Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-01-05January 5, ~976 - Monday Regular Meeting The PLANNING BOARD held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, JanuaryS, 1976 at 7:30 P.N. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: William Chepulis, Chairmn; Fritz Ostherr, Vice-Chairm~n; William N. Salemme, Clerk; Paul R. Lamprey and John J. Monteiro. ~l~nere were 7 visitors. Chairman Chepulis brought up the ~uestion of placing items on the Ag~enda for those who call up late on Monday afternoon. Mr. Monteiro stated that he w~s not in favor of this but would abide by what the BOARD decides. ~hfter discussion by members, Nr. Ostherr made a motion that the Agenda shall be closed at the close of the work day on Friday except for Plans Not Requiring Approval, preliminary or definitive plans filed on a Monday or a matter that the BOARD deems important. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. A motion was made by Mr. Monteiro to accept the minutes of Dec. 1 & 15, 1975. Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion. Mr. Ostherr desired a correction in the words"convened" and '~e-convened" on page 2 of Dec. 15th minutes. These should read "recessed" and "re-assembled". A motion was made by Mr. Non%eiro to approve2the minutes of Dec. 15 as corrected and approvelthe minutes of Dec. 1. Mr. Ostherr seconded and the vote BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS; Philip Busby, Joseph Borgesi and Raymond Canty, Board of P~blic Works members, were present for the discussion. Mr. Busby stated that they had requested this meeting due to the problem with preliminary and definitive plans involving pumping stations and development. They (BPW) feel that the builder is not going by specifications. Mr. Canty felt that there is something lacking in communication. Mr. Chepulis told them that their rules are binding on the builder and that the PLANNING BOARD always . requests BPW recommendations. Mr. Ostherradded that if they have a problem with a builder going by certain specifications inform the PLAY,lING BOARD and we will write it in our regulations. They were also advised that if they find something wrong in the definitive plans they should specify same when they return the referral. Also, the developer is still under bond and we will hold the money if the BPW doesn't want it released. Speaking specifically of Johnson Circle, Mr. Busby stated that there was an agreement signed between the developer and the BPW to the effect that the BPWwill take over the pumping station and they are liable for the cost now. He stated that there a~e a certain number of dollars to be expended every month for the operation of the pumping station and asked, if it is the developer's responsibility whose job is it to enforce this? He was told that once the subdivision is finished and the bond is released, then the PLANNING BOARDhas no~hing more to do with it. Ben Osgood stated that what happened with Johnson Circle was that they approved the lift station and now they don't wan~ to bear the cost. The Highway Surveyor felt that it might help to set time limits on the completion of these developments to avoid one of these prolonged problems. Mr. Ostherr asked if they set their own water rates to which they answered "yes". In that case, why can't you set your own rates on the lift station? Mr. Chepulis suggested having Town Counsel look into the status on this matter. Mr. Ostherr continued that they can put whatever reasonable restr~ctions they want on the plan and the PLANNING BOARD will abide by them. The question of operating costs is hazy, but ought to be explored. January 5, 1976 - cont. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL: SALEM ~3REST - George F~rr was present. In viewing the plans the BOARD had difficulty in determining where these 2 lots were located. Mr. 0stherr m~de a motion to endorse as No~ Requiring Approval Under Subdivision Control Law a Plan of Land in North Andover, N~. on Salem St., dated Dec. 22, 1975, showing lots 50 & 51. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote was %manimcus. SU~SSION OF DEFINITIVE PLANS: 1. WILLOW REDGE ESTATES - Boston St.: The BOARD noted that there was no seepage test data submitted in accoraauoe with Sec. 3 (3-1) and Sec. 2 (B-10). A motion was made by Mr. Ostherr to return the plan to Scott Properties and advise them and John Lyons that we could not accept them due to the fact that they did not meet all the requirements of the '~ules & Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land". Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote was unanimous. 2. B~CHMARK ESTATES - Winter ~t.: The BOARD noted that there w~s no see~ge test data submitted nor h~d the designer's certifioat· been either signed or stampe~ Mr. Ostherr made a motion to return this plan for no test pit inf~mation or designer's certificate signature. Advise John Lyons and Benchmark Construction, Inc. of above. 'Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote was uns~imous. REVIEW OF J & V RFALTY TRUST PLAN~ F~R BOARD OF APPEALS P~ING: They are requesting a v~riance from the fronSage requirement. A motion was made by Mr. Os%herr to advise the Board of Appeals that while it appears possible to create lots, each having proper frontage, we don't see any ~arm in this p~rticular deviation. Mr. Monteiro seconded and the vote waS %m~A~imonB, FOREST - DISCUSSION OF COVENANT: Mr. 0stherr opened the discussion by stating that he was given the impression during the weekend past ( and mentioned that he could be wrong) that the BOARD never did get a covenant executed on Salem Forest and was also given the impression that construction work is going on in the subdivision. He then made a motion that the BOARD instruct the Building and Zoning Officer to issue a cease order on any Further work because it is par~ of the condi- tions of the approval of the subdivision that we get a covenant. Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. George ~rr, the developer of the site, stated that he didn't know what he was supposed to do and was not sure if the plan had been recorded. The Building Inspector explained the two w~ys to get lots released - either by a covenant or by posting a bond. Mr. F~rr said he w~nts to get two houses built soon and asked how to go about it. Mr. Ostherr explained again what the procedure is that he must follow. The Chairman read the Selectmen's letter dated Dec. 17, 1975 to Town Counsel and then read Town Counsel's letter of December 19, 1975 to the Board of Selectmen. Letters are on file. The BOARD concensus was that the only intent of Mr. Salisbury's letter was that anyone can go to the Town Clerk and record such a memorandum and not jeapordize their appeal rights. At our last meeting we took objection to the fact that this memo was not signed - it is a draft copy and the only information we have is that the Board of Appeals prior to our meeting ~ a caucus-type meeting and decided to change a few words. We had expected to receive an official submission of such a document, said Mr. Chepulis, and as of this moment it has not been'.~executed or received. It is my understanding, he said, that the January 5, 1976 - cont. Board of Appeals did not want to send it to the PLANNING BOARD until they meet next week. Mr. Nonteiro stated that he is basically cf the same opinion that he was at the last meeting. The Chairman read the letter from the Beard of Selectmen dated Dec. 29, 1975 requesting PLANt,lNG BOARD reaction to the memorandum. The letter is on file. Mr. Ostherr stated that his personal reaction was that it di~m't make him happy. The Board of Appeals position is wrong in my mind, he said, aud until they change that position I can't change m~ mind. Mr. Salemme took exception with reference to the Kelleher ~r. Pembroke decision because the court said it was improperly submitted to begin with, that they h~d made an honest mistake, and every site was subject to the provisions of the By-L~w, but no~ retroactive. Ralph Joyce, speaking as a citizen of the town, told the BOA]ID that he still didn't understand the exact objections of the BOARD. Mr. Salemme said that in his opinion they should delete the sentence which states they are exempt from the Zoning By-Law, Sec. 5. Mr. Chepulis stated that there is no reference that this memo will become a part of the original decision or replace it. It is not the PLANNING BOARD'S intent to make everything retroactive to day "1", but in applying this permit there should have been a fee, a plan submitted, etc. A discussion took place about ~bonding only 5 acres and requesting a variance from any provisions that the operator can't live with. COMMUNICATION FROM TOWN CLERK RE OPEN MEETING LAW: The BOARD members read the letter and signed it. Secretary to return to Ym. Lyons. LETTER FROM SELECTMEN RE FUNDING: Letter was read by the Chairman. Mr. Ostherr sug- gested that the delegate to the MVPC ought to find out what it is all about. MEMO FROM COUNTY PLANNER RE STATE GROWTH POLICY: Memo was received. Gay~on Osgood said that he had been to the Selectmen regarding this matter and explained who would be on the Committee which is mandatory. The Selectmen have authroized Mr. 0sgood to attend a~conference at NIT %o try and figure out the whole matter. The S~ate is attempting to discern what the Towns want, according to Mr. 0sgood. The deadline is January 22 for setting up the Committee. CONSERVATION COMMISSION ORDER OF CONDITIONS RE GREENWOOD ASSOC., CHESTNUT ST.: Received and read by the Chairman. PLAN REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS UNDER THE GENERAL LAWS: The BOARD decided that the next time we review or revise our "Rules & Regs." we will bring them into conformance with the new Registry Regulations. NI SCELLANE(YJS MA~ERS: Budget - the BOARD discussed items; Mr. Chepulis to go over the whole thing. North Andover will be host for the Mass. Pederation of Planning Boards yearly conference. It will be held in Nay. Notice of meeti~ on "State Growth Policy" at MIT (to which Gay~on Osgood referred to) was received and read. Office of Local Assistance Newsletter Ks received and filed. January 5, 1976 - cont. Notification of Workshop to be held in D~nvers on Jan. 14 on Needs Assessment received and read. Soil & Water Conservation Workshop, Jan. 21 at Ramada Inn, sponsored by Coop. Extension of U. Mass. was received and read. The Building Inspector asked the BO~BB if they were going to sponsor any articles for Town Meeting and suggested a proposed revision on the portion of the By-Law regarding animals. The members advised him to draft something and they will work on it with him. Mr. Salemme asked if anyone h~d any comments regarding the revisions to the Board of Appeals Rules & Regulations ~nd/or Forms. Mr. Lamprey commented that he was of the opinion that the reconsideration clause should remain in the Rules & Regs. Chester Sullivan discussed the procedure With the BOARD for bond release, on B~nnan Drive (S~lem Gardens). He was adv-ised that we need a letter of request and that he should use our For~ The meeting adjourned at 11 P.M. Chairn~n · (~&t~ ~Okstook)