Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-02-15Planninq Board Meeting Febx~lax~ lSv 1994 Senior Center The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. Members Present Richard Rowen. Kathleen Counsel, Nardella, Chairman, Joseph Mahoney, Clerk, and Richard John Daghlian arrived at 8:00 p.m. Also present were Bradley Colwell, Town Planner and Joel Bard, from Town Kopelman & Paige. Mr. Nardella moved to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing litigation strategy for Brook Farm and Long Pasture Subdivisions and to discuss the settlement of the Patnaude Case. The Board will return to open session at 8:00 p.m. On a roll call vote: Joseph Mahoney - Yes Richard Rowen - Yes Richard Nardella - Yes On a roll call vote the Board came out of executive Session at 8:15 p.m. Joseph Mahoney - yes John Daghlian - yes Richard Rowen - yes Richard Nardella - yes Public aeaxinas Brook Far~ Definitive Subdivision Attorney Gary Sackrider, Salem Ma., represents Margaret Antonelli, owner of the property. From the time this subdivision was approved until 1992, there was no access to the subdivision The Planning Board did not force Turner Estates to complete the road within the two year time period, gave Turner Estates extensions for construction of road. Applicant has been without access to subdivision and was therefore precluded from completing these conditions. Planning Board Office never told applicant that extension was required . Have a developer ready to go in the Spring · Request Board act on an extension request tonight. · Ramifications of revocation jeopardizes one acre zoning loss of over $200,000 for applicant, therefore will want to appeal decision Chapter 41, Section 81DD possible damages if applicant relied on an approval · suggest a compromise - vote to modify to add sidewalks deal with stump dump issues Mr. Daghlian question if client had access. Attorney Sackrider told Mr. Daghlian that his client has access since 1992, when the road was accepted by the Town. Mr. Daghlian asked why no construction yet. It is now 1994, almost 2 years have passed. Mr. Mahoney asked why did applicant not proceed immediately after road accepted by Town? Attorney Sackrider replied, no action was taken. Mr. Mahoney asked what type of modification would there be? Attorney Sackrider replied, sidewalks and stump dumps are the issues that have been brought. Would be willing to work to a modification. Mr. Nardella stated that litigation was a good basis for an extension. A decision was rendered in 1988 that supersedes the 1987 decision. Failure to seek an extension of the subdivision as basis for recession. Attorney Joel Bard, Town Counsel, Kopelman & Paige 1. two approvals granted by the Board, 1987 plan approved, not endorsed. The March 1988 approval was endorsed. one plan, but a new application submitted in 1988, not a modification application complied with 1988 zoning requirements approval dated 1988, therefore subdivision in any event is subject to 2 acre zoning. What is authority of Board? Needs to act reasonably with just cause modification - within Board's right to modify under current zoning and subdivision rules and regulations rescission - basis that decision made in 1988 and no progress has been made on construction since then Damages under 81-DD discusses damages under the emminent domain law Did they lose property right to develop right by their lack of advancing subdivision? not aware that this section has ever. been used Mr. Rowen asked if 1988 plan shows one acre lot, is this a problem? Is Board prohibited from approving a plan that does not conform to zoning? Attorney Bard opinion is that 1988 decision is a valid one. Ms. Colwell stated that the Planning Board approves the roadway layout, does not have to create buildable lots. Mr. Nardella was looking for a motion to rescind the subdivision approval based upon a lack of progress on the subdivision and failure to seek extensions of time to complete and failure to adequately secure the subdivision. There was no second. On a motion by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Board moved to modify approval to comply with current rules and regulations because they believe both the applicant and the Town may not have diligently pursued this project, therefore should not revoke a legitimate subdivision. Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Rowen voted in the affirmative to Mr. Mahoney's motion. Mr. Nardella and Mr. Simons voted in the negative to Mr. Mahoney motion. Mr. Daghlian is not a voting member on subdivision issues. Mr. Simons arrived at 8:47 p.m. Mr. Mahoney stated that there is ambiguity as to how to view the second application and decision. Is it a modification or a new application? He views this a legitimate one acre subdivision. Attorney Bard told the Board that they may want to continue the public hearing and discuss a potential modification. Motion fails because no majority vote. Mr. Rowen asked if there was a request for an extension. Attorney Bard stated there was a letter dated October 28, 1993 for a request for an extension. On a motion byMr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Board voted to continue the public hearing to March 1, 1994 Mr. Nardella When issues are put to Town Counsel, he urged the Board to understand and generally follow counsels opinion. Attorney Bard Opinion as to zoning in this case is one acre but agrees that it is a grey area. Rendering an opinion, not advocating recession, modification, etc. Attorney Sackrider · approval in 1987 with conditions on the final plan · "modification- in 1988 changed access to open space to preclude motorized vehicles. Robert Parker, 111 Christian Way · Would a modification change roadway layout and the number of houses? Ms. Colwell told him that a modification may reduce the number of lots, unclear as to how it would effect roadway layout. Mr. Nardella said that the discussions will continue to the March 1, 1994 meeting. Lon~ Pasture Mr. Mahoney read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Attorney Richard Magnum, from Attorney Gregson's Office was present. Attorney Robert Minasion was present as well as Brennan Craig, a relative to the land owner. Attorney Magnum spoke to the Board. history of Conservation Commission litigation no endorsement of the subdivision plan no time limit for endorsement in MA statues issues of zone change and revised wetland regs applicant is unable to present a modified plan reflecting wetland issues until litigation resolved Mr. Nardella asked why the plan was not endorsed. Attorney Magnum contended that unable to meet required conditions of approval prior to endorsement. Attorney Robert Minasion told the Board that he had discussion between Phil Christiansen, Engineer, and the Town Planner at the time in regards to inability for Board to sign plans. Mr. Simons remember approval of subdivision large number of wetland issues very contentious with Board at the time concern of Paul Plisinski that his rights may be compromised and suggest that hearing be continued to give him a chance to speak. Attorney Bard stated that a review of the decision shows that if a NACC Order of Conditions required changes to the plan that the applicant seek a modification of the plan, this did not preclude endorsement. Attorney Minasion said that the decision was confusing. Attorney Magnum stated that there are conditions that could not be met because of Conservation Commission's litigation. Attorney Bard said he could not see any condition that could not be met. did not preclude them from endorsement zoning act specifically states that freeze protection runs for 8 years from date of endorsement Mr. Nardella said he does not see anything in the decision that precluded the applicant from obtaining endorsement of plans. Mr. Nardella called for a motion that approval of Long Pasture Subdivision be rescinded because the plans were never endorsed. Mr. Rowen so moved. Mr. Simons told the Board he was in sympathy with Mr. Plisinski to want to give him the benefit of a doubt, want to continue the public hearing. There was no second to the motion. On a motion by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Board voted to continue the public hearing to March 1, 1994. Ms. Colwell to get Mr. Daghlian appointed to the Planning Board as a regular member. Senior Housi~? The Board was given copies of a draft decision. Mr. Simons wanted conditions as to specific building materials to be used to be reviewed and approved by Planning Board, to be added to the decision. On a motion by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Board voted to approve the Site Plan for ADS Senior Housing as amended. &DDroval Not Required - For~ Boxford Street - Lot SA & The Board held off on review of the plan, so that the Board could review a letter written by the applicant's attorney. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, the Board voted to adjourned the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. ~net L. Eaton, Secreatry Richard A. Nardella, Chairman