Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-03-03March 3, 1980 - MONDAY Regular Meeting The PLANNING BOARD held a regular monthlY meeting on MONDAY EVENING, MARCH 3, 1980 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town 0ffioe Meeting Room.. The following members were present and voting: ~;illiam Chepulis, Chairman; John J. Monteiro, Vice-Chairman; and Michael P. Robert s. There were 16 visitors present. PLANS NOT RE~UIRIi~G APPROVAL: 1 - EDWARD EARCIONE, Marbleridge Rd.: plan requires updated signature because it was not recorded after previous endorsement and prescribed time period has expired. Motion by Roberts to endorse as not requiring approval pl~ revised Jan. 8, ~979 for recording purposes. Second by Monteiro and unanimous vote. I 2 - SCOTT PROP~TIES, Deermeadow Rd.: showing Lots 27A & 28A, dated 2-25-80. After review of plan motion made by Roberts to endorse aS not requiring approval under subdivi- sion control law and Monteiro seconded. Unanimous vote. 3 - TOWNSHIP REALTY TRUST, Haymeadow & Sa~ill Rds~: Scott Giles representing stated that it is a lot line change. Upon motion made by Roberts, seconded by Monteiro it was unani- mously voted to endorse plan dated Feb. 26, 1980 as not requiring approval under subdivi- sion control law. 4 - GEORGE CLARK, Turnpike St.: S. Giles representing; plan showed Lot 287; Giles' office was requested to do a certified plot plan and Land I Court suggested that Clark be granted 5 ft. of the private driveway. There are lots invdlved but no homes and through due process the Land Court will take care of it. The owner wishes to sell the property; the house is over 50 years old and whatever was done was done prior to zoning. The dwelling is 3.06 ft. beyond the lot line and should this be decreed without problem at the Land Court they will come back in for a variance. It rgquires PLANNING BOARD signature in order to go to Land Court because it is a subdivision of land. Atty. Harold Morley added that the purpose of this is so the Land Court will start the case. Chepulis noted that it is on a private street and also still in viola%ion of the ZBL. If the BOARD wishes to make tentative approval, Chepulis would contact Land Court to satisfy PLANNING BOARD curiosity about signing. Motion by Roberts that the plan of land dated FEb. 21, 1980 by endorsed as not requiring approval under subdivision control law subject to the Chairman contacting Land Court to verify information received at meeting held on 3-3-80. Signatures to be' postponed until information verified. Second by Mdnteiro and unanimous vote. 5 -N. A. FARMS, Foster St.: S. Giles representing; plan showed Lots lA and 2A; an en- croachment found after the foundation was put in so a lot line change is required. Roberts made a motion to endorse as not requiring approval under subdivision control law plan dated FEb. 29, ~80. Monteiro seconded. During short discussion Giles told membership that the easements are the same as they were on the original approval. Unanimous vote. 6 - BENCHMARK ¢ONST., Winter St. & So. Bradford St.: same plan as submitted at last meeting minus the gas line easement; proper frontage on Lot ~0 shown and abutter's name corrected. Susan St. Pierre, Planner, stated that she had contacted the Gas. Co. and representative said the gas line was okay. Chepulis suggested we write a strong letter to them expressing concerns regarding this type of placement. Roberts stated that, for the record, the PLANNING BOARD is not in agreement with this type of thing due to the fact that ~here is a danger to the public. Monteiro added that we are here to protect the best interests of the people of the Town; when a lot is ~old nothing will be said about the gas lines being placed on the lots. ~ March 3, 1980 - cont. Motion by Monteiro to DENY for the reason of safety purposes for the unknown Future residents of the Town. Second by Roberts. Amendment by Roberts to state further backup information is required due to the population in the area such as: a) easements regarding utilities shall be shown on plan (ex.' gas lines), b) drainag~ easements and drainage plans for land to be shown, c) what effect the drainage and contours in the development of this land ~ill have on the surrounding land, and 4) condition' of the water main on So. Bradford St.; it is a subdivision of land and it is to be noted that the Planning Board requested the applicant or his representative to withdraw without prejudice in an effort for him to obtain the supportive data before the Boa~d's nex~t meeting and applicant's representative refused to withdraw. During discussion Bud Cyr answered Mr. Chepulis' ~uestion about the condition of the streets in this area - Bradford St. is poor and Winter St. is excellent. Scott Giles stated that the gas issue is not before the BOARD because that easement is not shown on this plan, the plan before the BOARD has the required area and frontage and it is bound to act ~n what is before it. Susan St. Pierre stated that the Gas. Co. told her they had not considered marking the gas lines. Chepulis added that this BOARD cannot arbitrarily forget about where the gas line will go and expected to see something regarding what wmuld happen to the gas line. Giles felt that it was not ~ithin the authority of the BOARD. Chepulie opined that its practical and effective impact is that it is a subdivision even though it is probably not to the letter of the law. Giles asked for outline of supportive information and was told as above. Unanimous vote on motion and amendment seconded by Monteiro. 7 - CARL CAPOBIANCO, Middleton Rd.: plan dated Feb. 5, 1980; a lot line change needed for accommodation of subsurface disposal location; showing Lots AA & BB. Motion by Roberts to endorse as not requiring approval under subdivision control law subject plan. Second by Monteiro and unanimous vote. WOOD RIDGE/WOODBRIDGE DISCUSSION: Elain & David Warwick, 43 Woodbridge Rd. present. Mrs. Warwick stated that it is very confusing in that the street names are so very similar. Roberts interjected that the PLANNINO BOARD has talked about this before and are in complete agreement with it. Mrs. Warwick went on to say that besides the emergency aspect they are also getting mail for Wood Ridge now. The Chairman reviewed the file on the subject. Roberts suggested notifying the Planning Office that we will hold a public hearing on the matter and would like their attendance. Chepulis men- tioned that the Selectmen did suggest to the Planning Office that they just call it Ridge Rd., but they didn't like that because they already had their stationery printed up. Elaine Warwick suggested that to change Wood Ridge is most desirable but, if that can't be done then change Woodbridge Rd. to Woodbridge Greene. Motion by Monteiro to set a public hearing date; Chairman authorized to do so. No second received and the Chairman called the motion out of order. Motion then made by Roberts that the first meeting in April (April 7th) be designated for public hearing for the naming of Woodri~ge Rd. because of similarity to Woodbridge Rd. and danger involved. Notify the Planning Office for Urban Affairs that same will take place on first Monday of' April and if they wish to enter input please attend. Second by Monteiro and unanimous vote. QUAIL RUN BOND RELEASE: letter of request read. Cyr said his letter could be changed to recommend $22,000 rather than $17,000 to be released with the stipulation that the release not become effective until the requested work of patching be done on Chestnut St. Motion by Roberts that the applicant be notified that pending patch work on Chestnut St. completed to the Highway Surveyor's satisfaction $22,000 to be released at that time. Second by Monteiro and unanimous vote. March ~, 1980 - cont. PRESCOTT ST. DEVELOPMENT: The Chairman stated that there are some concerns by the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission because it appears that the approved plans were not submitted to the Con. Com. The PLANNING BOARD does not have a set of the plans that were submitted to the Con. Com. and would like to see what is going on or proposed. Atty. Timothy Schiavoni appeared for the development and was asked what plans were in fact submitted to the Con. Com. He retorted that the plan they filed is not germaine; what they filed has to do with wetlands, drainage. Showed plan governed by the perform- ance bo~d, the modified plan and the first approved plan. He noted that the plan has the covenants written thereon. Then he produced the plan filed with the Con. Com. and again said that it does not have any bearing on the approved subdivision plan. This plan, he said, was filed for the convenience of the Con. Com. who can do what they want with it. as long as it is pursuant to the wetlands statutes. Chepulis inquired if Schivoni's Notice of Intent refersto the approved plan - answer: we are upgrading with every plan; we are allowed by statute to upgrade? Chepulis then asked why the lot lines are not shown - Schiavoni: highly impractical b,cause of all the lines on the plan and they are not germaine to the issue. Chairman cheputis then compared the original drain- age plan wmth the submittal to the Con. Com. andiasked if the drainage they are pro- posing is in conformance with the approved plan ~ Schiavoni: it is an upgrading but there is a difference. The Highway Surveyor stated that he is not familiar with the type of drainage they are proposing, the Con. Com. is in conflict trying to design street drainage separate from any wetland drainage. He had not received a copy of the plan and felt it was strange that he hadn't inasmuch as his department is directly involved with drainage. Schiavoni agreed to send him a set of plans but mentioned that he was not directed to file with the Highway SurVeyor. The Chairman asked if they h~d engineering representatives present - answer: I have some engineering representatives here that can answer some of the questions you might have. Many years ago, said Chepulis, when this first started there was great concern about the drainage and Prescott St. and how to preserve it from flooding and asked the engineering representative to go over how he would accomplish this. Steve Stapinski, Merrimack Engineering, stated that he believed it was the intent to allow the water to flow where it presently flows and provide a swale along Prescott St. That design was submitted along with the nursing home development. In the plan we have submitted to the Con. Com. it shows the same swale as shown on the nursing home plan. We are providing the same swale and directing as much as we can away from Prescott St. We are basically keeping the same grades, we anticipate less water at the junction of Prescott St. and Chickering Rd. We intend to discharge the water! into the ground water table by infil- tration ditches but there is some feeling by som~ officials that it won't work because it has never been used in N. A. before so we are trying to keep it.exactly the same as previously proposed at that intersection. We feel the system may not work at full capa- city. The system of infiltrating water into the ground has been used in Haverhill, Chelmsford, Boxford and haven't seen where it has failed, Stapinski said. George Stern, speaking as a private citizen and not representing the Con. Com., asked what the PLANNING BOARD considers an upgrading of a plan; if this is in fact upgraded there is alot of drainage and catch basins that have been eliminated. Are these types of changes normal without PLANNING BOARD approval? Member Roberts told him that there shouldn't be any changes in drainage without it coming before this BOARD. Chepulis added that he did not know what type of action had been taken by the Con. Com. but if they filed a No~ice of Intent then there must have been a determination that wetlands are involved. Stern said that insufficient information had been received in order to write an Order of Conditions so it was denied without prejudice for a refiling. Narch 3, 1980 - cont. Atty. Schiavoni then stated that they have followed our plans, they haven'~ been changed - they are concerned with wetlands, you are concerned with subdivision. Ms. St. Pierre, Town Planner, stated that this also includes drainage. Schiavoni then inquired as to who complained about this. Highway Surveyor Cyr stated that he had because it is confusing and he does not know yet what is or is not approved; very much concerned because he feels that a problem is being created. Schiavoni ~old him that all they did was upgrade the plan that has to deal with conservation; if there are manholes required the Con. Com. will write them in. The Planner asked, does it differ from the original plan that was approved - Schiavoni: it is an upgrade, it is supposed to be a good project; we are not failing to do anything that you have not mandated to be done and we posted a bond to the effect that we will do that. Unless you can show me what I am doing wrong, I am telling you that it is going to include everything. I am not looking for trouble. On Feb. 13th a copy of the drainage plan with catch basins, original plan, was discussed at Con. Com. and we said it would be included. We told the Con. Com. that these things should be included and should be in the Order of Conditions. George Stern interjected that some of the members denied they even saw those plans and the Chairman of the Con. Com. indicated to me that he was going to be in attendance tonight. The file for this particular case is signed out to the Chairman. Chepulis commented that at the time these plans were approved by this BOARD we did not have in our Order of Conditions that any changes made by another agency be submitted to the Planning Board. Susan St. Pierre reminded him that this change was not initiated by a town agency but by the applicant. Roberts added that the feeling is that the same plans that were submitted to this BOARD were not submitted to the various other boards and for the purposes of clarity they should be so modified. Any changes that occur have to come before this BOARD. Schiavoni then asked for a letter of follow-up after this meeting for himself and the Con. Com. The BOARD agreed to send a letter. Cyr commented that nothing was accomplished tonight, we don't even know what the modifications really are. Roberts then asked if the Con. Com. has a set of the original drainage plans - Stern: as I indicate% ~ speaking as a private citizen, we did receive one page on which some catch basins are missing. And, it is the standard operating procedure of the Con. Com. that the permits be concurrent and based on the same information. Schiavoni stated that they did have a copy because that is where they got their copy; that plan showing the catch basins is part of the Con. Com. folder, I can assure you of that. The Chairman asked if they referred to the original approved plan when they filed their Notice of Intent - answer: we referred to plan ~098. Stern interjected that Mr. Colsia, Stapinski and an attorney from Schiavoni's office all testified at Con. Com. meeting that they had never seen that drainage plan and now they say they submitted it to us.. Schiavoni then stated that when an Order of Conditions comes out he will provide the BOARD with a copy. Chepulis told him that at the moment, when it is officially in the hands of the Con. Com., he should provide then with all the information, plans necessary and this should be done before the Order is written. Schiavoni said the plan has no validity until the Order of Conditions is endorsed. WILDWOOD ESTATES: Paul Ahearn present; told membership that his bank won't go with the Covenant and his abutter doesn't know which way he wants his driveway to go as yet. He is having plans drawn up for him to go out on to Forest St. and on to Wildwood. His engineer is going to stake it out for him. The minimum would be two weeks on this. Ahearn requested an extension of completion date. Motion by Roberts to grant an exten- sion of Wildwood Estates per request of Mr. ~Ahearn on Jan. 20, 1980 until Oct. 30, 1980. Second by Monteiro and unanimous vote. Abeam is going to post a bank passbook. March 3, 1980 - cont. The Highway Surveyor requested a copy of the plan and recor~ended that before any additional work is done on the subdivision he would like some kind of agreement as to the slope easement with the abutter. Ahearn said that will be rectified with the whole package. COITUIT STB~: Jay Burke present. Mr. Burke w~s informed that this will not be a through street which is the recommendation of the Police and Fire Depts. Motion by Roberts to notify Mr. Burke that, with the opinion of the Highway Surveyor, police, fire and Planning Board~ he so desig!~ his subdivision so aS not to complete Cotuit St. and draw up the necessary plans with Mr. Cyr. There~is to be two cul de sacs. Plans show- ing what is proposed to be submitted to this BO~. Monteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. NVPC: Request for Comments on N. A. Housing Rehab Application - Susan St. Pierre, Planner, wrote the grant. Monteiro stated that he has looked into it and it is a good situation. The Commission is looking for a favorable A-95 review. Motion by Roberts that the BGARD notify the MVPC that it fully supports the project cited and any efforts to secure its fulfillment will be greatly appreciated. Second by Monteiro and unanimous rot e. PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL - "LAKESIDE": Applicant J. Tuttle, Landsail, Inc. Discussion date set for April 7; walk site on Saturday, March 8. BOARD OF APPEALS LEGAL NOTICES: 1 - JOHN CURTIS: motion by Monteiro and second by Roberts that the BOAP~ voice no objection. Unanimous vote. 2 -FRANI(& VIRGINIA PELUSO: motion and second by Monteiro and Roberts, respectively, to recommend adherence to normal zoning by-laws. Unanimous vote. LEGAL NOTICES: CON. COM.; HAVEEHILL - were read and duly noted. MEMOFROM COONTYPLAN~ RE MA. BALANCED GRO?~H D~ELOP~ENT ACT: legislation proposed to be incorporated under the Growth Policy for the state with some control of land use at the local level. To be reviewed, i DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL DISCLDSURE LAW - all members advised to write their Senator and Rep. opposing this action. The ~;~. Federation of Planning Boards also opposed it by resolution. ~ PLANN~ INFO. - Suggested clarifying the wording itc reflect intent under the Summary of Dimensional Requirements ~,~ & #3 where Industria~ land abuts Residential land. To be re-worded and inserted in the Warrant when opened. Ms. St. Pierre also suggested that a buffer section should be added to the By-Law. A party inquired as to construction of a wind mill that would be 60-80 ft. high - would this require a variance or a by-law change? The Chairman advised that right now it would be a Board of Appeals matter but we probably should entertain something in our By-Law for this purpose in this day of ener~y consciousness. C~hairman ~ ~~cretary / Gilda Blackst ock