Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-10-01Monday - October 1, 1973 Regular Meeting The PLANNING BOARD met on Monday evening, October I, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building meeting room. The following members were present and voting: William Chepulis, Chairman; John J. Monteiro, Vice Chairman; Paul R. Lamprey, Clerk; Donald N. Keirstead and Fritz Ostherr. There were 25 people present for the meeting. Mr. Ostherr made a motion to accept the minutes of the August 27, 1973 meeting; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL: A. "Andrew Circle" Plans were presented by Mr. James Rand, the engineer for Andrew Sorbo, showing townhouse lots for the subdivision.that had been approved for single or two-family lots. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to delete the 50 foot easement shown on the plan to the Town of North Andover; Mr. Keirstead seconded the motion. The Board looked at the Flatley plan to see where the easement would connect to their development. Mr. Monteiro said the abutters in the area do not like the easement because it would cause a traffic hazard if it went through this development to Andovar Street. Mr. Keirstead said he did not realize that the developer would actually provide a road to connect to Flatley, when the Board had asked this at the previous meeting. Now he doesn't think we want that roadway to connect because there will be alot of traffic going over that small roadway. He would direct the developer to remove that roadway. The Board could endorse the plan and state on it that it will be removed. Mr. Rand said that Mr. Sorbo will go along with anything the Board wants. Mr. Ostherr feels that in order for the town to accept that easement, it would have to go to town meeting. The Board further discussed whether or not it would be good planning. Mr. Lemprey feels that the through roadway would be for safety purposes but that a 22 ft. wide pavement would not be enough. Mr. Monteiro said he would add to the motion to approve the plan without the access road. Mr. Gerraughty, Carry Circle, said they were told last March that there would nothing to worry about and now we have 32 townhouse units. Andover Street would be taking alot of additional traffic. In the Spring there is alot of water; there is a serious dralnage problem already caused by the Flatley apartments. He feels the Board is not considering the welfare of the people of the town. He is asking the Planning Board to look at what this is going to do to the residents and people of North Andover. October 1, 1973 - cont. Mr. Chepulis feels there might be another legal problem. There should be another covenant prepared because of the change of lots$ the covenant recorded refers to specific lot n~nbers and the dates don't agree. Mr. Ostherr doesn't see an~ problem, thinks the covenant is a]_lright. Mr. Chepulis said he read an article in the paper that the Board of Public Works stated that all townhouses will have separate water and sewer connections. Mr. Foster said this has been their policy; the townhouses that are already built are connected that way. Mr. Cyr said there is a problem in that area and that as far as this development goes, it has never been straightened out. Mr. Rand said it is presently before the State being processed. He said he would like to meet with Mr. Cyr again on the matter. Discussion was held on the responsibilities of the Planning Board, considerati°n of thewelfare of the townspeople, requirements under the regulations, protection, etc. Mr. Keirstead said he believes that the driVe,age system proposed for this develop- ment is adequate. Mr. Ostherr felt the easement should be left on the plan; he said it cannot hurt, it leaves us the option of having some emergency access for safety reasons. Mr. Rand said the location of the townhouses are just about where they were in the original sketch plan before the easement was shown so that removing the roadway won't relocate the townhouses. Mr. Cyr asked how the Board could approve the plan when the State has not approved the dr-4nage yet. Mr. Chepulis said he doesn't think we can put conditions on this plan; this is between the State and the developer. Mr. Keirstead said what is really before us is whether or not it is a subdivision and thisis an already approved subdivision. Mr. Lamprey asked if there was any way that we could reconsider it as a subdivision. Mr. Crittenden, 297 Andover St., said he is agalust this plan as .such but realizes that we are going tohave it. The developer did not ask for the easement; the Planning Board suggested it for emergency service. We don't want a road put in there now or at any time. There is a drainage problem and Flatley's development caused it - why give him help. This is a chance to stop Flatley until he takes care of the problems he has caused in this town. vote was taken on the motion to delete the easement from the plan. The vote was - 1, with Mr. Ostherr voting no. Mr. Ostherr made a motion to endorse the plan as not requiring Planning Board approval; Mr. Keirstead seconded the motion. October 1, 1973 - cont. Mr. Monteiro said he agreed with Mr. Cyr's co~,~ent that the drainage problem on Andover St. would add to the problems of the town. Mr. Lamprey said there are enough living units added to this development that the street would be inadequate to handle it. Mr. Keirstead read the statute with reference to plans not requiring approval. Mr. Gorham read part of the statute with reference to the duties of the Planning Board. He said this has not become a public way; the purpose of the subdivision is based upon whether it has been accepted as a public way. Lengthy discussion was held on the Subdivision Control Law. Mr. i(Lamprey felt the Board should have taken into consideration whether the drsinage would be adequate; we knew townhouses could be built, but we looked at it for single family development. Mr. Gorham said he would like to refer Mr. Keirstead to the purpose of the whole subdivision law. We are faced with having 600 apartments, Flatley's townhouses and these townhouses. There has not been planning for safety, drainage or any- thing else in that entire area. Your main purpose is to govern the safety, re~,~ations, welfare of the townspeople, etc. and you. are not doing that. Mr. ~ste~ c~ed a co~t case and read from his ~ok. Length discussion was Mr. Gorham Said he feels something is wrong somewhere because we do not have a master plan,(Mr. Keirstead groaned - remarks were exchanged). Mr. Gotham said he would not add anything more because he was rudely interrupted. Mr. Monteiro added that he does not wholly agree with the Subdivision Control Law. The vote was taken on the motion to endorse the plan. The vote was 3 - 2; Mr. Monteiro and Mr. Lamprey voted no. Mr. Gotham then suggested, since Mr. Foster was present, that the letter of the law should be met as to the number of townhousest setback requirements, etc. Mr. Chepulis said that is the function of the Building Inspector and he will see that ~1 requirements are met. Mr. Keirstead asked Mr.' ~erham if he was aware that he had 20 days to appeal this decision. B. Atty. Charles W' Trombly and Atty. Harold Morley presented plans not requiring approval to the Board as follows: 1. Land on Osgood and Stevens Street - 9 lots all having over one acre of land for single family homes - zoned R-2. Mr. Keirstead made a motion to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the subdivision Control Law; Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. October 1, 1973 - cont. 2. G.A.R. Corporation to~a~house complex on East Water St. and ChickaringRoad. Shows the units that are already constructed, this is for recording purposes. Mr. Ostherr made a motion to endorse the plan as not requiring approval; Mr. Keirstead seconded the motion. Mr. Foster explained to the Board that they should be certain that all of the lots meet the zoning requirements and feels that all of the townhouse lots should be shown because a building permit has been issued. He feels the Board should look at the entire project instead of Just part of it. The building permit covers the~entire project. The developer agreed in the beginning to so submit a plan. Mr. Keirstead kept objecting saying he doesn't care what Charlie says, he will sign the plan anyway. Mr. Foster demanded that Mr. Keirstead stop interrupting so that he could speak. Mr. Keirstead then left the meeting. Mr. Chepulis also noted that the remaining land is not bounded, so it is not shown as a lot. Mr. Foster said that if the Planning Board endorses this p~n, he will revoke the permitfor the rem-t~ing townhouses because he has no knowledge of the area rem~ing. He issued the permit on the basis of showing the entire area. Atty. Trombly said these plans are for financing the already built townhouses. Mr. Foster said Town Counsel had said that i~dgood to establish the policy of getting Planning Board approval before issuing a building permit.~ Mr. Foster feels these plans should g~ before the Planning Board and he would like to have the entire project shown and he hopes that the Planning Board will go along with it. After some.~discussion, Atty. Trembly said they would submit new plans showing the entire area; they would withdraw these and refile. Mr. Lamprey made a motion:to allow the petitioner to withdraw his plans and Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The Town Clerk will be notified that the plan was withdrawn. 3. John Callahan, of John Callahan Associates, filed a plan not requiring approval for a 1~ acre parcel of land off Forest Street near Sharpener's Pond, owned by CriStaldi. The plan was to define the boundaries. Mr. Ostherr made a motion to endorse the plan as not requiring approval; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous (4 members). HUGHES SUBDIVISION PLAN: Mr. Callahan discussed the Hughes townhouse subdivision plan which had never been signed by the Board. Signing of the plans had been held up by the Board pending the submission of linens for the profiles and topo- graphic plans. They have started to dig for the roadway and construction. Mr. Foster said he was going to stop any further work until the plans are signed by October 1, 1973 - cont. the Board and recorded. Mr. Callahan said he will bring the completed plans in on Friday so that further construction will not be delayed. ~. William Cyr, Salem Street. Plans not requiring approval for a lot on Salem Street adjacent to his own lot. Mr. Ostherr made a motion to endorse the plan as not requiring approval. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was u~animous. 5. Atty. Clifford Elias, plans for aright of way from OsgoodMills through Davis & Furber land to Elm Street. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to disapprove the plans because they are improperly submitted, the applicant is not the owner of the land and the owner is not stated on the application and the right of way does not have adequate frontage on Elm Street. Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 6. Robert L. Lubin, 75 Surrey Drive, plans not requiring approval for a lot at the corner of Surrey Drive and Chadwick Street. Mr. Ostherr made a motion to notify the applicant that Lot ~A at the corner of Chadwick Street does not show adequate frontage. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 7. George Farr, land on Campbell Road. Mr. 0stherrnoted an error in the computation of frontages on an ~lready approved and recorded lot. Mr. Lamprey made a motion to approve the plans subject to the submission of corrected plans. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. RALEIGH TAV~NLANE: Atty. Victor Harem submitted a bank book in the amount of $8,000 and a form of reI~ase of the remaining lots in the Raleigh Tavern subdivision. The Board had voted to take this action at a previous meeting. Atty. Hatem said he would send a letter to the Board stating that the completion date will be June 1, 197~. Mr. Ostherr made a motion that the Chairman sign the release; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. APPLEDORE SUBDIVISION: Atty. Victor Harem presented corrected definitive plans for "Appledore" to the Board.- Peter Ogren, the engineer, was also presant and went over the list, item by item, to show the Board membe~sthat all of the corrections had been made as listed. Mr. Ostherr said because of the completeness of the plans, he would make a motion to set the date for the hearing, which will be October 29th. Mr. Nonteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. October 1, 1973 - cont. CHESTNUT COURT SUBDIVISION: Jay Burke appeared before the Board to request a reduction of the bank book being held for the "Chestnut Court" subdivision. $5,000 is being held and he wants it reduced %o $&OO. A report was submitted by the Highway Surveyor which stated that there are a few minor things to be done and that $&OO would be sufficient to cover the corrections; such as cleaning the catch basins, a street sign, replacing a broken grate and minor grading. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to accept the Highway Surveyor's report and reduc~ the amount of the bank book to $400. Mr. Ostherr seconded the motion and amended it to add that all work is to be completed by January 1, 197~. Jay Burke said it would be finished this week. The vote was unanimous. TOWN GARAGE SITE RE-ZONING: A letter was received from the Selectmen that the proposed site for the Town Garage is zoned R-& and they would like to have it re-zoned to Industrial. Mr. Monteiro made a motion that we have no objection and suggested holding a public meeting to get the feelings of the abutters and townspeople. Mr. Lamprey said this land was given to the town for this purpose. Highway, Surveyor Oyr said we need that area, there is no room here (downtown). Mr. Chepulis said to invite the Selectmen to the next meeting to discuss this. Mr. Lamprey said it has been the practice of the Planning Board to go along with the Zoning By-Law the way it is. Mr. Ostherr suggested holding the public meeting on the same evening as the "Appledore" hearing. He seconded Mr. Monteiro's motion and the vote was unanimous. A letter will be sent to the Selectmen to invite them to the Oct. 29th meetLng. BOARD OF ASSESSORS - Form E: A letter was received from the Assessors relative to Form E (Certified List of Abutters) under the new regulations. They state that due to their work load, they do not have the time to certify abutters. After some discussion, Mr. Ostherr made a motion that the petitioner~responsible for list of abutters and that we adopt that practice until a change can be made in the regulations. Mr. Monteiro seconded the. motion and the vote was unanimous. BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING: Notice was received of a Board of Appeals hearing for Guy N. Richards in the Building Inspector's denial of a building permit for business offices with storage facilities. Mr. Foster explained that this is for a liquor wholesaling distributor and that he felt the large area of the building was warehousing so that it was the main use and so denied the building permit; the office space provided was very small. Under the Zoning By-Law, Industrial 1, warehousing and wholesaling are allowed only as a secondary use. Mr. Ostherr made a motion to endorse the Building Inspector's action on this petition; Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. A letter will be sent to the Board of Appeals stating the Planning Board concurs with the Bldg. Insp. decision. October 1, 1973 - cont. MISO'~3,~.NEOUS MATTEP~S: Notice was received from the League of Women Voters of a public meeting to be held on October llth at the VO~ school on land use, the speaker to be Dr. Thomas Atkins, Secretary of Communities and Development. Any Planning Board members able to attend woulddo so. Douglas Wilson had submitted preliminary definitive plans and had requested the Board to study them. A letter will be sent to Mr. Wilson suggesting that he contact the Subdivision Control Sub-committee (Ostherr& Monteiro) and set up a meeting with them to go over the plans. The meet~g adjourned at ll:OOP.M.