Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-07-18July 18, ~977, MONDAY Regular Meeting The PLANNING BOARD held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, July 18, 1977 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building. The following members were present and voting: ~aul R. Lamprey, Chairman; William N. S~lemme, Vice-Chairman; Michael P. Roberts, Clerk; William Chepulis; and John J. Non%eiro. 25 visitors present. DOUGLAS DRIVE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: letter received dated July 15th from Atty. Michael Morris granting extension tmtil Sept. 12, 1977 was read by the Chairman. Motion by Monteiro to accept this letter and adhere to that date. Mr. Roberts seconded. Mr. Lamprey stated that if the engineering data is in prior to sePt. 12th we will ~nform the abutters. Unanimous vo~e. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL: 1. JOHN WARLICK, Campion Hall - plan submitted July 8, 1977. The individual using a tape recorder is Thomas Riquier, Beverly, Ma. an interested party. Mr. Chepulis asked why we have two plans showing the same location - Atty. Sullivan answered that they would like the first one approved; the second one outs down the property and it is not essential that this be acted upon. Atty. Sullivan, representing Mr. Warlick, inc~uired if there was something improper about having 2 plans for the same area approved as not requiring approval under subdivision control law giving them their option to record whichever plan they wish with the Registry of Deeds. Mr. Chepulis' opinion was that such is "game playing". Mr. Lamprey said it is highly unusual although it may be l~gally proper. Sullivan then said they will present the first one now and withdraw the second ich was filed today, July 18. Warlick stated that they have left 3 150 ft. openings the back of the property and the easement,said Sullivan, is for the Town to maintain drainage from the road. He had a copy of it for the BOARD to review. Chepulis said that the plan should show what the easement is for. There were dwellings on Lots #4 & #10 as so pointed out by Warliok~ but only the second set of plans show the buildings. Chepulis asked why one plan shows the dwellings and the other does not - Sullivan: I don't believe it is rec!uired but there is no specific reason why one does and one doesn't. He contended that they had complied with area requirement. The building that is on Lot #10 with frontage on Great Pond Rd. has access from a driveway, ~ccording to Warlick, and this is not considered a subdivision. Also, he said, it meets the requirements of area and frontage. Mr. Cyr wanted to know all about the easement before the plan is approved. Atty. Sullivan stated that in his interpretation of the law this is not a subdivision. ~. Monteiro reminded that the BOARD h~d not made that determination as yet. Discussion ensued regarding the easement, die tests on drainage system that is existing. Because of these issues, Er. Chepulis pointed that the BOARD has a responsibility that goes much deeper than just looking at lines on a plan, such as the health,~safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town not only at present but in the future; trying to prevent future problems. Member Monteiro added that this lies in the watershed of the Town's drinking water supply which is critical. ~ohn Warlick restated that he is present to have a Form "A" approved. Atty. Sullivan said they do not begrudge the information but do not believe these plans need subdivision approval. Lamprey then asked that if these plans were endorsed did they intend to come back with the other plan as revision in the future - not necessarily, said Warliok. Er. Monteiro asked when the perc tests were taken on these lots - Mr. Warlick answered that some were in M~y and some in June, 1977. Inquiry by Chepulis regarding the recording of the road Easement as shown on the plan -Mr. Warlick stated that it had not een recorded and he would retain the easement. Member Chepulis stated that according to asr practices easements have been shown especially since this is such a critical area. Mr. Warlick said that he was not aware of this and, apparently, neit~herwas his engineer. Scott Giles, we are not imposing any easements on those particular lots. Mr. Chepulis asked if there should be any - Mr. Warlick said, maybe, and if so they will come back in with them. John Thompson, BPW, asked if you can have a Form "A" when you don't know where the piping is located - Giles stated that Title 5 is now in effect. Short discussion pro and con. Mr. Giles stated that there are no drainage easements in the lots that are before us that are not shown. Cyr reminded him that it was supposed to be determined by the developer where this drainage does go and no septic systems could be put on these lots unt this is determined. Mr. Warlick repeated that this issue is 150 ft. frontage and proper area. Mr .Warlick then told those present that every lot that was perced passed the test. Steward Rosnick, Atty., Beverly, asked what, to the BOARD, constituted the health, safety and welfare of the community - Mr. Roberts answered that the burden of proof is on the applicant. Motion made by Monteiro to not approve as a Form "A" because it constitutes a subdivision. Mr. Roberts seconded. During discussion the drainage issue came up again and concern stated by Mr. Thompson and Mr. Cyr. The intention of conducting a culinary arts school on the property was brought up. At this time Dr. Richard Iacobucci, Cambridge, stated that he had discussed it with the State agent for watershed and that there is no way this could be done. Banter went back and for%h regarding the location as to the watershed of the Lake. James McAloon, real estate agent and resident of the Town of N. A., said he has no interest in Campion Hall itself but felt that if Warlick changed his plans and had to come back in that the Town would have its say on it at that time. Reason for motion: the purpose would be more satisfactory to the safety, convenience and welfare of the inhabi- tants of the Town, easements are not shown properly, there is a viable opening of 2 lots that are not considered as lots and potentially could be used as roads. Also, there is some type of drainage system on this land which effects all the other lots presented here and without it being shown on the proposal we can't make a determination. Mr. Warlick then asked if there are any problems with the area and the frontage. Mr. Chepulis amended the motion to state that it be considered a subdivision because there are other dwellings in that area with no provision to gain access to them. Mon%eiro seconded. Joan Kunhardt, married to the eldest son of Mr. Kunhardt, said she was conservation minded audit shocked. her to think that anyone would even think of this plan because it is situated right on the Lake. The land has so many possibilities such as recreation, conference center, museum. AnEwer to Mr. Warlick's question re area and frontage - Chepulis: we are looking at the area in toro, not one lot at a time. Unanimous vote on motion.