Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-02-182 Public Hearings Tuesday - February 18, 1975 Regular Meeting The PLANNING BOARD held its regular meeting on Tuesday evening, l~ebruary 18, 1975, in the Fire S~atie~ ~eting Room. The following members were present and voting: William Chepulis, Chairman; William N. Salemme, Clerk; Paul R. Lamprey and John J'. Nonteiro. There were about 7 visitors present. The clerk read the notices of Public Hearings as advertised, but discussion on same was delayed until after taking up plans not requiring approval under subdivision control. PLANS NOT REqdIRING APPROVAL: 1. MILLPOND TRUST: ¢. W. Trombly, Sr. represented the developer. He explained how the plan before the BOARD represents a portion of the overall plan. This plan contains 7' lots so that garages can be put on the lots. The area of the lots noted have been increased to get the proper setback for the garages. The B~LRD compared this with She original plan. Er. Nonteiro made a mo%ion that the PLANN~G BOARD endorse as not requir- ing approval under subdivision control law the plan dated January, 1975. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the vote was unanimous. 2. APPLW~ORE: Plan presented was dated February 5, 1975 in an R-3 District. Nr. Ben Osgood represented and explained that this is the same plan as the BOARD signed a few months ago, but some people are buying a lo~ and want to change the lot line in order that they can set their house back farther. The house will not face Johnson St. Frank Gelinas was asked about a dotted line Lu the corner and he said this was a drainage easement. They took advantage of the contours of the land for the lot lineS rather than the geometry of rectangmlar lot. Mr. Lamprey made a motion to endorse the plan of land as not requiring approval under subdivision control law and Mr. Nonteiro seconded. The vote was 1L. lanimouse PUBLI$NEARINGS: 1. HAROLD PAREER ESTATES - Chairman' Chepulis noted that the discussion of this hearing will be tape recorded so that the absent member, Er. Ostherr, will be able to vote on the subject. Frank Gelinas represented the petitioner. Nr. Gelinas described the area and stated that the subdivision included 18 l~ts. Ail the lots are 1 acre with 150 ft. frontaget~ and there are no unusual g~des in the topography. Mr. Alfred Boush, 169 Gray St., stated that his main concern was that S~iles St. ~Would not be tampered with. Gelinas said they have kept to this except for a 50 Ft. easement which has been inserted because of f~ture subdivisions and possible greater traffic flow. There is an easement, also, at the cul de sac for an access if it ever needed to Be developed through. Mr. Boush asked, why were they not informed about this before now regarding the houses on Gray ~t.? Explained these are not part of this subdivision. He was also concerned about the water table and what is going to happen in 10 years. Mr. Gelinas stated that Lot ~Twould require some fill. The leeching fieldswill be kept some 200 Ft. a~y from the brook, if possible. Ail recommendation of Town Depts. were met per the preliminary plan except the request by the PLANNING BOARD that the cul de sac be graded 120 Ft. This couldn't be done. They would add an easement all along the brook for 45 ft. The Conservation Commission had recommended a 35-40 Ft. easement. February 18, 1975 - cont. The Building Inspector raised the question as to whether the turn around is all ho~ top or part island. As presented, per Mr. Gelinas, it can go either way. All recommendations from Town Depts. were read by the Chair,~_n and all are em file in the PLANNING BOARD office. Mr. Gelinas said, in the spirit of cooperation he sees no reason why his client can't supply the 30" culvert as requested by Mr. Cyr. If they i~rnish the material Mr. Cyr will do the installation. He also requested a 2" binder and 1½" top which will be adhered to. Mr. Lamprey added that the subdivision control subcommittee has found nothing w~ong with the subdivision and could not add anything more than the Town Depts. have already stated. Mr. Gelinas s~ated he is preparing a We~tands applicability form for the Oenservatien Ocmmission on lots 7, 8, and 9. The abutterm will be notified. Charles Nelson, 31 Gray St., expressed concern about the actual constructien of the cul de sac, the debris and whether or not the stone wall will be destroyed. Mr. Gelinas said there is no reason why they should touch the stone wall because the pavement will be 13 ft. from that stone wall. He also said he will surely advise his client that the abutter has rights to this. Mr. Nelson stated that he has a right of way from property on Gray St. to this property and wants this kept. He was advised that this is not within the property of this subdivision, it goes across the Goodhue property. Mr. Lamprey's motion was to take the matter under advisement and received a second from Mr. Monteiro. The Board will take this up at the next meeting, March 3, ~975. 2. EARTH RE~C~AL BT-LAW: The clerk read the notice. Chairman Chepulis asked for comments or questions. Member Salemme stated that the Committee has done a tremendous job and would like to th~mk them and Mr. Rat for letting them ~tramp over his site". The Committee was constructed so that everyone had an opportunity to write a section. Pg. 1 Sec. 5.1 (3) - delete, after exmlusive jurisdiction to... and replace with "issue Earth Materials Removal Permits". In body of text delete "material". Suggestion to add to the Definitions section - definition 5: "Board"="Zoning Board of ApPeals". John Willis, Sr. objeo%ed to adding a section to the By-Law as he felt it was not adver~ tised this way. Sec. 5.1 (8) - this is exempting the sanitary land fill operations operated by the Tempi of North Andover. Sec. 5.6 - change "soil" to "earth". Charles Foster, Building Inspector, spoke on Sec. 5.1 (5) - feels we can go part way with the present permit holder, his present activity for earth removal would be allowed to be completed under the existing By-Law. Whatever is done after would come under the new By- Law. This would give the applicant a choice. Mr. Willis felt that with respect to this particular section of the By-Law, it is legally ineffective if adopted in its presen~ form. This is an existing use because of the zoning regulation and you can't even February 18, 1~75 - cont. exercise the lu~ of taking the middle of the road~ said Mr. Willis. So long as it had not been abandoned no subsequent zoning change can be effective. Ben Osgood stated his position of being in favor ~f this paragraph remaining. Mr~Patricia Trombly thought that new regulations, once they are passed, are effective. ~h~t you can't do is make someone restore land which is already completed. Sec. 5.1 (7) -Oharles Foster s~ated that he doesn't feel we should have two different sections on fines because this is par~ of our existing Zoning ~y-Law. Sec. 5.1 (8) - ~h~ ~elinas ~tated his disagreement with this in that he feels it is ~rong %o exempt public officials from the scrutiny that private citizens get. He gave Perini being exempt as an example. If you exempt the ?own you are opening the door to regional land fills, etc. ?o explain, Mr. Foster said that the Committee felt that there was to be no earth removal at our sanitary land fill and would not want to place upon the Town the additional burden cf coming in for a special permit. ~elinas stated, the ~oard of Health is looking at different thing~ than what this By-Law encompasses, Sec. 5.4 (2) - Mr. Willis asked, wh~ is the permit considered to be non-transferable? Mr. Osgood answered, the Board can re-issue the permit in a new o~ner's name, but it is non-transferable. Willis sai~ permits are transferable, but some licenses are not. Mr. t~oster stated that we want to know who we are issuing the permit to and feels the applicant must be the owner. Mr. Willis thcaxght that the non-transferable provision is a discriminatory provision in the law. It w~s suggested to designate that the permit holder be the o~ner of the land. Mr. Lamprey made a motion to take the subject under advisement. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. I~VPC: Mr. Monteiro asked if sa~yone on the BOAKD trod' ch~ged his mind about 208 l~unding. Mr. Lamprey reminded the ]~OA~D that they do not vote, it takes a resulution from the Selectmen. The PLANNING BOARD recommendation is remaining in the negative. DISCUSSION: ~NI~RY LAND i~ILL - Mr. Salemme drew a diagram showing where they desire to exclude a portion of the probable land purchase from the I-3 District in order to protect the residents. Mr. Chepu~is agreed that they should try to purchase it and keep it for the Town. MISC~,T.A~IEOUS MATTERS.. Mr. L~rey took the"Legislative Bulletin" to review. The ~OARD signed the release form RE: Andrew Circle, The meeting adjourned at 11~15 P.M. (William Chepulis)