Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-12-27Wednesday - December 27, 1972 Special Meeting The PLANNING BOARD held a special meeting on Wednesday evening, December 27, 1972 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building. The following members were present and voting: Charles W. Trombly, Jr., Chairman; Donald N.' Keirstead, Vice Ch.; Fritz Ostherr, Clerk; William Chepulis and John J. Monteiro. There were 10 people present. This meeting was called to vote on two subdivisions for which hearings had been held and the time limit for voting was expiring. 1. JOHNSON CIRCLE SUBDMSION: The Board had received the report from the Essex County Conservation Commission. Mr. Chepulis reported that the rear of the development is very steep and there is a terrific stream with a large volume of water. The turnaround doesn't seem feasible in its present location. Jay Willis asked if this is something that is germaine to the PlamningBosrd or should the Conservation Commission be concerned. Mr. Chepulis said the Planning Board has to be concerned with water flow~ drainage, etc. Mr. Keirstead said the Subdivision Rules and Regulations state that the Board has the authority to protect existing water courses. He read parts of the report from the Essex County Conservation Commission, which report was made a part of the records of the Board. Mr. Keirstead said he sees no advantage to the town of running the culverts under the roadway. He is not inclined to approve the relocation of the stream - the road could be relocated. Scott Giles, the engineer, said he measured to get his figures - he did not guess at them. Mr. Chepulis said there would be significant soil loss and deterioration with the development of the area as proposed. The Subdivision Control Sub-committee's recommendation is not to approve the subdivision as it is at the present time in the lower area. It can be approved with modifications. Mr. Ostherr said he sees two separate problems - adequate dr,inage and relocating the stream. As a Planning Board, our only contention is the first; he thinks the Board is overstepping its bounds if it goes into other areas. Mr. Keirstead doesn't agree; he thinks we have to consider the health~ safety and welfare as to any development. He feels that the relocation of the stream not under the roadway would be preferable. The Subdivision Control Sub-committee doesn't think the stream should be piped under the road. Mr. Trombly wonders if the Planning Board isn't overstepping their bounds. He questions whether the Board has jurisdiction relative to streams. We could make a condition of the approval that they conform to the provisions of the Hatch-Jones Act so that they have to go to the Conservation Commission. It was suggested that if lots 8, 9, 10 & 11 were taken out, the subdivision would probably be all right. December 27, 1972 - cont. Mr. Chepulis made a motion that the subdivision be denied. Mr. Keirstead seconded the motion. The following reasons are given for disapproval: 1. There is inadequate protection of the natural water course with resPect to drainage capabilities. 2. The Board feels that the stream should not flow underneath the roadway as shown on the plans. 3. The recommendations of the Highway Surveyor that bituminous berm be installed from Station 0 to 8+ on both sides of the street, to extend the 12" drain along' lots ~1 & ~2 from the catch basin near lot ~2 to Johnson St. and to install one catch basin at the intersection of Johnson Street, must be met. A. According to the Board of Public Works, vitrified clay pipe is required by the town. The vote on the motion was ~-2, with Mr. Trombly and Mr. Ostherr voting against the denial. NEW SUBDTVISION RULES & R~GULATIONS: The adopted Subdivision Rules & Regulations have been corrected and are ready for printing. A copy should be filed with .the Town Clerk; a certified copy should be recorded at the Registry of Deeds and a certified copy should be forwarded to Land Court in Boston. Mr. Keirstead had received a p~ice from Advance Reproductions, which he thought was a fair price and made a motion to order 200 copies @ $220.00, from Advance Reproductions; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Keirstead pointed out that new forms will be required with these new regulations. Mr. Ostherr made a motion that Mr. Keirstead go ahead and make up the necessary forms; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. ARCHDIOCESE TOWNHOUSEPROPOSAL: The Board received an answer to their letter from Town Counsel relative to the legality of accepting their proposal if the Board voted to do so. Mr. Salisbury could not give a definite answer because he has been unable to contact Atty. Dolan for further information; however, he informed the Board that the Building Inspector told him he would not issue building permits to the Archdiocese if they did not meet the zoning requirements. Mr. Keirstead mentioned the Planning Board of Appeals of the town, which has never been used, and the Building Inspectors decision could be appealed to that Board or even go to court. LAND/VEST, INC. · Mr. Ostherr reported that the PUD Study Committee met last week and heard again from Land/Vest and that they had proposed two ways to modify the Zoning By-Law for their development. They would like to go before town meeting in March December 27. 19~- cont. if possible. The PUD Committee doesn't think there is enough time to have anything ready for March town meeting. Mr. Ostherr made a motion that the Planning Board take no initiative relative to presenting anything to do ~ith the PRD for March town meeting. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Keirstead said the Board should probably come up with recommendations of their own and present them to Land, est rather than let them make the recommendations. The Board discussed the Land, est development. Mr. Shelley Gilbert said the PUD would be a benefit to the town and should be done in phases. The townspeople should be encouraged to understand what PUD is. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. (Charles'' W. Trombly, Jr.) Chairman Secretary