Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-03-22March 22, 1976 - Monday Special Meeting The PLANNING BOARD held a Special Meeting on Monday evening, March 22, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: William Chepulis, Chairman; Fritz Ostherr, Vice-Chairman; William N. S~lemme, Clerk; Paul R. Lamprey and John J. Monteiro. There were approximately 25 visitors interested in the public hearings. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. NORMANDR. MAROIS - Chickering Rd.: The clerk read the legal notice. )ir. Lincbln Giles appeared before the Board stating that he was the original purchaser of this land from Henry Lurid. The purchase took place about 4 years ago. At that time, the Building Inspector, Mr. Lurid and the Planning Board assumed it was in the General Business District, however it was an oversight on dimensions and at some later date, when a request was made to verify in writing the zoning of business, it was diecovered that the zoning line ran thr~_gh a point that was leaving less footag~ in the back than in the front. The front was zoned R-5 without legal frontage so there was no real use it could be put to. I came to Town Hall, and got a building permit and at some time later found out that the building was splitting the zoning. The Building Inspector advised that the best way would be to come in to the Board of Appeals and try to get it corrected. He went on to say what happened at the Board of Appeals which is a matter of record and felt that the Town is losing money and he, personally, is losing money. He stated that he was acting for Normand R. Marois in trying to get a correction of the zoning and the whole matter has created a real hardship. The legal frontage is on Walker Rd. which is a private way. Mr. Ostherr corrected him in that if it is a road in an approved subdivision it has legal frontage. Mr. Giles also advised that the whole lot is recorded as one lot and the hardship is the fact that the foundation for the building is already built. OPPOSITION: John Willis, Sr. - Mr. Willis pointed out that the PLANNING BOARD ought to be made aware of some of the particulars of the recent re-zoning in that there was apprehension about expanding any General Business area at that time. His parcel is not too far from the land in question and wondered why Mr. Giles was representing the petitioner inasmuch as he alleges no financial interest or connection with the development and felt that all should be told who the principals are and what plans they have for the area. He objected also on the basis of the traffic on 125. Mr. Giles answered by stating the fact that they have no choice due to the presence of the feundation of the building. N~mandMarois was the original mortgagee and he wants to see something there that would enhance the value of the proper~y. While I do not have title to it at the moment, said Mr. Giles, m~ interest is to see some- thing done because I am a resident of the Town and vitally interested in it. Mr. Giles would have lifetime management of the property. Fritz Ostherr questioned why they did not come in for a re--zoning to B-4 to which Giles replied that it would beg:little more restrictive. Mr. Ostherr felt that 3-4 is what they should go to if it is for professional offices. Mr. Giles said they would be delighted with B-4 if this is what the BOARD decided. Mr. Ostherr then asked if they would be agreeable to re-zoning the whole parcel to B-4. Mr. Giles stated that he would have to lock into it. A discussion was held on Business 4 after which Mr. Chepulis s~ated that the use of the land governs the parking spaces. Mr. Lamprey thought that this might limit the retail that they planned to have on the first floor. A motion was made by Mr. Monteiro to take the matter under advisement and seconded by Mr. Lamprey. Mr. Monteiro cautioned the BOARD that it has to be very careful if ]3-4 ~rch 22, 1976 - cont. or B-5 is decided upon in relation to the landowner. He then asked for a statement in writing that Mr. Giles is the representative of the owner. The vote on the motion was taken and it was unanimous. 2. FRANCISTROMBLY - Andover By-Pass: The clerk read the l~al notice. Atty. Joseph Trombly represented the petitioners Francis and Maryemma Trombly and stated that they have a purchase and ~ales agreement to acquire the Whetstone peioe of the Downing Estate. They are/~eking to have the entire parcel of 13½ acres re-zoned, just the piece immediately to the rear of the bus garage. He explained that Prank Trombly is a taxpayer of the Town, a citizen of the Town and runs a bus company which services the buses to Boston. He has a growing business and since the widening of the AndoverBy-Pass some of his land was taken by eminent domain. The land immediately to the rear of his property is currently zoned residential and he wants a place to park the buses off the road so they won't be an eyesore to the public and/or neighbors. Mr. Trombly then enumerated the abutters names. Prank will screen between his property and the Gorrie's in anyway they see fit. The remainder of the proper%ywhich is no~ sought to be re- zoned is, at the present time, going to remainresidential. The bike repair shop and the garage are presently G.B. The result will be a certainly better business proposition for ~rank Trombly and also better for the area. Frank has spoken to the people involved hoping to be a good neighbor and will listen to their wishes. The parcel in question is flat land and on the Andover side there is a brook which is not within the 4 acres to be re-zoned. There is no frontage on the State road; the access comes in right at the corner of the presently owned property and the proposed property. OPPOSITION: Victoria Shalhoup, Hillside Rd. - her property is directly across the street and opposed the re-zoning because they don!t need any more land and have had enough~ of the whole sitmation. Also, it is going to take away from the entire area, property value wise and feared their eventual access through Hillside Rd, Earl ~h~own, Merrimack College: The gentlemen stated that he knew nothing about the proposal and felt that the BOARD should have the abutters' views but he was not pre- pared to speak for or against. Mr. Chepulis explained to him what was happening and showed him the plan. Brown said he would like time to study it. (Secretary's note: Mr. ~ was sent legal notice and called the office regarding the proposal a week prior to the hearingS S~even Gorrie, abutter - biggest concern was whether or not under OB he could put any- thing he wants in there. Spoke about the buses Fumes and how they knew the 13½acres were vacant when they bought their property and couldn't conceive of buses being parked up to their back yard, etc. Mr. Monteiro reminded him tha$ there would be a buffer zone. Mr. Os%herr questioned whetheP or not they had explored other zoning districts to which Joe Trombly answered that the only other was Industrial. Mr. Ostherr asked whether they would consider Industrial or not and Atty. Trombly said they couldn't do anything by Town Meeting. Mr. Ostherr advised that the Moderator will accept a more restrictive article at Town Meeting. Mr. Chepulis restated the fact that there seems to be some hesitancy to expanding General Business areas. E~rl Brown asked about the drainage on this parcel and was advised that no building was being considered at this time, just re-zoning. N~FyAnn Oo~le, an abutter, stated that when Frank Trombly spoke with them he mentioned some type of a parking lot and if that was true under GBhe could put anything in that is allowed in the district. The BOARD told her that they could provided it has frontage, access, etc. Mr. Ostherr %hen made a motion to take the mat%er under advisement. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote was unanimous. March 22, 1976 - cont. 3. FRANXLIN S. DAVIS, BEN OSGOOD -Andover St.: The clerk read the legal notice. There w~s no one present to speak in favor of the Article. OPPOSITION: N~urice Lynch, Highland Terrace: told the BOARD about the paper street that divides the 2 lots and provides access to the b~ck of his propertyandFrank Lewis' property. If they plan to encompass Prospect Terrace it would block this street entirely. Also objected to opening it up under General Business. Mr. Nonteiro m~de a motion that the PLANNING BOARD recommend unfavorable action on the zoning change because there w~s insufficient information in regard to the paper street, drainage problem and traffic. Nr. Ostherr seconded the motion. DOrothy Lewis, Highland Terrace, requested some proof that nothing f~r~her would happen at the Planning Board. Chairman Chepulis replied that there would be no further hearing. Mrs. Lewis objected to any building that might be done that would block off the s~reet. Russ Humphries~ Turnpike St., objected ~o any more banks, doctors-offices, restaur- ants citing that the residence district has disappeared. Prank Lewis, Highland Terrace - stated that his land abuttsProspect Terrace an~'~ if blocked it would land look his property. Mary Lou Reilly, Andover St. voiced agreement with Mr. Lynch and continued th&t her driveway is used as a turn-around and has experienced damage to telephone wireS. RobertLeyland, Andover S~., T. George, Andever St., J. Narkey, Wm. Patterson, High- land Terrace, Charles Patterson, Turnpike St., all opposed for above sta~ed reasons. Ben O~good appeared before the BOARD and stated that he desired to withdraw the re- zoning amendment. ACTION: ZONING ANENDMENTARTICLES: Mr. Lamprey made a me~ion to table action until the April 5th meeting. Mr. Nonteiro seconded and %he vote w~s unanimous. DECISIONS: 1. BENCHNARKESTATES: The recommendation of ~he Subdivision Control Subcommittee moved approval of the definitive plan subject to ~he following conditions: 1) usual language regarding covenant; 2 ) water and sewer, if applicable, be in accorde~uce with the standards of the BPW; 3) fire requirements shall be in accordance with the Board of ~ire Engineers; 4) roadways and surface drainage shall be constructed in accordance wi~h the standards of the Highway Surveyor; 5) Board of Health s~andards; ~t hydrants are to be located with the recommendations of the Board cf Fire Engineers; roadways shall be 26' width with 18" of gravel undercoat on each side; 8) drainage shall be installed across ~he roadway a~ approximately station 2+00 to relieve the impoundment that might o~herwise occur; 9) all drainage easements shall be deeded to ~he Town. Mr. O~therr recited the foregoing in the form of a motion and Mr. Lamp~r~y seoonde~. A discussion followed between BOARD members, Robin ~unroe, Bruin Hill ~-m; Mike Smola~, Smolakts ~rm; Mr. Sanstrom, a neighbor; and Frank Gelinas regarding ~he brook, drainage, narrow roadway, etc. Frank Gelinas rebutted statements relative to traffic - ~he same BOARD member who brought up the problem later stated ~hat it would no~ create a significant impact and asked Mr. Cyr if Winter St. from Winter to D~le is incapable of sustaining traffic winter or summer. Mr. Oyr said that two- ~y traffic cannot be argued$ relative to drainage - in work with Planning Subcommittee Nareh 22, 1976 - cont. and with the tope plan this subdivision has no impact on the drainage problems that are across the street. He invited the BOARD to walk the site again on behalf of his client. Mrs. Sanstrom and Kathy Boyle both spoke on the traffic problem as they saw it and Mrs. Boyle brought up the drainage on her property which is across the street from the proposed subdivision. The vote on the motion was taken and the subdivision was approved - VOTE: Nessers Chepulis, 0stherr and Lamprey in favor; Messers Monteiro and Salemme Opposed. Mr. Sanstrom objected to the approval of the plan and it was so noted by the BOARD. 2. ~HE ANDOVERS: A motion was made by the Subdivision Control Subc~mdt%ee recommend- ing disapproval for the foIbwing reasons: that the subdivision route used is an obvious attempt to subvert the Zoning By-Law ( the purpose in both the By-Law and Subdivision Rules & Regs. is to promote the health, safety, welfare...) and that the turn-~round does not meet the radiusreq~irement. The vote was unanimous on the motion. LEwPII~ FROM MCCORMACK& ZIMBLE Re clarification of covenant : The letter was read and the covenan~ was signed. W~ KILL ESTATES CUL DE SACS: Mr. Lamprey's opinion was that the conditions as imposed should remain; Mr. Monteiro stated that he respects both the Highway Surveyor and Mr. Gelinas. Mr. Gelinas requested notification in writing of confirmation of the previous vote on the oul de sacs. Communication .from Growth Policy Committee Re public hearing on Tues., April 13, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. in N.A.H.S. auditorium was read by the Chairman. Mr. Monteiro suggested that the 2nd meeting in April be held on the 20~h due to the holiday. At that time he will present a new proposal to the Town. The meeting adjourned at 10 P.M. / (Gilds Blackstock)