Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-10-23Wednesday, October 23, 197~ Regular ~Meeting The PLA~[I2~ BOA_RD held its second mont ~h!y meeting on Wednesday evening, October 23, 197~, at ?~30 P.M. in the To~n Office Meeting Room. Ail membersmre present a~d voting. There were appro~mately.5 people present. ~lr. Monteiro made a motion to accept the m~m~tee of the previous meeting which were tabled at the last meeting. Mr. Lampre~ seconded the motion and the vote was The Octoher 17, 197~ meeting was attended by Mr. Montai~ and Mr. La~prey. Merrimack Valley Waste Water was discussed. They have no fi4 eference of opinion and their attitude is in accordance '~ith the Board of Selectm~: Mr. Monteiro reported that the 20~ Fu~fi4~ matter see~s to be Just to increase the status of the MVPO. He has contacted eSot of concerns that are doing this type of ~ork and would rather see private concerns m,~ta~ their business contacts. Mr. Honteiro stated that he voted "Mo" on the ~attert but if it is brought before To~n Meeting and Toen Meeting accepts it :he would go along with it. The C¢.~'ssion threatened that if we dgn't go along with t~.ts program the 100~ funding from federal would ceaas. regard to Merrimack Waste Water Treatment, our town is not going to g_~ .anything by t~is; we have all the tinges they are ~-~ about. Mr. Ostherr made a motiou that the Plamning Board convey to $~e Select~u our concurrence with the ?o~n~s representatives to the ~ff~P¢ sentiments on disapproval of 208 Funding. Mr. Sale, ac seconded the motion and the vote was PLAI~ ~ P,~ tPPROVAL~ 1. Boston Hill Ski Ares Inc. - Represented ~y Geral~ Lewis who stated that the plan was drafted in the f~ of 1971 and~ through an oversight, they are f~gnow for approval. The ~ noted that this is in the ~eneral ~usiness Zone. Mr. Os~herr m~de a motion to endorse the plan of land showing a lot to be conveyed by John ~. l~rnum $o BoSton Hill ~ Area, Inc. as not requiring approval under ~ubdivision Control I.~w. Mr. ~onteiro seconded and the vote w~s unanimous. 2. ~reenwood Associates - 0hestnu2 St. Land located in the R-3 district. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to endorse the l~an of ~reenwood Asse. as not requiring appro~l under division Oon2rol L~w and Mr. Lamprey seconded. The vote w~s unanimous. 3. paul Crete - Adams Ave. Mr. Crete ~s present. Mr. Non, wito made a m~tien to endorse the plan of land on Adams Ave. as not req~Airing approval under ~ubdivision Control and Mr. Salemme seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 4. ~eorge F~rr - Portion of ~lem~Foreot. The BOARD'discovered tha% the plan showed a 40 f~. righ~ of way instead of 50 ft. and frontage on the last lot is under 150 ft. After a discussion of the matter, Nember 0s%herr made a motion to table the application until ~he regular November mee2ing and request Mr. Farr to be present at th&t time. Mr. Nenteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. John J. Willis, Jr. appeared for Mr. ~;&J~es and stated that he would like the plan signed for recording purposes. The ~OARD mentioned the discrepancies in the linen with the copy October 23, 1974 - cont. of the plan that is cm file. Mr. C~allahan stated that at the time the plan was signed we had & linen and prints that were not prints of the linen, blt. Ostherr asked Calla- ham if he could certif~ with a plan-that this is the same plan that the BOARD signed and the answer was, yes. l~r. Willis stated that they would have copies made from their linen for our files and a note specifying what oocxtrred. They s~id they h~d no ide~ wh~ it had not been recorded. Mr. Callah~au repe~ted that the plan before the had not been cha-~ed since the date of signing on October 8, 1973. Rt. Ostherr made motion to endorse the plan of a su]~iivision called A To, rehouse Complex in North Andover, Mass. ~ith today's date stating that prior approval had been given. Mr. Nou%eiro seconded the motion ~hich carried, 4 in favor 1 against. Mr. Lamprey voted in the negn%ive. The BOARD requested 6 copies of the re-endorsed plans. Mr. Willis, ~r. requested a release of the sut~iivisi~n covenant on Lots ~, 2, 3, & 4 only, which ~on~ ~ ~esc~t ~. ~e stated ~ ~hese ~d do no~ ~ ~o o~p~ ~2h ~he ~i~sion. ~e re.est a ~p~ ~ ~he ~ ~eyor ~d She ~ re~ ~his SALf~ GARDENS . CHESTER SULLIVAN: A discussion took place regarding ~ ) the right of ~ay to drainage pipe and 2) a cross- section of the street showing 30 ft. traveled way. Mr. O~therr made a motion referring to the ~lem ~rdens subdivision, that the PLA~G BOARD allow the developer to construct a 26 ft. paved width roadway rather th~n a 30 ft. width as shown on the plan and that the drainage pipe between Lots 3 & 4 be routed more directly. Both changes to be on "as built" plans and filed with the BOARD with the stipn~tico that all connections and piping sh~ll be within the easement areas. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion. In the discussion that followed, Mr. L~mprey stated that he would like to h~ve the motion split into two separate motions because these are significant modifications. Mr. 0stherr withdrew his original motion and changed it to the two following motions: 1 ) allow the developer to coustruct a 26 ft. paved width roadway rather %ha~ a 30 ft. width as shown on the plan. Mr. Nonteiro seconded with three votes in favor and two against (Lamprey ~nd Monteiro). 2) the drainage pipe between Lots 3 & 4 be routed more directly with both of the above changes to Be shown .on "as built" plans and filed with the BOARD with the stipulation that all connections and piping shall be within the easement areas. Mr. Monteiro seconded aud the vote was unanimous. Mr. ~ullivan then asked about whether the ~OARD would prefer underground or overhead utilities. The BOAI~D members strongly recommend he have underground utilities in,tailed. NORTH ANDOVER ASSOCIATES - LAND OF DR. LOVE: Mr. BenJa~ain Osg0od spoke for the plans, ~lthough he made it knowa that he is not directly involved with this project. He said that the change had been made to the plan which designated frontage on Foster St. Mr. Nonteiro said that he has received alot of phone calls on this. The street has been named Love St. which is only a driveway or dil-t road. There is also a question ma~k of property boundaries, ' example, walls have been moved, Mr. Osgood. stated that this parcel is to be. added to a piece of land which was approved By the PLAUNING BOARD two years ago. Mr. Ostherr made a motion to endorse the plan of North Andover Associates as not requiring approval under subdivision control law and was seconded by Mr. Lamprey. A short discussion took place, in which Mr. ~Nonteirc s~ated that everyone he talks to is up tight on this matter. Mr. L_~_mprey stated that his original conoeru was about the frontage and feels now that this is corrected.the only way they can come back to the BOARD is by presenting a subdivision. October 23, 1974 - cont. The vote on the motion was taken, with 4 members voting in favor and ~r. Monteiro voting in the negative.. NOTICE OF INTENT FRO~ CONSERVATIGN C(~9{ISSI~ RE STEVENS ST.: The above notice was read and acknowledged by the PLANNING BOARD. CAPI~LOUTLAYREPO~: Mr. Ostherr stated~t he would like to sul~nit the forms and sign them for the I~.A~ql~G BOARD sa~fing that we do not have any capital expenditures of our own. Mr. Nonteiro made a motion that Mr. Ostherr have the permission to do this for the BOARD. Mr. Ostherr seconded and the vo~e was unanimous. Member Ostherr recommended %hat the BOARD write to the Board of Selectmen stating Planning Board would like to be represented in any discussion and proceedings of re- utilization of sp~ce in the Town Building. Each member will complete the questionnaire individually and upon receipt by the NTPC Mr. Nonteiro will tabulate the answers for the BOARD. REPORT O1~ MASS. FEDERATION 01~ PTmWNING BOARDS N~-FiNG: The October meeting was held in N~nnis a.ud l~ritz O~ther~ attended. He reported that many ideas were exchanged and the general consensus was that Planning Boards, in general, spend too much time nit-picking on plans not requiring approval, etc. The reaction from the floor was that these things cantt be ignored. Peter I~rring~on, Newton, went over proposed revisions to Oh. 40A which were either los~ or stolen from the printing office. Assurance was given that these will go through again within the first 60 days of the nex~ session. A major change was that Boards cf Appeal o~nnot grant use v~riances. The proposed legislation will reduce the su]xtivision freeze from 7 years to 5 yearst delete ordnances on interior floor aroa, create a position of zoning administrator ~nd give him certain authority under the Enabling Act. He will report to whoever hired him and not to the 2electmen. Boards of Appeal shall be comprised of 3 or 5 members; straightened out notices to abutters and abutters to abutters; require religions uses to conform to the zoning laws$ one c~mmon hearing on a subdivision, r~ther tbau separate for all town departments$ increase approval for subdivisions from 60 days to 65 days. Mr. Nonteiro mdc a motion to accept Mr. Ostherr's verl~l report and Mr. ~lemme seconded. ~he vote was unanimous. (cont.): Fee S~ructure: Board to review and ~ake up at the November meeting. Mr. Nonteiro referred a question to Ben Osgood as to ~ha% his feeling would be if a cc~promise were to be made. Mr. Ostherr stated that he is no~ for a fee. Mr. ~hepulis felt there could be money readily available from the Treasury %hrcmgh the Advisory Board for independent ~tudies, etc., if needed. Mr. Lamprey stinted he would like to see a token fee system set up now so ~hat if, in the future, ~e want to hire a full-time planner the money would be there. Mr. ~_~mprey made a motion that every application for approval of a definitive subdivision plan shall be accompanied by a non-refundable fee payable to the Town of North Andover in amount of five dolla~ ($5,00) plus ten dollars (~0.00) for e~ch lot or portion thereof of the l~nd to Be subdivided. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and more discussion October 23, 1974 - cont. followed. ~r. Nonteiro mentioned, that with the reduction of the amounts and miter talk- ing with some big-time developers he feels this fee would be acceptable.. Mr. ~alemme agreed with the motion but stated he thinks it should go before Town Meeting. The members voted on the motion withMr. Lamprey and Mr. Nonteiro in favor and N embers Chepulis, Ostherr and ~lemme in opposition. Nm. Ostherr %hen made a motion that, at this time, the PLANNING BOARDnot adopt a fee structure. The motion did not receive a second and was dropped. SEOTIONC 7.: (14days) Mr. Lamprey m~de a motic~ specifying that no plan believed not to req~,_ire approval will be submitted to the Board not earlier than l0 days prior to the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting or it will not be considered as properly before the Board. There w~e no second, therefore the motion was dropped. ~r. Os~herrn~de a motion that the PLANNING BOARD no% adopt proposed Section C 7. There was no second for this motion and it was dropped, also. C0NORETE w~ADWALL: (d) Change lbs. to psi. FORM E.' Delete the word "Certified". ~ISCELLANEO~S ~AI'IE~S ~ The BOARD read and acknowledged letter referring to Seminar at U. Mass. of the ~AOC. Secretary (Gilda Blackst ock)