Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-05-05 Correspondence DEF SUB ARNOLD H. SAL.ISBURY, TOWN COUNSEL, TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS C04TRAL 13UILDINO LAW RENCE, MASSACHUSETTS MUROOCK 3.2731 November 7, 1975 William Chepulis, Chairman North Andover Planning Board Town Office Building North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Re: Canterbur Villa e Townhouse Com lex Dear Bill: This letter is in belated answer to your inquiry to me by your latter dated, October 22, 1975. I gather from that letter that, prior to the zoning change elim- inating townhouses in the Residence 4 District, the applicant filed with your Board a plan under G.Z. c.41 , s.81P, which was duly en- dorsed as not requiring approval under the subdivision control law. This apparently took place during the month of November, 1972. It is my Further understanding that, shortly thereafter, the Town voted to amend its Zoning By-Law to prohibit the use of Residence 4 areas for townhouse complexes, and that thereafter the applicant filed with your Board another plan, under said s.81P, which your Board refused to endorse. An appeal from the .Board' s decision on this matter is presently pending before the Superior Court. Thereafter, it is my understanding that in May, 1975, your Board did approve a Definitive Subdivision Plan submitted by the applicant showing a proposed townhouse complex. You appear to inquire what period of time the applicant has with- in which to commence his proposed development. I must respectfully refuse to answer this question.; this is a matter for his attorney to determine for him, and actually your Board has no present official interest in the answer. I do not wash to be placed in the position of volunteering a legal opinion on this matter when the applicant has employed and should rely upon the advice of his own attorney. i I do, however, call your Board' s attention to the provisions of / G.D. c.40A, s.7A, which provides that when a, plan referred to in sai s.81P has been submitted to your Board "the use of the land shown oz� such. plan shall be governed by the applicable provisions of the zo . . . .by-law in effect at the time of the submission of such plan w i r } } William Chepulis, Chairman Page 2 November 7, 1975 such plan is being processed. under the subdivision control law in- eluding the time required to pursue or await the determination of an appeal referred to in said (s.81P) . . . .and for a period of three years from the date of endorsement by the planning board that approval under the subdivision control law is not required" . Since such an appeal is presently pending before the Superior Court the use of the land in question would seem to be "Locked in" until the final judicial deter- mination of that appeal. if that determination should not be made for four or five year, after the original submission of the first plan to, your Board, the "locked in" period might -well. last for 'that length of time. Should a determination of the appeal be made prior to the expiration of three years from the date of endorsement by your Board, 1 seriously question that the "locked in" use of the land would continue for more than three years. from the date of your Board's origi,xaal endorsement that the approval of the plan was not required under the subdivision control. law. In other words, it may well be that the :law is that the "kicked in" period is the longer of two periods of time: 1) the term of -three years from the time of your Board' s en- dorsement . of the plan or 2) the date upon which the final determination of the appeal has been mRde by the Court. However, l are not sure of this conclusion, and neither, T might add, is the Principal. Planner for the State Department of Community Affairs with whom T have discussed this question at some length. `J.'he principal question which your letter presents is not of any official interest, to ,your Board, whose functions with reference to the subject plan have come to an end. The person who is most in- terested in the answer to this question is, of course, the appinica.nt, and., as stated above, 1 do not feel that it is any part of my function as `.down Counsel to give him any legal, advice cone-erni.ng this matter. This is a matter concerning which he should rely upon. the advice of his own. counsel,. Of course, -the building Inspector may eventually have an interest in, connection with the time within which he may properly issue build- ing permits ,for the proposed townhouse development, but l cannot pre- sently give hire any more definite advice concerning this matter than what l have stated above. Besides which, as at this date, it is ray understanding that no application for any building permit has been wade to him, so that his present interest in -the problem i,s, in a. very real sense, hypothetical. if and when such an application is made to hi.m', and he seeks my advice, as to his duties concerning it, l would, of course give it to him: it might well be that l would, at that point, recommend to him that, since the present Zoning By-Law 1 does not permit townhouse complexes in the H-4- District, he refuse to issue any permit, leaving it to the applicant to seek a judicial determination of ' the 'then existing question, and leaving the burden (where it belongs) upon the applicant to convince a Court that his use of his land is, indeed, "looked in" under said. s.7A. Very truly yours, 'down Counsel. AHS/cc cc-, The Building Inspector Victor L. Hatem, Esquire 1 1 ARNOLD H. SALISBURY, TOWN COUNSEL ' TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS CENTRAL BUILPIN9 L.AWF21 NCE, MASSACHUSETTS < MURDOCK 3.2731 October 27, 1975 William Chepulis, Chairman North Andover Planning Board Town Office Building North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Re; ' Canterbury Villa e Townhouse Subdivision Dear Bill: I have your letter to me dated October 22, 1975. :I gather from it that, prior to the zoning change elimin— ating townhouses in the Residence 4 District, the applicant filed with you a plan under G.L. c.41 , s.81P, which your Board endorsed as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. As you ]snow, the filing of such a plan, and the subsequent endorsement by your Board, "locked in" the use of the land as permitted by the By-- Law in effect at the time of the su=ssion of the plan, for a period of three years. G.L. c.40A, s.7A. I gather further, that within that three year period the applicant filed with you a definitive subdivision plan which was ap— proved by your Board. This procedure seems to have been wholly pro- per since. the applicant had the right, during the initial three year period, to rely upon the provisions of the Zoning By—Law in effect at the time of the filing of his first plan. Accordingly, upon the approval of the definitive plan, he obtained the right to use the land for townhouse purposes for an additional period of seven years, commencing as of the date of your Board' s approval of that plan. I do not presentl read Bellows Farms Inc . v. Building inspector of Acton, 303 N.E. (2d 728 { 1 3 , as requiring any other conclusion. If I am in error in any of the above stated assumptions, please let me know. Otherwise, I should suppose that this letter would constitute a sufficient answer to your question. Very t1„,t'� y__r.our`s, C"L�c Town Counsel AHS/cc s October 22, 1975 .Arnold H, tc sbiu7j North Andove kTown Cawanel .� PurDuant to our recent c oa wtion regard time l.:l.r�ito ref' protective statutory regulationq thePl.oanin.ge; c A roopectful' �requoptp your opinion on the follovwl - Wien ':s, 00`'i itiv lr_-,Tid. (J-0.1y "lignea by tho Dwxx',^cl�.eA'd t' � efinit i've an My boon. apprtf'Vesl.y whr c, in W b'l...l;, .l_;i,1n:i"T ro; > PU tit3ia 1_ d tuner begin z If a zoom£, change hakes place between the Wb- s: tad above y which time limit govornng the 3 year limit for1..nct;�T, -tbe .-°E�� in and the existing regulations at that time~ or the 7 yea imit foraction an the definitive? �WA N �. . w,w The specific woo in uestionicCanterbury Village wxa �tohro subdivision wan zppxry u e , t a�� o , I would appreoiato ;y,00r aw-wer In time for our November 8, 1975 meeting- 5000roly yGn:x O7 PLA'ClNl M11 ROAM) Villiam Chopplirst Chairnar. LAC a tgb � P � P fv 4 0',�/Lf�ii11� � Q.��/(�°/ �t�!/ �t✓�`Y(�L�`'�?�r �'G,-'f t,�f' /Gp.. vwz ' 19 I�2;4 r —14 f G r ¢ r �1 Y ) elll,-7� IV i We 1 e WillE- ZVI, ",m-va LI? t WO i FRANK C . GELINAS REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR NORTH ANDOVER OFFICE PARK 451 ANDOVER STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASS. 01845 TELEPHONE687.1403 May 5, 1975 North Andover Planning Board Subcommittee for Subdivision Town Hall North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Attention: Messrs. Lamprey and Ostherr RE: Canterbury Village Dear Messrs. Lamprey and Ostherr: After meeting with your Subcommittee on two occasions, together with input received at the public hearing held on April 29, my client, Franklin S. Davis, has asked me to document our position with respect to the traffic flow in and out of Canterbury Village. Historically, we have recommended that Canterbury Lane terminate at a cul-de-sac approximately 125 feet southwest of the present intersection of Leyden and Jefferson Streets. Additionally, we proposed that northeast Cotuit Street have a two-way flow of traffic with a restricted left-hand turn onto Chickering Road. Access from Chickering Road onto northeast Cotuit Street was recommended as right-hand turn only. Brewster Street would have two-way traffic flow and an unrestricted traffic intersection with Peter Street. During the course of preliminary plan review, the Planning Board re- quested that Canterbury bane be extended beyond our property to join with Leyden Street to allow for an additional emergency entrance into Canterbury Village. We complied with this request; subject to the cul-de-sac remaining and placing a one-way restriction on that portion of the Lane northeasterly from the cul-de-sac to the existing Leyden Street. The Planning Board agreed to our leaving the cul-de-sac intact but withheld affirmative action on the one-way restriction pending further study. u ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING e STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING a CIVIL ENGINEERING a PROPERTY ANU TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEYING } I li North Andover Planning Board Messrs. Lamprey and Ostherr -2- May 5, 1975 i 1 All available testimony heard at the public hearing has tended to j support our request that Canterbury Village be independent of Leyden and Jefferson Streets. Therefore, I am again outlining our position. Our first line recommendation remains as stated in our preliminary plan submittal, i.e. : A. That Canterbury Lane terminate as a cul-de-sac approximately 125 feet southwest of the present intersection of Leyden and Jefferson Street. E B. The northeast Cotuit Street have a two-way flow of traffic with a no left-hand turn onto Chickering Road. C. Access from Chickering Road onto northeast Cotuit Street would be a right-hand turn only. D. Brewster Street would also have two--way traffic flow and would have an unrestricted traffic intersection with Peter Street. Should the Planning Board require a third emergency entry into Can- terbury Village, we would be willing to compromise our position by constructing the 125 foot portion of Canterbury Lane from its cul-de-sac terminus to the intersection of Leyden and Jefferson Streets with the restriction that that portion of the roadway would have a one-way north- easterly direction of travel. It is also our recommendation that those portions of Cotuit Street shown on our definitive plan within the proposed subdivision property lines be re-named Canterbury Lane to facilitate address denotation with respect to our locus versus other uncontiguous portion of Cotuit Street. Very truly yours , C.� Frank C. Gelinas , R.P.E. FCG:jl CLERK ) ARTHUR R. DRUMMOND, PHILIP A. BUSBY, JR. CHAIRMAN RAYMOND J. CANTY, d TOWN OF NORTH AN©OVER, MASS. MY 0'04 A RM70 •; BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS /y'yy+•��� �°��'` WATER, SEWER, PARK, PLAYGROUND AND SCHOOL GROUNDS DEPARTMENTS Y Y SVPERINTENDKNT AND 6NO1NKER JOSEPH J. BORGES] April 22 , 1975 I Planning Board Town of North Andover North Andover, Mass ® re : Canterbury Village Subdivision Dear Sir: The Board of Public Works has examined the plans for the above named proposed subdivision and find them to be in con- formance with the rules and regulations of this department. Very truly yours , BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS Yo&seph Borgesi, Supt. JJB:lb I i OFFICE OF HIGHWAY SURVEYOR • (�+i AmILIN i; 3 •+ 1868 `• TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 WILLIAM A. CYR TELEPHONE 683-2234 HIGHWAY SURVEYOR c i I i April 18, 1975 Mr. William Chepulis, Chairman Planning Board 120 Main Street North Andover, Mass. I Re: Canterbury Village Dear Bill: l have gone over the definitive plan for -the above develppment and recommend the following: 1. Use a 3011 pipe instead of the 2411 pipe presently shown on the plan. Where is a 3011 pipe coming under Chickering Rd. now and the poor drainage conditions we have at this time in the Franklin School area and the necessity of improving these conditions in the future, prompts me to feel that to reduce this pipe to a 2411 pipe down stream would restrict this drainage course and the needs of our future drainage projects. This water course is one of -the Town's major drainage run-offs and Z feel it is very important to protect it, as such. 2. Drainage entering the main drain line at grade 165 to be directed as not to interfere with the normal flow of Water through the main drain line. 3. Some of the proposed manholes and catch basins will have to be constructed of a, poured in place type box or basin to accomodate the size and number of pipe running through them. 4. Easements of all off street drainage courses to be deeded to the Town of North Andover. 5. All. work to conform with the New Subdivision Mules and Regulations. �] jVery,(truly yours, William A. Cyr, � Highway Surveyor i t y CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOW IT ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 0184E byO AA yY O4r�Pe.:PP.��YY i 3$•�x�w� rro9 F: AnPMW y�9Y9Y V,�4 i April 91 1975 North Andover Planning Board Town Building North Andover, Massachusetts I M1 : Definitive Plans Canterbury Village, Cotuit St., North Andover Applicant: Franklin S. Davis, Date: March 81 1975 i Dear Sirs: After an on—site inspection and review of the above—listed plans, it has been determined that the Canterbury Village locus falls within -the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act. The firing of a Notice of Intent under the provisions of said Act will be necessary after subdivision approval has been obtained. Very truly yours, CONSERVATION COMMISSION Mrs. Patricia C. Trombly, Chairperson PCT:gb oc: I1`rankl.in Davis Main Street No. Reading, I�as FORM L REFERRAL FORM Definitive Plana Subdivision; CANTBRBURY VILLAGE North Andover# Massachusetts Applicant: Franklin S. Davis Pdarch al 1997, Highway Surveyor /3'L/75 Supt. of Public Works Conservation Commission Building Inspector Fire Chief " Police Chief Tree Warden . ____ Subdivision Control Subcommittee lrtf. BOARD OF IrEALI'Ii The attached NNUMffAffiWdefinitive plaits were submitted to the Planning Board on March 17, 1 A public hearing has been scheduled .for S: 0 P.M. on _.JpX�1_2?__._ 1925 to discuss these plans. May we have your comments and recommendations concerning this subdivision by no later than April 7 ._s975 Please return this plan & form with your comments and recommendations. Thank you# Gi lda Blackstook Clerk# PLANNING BOARD } FaRM L REFERRAL FORM Definitive Plans Stabdivisiow CAtiT IAJRY VILLAGE North Andover, Massachusetts .Appliomta Frw*lin S. Davis 1997 Highway Surveyor Supt. of Public Works Conservation Commission Building Inspector " Fire Chief " X Police Chief Tree Warden " Subdivision Control Subcommittee " The attached plans were submitted to the Planning Board on Phroh. 17. 1979 A public hearing has been scheduled for P.M. on �Aarij 22{ jg2r, to discuss these plans. May we have your comments and recommendations concerning this subdivision by no later than 12ril ._LP omg Please return this Plan & form with your comments and recommendations. Thank you' Gilda Blackutock Clerk' PLANNING BOARD 1/717,S-- 1 1 BOAR© OF HEALTH Julius Kay, M.D., Chairman NoRrH ANDOVER yQ�yoRT,y s,r R. George Caron MASSACHUSETIS ;�2,•�`oeeo 1r40 �D dward J. Scanlon 018a5 E F* Apfm717 E tt�p F Rk hYt��YryY�4 TEL. 682-6400 March 28, 1975 i Mr. William Chepulis, Chairman Re: Canterbury Village No.Andover Planning Board Sub-Division No.Andover, Mass. Dear Mr. Chepulis: After reviewing the plans .for the above-mentioned sub-division, the Board of Health defers approval to the Board of Public Works due to the fact that this will be on public sewerage system. Very truly y urs, /a]l Ida , M. D. an Jk,raj jb- V S�