HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Meeting Minutes 04.06.10
Draft 4/20/2010
Needs more editing
PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the Meeting
Tuesday, April 6 2010
Town Hall, 120 Main Street
Top floor conference room
7:00 PM
1
2
Members present: John Simons, Chairman
3
Richard Rowan, regular member
4
Timothy Seibert, regular member
5
Michael Walsh, regular member
6
Courtney LaVolpicelo, regular member
7
Michael Colantoni, alternate member
8
9
10
Staff present: Judy Tymon, Town Planner
11
Mary Ippolito, Recording Secretary
12
13
Chair called the meeting to order at approximately 7:15 pm; announced that he will follow the
14
order of the agenda for the most part.
15
16
Chair: Clear Wireless requested to be heard in two weeks instead of tonight, however, PB will
17
open the public hearing on this one.
18
19
Judy: weÓll hold over Article JJ #6 drive-thru restaurants because Mr. Hajjar will not be hear
20
th
tonight, Chair stated keep it open until the 20.
21
22
Chair: Article Q #9 Capital Improvement Plan will be hold over until the next Planning Board
23
meeting.
24
25
Chair: Article U-1 #11, Article U-2 #12, Article U-3, #13 Article U-4 #14 will be held over until
26
the next Planning Board Meeting.
27
28
29
POSTPONEMENT:
30
None
31
32
33
Chair called for CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
34
Elm Development Services, 1275 Turnpike Street, Site Plan Special Permit and Continuing Care
35
Retirement Center Special Permit to construct a 125-unit apartment CCRC within the V-R
36
zoning district. Drafted decision. PB closed public hearing at the last meeting.
37
38
Edits: Judy moved some language into the finding of fact section. See page 8 under #8 prior to
39
issuance of Bldg. Permit language that refers to theÈ it goes to a non-profit entity, (language
40
1
April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board
Draft 4/20/2010
Needs more editing
suggested by Atty. Urbelis). Bond slope stabilization $100,000 and $40K for all as-built.
1
Applicant is present tonight.
2
MW: page #4 item #4 - 27 parking spaces has that been determined? Judy; that is supposed to
3
be number 3 on page #4 number should be 29. MW: page #6 for slope stabilization the bold area
4
correct typo about slope stabilization. MW #7 prior to start of construction; is environmental
5
monitor and construction monitor to be at the meeting? Judy: yes, probably Conservation will be
6
at the meeting too.
7
8
JS: take #8 and put it earlier in that section, look at what 8 is combined with #4 youÓve said
9
applicant is in process of getting final etc. explain how the original Conservation restriction
10
aroseÈprovide more acres of open space etc. Put specific condition in that we get the CR at
11
some point. JS: in waivers make a further stipulation like benefits etc. JS: They only gave us
12
conceptual design, Judy see it page 11 title connectional renderings, JS: page 9È 10A any
13
screeningÈ and additional landscaping as may be reasonably required. JS: do you have every
14
possible condition in there to manage this issue regarding water? Judy water. See page 7 see the
15
State required plan there.
16
17
RR: finding of fact #4, we are protecting the hill itself most more than the other proposed
18
developments. Page 8 #24 you mean #23 instead.
19
20
Motion by RR to approve a Site Plan Review SP and CCRC for 1275 Turnpike Street per
21
nd
the decision amended this evening, 2 by TS, vote was unanimous.
22
23
24
Chair called for CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
25
T-Mobile Northeast, LLC (formerly Omnipoint Communications, LLC) 15 Commerce
26
Way, North Andover, MA is requesting renewal of the following Special Permits.
27
Renewal of Special Permit for First Calvary Baptist
28
Renewal of Special Permit for 723 Osgood Street
29
Renewal of Special Permit for Johnson Street
30
31
Judy: question regarding RF measurements mentioned in RF report. Could there be additional
32
measurements at 20 feet because residents concerned about exposure at that height. Judy: spoke
33
to Mark Hutchings regarding doing measurements at a different height of 20 feet: Judy: read the
34
letter from Mark Hutchings, his measurements were taken at ground level etc. (memo for the
35
record).
36
37
Applicant has provided all coverage maps for all 3 locations. Applicant provided structural
38
analysis in PB packets. Gin Vilante, of Wellman Associates, was present. Atty. Brian Grossman
39
representing T-Mobile was present. Ms VilanteÓs company (Wellman Associates) stands by the
40
statement submitted by the civil engineer. Some modifications to Stevens Estate which is
41
included in his statement.
42
43
Steve Tryder: 386 Chestnut St., wants each renewal looked at separately. When was the last
44
testing report done at the church for annual report and 90 day reports? Judy: applicant provided
45
report for all 3 applications. Mr. Tryder: what is the date for the testing for the church? She has
46
2
April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board
Draft 4/20/2010
Needs more editing
Dr. HaesÓ report for Mass Ave. dated 12/29/2009, what they provide in these reports are results
1
of RF measurement itÓs a chart w/locations, at those 10 locations they measure what the current
2
total percent of maximum permissible exposure (MPE) ranges from highest of a percent down to
3
lowest. Judy: First column includes all RF emissions including their contribution, on last
4
column they subtract out their contributions.
5
6
Mr.Tryder: their permit was issued on 2006 do you have a 90 day report?
7
8
Chair: do you dispute the knowledge of that report? Mr. Tryder: doesnÓt know.
9
Chair: your argument is procedural? Mr. Tryder: they havenÓt submitted anything in 3 years.
10
Mr. Tryder: they owe us money, violated bylaw, permit expired in July of 2009 this isnÓt a
11
renewal. Chair: YouÓre not making a substantive argument? Mr. Tryder: if permit expired they
12
should go for new SP. Mr. Tryder: prove there is gap in coverage, needs to be done in process of
13
a new SP not a renewal. Chair: argument is a procedural thing? Mr. Tryder: the PB didnÓt
14
follow the law in terms of our Bylaw.
15
16
Pat White, 60 Ridge Way, asking that PB enforce the bylaw as they apply to Johnson Street and
17
other facilities. T Mobile SP expired in 2003 then T Mobile must file for a new SP. 600 foot
18
setback rule must apply to new permits, Johnson St. tower is less then 300 feet from existing
19
home. Fine $300.00 for each offense, several hundred dollars of fines should be enforced. Want
20
to live in their homes - enforce these bylaws. Chair: appreciated your respectful tone. PB
21
doesnÓt like to be put in a position that says something opposite to what our neighbors want them
22
to do, itÓs not that simple, remember that in the case of wireless facilities the jurisdiction of the
23
Town is not absolute, the FCA of 1996 limits what the Town can do. Realize that the most
24
recent court decision where a judge ruled and said it doesnÓt matter what N.A. bylaw says
25
regarding a 600 foot setback, it says the PB was under obligation to approve that permit. PB has
26
to follow the law. Abutter: not asking the tower to be taken down, just asking that the devices
27
on the tower be taken down. CanÓt find in any regulations that certain feet are allowed (see
28
judgment regarding Fournier against Elm St. church).
29
30
TS: the bylaw was written in 1999 since then judges have interpreted the law. If you were on the
31
Board and approached these firms and asked for fines to be done what happens next?
32
33
Ms Chicoyne, 40 Ridge Way, abutter, so people can put towers anywhere they want, in your
34
th
back yard? Chair: no. Chair: emissions are 1 1,000 of permissible/allowable rate. They are
35
required under FCC law to have emissions under a certain level, every time they do it its well
36
under the legal limits. If you think we can get fines out of them itÓs not going to happen. We
37
have one free standing tower, additional installations of 3 or 4 existing towers - Johnson St. is a
38
microwave tower. WeÓve had a public hearing on every single one; if they meet the criteria under
39
Federal law then PB is relatively limited as to what they can do. If PB took them to court and
40
tried to get the money how much would you be willing to spend with the likely-hood that we
41
would lose?
42
43
44
MW: when these applications came to us he was outraged - they let a SP expire, he lit into
45
counsel for applicant in these cases, and weÓve required most of the important data that is
46
3
April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board
Draft 4/20/2010
Needs more editing
required as if they were going for a new SP. WeÓve sent this data out to consultant for review
1
which applicant has to pay for to prove there is a gap in serviceÈweÓve put them thru the
2
process for a public hearing. MW: weÓre not operating in secret! Material is available in files at
3
Planning office; weÓre not trying to hide. Notion of transparency is untrue.
4
5
Abutter asked PB to do something about making court judgments available. If Town doesnÓt
6
have resources to fight large organizations how does a person try to do that to fight the cell
7
towers? TS: depends on what you are fighting. Abutter: noise and radiation levels - if levels
8
exceed the required State levels? Chair: PB approves all commercial buildings thru a Site Plan
9
SP. We make sure that noise levels etc. is minimized as much as possible. If there is a problem
10
if itÓs noisy please tell use. If they decide to add additional equipment to antennas to same tower
11
they come back to us to demonstrate a gap in coverage, structural task has to be demonstrated,
12
legal noticing to abutters is done. Abutter: restrictions as to how close to abuttersÓ property? If
13
Johnson St. tower fell it would take out his house. Chair; a structural report would be done to
14
prevent this. Abutter: are there other carriers allowed on a tower? PB yes, rarely is the tower
15
owned by the wireless carrier. Abutter: does Comcast own the land? For Johnson St.? Gin
16
Vilante: assessorÓs office has the owner of record. Judy: see each application for name of
17
owner and lease agreement. Chair: we can provide the owner/leaser in our PD file. Have we
18
ever sent letters requesting the testing information: Judy: In 2007, 2008, sent these memos at
19
that time. Chair, the Building Inspector is the person who implements the fines; it becomes a
20
criminal matter etc. Abutter: most people who are being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars,
21
they should pay up. Chair: if you think they would pay the fine without a squawk. MC: we do
22
notify these companies.
23
24
Tom Urbelis is Town attorney: we are not a fine issuing authority. Atty. Urbelis: talked about
25
fines in December and January. This is a criminal fine itÓs not within the purview of the PB to
26
issue a fine. The way it is written itÓs a criminal fine. Within the State the PB can fine up to
27
$300.00. Atty. Urbelis: itÓs not the PB thatÓs the enforcement agent, itÓs the Building Inspector.
28
Atty. Urbelis: under section 8.9 it has to be instituted as a criminal complaint. Atty. Urbelis: this
29
issue came up 3years ago and Town Manager wrote and said if your attorney has any case
30
anywhere in the country where a fine has been upheld please provide it to him. Atty. Urbelis
31
found a case where issuing a fine is a violation of TelCom Act.
32
33
Thea Fournier, 247 Main St., 40 people are here tonight asking to be heard by the PB. Chair;
34
PB: is here for that. This should not be considered a renewal? Chair: collected all substantive
35
information and will review the information.
36
37
Ms Fournier: her issue is procedural. Chair: What are your substantive questions? Ms Fournier:
38
what happened at the church was unfair, sheÓs fighting it in Superior court, and judgeÓs response
39
didnÓt have anything to do with her appeal. SheÓs now in Appellate court which is a higher
40
court. RR: itÓs wrong for Ms Fournier to give impression that in your opinion decisions of
41
Appellate court are wrong because you donÓt agree with them, thatÓs your opinion only. RR:
42
Decision rendered in Superior court doesnÓt have merit? MW: If decision rendered in Appellate
43
court would you agree with their rendering? Ms Fournier: no, she wants to take it to Supreme
44
Court.
45
46
4
April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board
Draft 4/20/2010
Needs more editing
Abutter, 5 Skyview Terrace, why is T Mobile coming now for a SP? Gin Vilante: we would like
1
to renew and got a few notices recently, there have been no changes to the initial installation.
2
Abutter: there seems to be a rubber stamp. Chair: we listen; we have certain limitations on
3
what we can do. We canÓt say sorry, permit expired, and take down the tower. ItÓs more
4
complex than this and weÓre bound by law. We ask cell tower applicant to come here, they do
5
give us that information, with emissions analysis, given structural analysis, have existing
6
coverage analysis of why they need it. So far, there has been no testimony given that is a
7
problem. Abutter: have we gone to additional counsel for a second opinion? Chair: We have
8
Town counsel. ZBA spent $5K to confirm the same view. Abutter: have you ever denied a cell
9
tower permit? Chair: no. - Members of PB have been sued personally to seek our personal assets
10
as well. Abutter: if you deny these renewals are there consequences to the Town? Chair: the
11
next morning the cell tower companies are in court.
12
13
Abutter: 21 Skyview Terrace: in those notices were there requests to pay their fines? No.
14
Abutter, 21 Skyview Terrace: will T Mobile tonight fulfill their obligation and pay these fines
15
due to N.A. as presented tonight?
16
17
Attorney Brian Grossman: there is a process for fines - that process has not been followed;
18
regulations are inappropriate and may violate the TelCom Act and disagrees in regard to the fine,
19
on behalf of T. Mobile, he will not pay the fine. Abutter, the Building Inspector is the only one
20
who can go after that. Can we talk to the Building Inspector to levy these fines. Chair: youÓre
21
free to talk to BOS, talk to Atty. Urbelis etc. Abutter: weÓve learned that T Mobile will not
22
fulfill their obligations.
23
24
Mr. Tryder: information isnÓt always in the file. PB is SP granting authority, Johnson Street
25
people live next to Johnson St. tower. No-one has done their duty. Chair: recent report - have
26
you read this? Mr. Tryder: PB sees no reason to È.. TS: March 2010 Johnson St. tower, stress
27
ratio, information submitted. MW: read report in its entirety and stamped by professional
28
engineer. RR: Mr. Tryder take some structural analysis classes. Chair: weÓre ending this
29
conversation now. Chair: in 1972 Town didnÓt have a Site Plan Review process all that was
30
needed was a building permit. MW: Mr. Tryder do you have something - for 3 months you have
31
had an opportunity to find information in terms of substance, gap in coverage, RF reports, is
32
there something there that youÓre got issue with? Mr. Tryder: they havenÓt proven that thatÓs the
33
only site they can useÈlike Boston Hill - why does it have to go in their neighborhood? PB will
34
provide Mr.Tryder the information for him to look at. Mr. Tryder: in 1970 tower went up as
35
Continental Cable. Town should find all documents from time tower went up to now. Plse.
36
note:
37
MW left the room at this time.
38
RR: do a warrant article asking for appropriation of money for a law suit to pursue in court and
39
have the Town pay for it. Abutter: can we ask for funds to test the sites on a regular basis and
40
get funds from the Town to do this? Ms Fournier: you can ask carriers to fund it and test whatÓs
41
happening for RF emissions. Chair: weÓll continue this until the next meeting. Chair: Judy to
42
prepare 3 separate decisions. Atty. Urbelis: Atty. Grossman is it ok with this continuance? Mr.
43
Tryder wanted to know why you asked permission. Atty. Urbelis: there are provisions for
44
various time frames for decisions to be rendered. FCC has done time frames to render decisions;
45
time frames can be extended with agreement from applicant. Regulation was passed last
46
5
April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board
Draft 4/20/2010
Needs more editing
November. Mr. Tryder: What is Attorney Urbelis specialty? Atty. Urbelis handled case
1
regarding Ms Fournier vs. Town. Chair: do you have a question or are you just filibustering us?
2
Mr. Tryder: if this is denied as a renewal what is the next step? Chair: it would be up to them.
3
4
Chair: thanked the audience and patience this is difficult for us, we would prefer our decision to
5
be easier, they are tough issues, and weÓre limited in our flexibility. Thank you for your
6
comments, if questions outside of meetings call Judy at Planning office for documents. Abutter,
7
check to see what has been replaced are there permits done for the Johnson St. tower? Mr.
8
Tryder: wants same information for Boston Hill.
9
10
11
Chair announced applicant postponed the following PUBLIC HEARING: Clear Wireless
12
LLC, is requesting a Special Permit for the following premises.
13
300 Chestnut Street, Special Permit for installation of a wireless service facility consisting of
14
six antennas and one equipment cabinet. /Applicant submitted a request to be continued until the
15
next PB meeting.
16
17
203 Turnpike Street, Special Permit for installation of wireless service facility consisting of
18
four antennas and one equipment cabinet. Applicant will not be heard at this meeting; however,
19
th
a representative will be present to request to be continued until April 20.
20
21
22
Lee Marvin, was present on behalf of his colleague for Clear Wireless. Chair: cautioned to make sure you
23
provide annual renewals. Mr. Dwyer: (his property is located near Burger King, Turnpike Street) there is
24
more than one method to get them approved. Chair: said he misspoke, if you doubt his integrity come
25
out and say it. Mr. Dwyer: would like to be included in the wireless zone overlay district. HeÓll check
26 w/Judy.
27
28
Approve Minutes of the Meeting for March 16, 2010.
nd
29
Motion by TS to approve the ÐMinutesÑ, 2 by RR, vote was unanimous.
30
31
PUBLIC HEARING: WARRANT ARTICLES
32
1
Article V. Amend North Andover Zoning Bylaw Î Section 4.121 Residence 1, 2
33
and 3. To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw,
34
Section 4.121 in order to allow professional offices in an existing structure on municipally
35
owned property within the R-2 District containing a minimum of 50 acres.
36
37
Amend Section 4.121 by adding the underlined language to read as follows:
38
4.121 Residence 1 District
39
Residence 2 District
40
Residence 3 District
41
42
21.Professional offices in an existing structure located on municipally owned property
43
within the R-2 District containing a minimum of fifty (50) acres.
44
45
6
April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board
Draft 4/20/2010
Needs more editing
Or to take any other action relative thereto.
1
Curt Bellavance spoke: Town wants to lease out the gate house for a professional office use.
2
Curt drafted language to allow this to happen. This is categorized as pre-existing non-conforming
3
use. There is a 90 day appeal process. Motion by RR to make favorable recommendation,
4
nd
2 by TS, vote was unanimous.
5
Board of Selectmen
6
RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable
7
8
2
rticle Z. Amend North Andover Zoning Bylaw Î Section 4.133 Industrial 2
A
9
District. To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw,
10
Section 4.133 in order to allow alternative energy uses as-of-right.
11
12
4.133Industrial 2 District
13
14
11. Light manufacturing, including manufacturing, fabrication, processing, finishing, assembly,
15
packing or treatment of articles or merchandise provided such uses are conducted solely
16
within a building and further provided that such uses are not offensive, noxious, detrimental,
17
or dangerous to surrounding areas or the town by reason of dust, smoke, fumes, odor, noise,
18
vibration, light or other adverse environmental effect.
19
20
Amend Section 4.133 by adding the underlined language to read as follows:
21
4.133Industrial 2 District
22
11. a. Light manufacturing, including manufacturing, fabrication, processing, finishing,
23
assembly, packing or treatment of articles or merchandise provided such uses are conducted
24
solely within a building and further provided that such uses are not offensive, noxious,
25
detrimental, or dangerous to surrounding areas or the town by reason of dust, smoke, fumes,
26
odor, noise, vibration, light or other adverse environmental effect.
27
b. Renewable or alternative energy research and development facilities, renewable or
28
alternative energy manufacturing such as wind, solar, biomass, and tidal on any lot with a
29
minimum of twenty-five (25) acres; less than twenty-five (25) acres but a minimum of ten
30
(10) acres by Special Permit.
31
Or to take any other action relative thereto.
32
33
Curt Bellavance: the Town applied last year to receive technical assistance funding as consultant
34
hired by the State to assist community, got approval and got ICF International. Five criteria to
35
become a green community. Town met the criteria; specifically R&D - you can do renewable-
36
nd
added that kind of language. Motion by RR to make favorable recommendation, 2 by TS,
37
vote was unanimous.
38
Board of Selectmen
39
RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable
40
41
42
43
7
April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board
Draft 4/20/2010
Needs more editing
3
Article AA. Amend North Andover Zoning Bylaw Î Section 4.137 Floodplain
1
District. To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw,
2
Section 4.137 Floodplain District in order to make minor adjustments so that the Bylaw
3
accurately reflects the correct flood maps and Building Code reference.
4
5
Amend Section 4.137 by adding the underlined language and deleting the
6
\[bolded/bracketed\] language to read as follows:
7
8
4.137 Floodplain District
9
10
2.FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND BASE FLOOD EVALUATION
11
AND FLOODWAY DATA
12
The Floodplain District is herein established as an overlay district. The underlying
13
permitted uses are allowed provided that they meet the Massachusetts State Building
14
Code, 780 CMR 120.G \[Section 3107\] "Flood Resistant Construction" and any other
15
applicable local, state or federal requirements. The District includes all special flood
16
hazard areas designated on the North Andover Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued
17
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the administration of the
18
NEIP dated June 2, 1993 as Zone A, AE, AH, AO, A99, \[and the FEMA Flood
19
Boundary & Floodway Map dated June 2, 1993, both maps\] which indicate the 100
20
year regulatory floodplain. The exact boundaries of the District may be defined by the
21
100-year base flood evaluations shown on the FIRM and further defined by the Flood
22
.
Insurance study booklet dated June 2, 1993The FIRM \[, Floodway Maps\] and Flood
23
Insurance Study booklet are incorporated herein by reference and are on file with the
24
Town Clerk, Planning Board, Building
25
and Conservation Commission.
26
27
5.REFERENCE TO EXISTING REGULATIONS
28
The Floodplain District is established as an overlay district to all other districts. All
29
development in the district, including structural and non-structural activities, whether
30
permitted by right or by special permit must be in compliance with Chapter 131, Section
31
40 of the Massachusetts General Laws and with the following:
32
a.Section of the Massachusetts State Building Code which addresses Floodplain and
33
coastal high hazard areas (currently 780 CMR 120.G \[3107.0\] ÐFlood Resistant
34
ConstructionÑ);
35
36
Or to take any other action relative thereto.
37
Curt Bellavance: we qualify for residents to get flood insurance weÓre changing to 780cmn
38
nd
120.GR. Motion by RR to make favorable recommendation, 2 by TS, vote was
39
unanimous. Henry Fink: are they surveying the land to find out where the flood plans are? In
40
1982 they came up with flood plan maps, used students from college to do it. Curt: thatÓs a
41
function of the State, how the process is he canÓt answer.
42
Michael Walsh rejoined the meeting now.
43
Board of Selectmen
44
8
April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board
Draft 4/20/2010
Needs more editing
RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable
1
2
3
4
Article Y. Amend Zoning Bylaw Î Section 8.9 Wireless Service Facilities.
4
To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw, Section 8.9
5
Wireless Service Facilities in order to create a revised wireless service facility ordinance as
6
shown below
7
Or to take any other action relative thereto:
8
9
Atty. Urbelis: over last 9 months he discussed w/PB and BOS to submit revisions for new
10
wireless bylaw warrant article. BOS inserted into warrant an article which deleted the
11
current bylaw to create an overlay district. BOS voted to insert a modified warrant article
12
last night. Major provisions changed under current bylaw there is a 600 foot setback from
13
properties that are currently zoned for educational use. Change from this new version is that
14
there is a setback and is 600 feet from facility to residential building. Fed TelCom Act Ò96 and
15
there is a tier step down from that requirement. If applicant can prove 3 elements gap, FCC
16
regulations, RF emissions, then it steps down to 400 foot setback. If they prove that 3 things
17
then step down is 200 feet. We are putting this in the bylaw relative to the Fed TelCom Act
18
controls. On first page of bylaw it says bylaw is in compliance w/Fed TelComÈÈBOS voted to
19
insert this new bylaw into the Warrant.
20
nd
Motion by MW to make favorable recommendation, 2 by CL, vote was unanimous.
21
22
Abutter: 4 pieces of property on Rte. 114 and Rte. 133. There is a strip mall there he objected
23
because they should be included in the overlay district. Atty. Urbelis: since August at every
24
meeting weÓve asked people to let us know if they have any input. The Warrant has been
25
signed for this year - itÓs too late to put another property in there. If you want a particular
26
parcel identified in there - if this passes at Town Mtg. - if we have another Town Meeting in
27
the fall - you can file an amendment to include your/the parcels description into the overlay
28
district. Send a letter to Judy with a particular description of the parcel and the address well
29
ahead of the 2011 Town Meeting.
30
31
Board of Selectmen
32
RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable
33
34
35
36
5
Article HH. Amend Zoning Bylaw Î Section 3.1, Establishment of Districts.
37
To see if the Town will vote to add to the Zoning Bylaw, Section 3.1, Establishment of Districts,
38
the following:
39
ÐWireless Telecommunications Overlay DistrictÑ
40
Or to take any other action relative thereto.
41
nd
Motion by MW to make favorable recommendation, 2 by RR, vote was unanimous.
42
Board of Selectmen
43
RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable
44
45
9
April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board
Draft 4/20/2010
Needs more editing
1
2
6
Article JJ. Amend Section 16.2 of the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws.
3
To see if the Town will vote to amen d the Zoning Bylaws by inserting the following
4
language:
5
ÐDrive Îthru restaurants shall be permitted within the CDD1 zone provided they are located
6
more than 250 feet from the R6 zoned district.Ñ
7
th
PB Tabled this until PB meeting of April 20.
8
Petition of Scott Hajjar and others
9
RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable
10
11
12
13
14
7
Article D. Authorization to Accept Grants of Easements. To see if the Town will
15
vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen and the School Committee to accept grants of
16
easements for access, water, drainage, sewer, roadway and utility purposes on terms and
17
conditions the Board and Committee deem in the best interest of the Town;
18
19
Or to take any other action relative thereto.
20
21
nd
Motion by RR: to make favorable recommendation, 2 by TS, vote was unanimous.
22
Board of Selectmen
23
RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable
24
25
26
8
Article L. Amend Capital Improvement Plan Appropriations from Prior Years.
27
To see if the Town will vote to amend prior Capital Improvement Plan Appropriation for prior
28
Fiscal Years as voted by:
29
A. Transfer unexpended bond proceeds from the FY2008 Capital Improvement Plan, May 14,
2007 Annual Town Meeting, Article 21, Line 23, "Waverly Road Relief Sewer Main", an amount
not to exceed $495,000 to fund a new project "Sutton Street Sewer Improvements".
B. Transfer unexpended bond proceeds or other funding sources from May 13, 2008 Annual
Town Meeting, Article 22, "Preschool Facility" an amount not to exceed $164,000 to the
"Appropriation of funds for Modular School Buildings Project", May 12, 2009 Annual Town
Meeting, Article 24.
Or to take any other action relative thereto.
30
31
PB tabled this.
32
Board of Selectmen
33
RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable
34
35
10
April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board
Draft 4/20/2010
Needs more editing
1
9
Article Q. Capital Improvement Plan Appropriation Fiscal Year 2011.
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate, transfer from available funds, or borrow
under the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 44, the sums of money necessary to
fund the Town Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2011 as detailed below, provided
that, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws and Chapter 59-5 C of the General Bylaws of the
Town of North Andover, for any capital project in excess of $500,000 or any other appropriation,
the Town may, by vote of the Town Meeting, have the following condition added to it: "provided
that this appropriation and debt authorization be contingent upon passage of a Proposition 2 1/2
debt exclusion referendum under General Laws Chapter 59, Section 21C(k)":
FY 11 Capital Improvement Plan
Requested
Line # Project Description Division Amount
General Fund
1 Roadway Improvements Public Works $380,000
2 Sidewalk Reconstruction Public Works $50,000
3 Senior Center Roof Replacement Public Works $26,000
4 Facilities Master Plan Town Manager $150,000
5 Police Station Equipment Police $405,000
School Information Technology Network Information
6 Equipment Technology $1,148,000
Information
7 Revenue Billing Software Technology $90,000
8 Middle School Roof Replacement School $310,000
9 Body Armor Replacement Police $40,000
10 Fire Department Radio Equipment Fire $432,000
11 Dump Truck, 2 Ton with Plow Public Works $55,000
12 Fire Sprinkler System at Kittredge School School $450,000
Water Enterprise Fund
Water Enterprise
13 Meter Replacement Fund $450,000
Or to take any other action relative thereto.
PB tabled this. .
2
B oard of Selectmen
3
11
April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board
Draft 4/20/2010
Needs more editing
RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable
1
2
3
10
Article S. Report of the Community Preservation Committee and Appropriation
4
From the Community Preservation Fund. To receive the report of the Community
5
Preservation Committee and to see if the Town will vote to raise, borrow and/or appropriate from
6
the Community Preservation Fund, in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General
7
Laws Chapter 44B, a sum of money to be spent under the direction of the Community
8
Preservation Committee; Or to take any other action relative thereto.
9
10
Community Preservation Committee
11
12
PB Table until April 20.
13
RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable
14
15
16
17
11
Article U -1. Amend Zoning Bylaw-Section 2.63.1 Î Sign, Area of. To see if the
18
Town will vote to add a new definition in the Zoning Bylaw as follows:
19
20
2.63.1 Sign, Area of
21
22
(a). For a sign, either free-standing or attached, the area shall be considered to include all
23
lettering, wording and accompanying designs and symbols, together with the background,
24
whether open or enclosed, on which they are displayed but not including any supporting
25
framework and bracing which are incidental to the display itself.
26
(b). For a sign painted upon or applied to a building, the area shall be considered to include all
27
lettering, wording, and accompanying designs or symbols together with any backing of a
28
different color than the finish material of the building face.
29
(c). Where the sign consists of individual letters or symbols attached to or painted on a surface,
30
building, wall or window, the area shall be considered to be that of the smallest rectangle or
31
other convex shape which encompasses all of the letters and symbols;
32
33
Or to take any other action relative thereto.
34
PB Table until April 20.
35
Board of Selectmen
36
RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable
37
38
39
12
Article U. Amend Zoning Bylaw Section 5.1.1-Earth Removal.To see
-2
40
if the Town will vote to amend Section 5.1.1 of the Zoning Bylaw by deleting the stricken words
41
and adding the underlined words as follows:
42
5.1 General
43
12
April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board
Draft 4/20/2010
Needs more editing
1. Excavation, removal, stripping, or mining of any earth material except as hereinafter
1
permitted on any parcel of land, public or private, in North Andover, is prohibited, except
2
as allowed by Section 5.4 Permits for Earth Removal; Section 5.5 Earth Removal
3
Incidental to Development, Construction or Improvements: and Section 5.6
4
Miscellaneous Removal of Earth.
5
6
Or to take any other action relative thereto.
7
PB Table until April 20.
8
9
Board of Selectmen
10
RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable
11
12
13
Article U. Amend Zoning Bylaw-Section 7.3 - Setbacks. To see if the Town will
-3
13
vote to amend Section 7.3 of the Zoning Bylaw by adding the underlined words in the first
14
paragraph and adding Sections 7.31, 7.32 and 7.33 as follows:
15
16
7.3 Yards (Setbacks)
17
Minimum front, side and rear setbacks shall be as set forth in Table 2, except for eaves and
18
uncovered steps, and projections, as noted in sections 7.31, 7.32 and 7.33. Buildings on
19
corner lots shall have the required front setback from both streets, except in Residence 4 (R4)
20
District, where the setback from the side street shall be twenty (20) feet minimum.
21
22
£7.31 Î Projections into Front Yards
23
Uncovered porches, Balconies, open fire escapes, chimneys and flues all may project into
24
a required side yard not more than one-third of its width and not more than four feet in
25
any case. Belt courses, fins, columns, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels and ornamental
26
features may project not more than one foot, and cornices and gutters not more than two
27
feet, over a required front yard.
28
29
£7.32 Î Projections into Side Yards
30
Uncovered porches, Balconies, open fire escapes, chimneys and flues all may project into
31
a required side yard not more than one-third of its width and not more than four feet in
32
any case. Belt courses, fins, columns, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels and ornamental
33
features may project not more than one foot, and cornices and gutters not more than two
34
feet, over a required side yard.
35
36
£7.33 Î Projections into Rear Yards
37
Uncovered porches, Balconies, open fire escapes, chimneys and flues all may project into
38
a required side yard not more than one-third of its width and not more than four feet in
39
any case. Belt courses, fins, columns, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels and ornamental
40
features may project not more than one foot, and cornices and gutters not more than two
41
feet, over a required rear yard.
42
Or to take any other action relative thereto.
43
PB Table until April 20.
44
Board of Selectmen
45
RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable
46
13
April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board
Draft 4/20/2010
Needs more editing
1
14
Article U. Amend Zoning Bylaw-Section 9.3- Pre-Existing Non-conforming
-4
2
Single Family Residential Structures and Uses in the Residential 1, Residential 2,
3
Residential 3, Residential 4 and Residential 6 Districts. To see if the Town will vote to
4
amend Section 9.3.a of the Zoning Bylaw by adding Ðand two familyÑ as follows:
5
6
9.3 Pre-Existing Non-conforming Single Family Residential Structures and Uses
7
in the Residential 1, Residential 2, Residential 3, Residential 4 and Residential 6
8
Districts:
9
a. Pre-existing Non-conforming Single Family Structures: Pre-existing non-conforming
10
single family and two family residential structures in the R1, R2, R3, R4 and R6
11
Districts, may be changed, extended or altered, provided that there is a finding by the
12
Zoning Enforcement Officer (Building Commissioner) that such change, extension, or
13
alteration shall not render the structure more nonconforming than the existing structure.
14
15
Or to take any other action relative thereto.
16
th
PB Table until April 20.
17
18
19
Board of Selectmen
20
RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable
21
22
23
15
Article MM. Election of Planning Board Members. To see if the Town will
24
vote to amend Chapter 6 of the Town Charter, more specifically Section 1 of the General
25
provisions of that chapter, (6-1-1)so as to include the Planning Board to the list of officers and
26
boards to be elected by vote of the town.
27
Petition of Alan Swahn and others
28
Judy: did not hear back from Mr. Swahn.
29
nd
Motion by TS to make unfavorable action, 2 by MW for unfavorable action, vote was
30
unanimous.
31
RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable
32
33
34
35
36
37
Chair called for the following DISCUSSION:
38
Redgate subdivision Î Dean Chongris, developer.
39
40
th
Judy: Conservation visited Redgate March 15, letter written to Dean Chongris and Rick
41
Dellaire, sent by Judy and Jennifer Hughes noting erosion on both sides of the hill, stabilization
42
needs to be reinforced, silt fence, no further work until items have been completed. Judy:
43
thth
submitted photos of March 15 event. Developer told to install hay bales. March 30 visited site
44
14
April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board
Draft 4/20/2010
Needs more editing
w/Heidi Gaffney and Judy, problems w/placement of hay bales to divert the water but still
1
causing drainage problems. Subdivision not in compliance with decision of 2001, have not sent
2
monthly reports on a regular basis. Judy: asked if representative came to the PB meeting. Dean
3
Chongris was present earlier tonight but left the meeting. Bonds - PD has a site opening bond
4
for $10K and slope stabilization bond for $20K. Judy: pointed out on the plan, swale running
5
behind lot 2, turns corner and runs toward house on lot 1. Water coming directly the stone swale
6
onto his property coming thru swale it was supposed to direct the water in the opposite direction.
7
Judy: there is ongoing construction and have not finished construction of drainage swale and
8
design of detention basin. The last lot has not been built yet. No-one is watching this site or
9
filing reports w/PD.
10
11
Mr. Levis 835 Salem Street, was present: and abutter from 817 Salem St. and abutter from 855
12
Salem Street were present. Voiced concerns in this area since this development was built.
13
Caused damages to Mr. Levis property and the other abutterÓs property to their landscaping,
14
fencing, and basement. If something isnÓt done soon then it will escalate the damages. He met
15
w/site engineer and the end result is that the problem is coming from the Redgate development.
16
Asking PB to solve problems to prevent future damage to property. Make changes prior to any
17
bond monies being released. Go to U-tube to see issue.
18
19
RR: asked to tell him earlier in the year - did problem pre-exist the latest flooding? Goran
20
Bringert: in 2006 he sent letters to PD and appeared at PB meeting but issue got diminished at
21
that time. Ducks swimming in his front lawn (he sent pictures in 2006) this last storm was a
22
continuation. He pumps his basement now but only gets puddles, his neighbors got 3 to 4 feet of
23
water. He met w/Gene Willis and Lincoln Daley and was told you have water because of
24
Woodchuck Hill. But when trees were taken down it caused more water damage.
25
26
RR: Ben Osgood Jr. had the development at the time and PB denied the application because they
27
never came up with a drainage system that could work. It was a balancing act - by getting rid of
28
the water too quickly - or waiting too long. RR: system isnÓt working the way it was designed to
29
work. Judy: drain should be coming toward the road, and there were adjustments made to it. It
30
could be a design problem/issue. Side closer to Mr. CyrÓs property was where Judy addressed
31
her letter to. No written plan was presented by developer to Judy for tonight. RR: get applicant
32
to provide this information or PB will pull his bond money. RR: there may be a deep ditch that
33
needs to be cleaned out and take another look at this situation. Judy: should the developer
34
respond in writing in time for the next PB meeting? Chair: absolutely. And give developer only
35
a week, hold a hearing and revoke the bond ASAP. Chair: Judy - get who-ever the engineer was
36
at the time to look and see if it was installed the way it was supposed to be. Did the developer
37
(Dean Chongris) have a permit to take down trees and demolish the stone wall the way he did?
38
RR: have town consultant contact these guys and get historical perspective on it then we need to
39
seize the bond to make this work, or talk w/Dean - are you ready to pick up this tab or weÓre
40
going to seize the bond? MW: got weekly reports over 6 months ago (put this in a written letter
41
also).
42
43
Courtney: if this site isnÓt complete yet what if he comes back and says IÓm not finished you
44
canÓt hold me to design until I have to provide as-built. What leverage do we have? RR: we
45
15
April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board
Draft 4/20/2010
Needs more editing
have bond money; we donÓt have to issue a building permit on the very last lot. Abutter: lost 30
1
feet of his backyard because of this.
2
3
Chair: Judy send letter stating what we want them to do, if Dean says heÓll pay out of his pocket
4
then weÓll hire outside engineer to fix this problem. Judy: read erosion controls measure from
5
the 2001 decision for Redgate. Chair: There needs to be stabilization of the hill done such as
6
plantings etc.
7
8
Steven Cyr: when talked about a bond it was discussed for $150,000 now itÓs down to $30K so
9
all abutters will be fighting over the $30K. Is it possible to ask them to file an additional bond?
10
PB gets estimate from town engineer or outside consultant for bond $ amount. PB still can hold
11
off on releasing the last lot. Surety bond has about $50K remaining w/PD. RR: PB can establish
12
a new bond requirement if Dean ever wants the last lot released.
13
14
Mr. Cyr: his father handpicked this land, took precautions for drainage etc. HeÓs being flooded
15
out of his own property. He submitted pictures tonight showing Redgate development into
16
Fuller Farm. Gene Willis says Town doesnÓt have to fix it even if itÓs on Town property. His
17
lawn has become the detention pond see the pictures. This has become a nightmare. Neighbors
18
across the street from him have issues, beside the three abutters who are present tonight. What
19
happens 10 years down the road if this happens again? RR: issue was make the drainage pipes
20
bigger across the streetÈthere is a ditch where the water runs toward BoxfordÈas long as weÓre
21
not going to export the problem to someone-else down the street.
22
23
Courtney; were there upgrades done to the storm drains? Mr. Cyr: doesnÓt know. Need to
24
control the flow of water so the water coming from the detention pond doesnÓt create a bigger
25
problem. Chair: give these specific items to Judy so she can give them to the engineer. WeÓll
26
talk about the progress being made at each PB meeting. Chair: weÓll put this on our meetings for
27
discussion until the issue is solved.
28
29
30
nd
Motion by RR to adjourn, 2 by TS, vote was unanimous, adjourned at approximately
31
11PM.
32
33
34
By order of the Planning Board
35
36
37
_____________________________
38
Approved
39
40
41
42
43
Plse. note: the Planning Board reserves the right to take items out of order and to discuss
44
and/or vote on items that are not listed on the agenda.
45
46
47
48
16
April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board