Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-09-09Monday - September 9, 1974 ReguIar Meeting The PLANNING BOARD held its regular meeting on Monday evening, September 9, ~974 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: William Chepulis, Chairman; Fritz 0stherr, Vice-C~irman; William N. Salemme, Clerk; Paul R. Lamprey and John J. Nonteiro. As a preface to the meeting, Mr. Chepulis announced that he would terminate dis- cussion if and when repetition occurre~due to a very large Agenda. Mr. Monteiro made a motion that the minutes of previous meetings be accepted and Mr. Lamprey seconded. Mr. Ostherr requested that the minutes of August 5, 1974 needed correction on the last page in the paragraph concerninga committee for Scenic Roads. This should state "...criteria and to study regulation and enforcement of the Scenic Roads law." Also, in the minutes of August 13, 1974, first page regarding Robert J. Burke petition, 4th line correction - "Mr. Ostherr stated that the Subcommittee met with the petitioner and Town Counsel and spoke to Town Counsel several times." A motion was made by Mr. Monteiro to include the correction, seconded by Mr. Lamprey and the vote was unanimous. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL: ~. G~ORGE PARR - Campbell Rd., Lots 7, 8, 9. ~¥ank Gelinas represented Mr. F~rr. Mr. Ostherr m~de a motion that the Planning Board endorse the plan showing a portion of Campbell Forest as Not Requiring Approvml under Subdivision Control Law. Mr. Mon- teiro seconded and a discussion followed. Mr. Chepulis requested clarification regarding Lot 6 & 10 which are in separate ownerships. Mr. Gelinas stated that Mr. Fmrr'has ~ned, at one time or another, all these lots but he has never recorded a master plan. He still owns a lot of land in the back beyond Lo~l &.12. Mr. Chepulis cited that he is looking for accuracy of the drawings put before the Board. A vote was t~ken on the motion and w~s unanimous. 2. GEORGE FARR- Plan of Land, Salem Forest (Lugalls Rd.) Lots.4~ thru48.. Mr. Nont- eiro made a motion to endorse the Plan of Land, Salem Forest as Not Recruiting Approv- al under Subdivision Control Law and Mr. Lamprey seconded. Question by Mr. Chepulis as to the reason for the right-of-way on Lot 45 inasmuch as it has the required front- age. Mr. Gelinas said that there is legal frontage and access, but not practical access. The question arose as to whether this designation of right-of-way is neces- sary for the purpose of this plan. The members of the BOARD voted unanimously on the above motion. 3. GEORGE FARR - Portion of Salem Forest. The BOARD noted that there is a foundation on Lot 57 and, also, a drainage easement. A discussion followed about the future road. Mr. Gelinas stated tD~t the purpose of the ro~d is to go into the back land andMr. Ostherr cited that it isn't even suggested on the plan. They are looking ahead, stated ~,~. Gelinas. He feels that the problem is with the frontage lots that front on frontage streets, because the ~own only hms easements right along that road. Mr. Monteiro m~de a motion to de~¥ the plan as not requiring approval because it was not properly presented to the. PLAnNING BOARD. Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion. The BOARD feels that the street has ~o be in acceptance or on an approved plan. Mr. Gelin~s said that they have signed plans mmny, many times like this and he is concerned about the lack of consistency. Mr. Ostherr brought out two points or comments: Septemher 9, 1974 - cont. the BO~%RDh~s adopted the practice of having it designated on the plan who the rights of the easements go to and, also, feels that one wbuld have a hard time finding this particular piece of land. The BOARD then voted on the motion and it was a unanimous decision to deny. 4. GEORGE PARR - a second set of plans to go with the above Porm A's - Salem Forest Lot 58. Mr. Chepulis noted that it does not refer to the same Job Lot number. The Notion was m~de by l4r. Nonteiro to endorse the plan showing Lot 58 as not requiring approval under Subdivision Control Law and the vote was unanimous, secondedby Mr. Lamprey. 5. CHARLES PETERSON -Land on Salem St. This is an extension of the lot lines cna plan already recorded in 1972. Mr. N~nteiro m~de a motion to accept the plan as not requiring approval under Subdivision Control Law. Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The BOARD noted that the above plan should state a "division" of land not a "subdivi- sion" and the existing plan ~6739 should be on the plan because that is what gets recorded. 6. WILLIAM F. SOMERVILLE -Land on Chadwick St. Mr. Ostherrmade a motion to endorse as not recluiring approval under Subdivision Control Law a plan of Land owned by William F. Somerville dated June 20, 1974. ~. Lamprey seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 6. ARTHUR FORTIN - land on'Johnson Street. The BOARD noted that there is a house being built on Lot A, and Lot B is in the R-3 District. Mr. Lamprey made a motion to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under Subdivision Control Law and Mr. Non- teiro seconded. The vote was unanimous. 8. EDWARD GREENWOOD - Chestnut S%. Mr. Gelinas represented Mr. Greenwood and stated that the plans were submitted for the purposes of recording with the Registry of Deeds. Mr. Chepulis mentioned that a properly prepared plan should show where the land starts. Mr. Gelinas replied that he had been asked not to show this and thinks h~s client i~ within his rights to present this kind of plan to the PLANNING BOARD. Mr. Gelinas said this plan has area, frontage and by your own admission you know where it is, and we are asking you to sign this plan to be recorded in the Registry of Deeds, North- Essex. Mr. Ostherrrequested that he locate one corner of the property and Mr. Gelinas agreed to doing this. Mr. Gelinas said thata statement has been made that no one can find the land. He feels that a plan, by an inherent nature, shows distanoes%o 1/~00 i~t., and it is his'right as an engineer and a surveyor to choose what he wants. Thinks that the BOARD is way beyond its rights to force him to put a dimension that he chooses not to on the plan. Mr. Ostherr made a motion that the PLANNING BOARD endorse this plan as not requiring approval under subdisision control law provided %hat it not be signed until at least one corner on Chestunt St. with reference to the future intersection be no%ed on the plan. ~.~. M0nteiro seconded the motion and the vote w~sunanimous. S~. T~! GARDENS: Chester Sullivanwas present. The BOARD checked over the plans and the following com- ments were made: the pages weren't numbered (secretary's note: there were not 12 sets Of prints). Mr. Ostherrmade a ~?otion to approve the revised definitive subdivi- sion plans of Salem Gardens dated April 1, ~974. ~. Salemme seconded and the vote W~S unanimous. September 9, 1974 - cont. SCOTT PROPERTIES: ~[r. Chepulis read aloud the Highway Surveyor's letter and d~scussed same with Mr. Cyr, who w~s present. Mr. Cyr felt the drainage ditch was $kay and stated that the inner circle can be handled with a truck mounted plow which is more practical and increases town efficiency. Letters were read from the Conservation Commission, Bd. of Public Works, Fire Dept., Police Dept. and Board of He~th and all are on file in the PLANNING BOARD office. ~. Ostherr made a motion to refer the plans to the Subdivision Control Sub-Committee to be reported on and action taken at the nex~'%x~ra-ordinary"meeting. ~. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Ostherr then made a second motion stating that the PLAN~G BOAY~ hold a meeting on Monday evening, September 23rd, 1974 in the meeting room at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. BUR~ PROPERTY- Cotuit St. and Ispwich St. M~. Oatherrmade a motion, based on information byMr. Gelinas, that the PLA/~G BOARD not endorse the plans as not requiring approval under Subdivision Control Law inasmuch as they do constitute a subdivision. The motion vms seconded byNr. Lamprey and the vote was unanimous. BURKE PROPER~f- Cotuit St. and Brewster St. ~r. Octherr made a motion, based on information by ~Lr. Gelinas, that the PT~NNING BOARD no._~tendorse the plans as not requ~ing approval inasmuch as they do constitute a sub- division and Mr. Lamprey seconded. The vote was unanimous. BEN OSGOOD -RALEIGH TAVERN LAN~: Mr. Osgood requested that the BO~3{D release his bond. Mr. Osgood to bring in copy of bond release. The plans were given to the BOARD~ and Mr. Ostherr made a motion to refer them to the Subdivision Control Sub-Committee. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote was unanimous. Ben Osgood agreed to grant a two-day extension on the above. Mr. Salemme made a motion that the BOARD change the special meeting called for the 23rd to the 24th and Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. SCENIC ROADS: Mr. Ostherr reiterated what occurred at the meeting heldwith the Selectmen. There is a general understanding that only routine maintenance will be done on the road until it is designated as a scenic road and this should be done at a regular town meeting. He m~de a motion that the BOARD withdraw their request for Special Town Meeting to make Great Pond Rd. a Scenic Road'~rovided that the Selectmen understand that the BOARD has the optie~%e~!~n~ie~ for the warrant if a Special Town Meeting is held in the near future. A moratorium by all town depts, will be kept. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion. }~. Salemme noted that a committee had been formed to stud~v this subject. Mr. Cb,pulis suggested, assuming that this is adopted by the BOARD, that notification be made to all depts, that a moratorium is in effect. A vote was taken and all members voted in the affirmative. Se~tem'~er 9, 1974 - cont. ~. 0stherr suggested that the Scenic Roads Committee get working on this matter. "9ir. Monteiro decided that the date for the first meeting would be October 1, 1974 and the secretary would send cut notices. BOARD OF APPEALS DECISIONS: Decisions were read by the FLOOD DISASTW~R D~O DISCUSSION: 351 communities are flood prone and 101 are ~articipating in Flood Program' Nr. Nonteiro made a motion that we ~able the matter. The motion ~?as seconded by Mr. Salemme and the vote was unanimous. LA'PtER FR0~ ABUTTERS RE WOODHOUSE PROERRTY ON HIGH ST.: ~r. Monteiro made a motion that the BOA~RD accept the letter as received-and }~r. Lamprey seconded. The vote was unanimous. Mr. Lamprey then brought up the matter of whether or not to take this type of request mt a special meeting. The BOARD felt that at times there are certain things that have to be taken up which are not on the agenda. ,The members also felt that it should go through the~ Board of Appeals procedure. Mr. 0sth~rr cited Ch. 41 Sce. 81-Q which refers to one dwelling per' lot. DNR NOTICE 0P INTENT RE Methuen Construction Co. - APPLEDORE: The BOARD read the communication and noted the requirements thereon. LETTER FROM PERSONNEL BOARD: Mr. Chepulis read the letter. NISCF~L~/~EOUSNATTERS: Court action taken by Burke and Daviss~ainst the BOARD; Mr. Chepulis to contact Arnold Salisbury to inform him that all members have been summonsed aad will also check misspelling and wrong name on the summons. Mr. Lamprey made a motion that until fkzr~her notice the PLANNING BOARD will hold two meetings per month - one on the first Nonday and the second meeting on the third Monday of the month. The agenda is to be controlled by the Chairman for the second meeting. Mr. Nonteiro seconded the motion and a discussion followed. The NVPC is to be the 2nd item on the agenda at one of the above meetings. A vote was taken and all members voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The meeting adjourned at 11 P.M. William Che$~lis: ~cretary Gilda Blackstock