HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-07-30Monday -July 30, 1973
1 Hearing - Special Meeting
The BOARD OF APPEALS held a special meeting and hearing on Nonday evening,
July 30, 1973 in the Town Office Building. The following members were present
and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Dr. Eugene A. Beliveau, Clerk; William
Sale,me, Louis DiFruscio and Associate Member James D. Noble, Jr., who sat in
place of re&atlar member Arthur R. Dr;;~=ond.
There were about 50 people present for the hearing.
Chairman Frank .Serio, Jr. presided.
HEARINg: ALB~T COATES & OTHERS v. CHARLES H. FOSTE~, BUILDING INSPECTOR:
Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice in the appeal of Albert Coates and others
v. Charles H. Foster, Building Inspector, under ~eneral Laws, Chapter &CA,
Section 13, appealing the issuance of building permit ~1737 to Vincent B. Landers
for 152 Townhouse units located on Osgood, Pleasant, Stevens Streets and Harkaway
Re ad.
Atty. Herbert Phillips, 5~6 Main St., Haverhill, represented the petitioners,
Albert Coates and others. He wanted the record to show that each member had
received a copy of the appeal filed, which all'..members stated they had received
copies ·
He expl~ed that the parties aggrieved have set forth eight reasons as to why
this building permit should be revoked. The basic issue is whether or not this
plan for townhouses constitutes a subdivision under the Subdivision Control Law
for the Town of North Andovar. He said they m~taA~ that it does constitute a
subdivision in ~ll respects. The people are not against progress and develop-
ment of the area, but they Just want control of what is developed. He quoted
Section 81M of the General Laws having to do with the pow~~ Planning
Board. In substance, this plan is a subdivision and should be controlled by
the Planning Board. This Board of Appeals should have the courage to overrule
the Buil~eg Inspector and put the plan where it belongs - before the Planning
Board. The developers would be giving up very little by going to the Planning
Board first. This would be for the good of the people and the town. By going
to the Planning' Board properly, it would protect the people to make sure that
everything is complied with. If this is done, everyone appealling this ~e~uld
not object to the subdivision.
Arguments ~2 and ~3 are a summary of everything else that has bean and will be
said.
#~ states that the North A~Mover ZoD~-g By-Law leaves much to be desired.
Definitions are not clear.
~8 points out that townhouses have been stricken from the Zoning By-Law by action
of a special town meeting in December, 1972 and they are taking the position
that townhouses in this R-~ district are not legal. He doesn't believe that all
of the dimensional requirements have been met.
For the Record, Atty. Phillips asked for a show of hands of the people present
of the group appealing.- Fourteen people from the area were present.
Charles H. Foster, Buila~g T~$pector, then spoke in defense of his issuance of
the building permit. He pointed out that the Zoning By-Law does leave some
questions to be answered a~M that portions had to be interpreted, decisions
made and policies established. Everyone applying for permits must be treated
in the same manner. Discussions were held with the Planning Board and with
Town Counsel and a policy was established. ~. ~
The Planning Board approved a subdivision with lots similar to the lots on ~this
townhouse development and similar to the townhouse lots on East Water Street,
for which a building permit was issued. There were no repercussions and he
did not expect any. He applied the same rules and regulations and the same
policy to the building permit application for Steve~ POnd Plan.
He further explained that the Planning Board signed a plan of the entire area
as "Not Requiring Approval under the Subdivision Control Law" which locked in
the zoning, so that SpeCial Town Meeting action striking out townh0uses did not
affect this particUlar area. $o legal:ly towahouses are allowed in this area.'
Even though he doesn't like. to~nhouses, he had to make the decision ~hat a
building permit must be issued since it was legal.
Hr. Foster pointed out that the petitioners plot plans were changed four times
before he approved a plot plan :showing all~ the building lots for the townhouses.
He had suggested cert~:~ changes to the petitioner which he felt woUld be better
for the people living on Phillips Court and they agreed not to allow traffic
through Phillips Court. They also changed the locations of so~e of the buil~<~ge
in order to save the trees and also to be further away from the abutt~_ug houses.
The petitioners did make concessions.
He said he had to decide whether or not this was a subdivision. He felt it Was
not a subdivision since every lot on the plan has- frontage on a public way or
on a private way open to the public, which the Zoning By-Law s,ays, is acceptable
as a street. The driveways are extensive, but they are not wi%bin his Juris-
diction. Even if this plan were to go to the Plamning B0aF. d, he doubts if they
woUld put the driveways under their jurisdiction. He expl~iued that in the Hughes
plan, the only street that was required to be put in by the applicant was a
short segment of street with a turn-a=round at the end. That's all that was
necessary to get the frontage for his lots but the drives to service the buil~t_ngs
and the different dwelling units and the parking, lots did not come ~uder the
subdivision.
The Hughes subdivision plan was shown to everyone' and Mr. Foster pointed out that
the shape of those townhouse lots are basically the same as the lots in the
Stevens Mill project.
Mr. Foster then brought out the plans for the~}~_w~ develoPment on East Water
Street and Chickering Road, and showed that t~F~l front on public ways
and there are private drives, but it wasn't a subdivisi°n, so he issued a building
permit for ~9 townhouses.
July 30, 1973 - cont.
' Atty. Charles W. Trombly, Sr,, 301 EsSex St., Lawrence, then spoke 'as repre-
senting the developers. Ne introduced others present with him; Atty. Harold
Morley, Jr. and Atty. Julian D'Agostine of Acton, associated counsels in
this matter. He wanted the record to Show that in the preparation of the
plans, as well as consulting with the architect, they 'have used the services
of Alan Chapman Associates, Inc. in association with Harold L. Goyette,
15 Myles Standish Rd., Weston; the Northern Associates, Inc., 38 Prospect St.,
Lawrence as civil engineers; Robert Weiss Associates, 29 Commonwealth Ave.,
Boston; Public Relations, Robert W. Sullivan, Inc., 38 Newbury St., Boston;
Utility Engineers, Moriece & Gary, Inc., 14 Arrow St., Cambridge, Land Use
Planners and Landscape Architects.
He distributed affidavits of each of the Persons mentioned in planning this
development that certify that it complies with the Zoning By-Law of the Town
of North Andover in e~ery respect as to area, density, distance, etc. These
requirements were met as a fact in consultation with the Building Inspector
and in research and study by each of those involved.
He said this development was properly before the Building Inspector, who is
the enforcement officer, and does not have to go before the Planning Board.
The matter before your Board tonight is whether or not the Bu/d~g Inspector
exceeded his authority, not to see that it should go before the Planning
Board. This is not a subdivision - we are not putting in any new streets;
each lot fronts on a public way. They have ~309 feet of street frontage
that meet the requirements. They do not have to put in new streets. This is
a community in itself. No streets will be put into this development because
they don't want the town to take them. They will plow aL1 driveways, pick up
all rubbish. There will be no town services at any expense to the town. Publlc
sewers are there. They have been to the Fire Dept. to discuss what they require
and they will comply with the requests.
The Planning Board does not have Jurisdiction over this development; the
BuildA~g Inspector does. Your Board must decide if the ~,~m~ Inspector
exceeded his authority or did he err, which Mr. TrOmbly says he did not. He
added that it was not a subdivision because they are not going to put in streets
that the town can accept. They don't want streets the town can accept - they
want to keep this development private.
There was a ten minute recess.
The meeting reconvened. Atty. Phillips commented on the site plan a~ noted
the irregular shapes of many of the lots, lot lines going across the pond to
get f~ontage on Stevens Street, lot 1.~nes going across the brook, lines turning
in ~5 angles, etc. He also questions whether Harkaway Road is a public way;
he would like to have a certification from the Town Clerk.. He feels they have
gone Just a little too far to have lots going through ponds, brooks, etc. They
should show that the driveways are actually streets. There should be subdivision
control on this project.
Building Inspector Foster agreed that the lots are extreme, but there is nothing
in the Zoning By-Law that requires these lots to be of any certain shape and
there is nothing in the Zoning By-Law that limits the amount of water that can ·
be on a lot. This has long been a sore point with him and he hopes that the
July 30, 1973 - cont.
Zoning By-Lawwould be emended soon so that we will not have this situation.
It may not seem practical or reasop~ble, but :they~are legal lots. As long
as they meet the req,,4~ements of the Zoning By-Law, he saw no reason why a
building permit should nog be issued. He still msintgins that he i~sued
the permit correctly.
AttY. Phillips said the lots are really fronting on the drives. These
people are not 'trying to stop this development; they ~Juat feel it should go
Before the Planning Bdard as a subdivision.
Atty. Trombly feels it is a good plan and asks that the Board act fast because
there is alot of money in this. These townhouses will sell for between
forty and fifty thousand dollars.
Mr. Wil]-tamOhep,,14s, Chairman of the Planning Board, spoke next. He stated
that nobody has mentioned a very important thing as far as the town is con-
cerned and that is drainage. No contours are shown on the plans. There's a
brook and a swale on the property, one area has a steep bank. The petitioner
has forgotten about the Conservation Commission. He doesn't think anyone
can build without altering or filling that brook. The petitioner must file
a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commissio~ and nothing can be built for 60
days. He must also go to the state to tie into the sewer system. Who will
control the drainage? He asked whether the tomahou~es would be rentals or be
sold, because it would make a difference.
Chairman Serio asked Mr. Chep-~s how the Planning Board felt about the odd
shaped lots on the Hughes development. Mr. Chepulis said they ware considered
strictly on a legal basis. The odd shaped lots fronted on a street that came
under subdivision control. He feels that some of the drives on this develop-
mentwill be used as streets. Mr. Chepulis mentioned the plans that had been
signed by the Plann__tngBoard as not requiring approval under the Subdivision
Control Law. He said one parcel of land on Stevens Street shows only one
acre and he can't understand how 10 townhouses can be shown on that parcel
when only 7 are allowed. His personal opinion is that this development is a
subdivision.
Member Noble noted that on the zoning map, Harkaway Rd. stops partway and is
not shown coming through to Stevens St. Planning Board member Don Keirstead
explained that the map is not an official map of the town. A determination
as to the road would have to be made by the Town Clerk.
Mr. Chepulis added there is no control over what th~ driveways will be made of;
what amount of hot-top, etc. He [eels that the land is divided into t~o or
more lots :and in order to gain access to those lots, it requires a street and
he feels this makes a subdivision.
Discussion was held on rubbish collections, snow removal, plowing, etc.
Atty. Trombly added that they intend to follow the laws of the Commonwealth
in every particular as to drainage, conservation, etc. Those steps will be
taken but they need not be taken to the Planning Board. They intend to comply
with all laws. He filed a statement from the Building Inspector that Harkaway
road runningbetween Osgood St. and Stevens Street is a private way open to
July 30, 1973 - cont.
to travel by the general public and meets the requirements of street definition,
Section 2.6~ of the Zoning By-Law. Mr. Trembly said he has lived im this town
all his 11fo and NarkawayRoad has been open to the public and plowed a~d used
by the public.
Discussion was held with some of the abutters who said that Stevens Mill
maint,iqed Narkaway Road.
Discussion was held withAtty. Harold Morley, who was title examiner for the
property, as to the amount of property under water. The deed reads to the
center of the brook, not to the shoreline. Mr. Keirstead and Mr. Chepulis
questioned the area of the triangular parcel because the plan signed by the
Planning Board shows only one acre more or less and they question that ten
towahouses could be placed on that parcel.
Chairman Serio asked who has rights to the water that goes through the brook?
Mr. Trombly said~those who buy the townhouses, there will be 152 owners and
they will control it. There will be an owner's association which will be
run as a corporation for the benefit of all of the owners.
Atty. Julian D'Agostine, an associate in the development, explained that the
units will be sold as separate townhouse units. The owners will contribute
to an association for the maintenance of the common land. Ne gave as an
example the Waterville Estates in New Hampshire.
Chairman Serio asked Mr. Tromblyif this group or corporation would be willing
to turn the rights of the pond over to the town- that's where it should
rightfully be.
Mr. Trombly said t$~t maybe done some day but at this point he is ~ot in a
position to commitT~he town and doesn't thimk the chairman is in a position
to ask for it.
Discussion was held as to th~esses of the units with the peculiar shaped
lots and frontages.
Harold Goyette, the engineer, then spoke about designing a comm~ity that
abided by all laws and regulations and still have a design that would enhance
the enviromment. Townhouse development creates a better way of living.
They are creating open green area and providing matmtenance through an
association which is much more strict about the maintenance and upkeep because
they are also homeowners. What they have really done is ignored "crazy" lot
lines once the legal aspect has been solved and tried to create large pools of
green areas , preserving some of the mag~icent trees that are there; pre-
servingthe pond and the brook. It is their intent to diminish the impact of
the paved drives and parking areas; that is why they are not interested in
going to the Subdivision Control Laws. Under subdivision control they would
be required to have large streets paved. They don't want alot of paving,
they are trying to create more greenery. He cited a development in Marblehead
that was similar.
Mr. Chepulis noted that the petitioner has squeezed every single possible unit
they could out of the land.
July 30, 1973 - cont.
Jackie McGuire, phillips Ct., asked if they would be rented if they wore not sold.
Mr. Trombly said he hoped they would ~e sold, if not, then they would be rented.
Atty. D'Agestine explained that the development would be built based on sales,
depending on the market demand. He said projects of this size are done in stages.
Dr. Beliveau asked how much time would be lost if this project came before the
Planning Board.
Mr. Chepulis explained that once the definitive plams are filed, the :Planning
Board must make a decision within 60 days. If the Board takes no action within
that time, it would be automatically approved.
Mr. Canty asked what the average cost per unit wouldbe.
Mr. D'Agostine said the average cost for a project of this type would range
from $60 a month to as high as $200 a month depending on what it includes. Plus
the mortgage.
After more. discussion on m~-tenance~ management, etc., Mr. DiFruscio made a
motion to take the petition under advisement; Dr. Beliveau seconded the motion
and the vote was unanimous.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
(Frank Serio, Jr.~/
Secret~