Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-04-14The North Andove: P~anning Board held a regular meeting on Apcii ]4, 1988, in the Town Hail Selectmen s Meeflng Room. The meeting was calie~ to order at ?:AS p.m. by George P~.~rna, Vice-Chairman. Also present were Erich Nitzsche and Michael Leafy. Gec~oe Perna and the Board welcomed its newest member~ Michael LeaFy. Michael is replacing John Burke who resigne~ from the Board on March 30tP. Due to t~e fac~ that thor(? was not a quorum presen, t at the ooeni~lg of' the meeting the Vice-C]~airman, George Perna took up items t~at only needed a ma,~rity vote ~three mem~er~ not f~r). MOTION: By Erich Nitzsche to accept the minutes as written. SECOND: Michael Leary VOTE: Unanimous of those MOTION: By Erich Nitzsche to release $~'7,000 for erosion control be~no held by the Planning Boai~d. SECOND: Michael l_eary VOTE: Unanimous c.f those present. Scott Stocking, Town Planner massed out comies of letters to the Board received from Bill Hmurciak? DPW; and John Tutt~e. one of the developer of Bearhiii, regarding exercising a ~ond for :he ~ift station out on Bear Hill. Bill Hmurciak stated that masicaily, Mr Tutt!e was walking away from his responsibility relative ~o the oumping station and that he has had ma)o~ orobiems with it and has ~efwsmd to do anything about it~ D.P.W. has had to ste~ in and coal ~ith ~t~ maintain it on an emergency basis. [o get ti~e pumping sta~ion mack i~!to reasonable shape, $4,000 will have to be spent. Bill also stated that D.P.W. was looking for money from the bono so tha~ {he pumping station could be maintained. Scott Stock, lng stated tha~ there was currently SBi,O00 remaininq in the bond, Scott also stated that since he has been in Town, this situation has not happened. The mrocedure on ceizing a bond wilt have to be researched, oossibly a public hearing will have to be held to formaliy vote to ce~ze the Oond and send a letter to the bank. Bill Hmurciak felt that the aooiicant wanted to walk away from the whole suOdiv]sion. Geo~-c~e Pecna questioned the amount of money te~t relative to the work remaining in the subdivision, noz just the pumping station. Bill stated that $'7.000 was set aside for water and sewe- Droblems, the H~ghway Department had $~000, the remaining ,~as set aside for street trees. Bill ~also stated tmat it was possible tha~ the $~,000 set aside would not Oe enough because of the ~umm:ng station, but basically most things have been taken care of in the subo~vlsion. There is a small punch list of i~ems that remain to be done other than the maintenance to the pumping statio~. The rules and regulations require that the developer maintain a suC. Oivimion foc a f~ve year period~ the developer in .this case is only into his tmird ye,ir. George Perna asked Bill Hmurciak ho~ muuh it would cost to maintain the pumping station once it was fixe[]. Bill stated that if a maintenance company were to maintain the station it ~ou!d cost $8,000 to m3,O00 a year, but if D.P.w. were to maintain it would not cost th.it muc,~. MOTION: By Erich ~'qit~sche to h~i~ a ~Jb!im beari~g for the ~urpose of ~e~zing the b~lance o? t~e bcnd m~ney on the BeaF Hill Subdivis~on~ $3~000 ~f Mr. ~uttie~s portion for the purpose completing ~he subdivision ~n~ c~m~le~ng the ~ump station ~or the ~own of North A~oover and direct the Town Planner~ Scott Stocking tn research procedures on ceizing bonds. SECOND: Michael Le~ry VOTE: Unanim~u~ o~ those ~resent. Discussiol] Rea Street - Preliminary Scott Stocking~ Tower P!~nner, updated the Board on the preliminary plan, stating that at the previous meeting a letter was received from Ralph Joyce which was amtiguous as to the Rea Street Preliminarv Plan and that the Board requeste¢! him to get a classification on exactlv~what ~e was granting the Board ~nd why he ~s Ooi~g what he did and ~lso the Board had requested the Planner to 'see i~ ti~e preliminary plan requirements were met. Scott s~ated that the r'eOui~'ements were met as far as he could tell. Mr. Joyce n~s since sent ~nother letter granting an extension until May ~5, i988 ~t which sime the Planner felt that the applicant would probably withOraw the preliminary plan. MOTION: By Erich Nitzsche to acce~: ~he request for an extension until May 15, !V88 on t~e prellmin~ry subdivision plan, Maureen J. Jo¥ce, Rea Street, North AnOover. SECOND: Michael Leery VOTE: Unanimous of those oresen~ Scott Stocking stated that he Ja~ received a letter fr~m Attorney Woodward, representing Wintergreen Estates. A~praently some people have had difficulty ir, purchasing p~operty at Wintergreen Estates because of an error In the release that the B~)~rd signed previously. A new release form takes in accouter, the error. ]h~ error was the book and page number which the ocig~nai filing w~s unOer. [he mistake was the applicants, not the Bo~rds. MOTION: By Erich Nitzsche that the applicant sign the Form J before the Board signs it. George Perna stated that a motion ~ts n~Jt in order. John Simons acrive~ at 9:55 Brookview Subdivision Scott Stocking spoke to the Botrd citing additional work that is needed. Specifi~!iy the engineer, ]'om Neve, is having a Traffic Imoact Study done to show why the lay-out of t~e romd mmkes sense. An extension has been granted until ~y 19th. As soon as the study is complete, Mr Neve will notify the P]anner. Extensions will be granted as long as it takes for the study to be completed, per the engineer. Public Hearinq_s_ Chestnut Street - Common Driveway_s_ Ben Osgood, Jr. showed the Board the original plans. The Board asked the applicant to come in with new plans. The new plans show one crossing with 4 common driveways. A forty (qO) foot common right-of-way, with a 20 foot pavement. The Board was asking for 8 lots~ still il house lots. The applicant still feels that he has the right to develop the eleven lots. Jack Lindon, Cor~servation Commission Chairman, spoke and felt that the plans were creative but essentiua!ly a prgvate road. John Simons stated that for al! ocact~cal reasons it's ~ subdivision. Erich Nitzsche felt that there was a great imsact on the land with eleven lots. He expressed concerns about the mitigation of run-off. John Simons would Tike to see cluster development and war, ted to know why the applicant did not wait for the R-3 ~oning issu~. (Cluster Developments allowed in R-3 2bring District). Mr Osgood felt that the R-3 for cluster would not pass Town Meeting. Michael Leafy wa~ted some background and asked if the applicant had other alternatives. Scott Stocking stated that the applicant had come before the Bo~trd on a previous occasion and that the plan in fro~t of the Board pcese!~t]y was the alternative to the first application. George Perna wanted a concensus of the Board. The concensus of the Board ~as that the or-iginal olan was disliked. George Perna stated that the plans before the Board were a step in the right direction, but there were too many houses for the land. Erich Nitzsche asked Scott Stocking, Town Planner, if it m~t the zoning bylaws on common driveways. Scott stated that it did meet the zoning bylaws. Erich also asked what choices did the Board have if it meets the zoning bylaws other than putting conditions on ~t. Scott stated that the Board could put reasonable conditioms on the special permit. Scott also stated that there were lB Form A lots that could be accessed by common driveways. He also s~aid that he and Nancy Sullivan, Conservation Administrator, had gone ~ver the plans together with the applicant and came uo with the plans now before the Board. MOTION: B~ Erich Nitzsche to close the public hearing and direct the Town Planner, Scott Stocking, to draft an approval of the common driveway applications in front of the Board as been advertised however draft that approval with proper mitigation measures that outline in the special permit approvals~ such as run-off, erosion control and mitigation of some of the houses as it maybe an appropriate use of th~s small istand~ basically form a condominimum oroject, lean toward that line. SECOND: John Simons Michael Leafy sDoke to the BoarO saying that he was not that familar with what had been going o~a in the past at~d he wanted to hear from Scott on what he was willing to do as the Board has indicated that they like what has been brought in recently, maybe not 100%. Ben Osgood sooke stating he would draw up plans with a formal suOmittal so there will be ineffect two su~mittais on the same property. Ben Osgood agreec wl th L~co t t in th;i~ because certa in lots were advertised on esch sDeclal pe~m~t th~t they would have to be readvertised and that he ~ou!d grant an extensicn on the deceision for the original ~lams submitted and submit new plans. Erich Nitzsche stl~.] wanted t(~ close the public hemring on the apolication befo'~e the Bo~rd an~ h~ve a draft decision drawn uo so that at the eleventh hour the Boa~-~ ~ouid not be caught with no decision. He wanted time for th~ Board t~ rev)ew the draft decision. VOTE: Unanimous c~-f those present. Paul Hedstrom arrived at 8:55 p.m. Ben Osgood, Jr. spoke to the Boa=~ sta~ing that Abbott Village Subdivision Modification was submitted on November 1, 1987 at the same time two common driveway aooli~ations were submitted. He also stated that at that time zhe Board had no problem with the two common driveway a~p].ications and mcd~fication being submitted at once. Since then~ the subdivision, the applicant feit~ had a constructive approval. Apolicant has ~sked the court to repeal the Planning Board~s decision but appeal and asking the court to accept the a~licant's constructive approval. Applicant asked ~o be put on the Planning Board's agenda before the appeal ran out to discuss the Abbott Village Subdivision. The Board did not meet in time so apo!icant ap~e~ie~. Applicant wanted the Board to amend their conditions so that they were acceptable to both parties and the applicant would not nave to appeal. Paul Hedstrom asked if the Board was in suit on Abbott Village. Ben Osgood, Jr. said yes. Paul Hedstrem continued stating that the Board is in suit on th~s subdivision, the i~own Clerk stamged~ applicant record plans. Paul wanted to schedule Planning Board motion foc a re-hearing of this mubdivision and pu~ the conditions on it as soon as possible. He also wanted to know why the BoarO did not know that it had been stamped and filed with the registry. Paul further stated that the applicant ~romised and understood the neeO for extensions through the Towp Planner and that they were never forth coming in writting. He did not know how you could be in half suit and half not. Town Counsel to be asked for interpretmtion on that. '!'own Pi~nne? did not know that it had been stamped by th~ Town Clerk. Paul stated that there was no ~ay the Board would entertain this application. The Board wanted the mp~!icant to withdraw at the last meeting and trey arm asking the a~oo)ic,~nt to withdraw at this time. If not, the Board will make a flnOinm within the statutory time period of which the applicant ~ould not me napov ~ith the findings. The Board does not want to ~)lay games. A public hearing will be meld outting the same conditions on a defacto subdivision. Ben Osgood, Jr. stated that he wanted to deal with the Board in an upbeat way. Paul said he should not have taken the Town Clerk's affidavit ano recorded the plan for a defacto approval. Ben Osgood, Jr. felt that it was not an apmroval, it was an approval denial. Paul disagreed, stating tha~ there were four or five conditions the aopiicant objected to. The subdivision has been before the Board four times since the approvai, The Bomrd wanted to talk about conditions the applicant had a problem with. The apoiicant said he had to file to protect his rights ~o discuss those conditions. Paul said t~at it was inconsistant, in his ~udgement. with filing a defacto approval. Ben Osgood stated that he did not record his plan until his appeal ~eriod~ before the Board issued conditions but vo~ed to issue them. Apolicant stated he know he had constructive approval on December 30th. Paul asked if the applicant was contacted by the Town Planner's Office to issue an extension~ subsepuent to December BOth. Ben Osgood, Jr. stated that they had a meeting after December 30th and talked about an aporovai. He talked with Scott Stocking, Town Planned- and told him that on such and sucm a date Paul interrupted ~nd wanted to kno~ about the extension. Ben Osgood~ Jr. said he told Scott he w~u!d give him one to a date. Paul said a~!icant had constructive approval on Dec 30th~ after that told him you would give him one and never did. Ben Osgood~ Jr. stated that the Board was distrubed at his actions. Paul said, yes!!!! Ben said that he still wanted to work with the Board. Paul reiterated the circumstances citing the fact that the adplicant told the planner that an extension would be granted but never was. Paul considered that unfair play. He also stated that the Board was ~oing to take advantage of something the statue gives the Board. The Board is going to have a public hearing and out the same conditions on the defacto approval that is on the plan in suit and then if t~e ap~lciant wan~s to drop that suit, the Board will entertain the common ~riveway ap~)!~cation~ but if the applicant does not~ the Board will not beca~l~e it is on a subdivision the Board does not recognize. Erich N~tzsche wanted to k~ow if the public hearing should be closed and the planner draft a disapproval for the common driveway applications on the basis that it envolves a suit. Paul thought the public hearing snould be closed and take the matter under advisement and soeak to Town Counsel and make a decision. MOTION: By Erich Nitzsche to (]lose the public hearing and take the matter under advisement and speak to Town Counsel and make a decision. SECOND: John Simons VOTE: Unanimous of those present. Ben Osgood~ Jr. stated again that he wanted to work with the Town Planner. Paul ~iedstcom aske~ Gerry Weimann why he had promised an extension. Gerry Weimann told Paul they never promised to produce a written extension. Paul ~isagreed. Paul wanted Gerry to explain what Ben Osgood, Jr mea~)t when he said to Scott, he would give him an extension. Ge~-cy repeate~ saying they never said the word written. Ben Osgood, jr .............. st.a~ed that s~' felt ~h~ ~..~-~nn-;-~,] Boar'c] was lacks their duties. [)auJ sai~ ~he hea,.'i~g was over. Butcher Boy - Site ~lan Review, Thomas Caffrey, attorney for Angus Realty Trust was present and pa~sed out a letter to ~he Board. Vir Caffrey stated that Mass DPW have accepted utah for access. He also stated that the test pits were to be done~ the se~ec plans have 95% complete and approved by DRW and that the ~lans are lOOZ reaci~. Mr. Caffrey went over the letter presented to the Board earlier bciefty commen~J, ng on a ~'ew issues: suit by abutters crainage special permit and whether Site Plan Review was required Mr Caffrey stated the he has been working with Scott Stocking, Town Planner and DPW. John Simons commented on the special permits, and the time period eiasoed for the permit, the appeals board granted an extension. He felt that the tw~) years have elasped and that the permit was not valid and second!y~ the ~ize of the building has increased. George Perna wanted to know how you ca~ change a right-of way. Mr. Caffrey stated t~at legally you can if you own both sides uf the right-of-way, you can change it as long as it does not adverstey affect those that might want ~o use it. Paul Hedstrom wante~ to know what you would see from your car from Great Pond Road. Mr. Namoris showed the Board pictures taken from a special camera, the lake at eye level. Erich Nitzsche wanted to know :if a Notice of Intent was filed· Mr. Namoris said the t~ey will file with the Conservation Commission. Paul Hedstrom wanted to know about the wetland c~nstruction activity with a cease and decise. Mr Caffrey stated that he did not know about the 3 to 1 reotication requirement. Paul Hedstrom stated that there were items issues by Conservation 'Cha~ were not addressed. Jack Lindon, Conservation Commission, spoke to the Board stating that the Notice of Intent was filed after conszruction began. Scott Stocking asked Jack Lindon if he ~ad any problem with the replication plan that was tentatively ~hown. Jack stated that replication would probably not be approved at the location shown. Replication tc be at the site of the violation. Jack Lindon further commented citing that in the past two years the Conservation Commission has not allowed a single pro~iecs i~ the ~atershed of Lake Cochickewick in which they have not required a 50' no dlstrubance zone and 100' from the wetland. The Conservation Commission ~s sensitive to wetlands and the watershed. Erich Nitzsche c~.tinq the consum~n~ of time for writting a declsion~ going to Conservation, which wi. Il be in the conditions and then having to come back to the Planning Board with a new site plan. Mr. Yameen asked for a five minute recess to speak to his lawyer. The meeting recessed at 9:45 p.m. The Planning Board reconviened at 9:55 p.m. Mr. Caffrey was disappointed in The results or the discussion from Jack Lindon. Paul Hedstrom asked the audience if there was anyone who had anything to add. Frank Ragonese, an abutter spoke and disagreed with what Mr. Caffrey said. Mr. Rangonese stated that Angus Realty modified the plans twice with no noti¥ication to abutters. Also the way the application has been review by various departments and the fact that the plans have been changed substantially. Mr. Ragonese made reference to hot top being placed over wetlands and the Stanleyville Avenue access. Mr Ragonese gave the Board picture of Stanleyvi!ie Avenue and the wetlands. Paul Hedstrom stated that at sometime ~he applicant cross the line with regards to access changing, wetlands showing up on the plans that were not there in the beginning, and the wall is larger. Paul Hedstrom asked the Board what their pleasure was. Erich Nitzsche questioned: Same plans Conservation issues to be addressed. Paul Hedstrom stated that it was possible that a new submission would be needed because oF Conservation. MOTION: Erich Nitzsche to close the public hearing and ~ake the matter under advisement. SECOND: John Simons Ernie Parent, an abutter, spoke to the Board saying that he was in favor o~ the oroposed shopping area. 'VOTE: Unanimous of those present. Scott Stocking, Town Planner said that the decision would be scheduled for April ~8 1988 meeting Mark Johnson spoke to the Board stated that the site plan was approved previousl¥~ Planning Board approved a site plan on a lot that did not exist. Mr. Johnson is showing the full line line. ]he addition of land is the only change. Scott Stocking stated tRat the new site plan reflects the actual tot. MOTION: By George Perna to close the public hearing and approve site plan a~blication inco:-porating those items on the prior' approval and any other issues reiatative on the previous mpOlication. SECOND:Erich Nitzsche VOTE: Unanimous of those present. M i c r o m a t i c s P r o d u c t ~_,__!D~... i_S_ .i_~?_ ? ~!E_Z]. e__~ i~_~_w. Eric Branden, architect for Michael Contos who owner Micromatics, and Joseph Borgeise were present. Mr Brander spoke to the Board citing the location on Flagship Drive. There is an existing building, proposing two additions, one in the front and one in the rear. Locus map is needed. Paul Hedstrom stated that a portion of the property was in I-8 and R-l and the apmlicant is proposing to build in the 100' buffer of' the R-1 2oning District. Applican~ wants to go to the Zoning Board of Apoeals to change the zoning line to the tot line. Scott Stocking, Town Planner. sooke to the Board citing that the applicant has filer the application, it has been stamped by the Town Clerk's Office. Paul Hedstrom stated that the applicant has to go before the Zoning Board before ~oming to tne Planning Board. Scott stated again that ~he ~pp]ication ~as stamped which is a filing. The !own Planner w~s ~cting on a flied appiication. MOTION: By John Simons to accept a wrttten withdrawal without prejudice. SECOND: George Perna VOTE: Unanimous of those preser~i~. Discussion Lindenwood HOP Pro.ject Applicant deferred from this meeting for discussion. 1070 Osgood Street - I.E.P. ReDoes_ Jim Bourgeois, Channel Building, was present. The Board had requested the report done as part of t~e conditions. Jim Bourgeois stated that basically the reports supoorts the finoings that Tom Neve submitted. MOTION: By George Pern~i to review 'the report and vote to modify the decision at the next meetir, g. SECOND: John Simons VOTE: Unanimous of those present. Watershed District Stephen Madaus spoke to the Board ~iting the two options to be present to Town Meeting ~n the watershed b;,'im~. Option I: Any special permit issued under this section for a permanent structure or septic system sh,a!l require ti~at such structure DC system be constructed more th,in t~o hur~dred 'fiYty (~50) feet herizontaily from the annual mean high w~ter m~rk of L~ke C~c~ichewick ~nd more t~an one hundr'ed (100) ~eet from the edge of ali resource arenas as defined M.G.L., Chapter 13~, Section AO ~nJ the Town Wetlands By-law. ©~tion ii~ Any Special per'mit under this section for a new permanent structure other' than any accesso~-y structu~ e expansion of an existing structure by more than fifty percent (50%) of it floor area, or a septic system shall reouire that such structure, expansion or system by constructed more than two hundred fifty (~50) feet horizontally from ~he annual mean hioh water mark of Lake Cochichewick and more than one hundred (I00) feet horizontally ffrom ~he edge of ali ,-esource areas as defined in M.G.L. Chapter 13!~ Sectio~ qO and the Town Wetlands By-law. Jack L~ndon, Conservation Commissi~Jn, ~po~e citing whatever version the Board decided, that would be the ootion printed in the Warrant Article but he did not know if it was ~o ia~e for publication if the Board voted at this meeting. The following changes were made to t~e original Option ti which wi!! read as follows: O~tion II: Any Special permit under this section for a new permanent structure (other than any accessory structure ex~nsion of an existing structure by less than fifty percent (50%) of it floor area) or a seotic system shall reguire that such structure or system be constructed more than two hundred fifty (250) -Feet horizontally from the annual mean high water mark of Lake Cochichew~ck and more than one hundred (i00) feet horizontally from the e~ge of ail resource areas as defined in M.G.L. Chapter ]31~ Section 40 and the Town Wetlands By-law. MOTION: By George Perna to accept Option .'I as amended. SECOND: Erich Nitzsche VOTE: Unanimous D~f_i__s i__oj!s_ MOT.~O~: By John Simons to aoorove subject to written conditions and any editing that need SECOND: Erich Nitzscne VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: By John Simons to ad,~ourn SECOND: Erich Nitzsche VOTE: Unanimous The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Paul A. Hedstrom, Chairman net-~-.' Eaton, Secretary