Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-02-05Monday - February 5, 1973 Regular Meeting The PLAN-NT~GBOARD held its regular meeting on Monday evening, February 5, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. at the North Andover High School auditorium. 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 approximately 60 people present for the meeting. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to accept the minutes of the previous meetings; Mr. Chepulis seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. PRELIMINARY PLANS: Sutton Hill Road. Mr. Hazen Johnson, surveyor for Charles E. Cyr Co., appeared before the Board and stated he is presently drawing up preliminary plans for a subdivision of the remaining area near Sutton Hill Road. He had a question toask the Board as to the requirements of a &O-ft. to the inch scale for plans. He would like to know if the plans could be made on a 100 ft. scale, since a large are~ is involved and he bad to meet the &O-ft. requirements, it would take several paEes of plans. He would like to have that requirement of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations waived. After some discussion, Mr. Keirstead made a motion that the petitioner can submit preliminary! plans at a scale not smaller than 100 ft. to the inch. Mr. Ostherr seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Johnson also asked what forms were required for the submission of the plans. Mr. Keirstead explained that the new forms are not ready yet but that just proper submission will be all right - probably write a letter and submit copies to the Town Clerk, Board of Health, etc., as required. ARCR1)IOCESEOF BOSTON: PreliminaryPlans. A report from the Subdivision Control Sub-committee was presented on the preliminary townhouse subdivision plans of the Archdiocese of Boston on land of the cemetery on WaverlyRoad. Mr. Monteiro said that he and Mr. Chepulis spent about 2~hrs. in the area on this past Saturday afternoon and also again on Sunday. They both feel the plans are incomplete; there is insufficient information for drainage and that drainage problems exist there. They found other problems besides the ones that exist. He said that immediately behind the cemetery is a mound of land 7 to 8 feet high and they feel that this might be preventing drainage from the rear and is settling there and making the area very wet. There are holes 5 to 7 feet deep filled with water with no access across the street to drain. He visited some of the property owners in the immediate area and found much of the soil had deteriorated dangerously. Parts of Waverly Road are not in good condition because of the water flow. He discussed the traffic problem in the area and found there is a dangerous situation. There would be a fire, traffic and police hazard. The culverts were 5 to 6 feet deep and filled with water and debris which made a dangerous situation for the children in the area. Drainage from Cotuit Street, Wood Lane and the apartments was presently causing a serious problem. He said the plans are not acceptable at this time. Feb~ary~ 5, ]-975 - cont. Mr. Chepulis said he had nothing to add to Mr. Monteiro's report, he concurs with everything as stated. He noted that the Highway Dept. has warning horses because of the hazardous conditions. The water is flowing at the surface rather than following any drainage system and is hazardous at present. Mr. Keirstead asked if they are denying this because proposed drainage is in- adequate or because of presently existing conditions. Mr. Chepulis said for those reasons and others. The plans do not show complete delineation of the land; there are areas that should be specified as lots rather than common areas. He feels preliminary plans should show more, not just in- dividual units on the plan; we have to look at the complex in its entirety. Chairman Trombly read the report from the Building Inspector which listed several respects that the plans did not meet zoning requirements, as follows: 1. The lots, as shown, do not show the area and frontage dimensions for each individual townhouse lot. 2. The lots as shown do not have the required 25 ft. sideline setback that is required for lots at the end of the tonwhouse complex. 5. All buildings, and the lots on which they are proposed to be built, must be shown on the same plan. Ail dimensions must be shown including setbacks, areas and frontages. &. Since each individual townhouse lot must be capable of being sold with the dwelling unit thereon~ separate services for utilities must be provided by the developer for each townhouse unit, and shown. 5. The cooperative aspect of this development, with each owner owning a share in the corporation, violates that particular section of the Zoning By-Law that requires that each townhouse tunit must be capable of being sold as an individual dwelling with its own lot. When a building permit is issued for a townhouse development, the plot plan must show a lot meeting the zoning requirements for each townhouse ~mit. Such lot cannot be changed or reduced in area in any manner, as would be done under a c~operative setup. Section 6.1, para. 2, specifically states that any lot for which a building permit has been issued, cannot be re- duced in area, frontage or setbacks. Mr. Monteiro said he concurs with the Building Inspector entirely. He accepts the report and agrees with it. Mr. Keirstead said No. 1 is correct - this is a deficiency in the plan, not zoning. No. 2 is correct, it does not have the required 25 ft. setback. No. 3 is correct, the dimensions are not shown. No. & having to do with utilities is not within the Planning Board's Jurisdiction. No. 5 - ownership is not a matter before the Planning Board even though it may apply when a building permit is applied for. Mr. Keirstead said the Board co~ld still approve the subdivision on condition that these show on the plan to overcome these deficiencies. Atty. James Dolan, representing the Archdiocese, said he would like a copy of the Building Inspector's letter. He was not present at the last meeting when this preliminary plan was presented. He will modify the plan to show proper 25-ft. setbacks. He said the Board should bear in mind that this is a preliminary plan. February 5, 1973 - cont. Mr. Keirstead felt this could be discussed further with the petitioner. Mr. Monteiro made a motion that the Planning Board deny the preliminary plan and ask the petitioner to come back to us at another time to present preliminary plans with the changes as noted. Mr. Chepulis seconded the motion; and added that this is a major subdivision and the Board has to be certain even on a pre- liminary basis, before we can bring something like this to the people. We have gone through the same thing with other developments until the Board was satisfied that the conditions had been met. He sees nothing different about this than what we have considered in the past. Mr. Keirstead commented on Mr. Monteiro's statement that the petitioner shouldn't speak. Mr. Monteiro said if the petitioner is ,1lowed to speak, then the people should be able to speak. Mr. Chepulis said this is not a hearing. Mr. Ostherr suggested limiting the discussion to the points stated so that the petitioner has an understanding of the Board's objections. Mr. Chepulis said he will go along with the petitioner presenting information about the preliminary plan but would like anyone in the audience to be able to ask any pertinent questions. Mr. Kelt- stead read a part of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations having to do with preliminary plans and what is involved and stated that the people can enter into the discussion. Chairman Trombly said he will allow Atty. Dolan to speak, but would like him to limit it to the points raised. A spectator in the audience asked Chairman Trombly if he had done any work for the Archdiocese of Boston and if his father bas done any work. Mr. Trombly said no. James Owen, Chief Engineer, spoke and agreed that there is a drainage problem. He said there was a severe rain storm over the weekend on frozen ground which resulted in a great run-off of water and erosion. By proper drainage design, this water would be controlled and wc~ld be carried across the site without a great erosion problem. If water is carried by a drain, it will be much more controlled. Mr. Stephen Diamond added that the proposal is intended to correct some of the problems on the site. They should be allowed to go ahead and present completed en~,~ineering plans. He feels their desi~ will help control the problem of drainage on this site. Mr. Monteiro said he would rather see these suggestions on a preliminary plan rather than a definitive plan. Atty. Dolan said he would be glad to come in and meet with the Board at various stages. Putting dimensions, etc. on the plans can be easily taken care of. Other problems that are technical can be resolved. As other problems are taken care of, we can come in and discuss it with the Board. He would like the Board to indicate what needs to be done and establish another date for the submission of plans. Mr. Monteiro said he can't understand why they can't bring in another preliminary plan. Mr. Chepulis questioned the vacant land that is not shown in lots. There is just a single access way for l~ units; he would want a through flow from one street to another. He questioned access for emergency vehicles. Row are they going to February 5, 1973 - cont. take care of the wetness. When the area is developed, there will be even more surface drainage. He said a plan must be submitted identifying every square foot of l~nd of the complex. A preliminary approval is a basis for commitment by the town. Mr. Diemond referred to the Building Inspector's letter and-one of the items having to do with 25 ft. setbacks. Ne ex?lained how they could divide the lot to show the s5 feet but use it for parking. Mr. Chepulis said that is a devious way to do it and he doesn't like it. He doesn't think the Planning Board has anything to do with type of ownership but the Board has to look at it that each unit must be capable of being sold as a unit. Atty. Dolau said this proposal is not prohibited by the ZoninE By-Law. He would make it subject to easements for parking to the abutters. It is not their intention to sell them as individual lots. It is his opinion that this is legal. Mr. Keirstead stated that for good planning, he favors parking on each end rather than in front of each unit. Several abuSters told of how wet the area is, how their property has been ruined from drainage, land has eroded, retaining walls have collapsed, etc. Mr. Owen, the engineer, said the average grade of the site is 10%, Atty. Dolan again requested a copy of the Bldg. Inspector's letter and Mr. Monteiro's comments and asked the Board to table the matter until the next meeting so that revised plans may be submitted reflecting the changes suggested. He is. agreeable to waiving the 60-day rule~ He would like to be allowed two weeks to study the Board's comments. Mr. Chepulis asked if the petitioner would submit to the Board in writing anex- tension of the 60-days. He doesn't want the Board to be in a position of having a set of plans on which no decision has been made; otherwise, we can act on this plan. Robert Carroll, a spectator, said we need a development like this in town. We need more housing, this is a good thing for the town, we should be bending over backwards to allow this. There is no drainage problem any worse there than in any other part of town. Atty. Dolan said they have spent a substantial amount of money and time on this proposal and he appreciates the Board's concern. He would have like a conditional approval this evening. He is not sure he understands some of the comments made. As$~ng for a 60-day delay could jeopardize the matter. He would like the Board to discuss the matter further and possibly .give a conditional approval. He then requested the Board to allow him 15 minutes to meet with his associates to decide what they should do. A spectator mentioned the meeting held last week at St, Michael's School relative to this proposal. He said many questions were asked of them at that time and they did not ~et answers. The people were not satisfied with what was presented to them. February 5, 1973 - cont. Mr. Chepulis said that the Planning Board has nothing to say about what kind of homes that can be built. The Building Code governs that. The Board members agreed to allow Atty. Dolan 15 minutes to meet with his associates. Mr. Ostherr commented that the lack of through access disturbs him and that there is no way for fire trucks to go. The Board then proceeded to consider other matters for the next 15 minutes. BEN OSGOOD: Mr. Osgood explained to the Board that he would like a portion of the bond presently being held, released on the Carlton Lane section. He went over the site with Mr. Nicetta, who suggested that $2200 of the $9200 being held, be retained to take care of drainage, catch basins, etc. Mr. Keirstead asked about the ditches presently across the pavement. Mr. Osgood said the developer did that, but that work is included in the amount requested. He expects to have all of the work completed in the Spring. Mr. Chepulis made a motion to increase the amount to be retained to $~,000 because of inflation; Mr. Keirstead seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. SORBO SUBDIVISION OFF AN~ STREET: Definitive subdivision plans had been submitted and a letter requesting the Board to set a hearing date for the subdivision. The Board looked over the plans. Mr. Keirstead noted that there was no linen copy of the profile, which is required under the regulations, and made a motion to set the hearing date upon receipt of the proper plans; Mr. Ostherr seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON: The Board then returned to Atty. Dolan and his associates. Atty. Dolan read the ~ilding Inspector's letter and he feels that items ~ & 5 are legal questions. Items 1, 2 & 3 can be handled very easily. He stated he would like a vote from the Board this evening. Mr. Keirstead said he doesn't think specific reasons have been listed for denial. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to deny the preliminary plans and also incorporate the Building Inspector's letter as part of the denial. Mr. Chepulis seconded the motion. Mr. Keirstead said he can't agree with including the Building Inspector's letter and he would not vote in favor of points ~ & 5 because they are not within the Board's jurisdiction; l, 2 & 3are all right. We can cite the existing drainage problems as a reason for denying and we could require to have shown what is going to be done with the water when it reaches WaverlyRoad. February 5, 1973 - cont. Mr. Keirstead made a motion to amend Mr. Monteiro's motion to delete items A & 5 from the Building Inspector's report if the letter is going to be included as reasons; and include a specific statement of the drainage onto Waverly Road. Mr. Ostherr seconded the motion. Cooperative ownership was discussed and Mr. Trembly and Mr. Keirstead felt that the Planning Board has no jurisdiction over this. A man in the audience asked if any~member of the Planning Board ha~ met privately with the Archdiocese. Mr. Keirstead said be has and this is done many times by Planning Board members and he does not consider this a conflict; if he was receiving compensation, then be would be in conflict. Mr. Monteiro, Mr. Chepulis aud Mr. Ostherr all said they have not. Chairmau Trembly said he had talked with Atty. Dolan in Laud Court, where he works. Atty. Dolan stated that the comments of the Building Inspector and other comments of the Board can be handled if made as conditions of the Board's approval. He would rather have a conditional approval rather than a denial. Mr. Monteiro said he would go along with deleting items d & 5 as part of the motion. Mr. Chepulis said we should re~ire more detailed drainage on the preliminary plans as it goes under Waverly Road. A unanimous vote was taken on Mr. Keirstead's motion. A vote was then taken on Mr. Monteiro's motion to disapprove the plaus for the reasons stated. The vote was 3 - 2; Mr. Monteiro, Mr. Chepults and Mr. Keirstead voted in favor of the motion and Mr. Trembly and Mr. Ostherr voted No. ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ARTICLES: There are two articles in the warrant for amendments to the Zoning By-Law. Mr. Keirstead made a motion to hold the hearings on Monday,. March 5, 197S at the Fire Station; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. JAY ROAD: A letter was received from the Selectmen requesting a recommendation from the Plann_ingBoard as to the adjudication of Jay Road. Copies of letters were also received from the Highway Surveyor and Board of Public Works. The Board of Public Works stated everything was satisfactory. The Highway Surveyor did not recommend acceptance because there was still work to be done on the roadway. A letter was also received from Town Counsel with a check enclosed in the amount of $2A00 to cover the completion of Jay Road. This check was placed with the town treasurer for safe-keeping. Mr. Keirstead said he cannot recommend acceptance of the road at this time. Atty. Collins, Jay Road, explained that an article has been inserted in the warrant for acceptance of the Road and for an additional $1,600 to be used with the $2,AOO to make the $&,OO0 recommended by the Highway Surveyor for the completion of Jay Road. He said the AdvisoryBoard has indicated that they would not pass on the article for the additional $1,600. Mr. Trombly made a motion to recommend adjudication of Jay Road; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Selectmen will be so notified. Mr. Keirstead made a motion that the $2,dOObe set up in a special account so that some interest may be earned until the money can be used after town meeting action; Mr. 0stherr seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. "SALEM GARDENS" SUBDIVISYON: Mr. Sullivan was present and new definitive plans had been presented to the Board, which they discussed briefly. Mr. Monteiro made a motion %o refer the plans to the Subdivision Control Sub- committee for report at the March 5th meeting and action is to be taken at that time; Mr. Ostherr seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Reports of perc tests had been received which will be referred to the Board of Health for review and recommendations to the Planning Board for the March 5th meeting. "JOHNSON CIRCLE" SUBDIVISION: New definitive subdivision plans were submitted aud Scott Giles, the engineer, was present to explain the corrections. Discussion was held on the width of the roadway and Mr. Keirstead suggested that the road be 22 feet wide and that the Board could make that a condition of the approval. After further discussion, Mr. Monteiro made a motion to refer the plans to the Subdivision Control Sub-committee for report and action at the March 5th meeting; Mr. Chepulis seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. BOARD OF APPEALS LEGAL NOTICES: The Planning Board received legal notices of 3 hearings to be held by the Board of Appeals on February 12th on petitions of Ippolito, Elm Real Trust and Doherty. They voted to make no comment on any of them. PLANS "NOT REQUIRINGPLANNIN~BOARD APPROVAL" The Board voted unanimously to sign the following plans as "Not Requiring Planning Board Approval under the Subdivision Control Law" 1. Carney 2. Ben Osgood 3. Maloney. NEXT MEE, TING: The Board will next meet on Monday, February 19th to complete this evening' s agenda. The meeting adjourned at ll:OO P.M. Chairman .... L.~Charles W. Tr~ombly, Jr.)