Loading...
1984-03-19March 19, 1984 Regular Meeting The PLA~I~G BOARD held a regular meeting on Monday evening, March 19, 1984 at 7550 p.m. in the Town Office Meeting room with the follUwing!members present and voting: Michael P. Roberts, Vice Chairman, who arrived late; John A. James, Jr., Esq., Cl~rk; John J. Burke; and Erich W. Nitzsche. Town Planner Karen H. Pomroy and Highway Surveyor William A. Cyr were also present. PI~I~S NO~ P.I~UIIII~ APPROVAI~ Romano, Ernest and Antoinetta- Summer/Rea Streets Division of land into two lots. MOTION: by Mr. Burke that the plan of land located in North Andover, Mass. prepared for Ernest and Antoinetta Romano, dated 11/11/82, be approved under Subdivision Control' Law Not Required. SECOND: by Mr. James VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Furnari, Frank and Theresa - Mass. Avenue MOTION: by Mr. Burke that the plan of land located in North Andover, Mass. prepared for Frank and Theresa Furnari, dated 2/11/84, be approved under Subdivision Control' Law Not Required. SECOND: by Mr. James VOTE : Unanimous - motion c~rries. ! Estate of Richard Redman - Lacy/Forest Streets MOTION: by Mr. Burke that the plan of land located in North Andover, Mass. prepared for the Estate of Richard Redman dated 6/15/83 be approved under Subdivision Control' Law Not Required. SECOND: by Mr. James The Highway Surveyor stated that he wants the road widened. Lacy Street is bad. He would like to see an easement on the plan. The attorney present at the meeting stated that he would have to consult with his client. March 19, 1984 -2- Regular Meeting VOTE z Unanimous - motion carries. Note: Another Form A voted on at end of meeting. OTN~R BUSINESS Bear Hill' Road - LOt 2 - Not in Compliance with Special' Permit Mr. William MacLeod of Andover Consultants, Inc~ was present and stated the following: - The last time this lot was discussed, he stated that IEP was involved. - They mapped a plan which he submitted to the Board. - The Building Inspector made a determination. (There is a letter on file.) The dwelling is further away from the wetlands. Lot 1 as submitted is just outside the 100 foot buffer line from the wetland. It may be that a revised plan will be submitted or they may cOnstruct as is. The construction on Lot 2 is outside the jurisdiction of the Special'~ Permit requirements. The Special-Permits are recOrded. To clear the title, a letter from the Building Inspector will have to be recorded . MOTION: SECONDz by Mr. Burke that for Lot 2, Bear HilI Road, the Planning Board agrees with the Building Inspector and the Planning Board has no jurisdiction over Lot 2 as the configuration shows. by Mr. James. VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Dale Street - Lot 1 - Commencement of Construction One of the conditions of approval~ stated that no construction will' oc~r before 3/15/84 with Planning Board approval. Member Nitzsche stated that he would like to see the date extended at leas~ 30 days. March 19, 1984 -3- Regular Meeting MOTION: by Mr. Burke to extend the commencement date of construction of Lot 1, Dale Street to 4/15/84 to be approved by the Planning Board on 4/2/84. SECOND: by Mr. James DevelOper Zachary Al~xanian stated that this date is O.K. with him. Member Nitzsche stated that if weather conditions are not good on 4/15/84 he would like to extend the date again. Highway Surveyor Cyr added that he wants a driveway entry permit taken out before starting. VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Forest Estates - Request to extend completion date and covenant Attorney Peter McQuillMn was present and informed the Board that the Board's decision and the covenant for this subdivision were recorded with the Registery of Deeds and he wilIT provide a copy. The subdivision was approved a few years ago but work never began. Mr. Michael~ Rosati of the Board of Heal'th stated that 8 or 9 l~ts wil~ have to be re-perked. He is asking to re-instate the cbvenant for the installation of utilities. Town Planner Karen Pomroy suggested that the Board may wish to modify their approval'. The Board pl~c~d the matter on the agenda for 4/2/84 for review by the Chairman sinc~ there is a possibility that another public' hearing may be required. Coolidge Construction - Preliminary Plan Submittal The following letters were read and placed on file: Highway Surveyor (3/19/84) Conservation Commission (3/15/84) Board of Public' Works {3/5/84) Board of Heal'th (3/9/84) Steve Stapinski, project engineer, made the following presentation: - There is a leaching pit that is located over on to Lot 2 (he thinks). - The system was instalT~d a number of years ago. March 19, 1984 -4- Regular Meeting They are aware of the fact that another leaching pit will? have to be added. On the water main, he doesn't think there is any problem re-lOcating it. On drainage, it is their proposal to install' drainage at the iow point to Great Pond Road and discharge it into the existing low area which is holding water from the entire area and utilize the front area as a retention type pond. The drainage runs across the site. They are willing to grant a drainage easement across Lot 1. There is a house under construction and the septic system was in- stalled at least two years ago. The septic system was installed and the foundation was never c~mpleted. - They did perc~ tests and test pits on the remaining lots and a test hole on the home and the soil~ was acceptable for septic'systems. - The lot llne was staked and it appears there will'be no problem meeting the setbacks from the ditches. He won't know until-they finish. Member Nitzsche said there is a brook which does not show on the plan. There is a ditch which the Conservation Commission and the Board of Health will-have to look at. There appears to be a lot of of algae in the water flow and the Board of Health may be concerned. Mr. Stapinski added that the property line is NOT the edge of the trees. It is deceiving. Town Planner Karen Pomroy asked about access to the Burns property for future development. Mr. Stapinksi responded that if'the Burns property were to be developed, the access would be from Great Pond Road. The provision for access through a deeded right-of-way from the Burns property would make the subdivision unfeasible. There is exactly one acre per lot with the roadway with the lot making up the rest of the land. They could NOT dedicate a right-of-way, but they could have an easement. Highway Surveyor William Cyr added that there wilT'be no drainage considered on Great Pond Road until' he sees a plan. Al~o, if the Planning Board is going to cbnsider approving a plan l~ke this it wilI'be a sad day. This type of development will~ ruin the town because the town cannot afford to service the development. The proper connection for development in this area is c~ucial'. The shortness of the street and the pork chop lots are trouble. The culdesac~ should be a minimum of 500 feet. March 19, 1984 -5- Regular Meetiing Member Nitzsche asked Mr. Cyr about the catch basins and what hiis position is and Mr. Cyr responded that it will'drain into the brook. They wilT'be controlled by town drainage. The reasons he mentions drainage is that one of the lots has a very long driveway. Drainage should be intercepted at the driveways. Al~o, we should get the required radius according tol the Rules and Regulations. i Mr. Stapinski said he would like to come up with some sketches o~ how the Burns property could be developed, but the Burns are not interested in talking to them. Mr. Stapinski al~o stated that he would grant the Board an extension for rendering a decision on this preliminary plan. Note: Vice Chairman Roberts arrived here. Daniel' - Spec~ial~ Permit ' Watershed District -Lot 1_____~0 Johnson Circle The Cl~rk read the legal~ notice. The following letters were read and plac~d on file: Board of Health (3/9/84) and Building Inspeckor (no date - stated "No objection"). Attorney James Glynn made the following presentation: The Special' Permit is required to gain driveway access to a proposed new dwelITng. Mr. Kindred is the prospective purchaser. The Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission was~ submitted with a Site Development Plan. Mr. Kindred has petitioned the Board of AppealB for a varianc~ to remove three (3) trees within 25 feet of a tributary. The Board took the petition under advisement. The construction wilI'come within 100 feet of the brook. is within 90 feet, not including the septic'system and the sewer l~ne. The dwelling cannot be moved. The sewer l~ne and septic' still' be within 100 feet. It is a wetland - the topography of the lot requires that the house be where it is shown on the plHn. March 19, 1984 -6- Regular Meeting - The Conservation Commission checked the flagging. It was staked out, but it may not still'be. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. MOTION: by Mr. James to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Burke The Board asked the petitioner to stake out the house and c~nterline of the driveway. VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. DECISIONS Robert Forget - Special' Permit - Watershed - Lots 3 and 4 Sal~'m Street/ Marbleridge Road MOTION: by Mr. Nitzsche to grant the Spec~all Permit for Lots 3 and 4, Salem Street/Marbleridge Road subject to the following conditions: SECOND: by Mr. James VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Note: The declsion is made part of these minutes. Designer Homes- Special'Permits _ Lots 4, 5, and 6 - Bear Hill' Rd. - Watershed District Bill'MacLeod, engineer, stated that the Spec~al~'Permits are no longer needed and that the applicant wishes to withdraw the petitions without prejudice. He added that under the current Zoning By Law, the construction of the houses are not required to have Special' Permits. Member Nitzsche stated that the Building Inspector must make a determi- nation and that he wants it in writing. MOTION: by Mr. James to permit the applicant to withdraw the petitions without prejudice subject to the condition that a l~tter from the Building Inspector is received stating that the lots are not required to have Special Permits. SECOND: by Mr. Nitzsche VOTE : Unanimous - motion c~rries. March 19, 1984 -7- Regular Meeting The Board will' review the matter on April' 2, 1984. Mr. MacLeod stated that if the Building Inspector has not submitted a letter by that date the applicant will'grant the Board an extension. OT~R~ BUSINESS Kara Drive - Drainage Design Member James abstained and left the meeting temporarily. A letter from Mr. Al'Shaboo, project engineer, dated 3/19/84, was read and placed on file. Mr. Shaboo was present and made the following comments: - The subdivision was designed acCOrding to the Rules and RegUlations regarding manholes, etc~ - When the decision was rendered, Mr. Hedstrom added condition %20 that stated manholes can be used only at angle points. - He is seeking relTef from that condition. - It is not that his client is trying to get out of something - it is more that they are concerned with responsibilTty and liabilTty cOn- cerning the things that Dr. MuelI~r spoke of. MOTION: by Mr. Nitzsche that the Planning Board reiterate the Rules and RegUlations regarding the design of the street drainage and require what is in the Rules and Regulations based upon Mr. Shaboo's discussions and his back-up with Dr. Mueller of the University of LowelT.' No second - motion failS. Highway Surveyor WillTam Cyr stated that we don't need a letter from Dr. Mueller to tell-us how to construct drainage systems in North Andover. Erich is a great advocate of this type of connection. The Highway Department is responsibl~ for the drainage and we have lived with his type of drainage and it is more maintenance free and eco- nomically feasible for the developers and it does not cause a problem in the winter with plowing. They protrude and they are a problem to his department. He understands the theories of Dr. Muell~r but when you weigh the benefits he wants the drainage as it has been in the past. Member Nitzsche agreed that they are maintenance free but they end up being somebody else's headache. By el%minating the catch basins you push everything down stream. If they are constructed properly, you won't have a problem with the plows. March 19, 1984 -8- Regular Meeting Mr. Shaboo added that the problem is that condition ~20 and the Rules and Regs don't agree. He needs relief from one of them. Mr. Cyr added that we have a very active catch basin cleaning program. Most of them are done annually. MOTION: By Mr. Burke that the Order of Conditions stand and the drainage is up to the Highway Surveyor. SECOND= by Mr. Roberts VOTE : In favor - 2 (Burke, Roberts) Opposed - 1 (Nitzsche) Motion carries. Note: Member James returned to the meeting. Simon Parcel~- DiscUssion with John Tuttlm Mr. Tuttl~ was not present - placed on agenda for 4/2/84. Adjudicatin of Town Streets A l~tter from the Board of Selectmen was read. MOTION: by Mr. James to forward a letter to the Selectmen supporting the l~st of streets. SECOND: by Mr. Burke VOTE : Unanimous - motion c~rries. RE-ORGANIZATION Chairman: MOTION: by Mr. Nitzsche to elect Mr. Hedstrom as Chairman SECOND: by Mr. James VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Note: Mr. Hedstrom called during re-organization and accepted the nomination for chairman. March 19, 1984 -9- Regular Meeting MOTION: SECOND: VOTE : Clerk: Vice-Chairman: by Mr. Burke to elect Mr. Roberts as vice Chairman by Mr. James Unanimous - motion carries. MOTIONz SECOND: VOTE : by Mr. Nitzsche to elect Mr. James as Clerk. By ~lr. Burke Unanimous - motion carries. PLAN NOT RE~UIRrN~ APPROVAL . Burke abstained. Bridges Lane - Ralph CiardellO MOTION: by Mr. James that the plan of land located in North Andover, Mass. prepared for J. Burke and R. Ciardello, dated March 16, 1984, be approved under Subdivision Control'Law Not Required. SECOND: by Mr. Roberts VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Special Meeting scheduled for April' 12, 1984 for the public~ hearings for zoning changes. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Michael' P. Roberts, Vice Chairman Jean E. White, Secretary TOWN' 0~' NORTI~[ AN'DO¥~R Any appear shall be filed within (20] days after the date of filing of this Notice in the Office of the Town Clerk. ~arch 20, 1984 Mr. Daniel'Long, Town Clerk Town Office Building North Andover, Ma. 01845 RE: Robert Forget - Special~ Permit for ~ts Street/!.{arbl%ridge Road - ¥~atershed District 3 and 4 Salem Dear Mr. Long: The Plhnning Board held a publlc' hearing on Monday evening, February 27, 1984 in the Town Oific% Meeting Room upon the application of Robert Forget, 280 Salem Street, North Andover. The hearing was duly advertised in the North ~dover Citizen on February 2 and 9, 1984. All' abutters were notified by mail~ in accbrdance with M.G.L., Chapter 40A, Sec~.:9.! The follbwing Plhnning Board members ~. v;ere present: Michael~ p. Roberts, Vic~ chairman; John J. James, JrX¥ Clerk; John J. Burke; and Erich W. Nitzsche. '~]e petitioner seeks a Special-Permit under Sec%ion 4.133(d) of the zon[ng bylaw which requires a Special' Permit to allow construction within 100 feet horizontally from the edge of all~ tribuharies of Lake Cochichewick. The premises is known as Lot 3, lOchted on the west side of Harbl~ridge Road having a total~ area of 33,296 s.f. and 298.38 feet of fronhage; and-Lot 4 located on the north side of Salem Street with 28,399 s.f. of area with 353.30 feet of frontage. Both lots are in the Residential-3 (R-3) and Watershed zoning Dishrict. ~e proposed single family, wood-framed dwellings will'have the following dimensions: LOT FRONT FEET DEEP HT.FT. 3 68 28 <35 4 68 28 <35 At the hearing, the applic'ant testified through his representatives, Mr- Joseph Cushing of Kaminski Assoc'iates, Inc'., and At~:o~ney George Rand, the following: Robert Forget Special Permit for Lots 3 and 4 Salem St./Marbleridge Rd. ~'~'' ~ ~atershed District ~'" March 20, 1984 ii~~ .... i]~ Page 2 -The appl%c~nt is before the Planning Board for the third time regarding the same two lots. ~le engineer has redesigned the shape of the dwellings and has positioned them, along with proposed regrading further away from the tributary. The two previous proposals required the applichnt to seek varianc'~s from the Board of Appeal~ under Section 4.133(c) Watershed Distric~t to install~a sewer l%ne within the 25 foot no cut buffer zone. The Board of Appeals will-not vary the 25 foot buffer req~]irement, thereby rendering the original' plans as non-develOpabl~. -Further~ore, Mr. Cushing stated that there will'be no encYoachment by either building or grading within 30 feet of the 170 foot cbntour (edge of statutory wetland). Haybal~ erosion cbntrol' measures will~ be in place between the proposed construction and E1~. 170, as noted on plans dated 1/6/84, revised 3/1/84. -As a result of this refined plhn and relocation of sewer c~nnec~ion, the environmental' impact of c~ntruclion is significhntly less than that originally proposed under previous petitions. ~[%e fol%owing members were present and voting at the March 19, 1984 meeting when the.Planni]~g Board rendered its decision: Michael P. Roberts, Vic~ Chairman; John A. Ja~es, Jr., Clark; John J. Burke; and Erich W. Nitzsche. Upon a motion made by Mr. Nitzsche and secbnded by Mr. James, the Board voted to grant the Spec~ial Permit requested, subjecl to the following: 1. Only ihhe proposed Work as shown on the plan entitt~d ,Site Plan North Andover, ~a., prepared for Robert Forget' by Richard F. Ka~inski and Associates, Inc., dated 1/6/84, revised 3/1/84 is allowed under this permit. Any minor changes meeting the intent of said pl~%n and determined to have lesser impac't on the wetlhnd trib'~tary must be approved by the Planning Board prior ~o i~ple~'~'~ntation and reflected in ~he final p!lnn. 2. Upon final completion of grading and c%3nstruction, a c-ertified as~built plhn from a Registered Professional' Engineer and/or Registered Land S~lrveyor shall be submitted %o the Planning Board for ~_~v].e~ of co~,~p]ianc% with %he Spec'iai' Permit c~)nditlons. Said c~.rti£ication will' s~%ate that the as--built grading and construction fully ~.~omplles to the approved plan with revisions noted. 3. All construction shall-cbmply with any Conservation Commission Order of Conditions. Robert Forget ~pecial' Permit for Lots 3 and 4 Salem St./Marbleridge Rd. Watershed District March 20, 1984 Page 3 4. No work shall' be permitted at or belbw the 170.0 contour line as it presently exists. 5. No basement floor wilT'be set lower than El'. 172.[~ 6. A driveway entry permit shall~ be obtained from the Highway Surveyor, whereby the applicant shal%- cDnsul% with the Highway Surveyor regarding the location of I~t 4's driveway entrance proxin%ity to the Salem Street/Marbleridge Road intersection. 7. Any departure from said conditions of approval'shall'render this Special Permit null and void. In granting this Special~ Permit, the Planning Board finds, pursuan% 5o Sec%ion 10.31 - Contritions for Approval' of Special' Permits of the Zoning By Law, that t~he following conditions are met: a) Lots 3 (Marbl~ridge Road) and 4 (Sal%m Street) is the approl>riate location for the construction of the proposed singl'e family residential' uses; b) ~e residential use permitted in t]xat zoning district will? not ;;dversely affect the surrounding residential' neighborhood or Watershed, since said p].ans and conditions minimize any impach to the denoted wetland area and brook, and is a cbntinuation of its allowed surrounding residential'uses; c) In co~.tplianc'e with conditioned ~pproval-, .there will~ be no nuisance or serious detrimental hazard to vehicles or pedestrians; d) Adequate and appropriate fac'iii]ties, inclusive of the town sewer .-~n~ %~.~%er conneclion, ',.;ill be provided for the proper and efficient'~ ,aperahion of the proposed residential u~e; e) Based on site visits, the public-hearing process, and review and input by appropriate town 1 ;~ards and departments, the singl'e family use is considered to be in harm<~ny %~,i[~h t~e general pumpose and intent of the ~orth Andover ~o-,~ing Bylaw. $inc'erly, i0LAI~NING BOARD Michael P. Roberts Vice chairman