Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-09-30Monday - September 30, ~974 Special Meeting The Pl. AlggI~O BOARD held a Special Meeting on Monday evening, September 30, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. i~ the Fire Station Meeting Room. Me~bers William Chepulis, Chairman; Fritz Ostherr, Vice-Chairman; Paul R. Lamprey and William N. ~alemme were present and voting. John J. Monteiro was absent due to illness. There were more than 25 persons present. ~EARINO: REW~SIOMS TO SUBD1-TISION RULES AND RE~JLATIONS.' The clerk~ William N. Saleaune, read the notice. S~I~IOMII A: Mr. Lamprey stated he had proposed this ~noe for a zoning change and still feels it should be in the. Z~ing law rather than the Rules and Regulations. The reasoning behind the revision is to get a~a~fro~ the long driveways taking the place of ~treets in subdivisions. Mr. Ostherr said he symp~hizes with Mr. Lamprey's point of view. Mr. Chepulis thought that maybe streets should be defined in the Zoning By-Law PRO A~D CON: Harold Morley, 256 Dale Bt.: Mr. Morley stated that he had skimmed through the che~ges and h~pes that the PI.Aw~g~N~ BOARD won't do a~hing on this until everyene concerned knows about it. The definition of driveway is getting into uses and this is a matter of zoning a~d not administrative procedure before the pTA~ It seems that this has already been Before Town Meeting and was tronnoed. Bob Ooodwin, Andover: Does this definition of driveway apply to a lot which doesn't have adequate frontage? ~ould there be any requirement in subdivision oentrol so that the rear land could be used due to hardship or semething of that nature? ~ay Willis, ~5~ Pleasant St.: Would this definition of driveway in,.an apartment or townhouse Building make it a subdivision if youwant to run a road~a~v into a cc~on parking lot? Mr. Ohepulis answered that it is to stop those long driveways ~ioh eventually Beceme streets. Michael Sohena, Hillside Road: What action has taken place in the Town since the last revision or By-Law to promulgate this new set of rules? Mr. Chepulis st&ted that the PLANNINO~ doesn't claim that the Rules and Regulations are perfect and we are also trying to prevent any damage to the Town at any future time. At this point, the BOARD desired to go through all the Revisions and take action at the end. ~EC?IOM Il ~: (l~iling Pee) - Mr. Ostherr raised the question of what the BOARD is going %o do withall this money, assuming they can get it, Because all of it has to go into the Treasury. It is illegal for an~townBodyto acquire money. He stated, he personally doesn't feel it is our responsibliity to put money hack into the Treasury. Mr. Chepulis thought that things would be done better if they have to expend money and the developer would not be held up because of half-baked plans, etc. Mr. Ostherr wondered whether this is a penalty rather %hans necessity; is the purpose to fund engineering studies or just meant as a permit fee kind of thing, like something isn't any goodunless you pa~ for it? Mr. Chepulis felt it was verymuch like a building fee. If the money goes into the general treasury thenwe would not be drawing from the reserve fund. Chairman 0hepulis read Arnold S~lisbury's letter dated September 24, 1~74 regarding this matter. MemBer Ostherr feels that this is a significant enough departure to have it go to Town Meeting. Jay i/illis asked if the BOARD had looked into some of the other to~ns having fee systems. He felt it seemed like a tax for people coming before the ]~ARD. ~here does the PLANNING ]~qlfl) get the authority to do this? Mr. Lamprey state'd that he put in this partioular fee because it was the highest and felt they could work fro~ there, llichael[ 5oh.ns said this is the "foot in the door" business again and how can the P~G BO~D justify this when they are an unpaid ~oard? He asked if the ultimate objective/to hire a full-time planner. Mr. Ohepulis thought it would be a good idea to hire an expert end in a sense it could be a step in that direction. Ben Osgood, 01d ¥illage Lane: Mr. Osgood stated that two years ago, ~hen the fee structure for Building ?er. its was brought in, it was sold on the fact that it would help out the ~G lMM_liD. Mr. Chspulis asked Mr. Poster, Building Inspeotor, if the BOARD could obtain some of this money from the Permits? Mr. Poster said that. the fees for the building permits, electrio and gas permits all go into the To~n Treamlry and during the last 18-~onth period, all the expenses aooounted for, we made between $4,000 and $5,000 for the Town. ~his made the Planning and Appeals Boards and Build- ing Inspectorts departments se~f-sustaining plus the $4,000-$5,000. It is true,, s~id Mr. Foster, that the fees as they are set up do sustain every department that is connected with the ~uilding. Eric Ni%saehe~ Salem ~treet: Are there any other departments er boards within the Town who view these plans and have to submit report's to the ~ BOARDP Mr. Ch.- pulis answered that we request opinions frc~ the Highway S~trveyor, Board of Health, Board of Public ~/orks, Conservation Commission, Fire and Police Depts and l~uilding Inspector mainly on subdivision plans. Shouldn,t developer have to h~lp defray the cost of the ex~ra work lo~d, asked Mr. Nitssche? He fel~ this might reduce the over- all tax Burden. Frank ~elinas, Raleigh Tavern Lane: The area of- ooncem, in this.:par~ioular case is that of taking aw~y the responsibility, in the sense of ownership, from the various department heads. There is a tendency, in North Andover, for the PLAIII~IN~ ~ to not reall~ give a oh~ce for the department heads to make their feelings felt on sulxlivisiens and hiring a consultant is taking away the responsibility of these people. Mr. ~elinas thinks these departments ought to be made ~o serve as consultants to the BOARD. I think that the PI~_w~qlN~ BOARD should go more in that direction, make them function t~ their responsibility, rather than hire another consultant, said Mr. ~e~inas. He doesn't believe other consultants will have the time to bring in detailed reports like our own department heads can do. Feels the smaller subdivisions would be penalized. Mr. Chepulis stated that a consultent is often times much more kmowledgeable. ~e do consult and use recommendations of the town departments end very seldom do we ignore a suggestion. This is a PLANNING BOARD and we should ~e planning. None of us h~ve the time to devote ~00% strictly on pl~m~ug and have to have someone who is very close to it and constantly on it. Mr. Oelinas then said, then what you are ultimately aiming for is a Town Plsaner and the place to get a part-time aid or pla~ner is at Town Neet- ing and you can present a fee sohedule at the same time. Maybe we are not at odds as to what you get rather it is how you get it, stated Mr. Oelinas. Mr. Osgood said he is 100% opposed to a fee structure and Mr. Schena voiced agreement. Mr. Ostherr questioned, how we are going to keep track of the unexpended balance and how will we know when we .have used up the "X" number of dollars of fees? · ay thrke, Orafion Lane: Feels %he BOARD would have to go to Town Neeting anyway for inOrease of the budget because otherwise the money couldn't be spent. Ch~.~les Poster, Building Inspector: MOst people here do not know what the probl'em is like to go before the Advisory Board for money, said Mr. Poster.' It seems high time that some sort of concerted effort should be made for an engineering department September 30, 1974 - cont. rather than using part-time help. Perhaps, we could be of more help to the towmby exer~ingsome pressure where needed to obtain our own. engineering department. The BOARD mentioned that when they did go before the Ad~inory Committee they were told not to make a habit of. it. ~ECTION II C: 4. Mr. Goodwim posed the question of how the BOAI~ would recluire the presentation of a parcel of land whioh is only a small part o£ a much larger parcel. Could this be done on a locus or a site plan? Mr. Chepulis stated it could %e done like this. Hr. Osthe~r/~ didn't feel there was any differonce between~4.and #5. Mr. Chepulis felt the owner sh~ald show himself as an abutter. Mr. LamPrey said, we are looking for the total area involved on a smaller scale, but not a surveyor's plan. Mr. Osgood interjected that. state statute doesn't grant the BOABD this right. The members thought they would co~bine~ and~ By deleting#4. 6. Mr. Ostherr reminded the BOARD that it was adopted By motion a couple of ~ears a~o that we do not endorse plans until the BOARD has a~ted upon them. Although only one signature is required, the majority action of the ~OARD has to be an aotion cf reoord, 7. Mr. 0stherrquestioned what the meaning was and stated, we are not going to sign a plan until we are satisfied, until it is properly su~nitted. Mr. Chepulis thought it should be considered as a reminder that the right thing has to be done. Mr. O~therr voiced no objection, but felt it redundant. It was left for possible rewording or modifioation. 8. Mr. Ostherr thinks this is against the enabling legislation, feels we should follow the law that the State puts out. Mr. Schena said that ex%fa sentences, paragraphs or even an extra word is subject to interpretation By another ~OARD sc~e time in the futatre. Possible c~ge= -au attempt shall be made to submit a plan for considera- tion at a scheduled meeting of the P~_~_~NIN~ BOARD. SEC?I~ III 1~: Charles Foster questioned what constitutes a "regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting". A posted meeting. ~. Foster felt that a~hing to do with the PLANNIN~ BOARD can come before it at a posted meeting. It is public ~hen it is posted. Mr. Ohepulis stated that a public meeting means only that the BOARD is meeting in' public to take up their business. Perhaps we should declare an agenda ~d stick to it at a special meeting because at the two regularly scheduled meetings we can handle any and all business. SECTION III N 3~ okay as it is. 4. A discussion took place regarding the words "available no later th__~x_ 20 days". Mrs. Patricia Trom%ly, Conservation Commission, felt that in relation to g~6 it was kind of an extra burden. 5. Member 0stherr remarked that ~at really alerted him to this ~s the Archdiocese. Even though we l~aew what they were going to do, they only showed 6 or 7 lots with a road running up to them. 6. Mr. ~elinas stated that he Was in favor of this as it is ~ritten, but concer~ed tB~t some time in the futatre the Planning Board and the Con O~_o~_~ may have different philosophies and the developer is the one who suffers, J~y Willis was opposed to this September 30, 1974 - cont. inasmuch as there has already be a public hearingwith the PLANNING BOARD plus mne with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Nitzsche requested his opinion as Being in favor of this section to go on record because he has Been involved with this situa- tion, of a developer being bounced back and forth, on some occasions. SECTION IV A, l: k. Fra~ Gelinas asked the BOA1LD if they could use persuasive powers rather than legislative powers, becausecontinuing ~o add words will weaken the power of the BOARD. He felt that it really doesn't do what the BOARD is trying to get done. This Section was left in question. SECTION IV E: Nr. Schena, Nr. Willis and Nr. Gelinae all voiced opposition. They seemed to feel that this could be interpreted many different ways. SECTION IV F: okay as it is. ~ECTI~ V B, 6: SECTION V H, 3: ~ as it is. okay as it is. FOR~ E: this list is obtained fro~ the Assessor's Office. Mr. Ostherr made a motion ~hat the proposed Revisions to the Subdivision Rules and ~lations be takem under advisement for action at the next regularly scheduled meeting of October 7, 1974. Mr. Salemme seconded the motion and the vote was unanim~ms~ The meeting adjourned at ~1 P.M. (William Chepulis)  Secretary (Gilda Blackstock)