Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-06-23June 23, 1975 - Monday Public Hearing The PLANN/NG BOARD .held a special meeting on June 23, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in the To~n Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting= William Oh. pulis, Chairman; Fritz Ostherr, Vice-Chairman; William N. ~alemme, Clerk; Paul .R. Lamprey and John J. Montei~o. There were 15 visitors. PUBLIC BEARINa~ FLO~D PLAIN Z~IN~ - The clerk read the legal notice; Mr. Oh.pulis explained that this would be a revision to the "Rules and Regulations ~overning the Sutxlivision of Land in the To~n cf ~Nor~h Andover" necessary to comply with the National Flood T~suranoe Program. The b~tate has now decided that the Wetlands Protection Act is strong enou~gh so that one can apply to the Selectmen at the lasS minute without going to Town Meeting. John Willis asked what areas were involved in this. Mr. Chepulis showed him the maps with the a~reas so noted, and added that there ~ill be definitive plans in the ~u%ure on ~i~h a detailed study will have been made by the federal government. We are not adopting flood plain zcaing, per se, only that _~_~v new construction trill be invesSigated thoroughly by the ~oard, Bcard of Public Works and the Board of Health. __~, Sr. then asked for a~ explanation of the whole thing as to the resolutions k~ed at Town Meeting, and qUestioned why there is a public hear!~ if this is not zoning. Mr. Cb.pulis explained that the public hearing is to oha~e our "Rules and Regulations# to specif~ this, not for any zoning. Charles Matses asked, who e~tablishes the flood zones - the federal government. John ~. Willis, Jr. queried what he would do if he owned land in this are~ and had to come before the BOARD· Mr. Chepulis t01d him that the ~uilding Inspector has it in his records regarding this. John Willis, Sr. felt that in Resolution A referring to "m~gement measures" obuld be interpreted as prohibiting building because without eliminating construction you can't eliminate flood ~a.~e. He also took exception with Resolution ]~ and ~sked Mr. Cb.pulis for his interpretation. Mr. Cb.pulis answered that construction will be accomplished by measures to exclude a~_.~_ ge, such as hermetically sealed water pipes· If one builds in an area ~-~-t can be substantially damaged by flooding, the Plea-tug ~card or Building T-speo~or o~n refuse a Building permit~ however, there are avenues of appeal· Mr· Willis felt t~t a oom~ like Western Electric wonl~v't appeal the~ would jus~ move on to ansSher t~en. Ja~v Willis wanted to knew wh~t kind of notice would be given on an acoel~ted su~xlivision within the flood hazard area and Mr. Cb.pulis said that, to the best of his knowledge~ there were no open subdivisions in that a.~ea. Member Ostherr brought up the point that the BOARD should state "approved" subdivision and not "accepted" to make the terminolOg~ correct · Ja~ ~/illis thought that the PLA~ BOARD was overssepping its bounds under the Enabling Act. He asked what legal authority the Board had to tamper ~ith an alre~d~ approved sub- division and ]Er. Cb.pulis s~id that the use of the land is protected. Mr. Willis felt that all the agencies that are anti-development come into play on this matter. Mr. Ostherr s~ated that adding a ~t~tement to our general laws for new subdivisions is a good thing, ~ut does not th/nk we should hamper with something alrea~]~V approved. June 23, 197.5 -oont. If this is a zcaiag matter, ! object to it said Mr. Willis, ~, Mr. Osthe~.A~ stated that we amended the Zoning ~-Law at To~a~ Meeting. The Building Inspector asked if it h~d been approved bY the Atty. ~eneral as ye%. Mr. Chepulis ~w~wered that it had not been and if he doesn't approve it we will hold another public he~ring to nUllify our action. Mr. Mcateiro maple a tactics to accept the amendment as advertised and the tactics was seconded by ~. ~y. ~ ~$~si~ ~. 0~he~ ~e ~ ~i~ to ~d the moti~ to c~ ~he w~ "~cept~" 2o "appr~ed" ~d 2o delete ~he p~se, "~1 new c~t~c$i~ ~ proposed ~visi~". on the m~i~ to ~end ~d ~srs. ~he~, M~eiro ~d ~l~e voted ~ favor, Messrs. ~y ~d ~e~lis v~ re~ ~he wo~ .~cep~ed". ~. M~eiro ~h~ ~de a m~i~ to accept the ~nd- ~nt to t~ ~em ~d R~la~i~$" aa ad~ised except for ~he p~se delsted. ~, ~le~ socked ~ the v~e A m~tion was made By Mr. Ostherr stating that this amendment shall Become effective on July 1, 1~75 and Mr. Mon%eiro seconded. The vote was ,m~-imous. 1. SCOTT PROPERTIES - Scott l~ollansbee was present. La~d owned by Ma~y v. EfLng Ca ~oston ~t. Mr. Ostherr made a motion that %he PLANNIN~ ]MI~V.D endorse as not requiring approval under subdivision control law the above plan of land showing 7 lots. Mr. Lamprey seconded ~nd the vote was unanimous. 2. N~CHOLAS ARTXNOVTCH - Mr. Os%herr made a motion to endorse as mot reqaziring approval under subdivision control law a plan of land owned by Nicholas Ar%imovich d~ted April, 1975. The BOARD ~ead over the Board of Appeals decision. Mr. ~lemme. seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Monteiro commented that the Board has opened a pandora's t~x. 3. J & V REALTY TRUST - Re~ ~t. (J~AUS 3 plans) -- This land is located on the left after 0alzstta~s I~rm. Mr. Ostherr said that this street was not in existence except on paper until some months ago and felt that the BOARD would need the To~n Clerk's evidence before he would sign. Also, this seems to be the same si~tm~tion we faced with Canterbury Village except %hat this is slot further, developed t~- that was when we refused to sign the Form A's. Jay Willis mentioned that there are als% of properties on this street that have Been approved already by the B(XARD. Rea Street is not an accepted street, said Jay ~urke. Mr. 0stherr suggested that the PLANlg~ ~ write to the ~ighway 2u~eyor, I~c~rd of PuBlic Works and Board of Health regarding their view on %he status of the utilities in this area as meeting our ground stands for subdivisions. Chair.~ Chspulis said, ~hen what you are saying is that you consider this a subdivision and Mr. 0stherr a~ered that he did. Mr. B~rke stated that they h~d put water, drainage, gr~vel and hot top to conform with the ]~W specifications. He added that they had built on the o~er end cf Rea ~. wi~h no improvements; also on A&~ms Ave., a~d Max~in Ave. the same thing l~d ~m.~cen place. Jay Willis commented that the ~ didn't say it ~s a subdivision once before when they came Before it with Arsenault~s land. Mr. Chepulis felt that the important criteria was whether or not this is to be considered a public way. ~ember Monteir~ then made a motion to endorse as no~ reqatiring approval under subdivi- sion control law the plan of l~nd dated June 3, 1~7~, owned By ~ & V Realty ?rust. There ~s no second and the motion was lost. June 23, 197~ - cont. Another mot[en was ,made by Mr. Monteiro to endorse the plan of land dated June 3, 1975 By J & V Realty T~ust as not recpAiring approval under su~ivision control law subject to the approval of the Town Clerk that this is a public way. Mr. Saleratus seconded and during the discussion that followed Mr. Os~herr thought that it would be more pru- dens for the BOARD to ask the applicant for an extension of 2 weeks in order t° get the Town Clerk's verification etc. Mr. Chepulis stated that the BOARD cannot put conditions on a plan not requiring approval. Tf we can get a statement of status from the Tc~n Clerk tomorrow, the plan can Be signed. Tf the ~-formation from the Totm Clerk's office is negative we would then seek the other informa%ion from the ~ighway SR~rveyor and Board of Public Works and, in that case, asked Mr. Burke if he would grant an extension until July 7th. Mr. ~rke said that he would like to start construoti<m. Jay ~/illis then asked if they could have a letter in the office the nex"t day from the Highwa~V ~%tr- veyor and BPW and/or bring one of the two alternatives to the BOARD. The BOARD decided that they would sign the plans when one of these alternatives were brop__~ht in. The vote on the above motion was unanimous. 4. J & V REAL~f TRUST - Re~ ~t. (june 5, 1975 pla~): T~is is .~ the R-3 ~o~. ~. M~eiro ~de a moti~ to ~dorse ~he p~ of l~d ~ed J~e ~, 1~ ~ed ~ J & V Real~y ~t as n~ r~ir~ appr~l ~der n~i~si~ c~trol ~w ~bjeot ~o ~he appr~al of the T~ Clerk ~t ~his is a ~blic ~y. ~. ~y seceded ~he mo~i~ ~d ~he v~e ~s ~m~s. 5. R(MAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON - ~averly Rd.: Mr. Ostherr made a motion to endorse as not requiring approval under subdivision control law a plan of land in North Andover, Ma. depicting the remaining land of the ArchBishol~ d~ted June 5, 1~75. 666 ft. of frontage and 31.O5 acres are shown. Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion and the vote WaS tlna21imous, Mr. Oh, pulis brought out the fact that %he Archdiocese has submitted modified draina~.e plane to Con. Com. and DNR to see if they agree. The plans were changed in accora_~._~ce w/th the conditions that were laid out and also obtained an easement ~ehind DeNoulas. The Con. Com. has some reservations about the drop box on Waverly Rd. due to its height and cOnstruction and the DI{R has Been notified of same.- 6. LC~YI~ EMIEC - ]~oxford ~t.: ~1 l~oster's land, Member Ostherr made a motion to endorse as not requiring approval the plan of land in North Andover, Ma. for I~vid Carls.n, d~ted June, 1975. Mr. Monteiro seconded a~d the vote was unanimous. 7. 012) NORTH ANDOVER REALTY TRUST - R~.~.zGH TAVERN SOUTH: Ben Osgood stated that they desire to increase the size of lot 33A. The street has not been a~cepted. Motion was mazte by Mr. Ostherr to endorse as not requiring approval under subdivisien control law a p]~- dated June 10, 1~75 sBowing lots 33A and 34A. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote waS u//an~J~ous. 8o ]~E~C~ C(~T~T~UCT~C~ (John P. C~eau) - ~inter ~.: Ro~ ~e rep~sen~ed the applic~ ~d s~ated t~t ~he~ is no problem ~d ~$ ~he lo2s a~ ~ ~ accpsted s2~et. L~s ~, 2, ~, ~, 6, ~d 7 a~ea~d to ~ve ~O' ~a~ Up~ m~i~ of ~. ~therr ~o ~dorse as not re~ir~ appr~l ~der ~sion control ~w a pl~ of ~d~ No~h Anti.er ~ed ~ ~ncb~r~ C~o~i~, ~ed ~e 1~. ~. ~pr~ seceded the motion. ~. ~e~lis ~de~i~ed whether C~u ~d ~nc~ C~st~oti~ we~ ~e ~d ~he ~e ~d ~. Di~e v~oh~ ~ ~h~ were. ~ also a~ed aB~ the ~$ ~ ~he Pl~ - "easem~t for ~e r~d" ~d ~s ~s d~e ~o r~d off the oo~er. ~e vote of ~he 9- JOHN P. E~A~ - ~verly Rd. & R~e. 114: At%y. Cregg stated th.at the~ w~nted ~o record the pla~ in an R-4 District. Mr. Ostherr's motien to endorse as not requiring June 23, 1975 - cent. approval under subdivision control law a plan of land c~ned By John ?. S~ay locmted in North Andover, N~. and d~ted Oct. 1~74 Ms eecouded 1~ Mr. ~lemme. The vote was Henry Fitzgerald represented the o~ers of the land and explained that this is a reduction of something that is alrea~ approved as a subdivision. They are decreasing Parcel A By 6/10 of an acre and thereby giving more green area to Parcel B. It is a modification to an approved subdivision but he didntt ~ant to define it mntil he knew the wishes of the ~OARD. They have to go ~ack to the Board of Appeals cm the Special Permit, but want the land approved so they can use the same plan. The questicm By the BOA~ was that whether or nc~ it is an ex'ten,~i~ve enough chauge to require a public hearing. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that they would like to have a plan to refile at the Registry in order that I~A will have something to go by. We had hoped, said Fitzgerald, that it would not require a.public hearing being that it is a lesser use and we are not adding a~hing to the plan. Mr. Os~herr noted that they are not oha~ging the wa~. He then made a mo$ic~ that the P~G BOARD approve the revised plan of the subdivision and townhouse complex in Nox~th Aadover, Na., developer Palmer.Realty Trust. Mr. Nc~teiro seconded and the vote was ~a-imsue. The BOARD decided that the approved revisiou should be subject to the 2C-day appeal period~ and the modific~tiou shall be reflected in the working drawings and notes mu~t be added to the linen. The same conditions shall apply to these plans as applied to the original plans. REPLY FR~ ARNOLD ~ALIS~RY RE SCOTT PROPERTIES NORT~A~E B~ND: Atty. ~w. ~ ~d ~ott ~l~s~e were present. Atty. Go~ ~i~era~ ~ ~ alre~ ~i~d. ' Wi~h ~he ~eem~ ~ proper fo~ we c~d get a release fo~ ~d, he ~id, we te~ 2he li~y of pre~ a ~l~se fo~ for the ~. He felt ~ the rest~oti~s ~sori~d ~ ~he p~ rest~c~ ~hem ~ as ~oh as a c~e~. ~es~ed ~ ~he o~di~i~s ~l~sed. ~e ~ ~ated ~ ~h~ c~ld not ~l~se all.the o~- ~i~s - ~. ~he r~s ~til th~ ~e c~ed ~oo~g 2o s~oifi~i~s. ~. ~on ~id ~ all ~hey we~ a~ is $o c~ly ~th ~ ~e ~ ~ m rel~ee which ~s ~eed $o ~$we~ She ~, She ~ ~d ~he ~lder. If ~ do $~$, ~id ~. ~the~, i~ l~ves She ~d ~e ~d cle~. I~ doe~2 ~lly ~e ~ ~ild~ pe~ ~ ~oy pe~i~s ~ve ~o ~ isled, ~id ~. ~. ~ese rePleVins ~ ~ i~edimen~ ~ ~he ~i~le ~d, acco~g to Atty. ~, ~he ~ is protec~ed ~ the $~,~ ~ the ~ ~d 2he sche~le ~ the ~em~t as ~o ~le~e of ~ds. Go~ ~id he ce~a~ w~l~t ~ss a title ~ a o~s~oti~ 1~ ~ ~his ~sise ~d ~. ~oll~s~e ~id $~ he c~t ~t ft-~c~ to ~ild the h~sem ~ moc~t of ~his. The form they presented asked for a release from the c~nditicns c~ the plan; the plan on record then would show no-encumbrance cn the land; we then become the developer's. assistant to ensure 2hey do the job. Mr. Os~herr's moticm to send the applicant's request along with a brief s~atement of the BOARD'S point of view and applicant's point of view to To~n counsel for clarification was seconded By Mr. La, fey. The ve~e was PLANS FOR CHA~T.~ CONS~RUC~O~ CO. - Sutton St.: Atty. John J. Willie, .S~r. and Charles Matses were present. Member Lamprey stated that he requested the Board of Appeals to refer the plans to the PLA~G BOARD. Mr. Willis stated that this is s~rictly a change to a retail area. They seriously considered the matter as to re-eening but there is nothing in the Zoni~ By-Law which allows for a mixed use. The ~tilding on the proper~y is a mill in excess of 100 years old.and is immediately adjacent to an existing retail zone. Ne felt that this BOARD June 23, 1975 - cont. has Been reluctant to re-zone to general business since the adoption of the new Zoning By-Law. The old weave shed will be an enclosed mall with mixed retail use. The other is of an industrial nature and office space. All of these uses are presently, allowed under the I-S District and we found, s~id Mr. Willis, that when we wanted to go into the mixed use we were unable to do it. We have 5 or 10 potential lessees and Mr. Matses is in his last phase. The building itself is not readily adaptable to industrial use. Mr. Mmtses then explained what he was going to do with the building such as the mall area, the offices, etc. We have approximately 41,000 feet of rentable space but can't fill it up with offices; however, we have had many inquiries forzetail space. Atty. Willis stated that they want to vary from [-~ (7),and (8) which allows ha,ks, business office buildings, etc. but do not want a special permit for an auto service station. Also, they do ~mnt to eliminate "trat no other retail stores of any kind". He explained that this is a unique type of request and will never appear again because you do net have a parcel of this nature left in Town. N~ purpose, he said, in com~ Before this BOARD is to give you information regarding the project. He felt that the Board of Appeals w~-~ted a harmonious approach to the proposal and th~nks that they have met all the elements for a v~ri~noe. The proposed variance would apply to the whole lot on which the building exists. Mr. Ostherr questioned whether or not they had met the out- door parking requirements and they said that they had. There is approximately 8,300 sq. f~. of ~oor space ~nd they will have 145 parking spaces. The variance is for the specific structure that exists now. Mr. Chepulis c~en%ed that they could have a restaurant or such under a special permit because one has to eat. Atty. Willis mentioned that one of these days the Town is going to have to come forth with a multi-use zone. Mr. Ostherr stated that the only question he had was whether or not the Board of Appeals could properly get into gi~ng a variance for use, but feels in this particular instance it is proper. Mr. T~mprey made a motion to write a letter to the Board of Appeals stating that now that we have had a chance to view the plans we have no objection to the proposed uses in this specific area as requested in the variance. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The letter was read By the Chairman which stated a request for the PLAI~ BOARD'S sanction on 60 units of new elderly housing. Mr. Salem~e's motion was tO refer it .to the Long P~ Planning Committee and Mr. Monteiro seconded. The vote was unanimous. ~R. CLAYTON MESERVE RE CANTERBURY VILLAGE SUI~IVISION - Hr. Meserve stated that he resides on Peters & B~ewster S~ts. and was under the impressien that they were not goim~ to use Brewster St. Now that he had found out that they were, he felt that they were ~ing a bad situation worse so the. people who live there asked him to follow it up. He wondered if there was any sense to making Ootuit ~t. through to ~averly Rd. Mr. Lamprey stated that it was m~de specific on the plan not to be done. Nr. Neserve stated that IRS and ~estern Electric traffic is out of this world and with the lights at the corner the traffic will Be b~cked up through to S~wsheen. The C"nie~ of Police and Fire concur that they will sit in on a meeting with the people on Brewster S~., he said. Mr. Lamprey again stated that it was in the subdiwision from the Beginning and 2-wa~ from the Begin- ning.and personally felt that the lights would Be a help. Mr. Chepulis agreed. O~ Hr. L~mprey's suggestion the BOARD thonght that the best idea weuld be to wait until the lights go in to see what happens and then if the situation remains the same something can Be arranged. June 23, 1975 - cont,, ~E~WOOD EAST - Sewer Plan: This w~s a revisic~ of the sewer plan Because they caa't come to an agreement with Mr. Busby. Even2ually they will have %o put a pump in Because of the step graae. The BOAI~D received no, ice of public hearings from the Board of Appcals en DSM Real~y and Ardon Farm Realty Trust. After. reviewing the legal notices ~,d upc~ motion of' Mr. Lampre~ a~d second by Mr. ~enteiro the vote ~s unanimous to make no comment. 2UE~TIolg~AIRE FRC~ THE MERR~ACE VALLEY ~ALTH I~.A~IN~ C0~C~ - the BOARD ~s in unanimous a~reemen~ ~o write advising ~hem that this did not apply to us. The meeting adjourned at 12=15 P.M. W~!liam CheDuli~ . / - / ailda ~laok~to~k