Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-11-03November 3, 1975 - Monday Regular Neeting The PLANNING BOARD held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, November 3, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Neeting Room. The following members were present and voting: William Ohepulis, Chairman; Fritz Ostherr, Vice-Chairman; William N. Salemme, Clerk; Paul R. Lamprey and John J. Monteiro. There were approximately 15 visitors present. Mr. Ostherr made a motion to accept the m~utes of Oct. 6, 1~75 meeting, The motion w~s seconded by Nr. Nonteiro and the vote was unanimous. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL: 1. 1~C~ CONSTRUOTIC$I - Winter S~ - Nr. Frank Gelinas stated that the~ desire to close the rear lot line on Lot ~8 prior to submission of the definitive plan. This is for recording purposes and is pa~ of an approved preliminary plan. Benctmm~rk would like to begin cons%ruction of a house before the win%er. Mr. Ostherr's motion to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under subdivision control law was seconded by Mr. Nonteiro. Mr. Chepulis commented that this would no longer be par~ cf the preliminary plan approval after which the Building Inspector stated that he had no objection. The vote on the motica was unanimous. 2. JAMES & BEATRICE NORIN - 40 Johnson Circle - Mr. Gelinas stated that the Norin's had purchased a pie-shaped parcel of land from Lot SA. Lot ~-~ has 36,130 s.f. and 5A has 27,189 s.f. Mr. Ostherr made a motion stating that in view of the fact that both lots have adequate frontage and acreage in accordance with our Zoning By-Law he wonld recom- mend endorsing the plan as not requiring approval under subdivision control law. Mr. Nonteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. 3. Edward & Ingunn Gardner - Stevens St. - the Building Inspector stated that the Gardner's desired to obtain a building permit to ex~end their garage but lacked the necessax~ footage for setback. They then negotiated with Ames Stevens for this 30 ft. parcel. Letter from J. E. Magee, attorney, da~ed October 27, 1975 was read by the Chair- man. The house does have legal frontage on Stevens St. A motion was made by Mr. Lam- prey to endorse as not requiring approval, the plan of land own®d by the Gardner's. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. 4. Scott Properties, Inc. - Boston St. - ~nk Gelin~s spoke for the applicant stating that they built the house an Lot lA in accordance with the Zoning By-Law and to make it so they moved the lot line c~er into Lot 2A. This became eviden~ when the b_a-k required a surveyor to certify tha~ it is within the Zoning By-Law. The house on Lot 2A has also been built. Two purposes for action - for re-recording of the deed and for the bank to release the mortgage. These are not part of the subdivision. Mr. Ostherr made a motion to endorse as not requAiring approval under subdivision control law a plan of lsmd dated October 6, 1975 owned by Scott Properties, Inc. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. 5. Barco Corporation - Marbleridge Rd. - Joseph Barhagallo is the applicant. Mr. Os~herr made a mo~ionthat the Planning Bo~rdnot endorse the plan as not requiring approval under subdivision control law because it does not show adequmte frontage. Mr. Nonteiro seconded. During a Further study of the plan, it was discovered that the lot did have ade~te frontage in thoR-3 District. Mr. Lamprey made a motion to endorse as not requiring approval under subdivision control law a plan of land in North Andover, Ma. for Barco Nov. 3, 1975 - cont. Corp. dated October 24, 1975. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. TOROSIAN PROPERTY-UNION ST.: John J. Willis, Sr., ~., presented a linen and copies to the ~OARD showing the land located at 34 Union St. The Torosian's desire to build an addition~l dwelling on this ~arcel of land which ran afoul with the Building Z~spector. He told the BOARD that he based his request to Mr. Foster on the fact that there is no prohibitiou in R-4 zoning limiting two dwellings on one 1st. In the Rules & Regula%ion~ on page 12, it limits the number of dwellings per lot. Section 81-Q states that you oan limit this ina sub- division. The purpose of the additional dwelling is to provide living quarters for Mrs. Torosian'e mother and father; it will remain in Torosian's nmme a~d will not be a subdivision. When we complete the proposal, Willis s~id, we are not going to increase the density because the density in R-4 is 2 units to every 12,5OO sq. ft. We will have 3 dwelling units om 25,000 sq.. ft. We have pre, tided for a bituminous concrete driveway to service the proposed dwelling. There is an existing garage with 6 stalls. The dwelling, as proposed, will conform to all requirements as to side line, rear set- back and adequate frontage on Union St. Mr. Willis also pointed out that under the provisions of Sec. 81-Q, it will not interfere with the welfare and ~fsty of the ~nbabitantS and there will be adeclu~te access and egress. These are the only issues that concern the BOARD, he fel~inasmuoh as there is no zoning prohibition agminst this. Mr. Ostherr stated that it appeared that the real thrust of Mr. Willis' request was that under Sec. 81-Q it states that the Planning Board can approve more thau one build- i~g. We requested this hearing in order to discuss with the abutters and residents in the area any problems which we might no~ be aware of. Mr. Monteiro voiced agreement. Mr. Dan NcDuffie, nex~ door neighbor to Torosian, stated that they have done everything possible to improve the property. M~. Little, 14Annie St. brought the fact that there is a drainageproblemandques%ioned how it would come under the proposed house. She stated that it undermines the fence that goes along her property and the nex~ property and is very bad in the spring.. Will this increase the drainage onto our property or will it help it? Mr. Torsian said that ever]rthing slopes from Waverly Rd. and he has leveled some of this off to hold the water, but there is all clay there. Mr. Willis said that unless the building diverts the flow it should not increase the drainage but in any event, whether or not this dwelling is erected, the denial of the request to build is not going to improve the drainage. There awe no easements for drainage on amy of these properties, it is just a n~tural shed over m~yyears. Mrs. Hether~ng-ton, Annie St. was concerned about the drainage als°. It drains 'onto Annis St. and takes away all the dirt from under her bushes. Questioned drainage pro- blems in the house that 'is to be built. The Highway Surveyor s~ated that he was not familiar with the situation, that it is private property and the Town couldn't do any- thing to alleviate the problem. If the system isn't overtaxed already the people could hook it up with the Town drainage. We have had back-ups at the lower end of Middlesex St. so, therefore, it is a rather touchy Situation. We would do anything we could, but the expense would have to be borne by the owner. Mrs. Little showed snapshots looking from Annis St. showing all the water. Mr. Ostherr ~uggested that regardless of the out- come of Torosian's request, Mr. Oyr is already aware of the problem and there is really nothing ~hat the BOARD can do about this. Mrs. Hethering~on asked, if this property should change hands could this become 3 renters? Mr. Chepulis answered that there is no way we cma be sure of that. Mr. Torosian stated that he would cooperate with the other parties involved but was Nov. 3, 1975 - cont. concerned about the cost. Mr. C~x~ said he would be happy to look it over but the Town cannot share any of the expense at all. A motion was made by Mr. Ostherr that the PLANNING BOARD give consent., under the provi- sion of Sec. 81-Q of Ch. 41 of the General Laws, for the constrnotion of a second single -family building for dwelling purposes as shown on a plan of land in North Andover owned by Richard Torosian dated October, 1975. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote was unauimous. PRESC(ylT ST. NURSING H0~E PLANS: John Callaham stated that he thought we were gong to destroy the plans that were. acted upon at the last meeting. The BOAPJ) went over the linens of profiles, etc. Now they show the condominiums cut back to 25 instead of 31 and they turned the 2 units for aesthetic purposes and to add more green area, he said. Mr. Chepulis commented that if these old plans are invalid, we should throw them and the application away. Nr. 0stherr mentioned that this whole complex has been plans that almost look alike and applic~ticns that almost look alike. Mr. Callahan took a new set of applications to be filled and returned. He requested expeditious action because of FHA committment. The BOARD could not act because there was nothing officially before them. Mr. C~llahaa asked if the BOARD concurred with the plans as they now staud and Mr. Ostherr amswered that we did last August. If I get the application in, can I get it signed before the next meeting, asked Calla~. Mr. Ostherr made a motion that the set of plaa~ that are proposed this night with all the old ones taken away be remanded to the subdivision control subcommittee for review. Mr. Lamprey seconded. Mr. MOmteiro did not agree that this needed further study inasmuch as the BOARD has been over amd over the matter. Mr. Ostherr stated that wha%ewer review the subcommittee does on this will be of a procedural nature and regardless of the action taken at the next meeting there would not be a need for an appeal period. He did not want to compound the problem for the developer. The vote on the motion was unanimous. Notice of Annual Meeting of Mass. Conservation Districts - read and received. Communication from Essex Cry. Historis Planning Commission - received and filed. Copy of A Survey ,of ,Plannin~ Boards '.zn~ Mass. - received, Letter from HUD Re Training Session on Equal Opportunity Obligations - J. Monteiro will attend the meeting. Letter from Bd. of Selectmen Re Sutton Ind. Park requested notification when a meeting is arranged. The letter is on file for future. Mr. Ostherr stated that the BOARD received a response from Atty. Ford as he represents the Sanitary District: 1) they wanted to take respcnsib'~.lity for rebuilding Charles S~. and responsibility for maintaining it forever rather than going into the subdivisiou approval route, 2) they would eventually want the street to become a Town way. Mr. Ostherr intends to set up a working session later on this week. MISOELLANEOUS MA~'fERS: Order of Oonditious - George & Wanda Fart - as issued by the Con. Com. on file for public or BOARD perusal. Letter from Mark W. PLall of Billerica requesting brochures on economic development of the co,re.unity was p~ssed on tO the Industrial Board. Nov. 3, ~975 -oonto Request from Town of Wellesley for copy of ou~ ZBL and Map on a reciprocal basis. The secretary will take care of this. Letter from Personnel ~oard received and filed. NO~ice of Christmas Party on Dec. ~th - BOARD read and will advise. Victor ~rtem - Re Canterbury Village Development~ As you recall, said Mr. Harem, we presently have 3 law suits in the courts having to do with this matter - the submission of Form A plans and subsequent definitive plan. Arnold and I have considered settling the suit. He then presented a "Judgment" to the BOARD. ~e felt that to build 85 town- house units at one full crack would be neither beneficial to the ~o~n or to the developer. The Form A plans were not ae well thought out at the definitive plan and probably i% is more beneficial to the ~own to have the rsadways developed according to the definitive plan and in a time framework more advantageous. In a slightly enlarged frame of time it would be better for all. I~w~n't speak for Arnold, he said, but Arnold thought it could be a solution to the whole problem. Mr. Salisbury had also spoken with Mr. Chepulis, but stated nothing definite. After Nov. ~3th i~ is questionable whether a building permit can be issued. There is a gray area of law involved and Mr. Foster says '~o" and Canterbury says, "yes". We are tr~ to eliminate the g~y area and determine how, when and why these to~ouses can be constructed, said Atty. ~tem. No one seems to Bare an answer to the question, said Mr. Ohepulis. Obviously, ~id Mr. ~atem, if building permits were not issued we are back in the gray area of litigation. Mr. Chepulis questioned %b~t if the PLANNIN~ BOARD consents to such a decree it either would or would not be in violation of the ~tate statute. Mr. Bates said it would no~. This is for Arnold Salisbury to rule. It would be a compromise which weald result in the best interes~ of both parties, said Mr. t~tem, if the BOARD would consent to this decree. The Building Inspector stated that they have to start construction within 6 months after is~,~.ce of a permit and provided constructiou does not stop for ~ ~ar it is in effect after that. If ~hat Mr. ~oster says i~ true, asked Mr. Ostherr, doesn't this jus~ amount to your withdrawal of the suit and going the subdivision route? ~atem answered, no ~cause it is a matter of law. After much more discussion, pro and con, Mr. Ostherr suggested that the PLANNI~ BOARD instruct the Chairman to discuss the matter with Town Counsel and bring a recommendation to the nex~ meeting. Mr. Os~herr stated that approximately 2 weeks ago he was contacted by representatives of Land-V_est who were interested to ~now if the PLANNING ]~OARD would review their plans in developing some ~00-500 acres. He said his answer was that the BOARD would be happy to review arching that they proposed, comment as to our personal opinion and so the BOARD has been invited, specifically the Subdivision Control ~ubcommittee~ to sit with Land- Ves~ and the Essex C~y. Greenbelt Assoc. I~ther than submit a prelim~evy plan that haan'2 been seen by the BOAi~D, he saw nothing ~ong with a critique of the matter. Mr. Lamprey disagreed and mentioned that a lawyer at a seminar he is attending at Essex Aggie told them that this is illegal. It deprives abutters and residents of their say at a public hearing. Mr. Monteiro agreed with Mr. Lamprey and further stated that if there are a~y meetings held it shcakld be with the whole BOAKD. Mr. Gelinas stated that all the planning that is to be done on that parcel of land is within the constraints cf the present Zoning ]~y-Law. There is the possibility of some land exchanges with the Essex C~y. GB. The Greenbelt Assoc. actually asked for a representative of the PLANNIN~ ]~OAI~ and the Conservation Commissian and Land-Vest will be shut off from land pl~-~uing with them if these repzesentatives do not attend. He didn't th~k it possible for full Boards to sit at work seesions, but if this needs to be done on an open basis it is okay, Nov. 3, 1975 - cont. Mr. Chepulis stated %h~t he had attended a meeting wi~h ~he Board of Selectmen and the Building Iuspec~or regarding the Sign By-I~w and asked for a velunteer fer a review committee to look over the laws. Ne one volunteered so Mr. Os~herrwms appointed by the Chairman as the PLANNING BOARD member to the committee. Chairma~ (William Ohepulis) / (Gild~ BlaCkst ook)