Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-14The North Andover Planning Board held a special meeting on Tuesday evening, June 14, 1988, in the Town Hall Selectmen's Meeting Room. meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Paul Hedstrom at approximately 8~00 p.m. Also present were John Simons, Clerk and Michael Leary. George Perna and Erich Nitzsche were absent. The Public Hearings Preliminary Subdivision - Great Pond Estates Scott Stocking, Town Planner, stated that he had received a letter from Bill Hmurciak, D.P.W. The following issues need to be discussed~ 4e Existing gravity sewer in the direction of a proposed forced main shown on a plan approximately two miles away from the property; Existing gravity sewer in the other direction on Great Pond Road is approximately one mile from the property; An adequate assessment of the on-site sewer facility for the subdivision cannot be made without knowing the intentions of the owner has relative to the development or the remaining portion of the property; An easement should be provided on Lot 8 with an area large enough to construct a sewage lift station and appurtenances; The erosion control plan for the subdivision should include complete retention of runoff from all excavated areas. Scott Stocking stated that the first two issues in Bill's letter deals with one of the conditions in the draft decision and the third issue is not included in the draft decision but probably should be included in terms of the assessment of the site and how the sewer and easement on Lot 8, which he needs for a lift station. Mr. McLaughlin was present and said that they were not talking about sewer on site, they were talking about septic systems on the site. Scott said the plans show a sewer line. Mr. McLaughlin said that if the sewer comes up to Great Pond Road it will tie into it but if not there will be on-site septic systems. He also said that he was upset with reports that came from the Town Hall that the plan would be denied because of the length of the cul-de-sac. He said that a statement like that should never be made. As far as the subdivision is concerned, it's an eight lot subdivision, 2 acres or more, meets the zoning requirements. The length of the cul-de-sac is over the requirements but the cul-de-sac is basically a lot shorter than a lot of other cul-de-sacs that have been allowed in Town. John Simons said that this was a preliminary plan and on that basis, feed back is received on what is liked and disliked by various Town departments. He said that the initial approval or disapproval is in most respects immaterial, it only addresses some of the issues. Paul Hedstrom stated that any member of the Planning Office that makes that type of comment is entitled to, recognizing that the Board has to vote their minds. Cul-de-sac at this location, twice the size of the rules and regulations, you do not have to be an experienced planner or long standing member of the staff to say its probably going to be denied at its preliminary stage because of the length of the dead end road. He said that the Board would be ridiculed and attacked by other Boards and abutters if the they approved a preliminary plan with an eleven hundred foot (1,100 foot) cul-de-sac heading straight into the lake. He said it does not impair the applicants right or purchasers right to bring a definitive plan forward under whatever grandfathering that attaches to this. The compromise that has to be met and agreed to, with respect to the length of the road, is the balancing of the Board's concerns with the lake, septic,,phasing, siltation control and the applicants right as a property owner to develop the property. Paul said that the Board had a statutory authority to say flat out on the preliminary bases that the applicant would not be allowed to have an eleven hundred foot cul-de-sac in that location. Paul further stated that the Board has approved a twelve hundred foot cul-de-sac in a subdivision when the applicant has asked for eighteen hundred (1,800 feet) the Board stops it before a major wetland or before a major hill. The decision of which has to do with the topography of the land. He said that the applicant has to show why he wants an eleven hundred foot cul-de-sac, why not a looped road. They are engineering issues. Mr. McLaughlin asked if the Board was still interested in the possibility of cluster development. Paul Hedstrom said he could not imagine, with the circumstances and location, that he would not do a concentrated development' at this location. Mr. McLaughlin wanted to know how he would go about figuring out what he could get in there for cluster zoning. Paul told him to work with the ?own Planner. John Simons said that he would be willing to work with him also. Paul Hedstrom stated that the applicant has a spectacular piece of property. The consensus of the Board was for a cluster development. MOTION: By John Simons to deny the preliminary subdivision plan based on the conditions enumerated here, and also note in the decision that there was a good discussion on this and a frank exchange of ideas and the Board is going to pursue the cluster development concepts in the definitive stage. SECOND: Michael Leafy VOTE~ Unanimous of those present. Worthen Estates Preliminary Plans Scott Stocking presented the Board with a draft decision. Scott stated that the applicant felt that the changes in the Watershed Protection Bylaw would effect his property. John Simons said that the applicant was also concerned with the Common Driveway changes would effect his property and turns out that it did not pass. John asked if the Board could ask the applicant to withdraw the application. Scott said he has asked him to withdraw, but he has not formally withdrawn it, therefore the Board needs to act on it. He said that he had talked to the engineer and his response was that they are not interested in pursuing the plan, they did it solely to protect themselves to the Wetlands Bylaw and that their existing Form A lots did not grandfather them. Scott stated that the Director of Planning and Community Development, Karen Nelson, has sent a letter to the applicant saying that a determination was made that his Form A lots are grandfathered under the old bylaw and are not impacted. Scott further said that he still had not received a letter of withdrawal. Paul Hedstrom asked how many lots, 7 or 6? Scott said that the applicant was not interested in developing the property just one house for himself, on a seven acre parcel, an existing Form A lot. MOTION: By John Simons to deny the preliminary subdivision based on the written decision adding a couple of other items and also make note that the Board is willing to work with the applicant. Michael Leary asked what the additional conditions were. John said that one was a boiler plate condition "that if a definitive plan ensues you have to comply with all the Rules and Regulations of a definitive plan. Paul Hedstrom said, no, it may not comply. It either does or it does not. John said he could not tell because there was not enough information to tell. The wording should be "sufficient information, as to contiguous buildable area, are not on the plans. Scott said that in the draft decision he said "there is no indication of CBA". John Simons said it was not so much as the size of the lot related to the building. Paul stated further that "therefore the Planning Board cannot make a determination as to zoning compliance". Second: Michael Leary VOTE: Unanimous of those present. Abbott Village Estates Common Driveway Paul Hedstrom wanted a vote taken and confirm it at the meeting on Thursday. MOTION: By John Simons to deny the application because it is the subject matter of a litigation and there is no definitive plan on which to base the application. SECOND: Michael Leary VOTE~ Unanimous of those present NOTE: Issues to be confirmed on Thursday, June 16, 1988. Revised Planning Board Bylaws Scott Stocking said that the Board had to revise their bylaws due to the changes in the Town Charter. Scott also gave the Board a proposed fee structure. Scott said that the current bylaws were out of date because they talked about elected members which no longer applies. Scott asked the Board members to go over them and if there was any comments, call him. The bylaws will be put on the agenda for the next meeting. Discussions Revisions to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations Scott Stocking stated that he was putting together amendments to the Rule and Regulations and that if the Board had any comments or things they would like done to let him know. Letters to Design Professionals Scott Stocking stated that he had put together a letter to be sent to the design engineers stating that the Board was going to get tough with incomplete applications so there are no surprises in the future. Letter to Gary Sackrider Re: Easement to Brook Farm Paul Hedstrom stated that the Board would not involve themselves in that process as stated in paragraph one of the letter to Gary Sackrider. He said that the practical solution is to never create easement rights between adjacent subdivisions because the timing of one may conflict with the timing of the other. Paul said that this matter was a private issue. Paragraph two is to be omitted adding in "Public Works input supporting extensions or not." The Board authorized the Town Planner to send the letter as amended. Private Seweraqe Treatment Plant Scott Stocking stated that D.E.Q.E. was essentially saying that they would allow them with conditions and that Towns should get their act together. A brief discussion took place on off-sewer rates and Route 114 future developments and the need for such facilities. Lot Release on North Cross Road Mr. Norman Shack was present representi~g~ {h~%~li~Ant. Scott Stocking, Town Planner stated that on the previous Friday someone came into the office requesting a Form U, lot release procedure where Town departments have to sign off prior to building permits being issues. Prior to that Scott had spoken to Bill Hmurclak, D.P.W. and Bill had been asked to sign the form and that D.P.W. had a big concern. Scott stated that the Board had approved the subdivision back in 1985 and it was designed for septic. John Simons said, "no, it was for sewer in the subdivision. Scott continued, stating that it was to tie into the Coventry lift station. Abbott Village was turned down and subsequently, no tie in. Scott said that the previous owner asked that septic systems be allowed in the interim, with a dry sewer put in for the possible future connection. Scott sated that D.P.W.'s concern was, they do not see any way the sewer line will be built up to Coventry since there are no off-site assurances and no bonds for the work. A lengthy discussion was held on issues related to D.P.W. and Planning and the sewer. Scott asked if the decision was rendered for sewer, would a modification be necessary because there is nothing in the decision relative to Title V. Paul Hedstrom told Mr. Shack that it was necessary to refile the subdivision for a mOdification to address the issue relating to septic systems.. Paul Hedstrom said that on the question of lot releases, "no". The modification will be placed on the agenda for a meeting in July. Minutes - March 24, 1988; March 31, 1988; April 7, 1988 No action taken, to be placed on the agenda for June 16, 1988 MOTION: By John Simons to adjourn the meeting. SECOND: Michael leafy VOTE: Unanimous of those present. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m. Paul A. Hedstrom, Chairman ~ahet L.' Eat~n, Secretary