Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-06-21June 21, 1976 - Monday Regular Meeting The PLANNI~ BOARD held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, June 21, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: F~itz Ostherr, Chairman; Paul R. Lamprey; Joh~ J. Monteiro, Clerk! W~lliam Chepulis, Vice-Chairman; and William N. Saleratus. There were 12 visitors present. Upon motion of John Monteiro and second by Paul Lamprey the minutes of Ma~ 3, 1976 were accepted as received. It was a unanimous vote. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL: 1. J & V REALTYTRUST- Abbott St. - plans tabled from previous meeting now show the easement. A motion was made by Mr. Monteiro to endorse the plans as not requiring approval under subdivision control law which are dated March S?, 1976 for'J & V Realty Trust. Nr. Lamprey seconded and the vote was unanimous. S~INNINGWN~kWJ ESTATES - J. J. ~"lynn: John f. Willis, Sr. represented Mr. Flynn. Mr. F1211nand his architect were also present. Mr. 0stherr explained why the BOARD had requested their presence in that some of the procedures have changed since the original approval of the plan in 1969. The BOARD had looked over the plan and some of the members were familiarwith the property. A 1200 ft. proposed cu~ de sac and a temporary turn around is shown on the plan. In the light of today's thinking, said M~. Ostherr, we wouldrequest a full turn around at %he end of the proper~y for public services, safety and the definitive plan shows a 30 ft. paved roadway which we wouldn't require now and this might be a trade-off point. He then asked Mr. Cyr what he would require as far as roadwa~vwidth - 26ft give or take whatever berm we need and a full turn-~rounda~ the end. Mr. Cyr also suggested that even the hot top conditions at that time were heavier and would request a 26 ft. road, with berm, with ~ + 2" and go according to the present cul ds sac conditions of 60 ft. radius which means abetter turn-around and a narrower roadway. Mr. Willis stated that the economics are the big concern. Mr. Cyr felt that cost wise it would be no more than what was originally proposed. Their architect stated that they have no plans of ex~ending the ro~d because it is bounded by land of another owner and that it would be no problem to abide by%he present regulations for ~oadw~ys. Mr. Willis told the BOARD that they thoughtthey would come in with a money bomd to substitute for the covenant. They plan on starting the subdivision with the covenant. The Con. Com. request for bringing the road up a couple of feet was mentioned and they have no objection. The PLANNING BOARD to ask J. Borgesi, BPW, what a water bond fee will be. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL (cont'd): 2. ROBERT DULUDE - Cour~ St. & Pleasant S~.: AtSy. Thomas Caffre2representedMr. Dulude who was also present. Stated that the plan was neverrecorded in 1963 and this was not discovered until recently. The Board of Appeals advised them to make a new copy of the same plan that has been in the Town since 1963 and to certify that it is m "True Copy". The only thing left is ~o have the PLANNING BOARD endorse ms not requir- ing approval in order that the plan may be recorded. Mr. Ostherr mentioned the fact that in conversmtion with a Board of Appeals member it was brought out that under the action in 1963 the shed shown on the plan was to be torn down, but it w~s not. He questioned whether or not this matter was in the BOARD'S purview. Mr. Lamprey asked Mr. Dulude why he wanted to create a small lot like this -Dulude stated that the Building Inspector had issued a Building Permit 3 years ago on this and that he wasgoing %o sell the big house at one time. Mr. Caffrey interjected that what they were asking now is that the PLANNING BOARD endorse as not requiring approval because it is on a June 21, 1976 - cont. public w~y. Mr. Ostherr commented that the situation could be looked a% 2 ways: 1) as a brand new lot which does not have the area requirement or 2) an error on somebody's part in not recording it. Mr. Nonteiro made a motion to endorse as not requiring approval under subdivision control law. Mr~ Ostherr stated that if the planlwere to be recorded the old shed would have to be torn down. The motion did not receive a second. Nr. Lamprey then made a motion that the PLANNING BOARD not endorse because the plan of land does not show adequate area for an R-3 District. Mr. Salemme seconded. Mr. Caffred quoted from Sec. 81-P of the General Laws regarding what the BOARD can do and asked Mr. Lamprey to consider this section. The vote on the motion was as follows: Messers Salemmet Lamprey and Ostherr in favor and Mr. Nonteiro opposed. The motion carried. 37 WIL~ BIYRNHAM - Campbell Rd. :' Scott Giles represented Mr. Burnham and stated that the lot was in an R-2 District and they wished to increase the frontage on Campbell Mr. Monteiro stated that he would like to have Mr. Chepulis present for any vote that is taken on a motion. The land is owned by George & Wand~ Farr and plan dated June 2~, ~976. Mr. Nonteiro made a motion to table the matter until later on in the meeting. Mr. Salermme seconded and the vote was unanimous. 4- VINCENT& SHEILA I2NDE~S - School St.: The request is to combine School St. with Parcel A as, shown on the plan of land drawn for and to be conVeyed to the Landers' and dated July2, 1975. The Chairman poin~ed out that is si61~ing the plan the BOARD would be approving a lot that only had 41.02 ft. of frontage in a zone that requires 125 f~. In combining the lots he is eliminating his frontage because,it is no longer School St. Mr. Chepulis made a motion to disapprove said plan because it violates the Zoning By- Law in that there is insufficient frontage on School S~. Mr. Lamprey seconded with 4 members voting in favor and Mr. Monteiro opposed. The motion passed. sCOTT PROPERTIES: Willow Ridge - Mr. Follansbee presented a Restrictive Covenant and Mortgage Bond. There is no water at the site. The BOARD is to send a copy to Arnold Salisbury for review stating that the amount proposed of $50,000 is greater than the $4~,OOOthat the Planning Board had originally requested~ Advise him of nex~ meeting date. Penni Lane - Request for extension of time limit on subdivision: The BOARD had no ob- jection to extending date ~on Penni La~ to Oct. 1, ~976 and was in unamimous agreement. BARCO CORP. - J. Barbagallo appeared before the BOARD requesting a release of lots and covenant on 0akes Drive (Kent Meadows). Receipt of BPW communication that the water distribution is ok. and letter from Bud ~dated June 21st was read. Also, letter from Frank Gelinas to Mr. Barbagallo was read regarding determination of final as built plan in accordance with Item ~O of the Con. Com. Order of Conditions. Letter from Paul Hed- strom~to Mr. Monteiro was noted and Mr, Monteiro stated that this concern had been re- solved. Mr. Monteiro's motion to approve bank passbook ~728-421-7 release in the amount of $15~OOOwas seconded by Mr. Lamprey. The vote was unanimous. A motion was made by Mr. Nonteiro to retain $18,500 on Woodb~u~y Lane. Mr. Lamprey seconded amd the vote was unanimous. ~GE FARR - GRANVILLE LA~2: Request for money release - letter from the Highway Sur- veyor dated June 2~, 1976 was read. A discussion took place regarding the drainage problem referred to in Mr. Cyr's letter. Mr. Farr attested to the fact that the Con. Com. was concerned about maintaining a marsh which he could accomplish by building a dam in back. The question arose about raising the whole road. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to release $12,000 on Granville Lane. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Monteiro's second motion was toauthorize the Chairman to sign the proper forms when presented. ~M. Lamprey seconded and the vote was unanimous. June 21, 1976 - cont. D~CUSSION: FLOOD HAZARD AREAS - After the BOARD reviewed the material, Mr. Monteiro was directed to follow the matter up and w~s given a copy of the Attorney General's letter to the Town Clerk and a copy of the Article. Also received was a revision of the flood hazard district maps. Mr. Chepulis to advise them that 3 weeks is not enough time to review and that the BOARD will reply on or about August 15. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL: WILBUR BURNHAM - cont 'd: Scott Giles stated that they will change the drafting error on the dimensions. A combination of some back land is shown on the plan. Mr. Nonteiro commented that this resembles a pork chop lot situa- tion and reminded the BOARD that it was against these for several reasons of which the existence of the long driveways camsing drainage problems was a part. Mr. Ostherr's opinion was that, aside from the m~th error, if in fact adequate area and frontage are shown the BOARD would have to sign the plan. Mr. Chepulis felt that from what is shown on the plan it follows that what is on record is incorrect, namely Lot 37A. Mr. Giles told the membership that the plan so states that Lot 37 is recorded and not 37A. A motion was made by Mr. Monteiro to not endorse the plan as not requiring approval under subdivision control law because there is a potential drainage problem and potential aesthetic problem; eventually several lots would be effected by the change. No second was received. Farther discussion took place. Mr. Monteiro then repeated his original motion and his reasons for wanting to deny the plan. Mr. Burnham said there were going to be 2 ~riveways and didn't feel he was creating any kind of problem. He also said he would have no objection to a tar driveway. Mr. Cyr said he would object to a single driveway. Mr. Ostherr reminded the BOARD that under Form A submittals the requirement is to sign the plan if it shows adequate frontage on a public w~y or a ro~d the BOARD deems suitable. Mr. Monteiro said that he does not al~s agree with the zoning rules. Mr. Salemme seconded Mr. Nonteiro's motion as above and the vote was as follows: Messers Salemme & Nonteiro in favor; Messers Lamprey, Chepulis and 8stherr opposed. The motion did not carry. More discussion followed after which Mr. Salen~ne made a motion to contact the Conservation Commission on the matter inasmuch-as this property could come under the Wetlands Act. Mr. Monteiro seconded. Mr. Ostherr reiter- ated what he had stated previously regarding obligation to lot frontage anA area. Messers Chepulis, Ostherr and Lamprey were opposed to the motion and Messers Salemme and Monteiro in favor. A~in, the motion did not pass. Mr. Chepulis then made a motion that these plans not be signed on the basis that they are incomplete in that the area and perimeter of lot 37A h~s been changed and, therefore, corrected plans showing the proposed lot lines of 37A and any other effected lots be submitted. Mr. Monteiro seconded. Mr. Ostherr was opposed and the remaining four members voted in favor. George Parr asked if the BOARD would be adverse to his coming in with 6 lots and a cul de sac to which the BOARD replied that would be eniirely his decision. Mr. Cyr commented that Campbell Rd, is not a public wa~v. ATTY. DI ADANO LE~: The BOARD decided that they had not had enough time to review and if any member wanted to discuss the matter in the future it would do so. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS: Mr. Nonteiro stated that he would like to request the Bsard of Selectmen to hire a CETA employee with qualifications in the area of planning and/or engineering. He felt a person of this type could give invaluable assistance both to the BOARD and to Mr. Cyr. Mr. Kulpinski, Advisory Board, was present and was asked if there were any CE'PA ~JNDS available for this - Eulpinski did not know. Mr. Monteiro said sometimes there is an overflow from the Greater Lawrence/~h could be used. The Chairman noted that the proper action would be to jot down the requirements and duties of the position to have June 21, 1976 - cont. available when the opportunity arises. Mr. Lamprey agreed and suggested that the Administrative Subcommittee ought to come up with a description. Gayton Osgood told the BOARD that one of the recommendations of the Growth Policy Committee is that the Town hire a land use planner now that it in the position to do so due to the increased population. The part time Boards don't have time to a~complish all that should be done. Alot of the problems in Town have to do with land use inasmuch as most of the "good" land is used and now building is on "m~rginal" land. Mr. Os~therr noted that there is probably opportunity to use both a civil engineer and a~-planner. The BOARD agreed that a letter should be sent to the Mass. League of Cities and Towns for model job description for a land use planner in a community of about 20,000 people. Mr. Kulpinski commented that the BOARD, as elected officials, is obliged to delve into things as much as the person hired - how can you rely on one individual to feed proper information? The BOARD felt that this person could aid them and other departments. Mr. Lamprey asked if the BOARD was going to go back to the Advisory Board for monies for an engineer on the Trafalgar Estates subdivision. Mr. Monteiro agreede Mr. Cyr felt that the State woutd not allow any added drainage to be ~ied into their drains, but they haven't come to present their views on the subject. Ben Osgood interjected that they don't care once it is off their highway. Mr. Cyr retorted that he gets the full coopera- tion of the State. The BOARD requested that ~r. Cyr find out what the State plans to dO and report back. Definitive plans on ~JRTLE HILL were submitted. Hearing date will be set at July 12 meeting. Referrals to be sent out. ~eeting/~c~oar~ of Selectmen on July 6th to appoint Town Counsel was received and filed. Notice that Kittredge M~nsion, 56 Academy Rd., is eligible for the National Register was so noted. Subcommittee Reports - The Chairman called for reports. The members had not had time to meet so the matter will be taken up at the second meeting in August. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.M. Chairman / Gilda Blackst ock