied due to the fact you need 4
votes.
Mr. Nardella asked if the applicant would like to know why they denied it. Mr. Shaheen stated
that he thought the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Nardella stated that the applicant should
come back to resolve the issues of public safety and traffic issues. Mr. Nardella stated that there
is an open door for further reconsideration.
Ms. Lescarbeau stated that she does not concur with items a&3 of the decision. Ms. Lescarbeau
stated that it that it is not an appropriate location, the building is not appropriate and it is a safety
hazard to the town and area. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that she does not feel that she can be
persuaded.
Mr. Shaheen stated that if it meets the bylaws then the permit must be granted, that's what the
law says.
Mr. Mahoney stated that they have followed the laws and statute. Mr. Mahoney feels that we
have no right not to grant this. In his view the applicant has done everything they were supposed
to do.
Attached are the conditions.
Sincerely,
Richard S. Rowen, Chairman
North Andover Planning Board