Loading...
1984-04-2352 April 23, 1984 Regular Meeting The Planning Board held a regular meeting on Monday evening, April' 23, 1984 at 8:00 p.m. in the Town Office Meeting Room with the following members present and voting: Paul' A. Hedstrom, Esq., Chairman, who arrived late; Michael' P. Roberts, Vice Chairman, who arrived late; John A. James, Jr., Esq., Clerk; John J. Burke; and Erich W. Nitzsche. Highway Surveyor William Cyr and Town Planner Karen Pomroy were al~o present. Re-zoning Petition of George Barker (ArtiCle 109) The Board announced to the audience that George Barker's request for a re-zoning for land on~Osgood Street has been withdrawn. Therefore, no recommendation will' be made at Town Meeting from the Planning Board. MOTION: by Mr. Nitzsche to accept the letter withdrawing the article. COND: by Mr. Burke TE : Unanimous - motion carries. CONTINUED PUBLIC~J~I~INGS Yee, Richard - Re-zoning - Osgood Street (China 'BlOssom Restaurant property) (Articles 104 and 105) Attorney Ralph BarbagallO was again present for the petitioner and made the following comments: - Atty. BarbagallO presented a drawing of the details of the re-zoning. They have held a meeting with the abutters. The drawing shows the existing building, the existing parking, and the proposed zoning change. Vegetation is shown on the proposed changed area. - They have 112 spaces now and theY are proposing an additional' 85. - The new area will' be paved. There is a piece of land which the petitioner wishes to remain R-4. It is the second parcel described in the warrant. The sketch presented tonight represents a compromise. Article 104 requests a re-zoning of the additional portion of the 1st Note: April 23, 1984 -2- Regular ~4eeting parcel' (where the building is located). Article 105 is the second parcel~. It has been scaled down to approxi- mately half of the original~ request. Some restrictions were agreed to by the abutters. Vice Chairman Roberts arrived here. There are cases where restrictions can be binding after a Town Meeting vote. No one spoke in favor of'the article. The follbwing spoke in opposition: Frank Arcidiacono, Richard Testa,. and Henry Fink. Mr. ArcldiacOno stated the following: The paved area extends 140 feet from the General' Business line. By Special' Permit, they can only extend 100 feet, so they are in vio- lation now. The parking spaces are 10 feet in width and they could be 9 feet. The best use of the existing parking area shOUld be utilized. His calculations show that they can gain about 35 spaces. They are in violation of the three-to-one ratio under the ZBL. He would like to amend article 104 to alI~w an extension of the GB zone. - He has looked at several~ parking lots in the area. Messina's Market has 9 feet with cars coming in and out all" day. Mr. Richard Kaminski, engineer, made the following comments: The proposal to revamp the existing area means borrowing and angl~ parking and reducing the width of the parking spaces from 10 feet to 9 feet. From an engineering standpoint, it is not a parking solution. It might work for Western Electric or a similar' facility where people come and go at the same time. With a restaurant, people cbme and go all' the time. It would be difficUl~ to let in and out with 9 feet'spaces.. ~ ~ Mr. Richard Testa made the following cbmments: The proposal was a threat to us that if we didn't go along with it they will' go for the entire parcel% The neighbors thought that an improved plan would be presented and this is the same plan. Nothing new is being presented as the neighbors were led to believe. Atty. Barbagallo responded with: - The last time they were here the proposalY was for the entire second parcel to be General Business. As a compromise, they have suggested They are trying to alle' are proposing a good bu is closer to the abutte ment. April 23, 1984 / -3- Regula~ ~4eeting reducing the area by 50~. The proposal' is still~ for the entlre circumference. They ar~ willing to amend the article. It is human nature for people|to favor the larger parking spaces. liate a traffic~problem on Route 125. They ~fer from sound and view. The K of C building ~s than China BlOssom. This will~ be an improve- Mr. ArcldiacOno added that properties. Also, he quest GB and not B-4 or B-1. Atty. BarbagallO said it wo Arcfdiacono said the neighb passes. Attorney David Bernardin, r He thought that progres stipulations which mech for parking with buffer pecially 105 as written a popularity issue. If the warrant, there coul The Planning Board shou plan. ~he K of C parking lot does not border their [oned why this parc~l' should be re-zoned to aid decrease the value of the land and Mr. )rs land values will decrease if this re-zoning ~presenting Ed and Ann Marie Ryan, stated: ~ ~ad been made. They have agreed to certain ~nlcally could work. They are only asking He doesn't want these articles, es- to hit the Town Meeting floor and become it goes through the way it is written in ~ be troubl~ five years down the road. fd issue a recommendation on the modified Henry Fink stated that the reason for this meeting is to re-zone GB. You should not take into consideration parking or anything else. GB is what counts. The Planning Board's status in 1972 was NO MORE GB. He also questioned if the restriction would go to a future owner and Atty. BarbagallO said it would go with the re-zoning. Building Inspector Charles Foster asked about the screening. Mr. Kaminski responded that the initial-proposal'is to densify the area with pine trees. He assured an adequate green area. On the lighting, the abutters had a complaint. They propose new lighting moved toward Route 125 away from the homes. Member Nitzsche stated that he agrees that 9 x 18 parking spaces are adequate for industrial~ buildings but 10 x 20 are better for restaurants. He is not convinced that if this land is re-zoned to GB, the restrictions will be binding. GB is very lenient. He wants assurances to the abutters that what they are proposing will'be built. Atty. BarbagallO said that the restrictions wilI~be read into the warrant article along with the description. They will~ agree that only parking will' be allowed there. He has tried to contact the Attorney General"s Office but could not talk to anyone. Mr. John Lyons stated that Mr. Yee needs more parking, but questioned if ~ere will'be some type of security and supervision. Member Burke re- that the Planning Board is not responsibl~ for security or .ion. Atty. BarbagallO ended the public hearing by stating that GB would be the most cOnsistent with what is there now. There is not that much difference April 23, 1984 -4- Regular Meeting between the zones' uses - it is an area difference. They are willing to forego any future building. MOTION: by Mr. Burke to close the publTc'hearing and recommend UNfavorabl~ action on article 105. SECOND: by Mr. Nitzsche VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. MOTION: by Mr. Burke to close the public' hearing and recommend favorabl~ action on articel' 104 subject to the four conditions submitted to the Planning Board being incorporated into the warrant artict~. SECOND: by Mr. Nitzsche VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Note: Chairman Hedstrom arrived here. PLA~S NOT REQUIR~WGAPPROVAL Charles Rooney and Ramarc'~Construction - Crossbow Lane Engineer Tom Neve reported that there is a foundation on Lot 21 but none on Lot 20. MOTION: by Mr. Nitzsche that the Planning Board approve the plan of land located in North Andover, Mass. prepared for Charles Rooney and Ramarc' Construction dated 11/3/83, revised 4/18/84 under Subdid vision Control~ Law Not Required with the condition that the existing foundation be shown on Lot 21. SECOND: by Mr. Burke VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Samuel~Rogers - Osgood Street MOTION: by Mr. Burke that the plan of land located in North Andover, Mass. prepared for Samuel' Rogers, dated April, 1984, be approved under Subdivision Control' Law Not Required with the condition that there be a designation of Lot A and that the Board of Appeal~ signature block be removed. SECOND: BY MR. ROBERTS VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Trustees of Abbott Stevens - Osgood Street MOTION: by Mr. Burke that the plan of land located in North Andover, Mass. prepared for Trustees of the wili'of Abbott Stevens, be approved under Subdivision Control~ Law Not Required. SECOND: by Mr. James VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. April 23, 1984 -5- Regular Meeting Christine Stewart - Old Boston Road by Mr. Burke that the plan of land l~cated in North Andover, Mass. prepared for Christine Stewart, dated 4/17/84, be approved under Subdivision Control'Law Not Required. SECONDs by Mr. Roberts VOTE : In favor - 3 (Roberts, Burke, James) Opposed - 1 (Nitzsche) Motion carries. Nellie Arsenault - Summer Street Town Planner Karen Pomroy stated that the l~t only has 138 feet of frontage on Summer Street. Building Inspector Charles Foster said that Rea Street can be used for f~ontage. MOTION: by Mr. Roberts to take the plan of land under advisement until 5/7/84. SECOND: by Mr. James VOTE ~ Unanimous - motion carries. of China BlOssOm land r. Kaminski asked to re-address the Board. With the recommendation that he Planning Board made, they still' don't have the necessary parking spaces. They will'have to go further. DECISIONS Angus Realty Trust - Re-zone - Osgood Street (Butcher Boy) (Article 100) MOTION: by Mr. Burke to recommend favorable action at Town Meeting, subject to the petition being changed to B-2. SECOND: by Mr. James VOTE : Unanimous - motion c~rries. Carrell', charles - Re-zone - Turnpike St. (Article 101) MOTION: by Mr. Burke to recommend favorable action at Town Meeting. SECOND: by Mr. Roberts  OTE : In favor - 4 (Roberts, Burke, Nitzsche, James) Opposed - 1 (Hedstrom) Motion carries. Lot Area Cal~hlation (ArticlEs 93 and 95) April 23, 1984 -6- R~gular ~4eeting MOTION: by Mr. James to withdraw articles 93 and 95 from the warrant. SECOND: by Mr. Roberts VOTE Unanimous - motion carries. Kindred, Daniel~- Special' Permit - Waterhsed Tabled until' 5/7/84 OT~R BUSINESS Forest Estates (Lyons Way) - Extend cOmpletion date and covenant No documents have been submitted. The completion date was September, 1980. No bond amount was ever posted. Amounts were recommended by BPW and the Highway Department in 1979. MOTION: by Mr. James to table the matter until~ 5/7/84. SECOND: by Mr. Nitzsche VOTE : Unanimous - motion c~rries. Greenwood West - Release of funds Chairman Hedstrom abstained. A release was voted on but never sent to the bank. The Highway Surveyor would l~ke to investigate his records before the money is released. MOTION: by Mr. Roberts to tabl~ until~ 5/7/84. SECOND: by Mr. James VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Simon Parcel-- Discussion with John Tuttl~ Engineer Tom Neve made the fOlIowing comments: - He requested that a publ~c'hearing date be set within a month's time. - Mr. Tuttl~ has a Purchase and Sale Agreement. No publtc'hearing wilI'be set until'the plans and proper appl%cations are submitted to the Planning Board. Davis and Furber Access Road - Discussion with Richard Domas Mr. Richard Domas, Director of the Community Development Department, was present and made the fOl~owing comments: He drew attention to Article ~85 on the warrant for the 1984 Town Meeting (Sutton Street connector). The proposed street is situated between Sutton and High Streets. April 23, 1984 -7- Regular ~-~ee ting The town is seeking to do two things: They are seeking to take the amount of development traffic'that is expected to be generated by two developments out of the residential'district and take it to Sutton Street; and Davis and Furber willrbe more attractive with improved access. Most of the traffic' wilI"come from the north. The traffiC'would flow to the existing ramp down Sutton Street to the complex'. - In most cases, the abutters are favorable. Davis and Furber and KenicS have donated their Right of Way to the town° There are five parcel~. They are working with the developer and he has come to an agreement with Mr. Matses. The developer will' acquire the first parcel'off Sutton Street. - AlSo, YellOw Freight has' made an agreement with the developer. - The owners of Service Chemical'are not wilITng. - Article %85 does ask for the authority to acquire by eminent domain. - The land on the other side of the road will'be a l~gal' lot. - Ali of the parcHls off the acdess road wilI~be provided chrb c~ts. The average week day traffic' is dependent of two scenarios: 4,800 trips per day; or 3,400 per day. That is over a 24-hour a day period. It is broken down to peak periods. It is wider at Service Chemical' and YellOw Freight because of the truck traffic, Davis and Furber wilt have 5-10% trucks. On c~st, they are not seeking any town funds - just State and Federal~ grants. No State funds have been obtained yet. The developer at this time does not have a viabl~ tenant. His department is looking into having the State's deniat~ of the funds reversed. Chairman Hedstrom stated that Articl~ %85 asks for eminent domain and there are no funds yet. Mr. Domas said that the article wilI~have to be amended on the floor of Town Meeting - the last sentence wilT' be struck and re- placed with the statement that the costs wil~ be paid from various State and Federal~ grants to be sought. MOTION: by Mr. Roberts to support Articl~ %85 at Town Meeting. second - motion fail~. · Will~am Cyr, Highway Surveyor, stated'that he is opposed for several? reasons. They are: April 23, 1984 -8- Regular Meeting The road terminates as a publi'c~ way with sidewalks. The public'will' be denied access to Elm Street. Pedestrian access should be provided to the High School'. If the town is going to build the road for a private developer, he should do something' fOr'the town. The town should NOT be subsidizing a road for a private developer. The town may get a good lesson on land taking'. Drainage easements and the Sutton Pond should be taken into cOnsdid- eration. If the road was built under subdivision standards, you are talking about a maximum of $190,000 to $200,000. The cost wii~' go up because it is a Federal~ job. Mr. Domas stated that he cannot assure the people at Town Meeting that there wil~' not be action against the town by Mr. Weiner (Service Chemical?). He added that without the access road, people will"use Elk Street and High Street. The complex'will'be developed with or without the access road. There will' be red I~ghts are Main and Sutton Streets. The traffic'~from the development wilI'v not come at 3:30 when Western Electric-gets out. There is nothing they can state that this will' never cost the town any- thing. MOTION: by Mr. Burke to take the matter under advisement to possibly make a recommendation at Town Meeting. SECOND: by Mr. James VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Bear Hill~ ~ Grade change ~equest - Blue Ridge Road (Road C) Bill' Place stated the foll~owing: Last fall% they came in with a profil~ of Road A that reduced the grade on Road A by 6%. Since then, they have been to the Con. Com. and the erosion control' problems, etc'. are more fills on Road C. They have asked for another profil~ for Road C. It was 9.9%. Road A is now 9.1%. Road C will-be 9.1% or 10%. They are looking for direction from the Planning Board. Mr. Cyr, Highway Surveyor, stated that they discussed Road A with :the understanding that it would reduce Road C. We are supposed to minimize the grade. They are dropping the road 8 to lO feet. At the intersection, it will~ be dropped 2 feet. He is ali' for another modification in the grade. Fuller Meadows - Type of SecUrity and Release of Lots Mr. Burke abstained. April 23, 1984 -9- Regular Meeting A letter form Thomas Laudani dated 4/20/84 was read and placed on file, along with a letter from the Highway Surveyor dated 4/23/84. ~. Laudani was present and stated he wants an Assignment of Funds ~om the Bank of New England in escrow. The instrument is different but result is the same. He wilI' submit a dochment. MOTION: by Mr. Roberts that the Planning Board accept the bond amounts established by Mr. Cyr and accept the Assignment of Funds upon review of the document by the Chairman and if the document is acceptable to the Chairman, the document will~ be acdepted and the bond amount established, with the condition that Fuller Estates is completed prior to release of lots from FulI~r Meadow. SECOND: by Mr. Nitzsche Mr. Laudani stated that the l~ts in Fuller Meadow are covenant l~t. is a small' amount of work to be completed on Fuller Road. completed in the next week. Mr. Cyr added that they are minor things. VOTE : In favor - 3 (Roberts, James, Hedstrom) Opposed - 1 (Nitzsche) Motion carries. Feat Pond Estates - Submission of Definitive Plan lo'hearing set for Tuesday, May 29, 1984 Minutes - 10/3/83; 1/23/84; 4/2/84 MOTION~ by Mr. Nitzsche to accept as written. SECOND: by Mr. Roberts VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Minutes - 12/7/83 MOTION: by Mr. Roberts to accept as written SECOND: by Mr. James VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ul' A. Hedstrom, CSairman There They should be