Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-20 Planning Board Meeting Minutes PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, November 20, 2012 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7:00 PM Present: J. Simons, M. Colantoni, D. Kellogg, L. Rudnicki. L. McSherry, R. Rowen (arrived at 1 7:15pm). 2 Absent: 3 Staff Present: J. Tymon, J. Enright 4 5 Meeting began at 7:00pm. 6 7 BOND RELEASE 8 Red Gate Lane :Request for partial release of a $20,000 slope stabilization bond. 9 J. Tymon:All four homes in the subdivision are occupied. The slope was completed in 2007 10 and there was a Lot release at that time for Lots 3 and 4. In 2010 there was an issue with the 11 slope and it had to be re-engineered. There havenot been any problems since then.The 12 developer is requesting a partial release of the slope stabilization bond.The Decision requires 13 that the slope stabilization bond not be released until three years from the date of completion of 14 the slope or acceptance of the roadway, whichever came first. The engineer of record, Ben 15 Osgood, submitted a letter today stating the slope has been constructed in accordance with the 16 plans and has been stable for more than two years. The applicant would also like to discuss 17 waiving the sidewalk construction at an upcoming meeting. 18 MOTION 19 A motion was made by M. Colantoni to release all but $5K of the slope stabilization bond for 20 Red Gate Lane. The motion was seconded by L. Rudnicki. The vote was unanimous. 21 ANR 22 100 Dale Street : Proposal to create two lots from one existing lot. 23 Phil Christiansen, Christiansen and Sergi representing the applicant: This lot is just over 4 acres 24 in size with225’ of frontage. Last spring this was brought to the Board and it was suggested 25 that, as opposed to creating a subdivision with several variances, we try to get variances for 26 frontage from the ZBA. The ANR Plan divides this property to two lots with anarea of two 27 acres each. In 1987 this lot was re-zoned from one acre zoning to two acre zoning. The lots 28 would be short in terms of frontage and lot width. There are two signature blocks on the Plan 29 and two notes that were read into the record. The Lots are not to be considered buildable until 30 the Plan is endorsed by The Planning Board and the variances requested are granted by the NA 31 Board of Appeals. 32 J. Simons: As long as there is a provision that the Lots may not be conforming toZoning it is 33 not a problem. Requested the Town Planner discuss the application with Town Counsel to make 34 sure nothing has to be added to the Form A. 35 MOTION 36 A motion was made by D. Kellogg to direct the Town Planner to endorse the Form A for 100 37 Dale Street subject to the discussion and conditions applied this evening. The motion was 38 seconded by L. McSherry. The vote was unanimous. 39 411 and 421 Stevens Street : Proposal for a lot line change. 40 1 PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, November 20, 2012 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7:00 PM J. Tymon: The applicant that submitted the ANR form called the office today to request to 41 Withdraw. He did not, however, submit the Withdrawal request in writing. Tomorrow is 42 the twenty-first day since the application was submitted. 43 MOTION 44 A motion was made by D. Kellogg to direct the Town Planner to deny the 411/421 Stevens 45 Street ANR. The motion was seconded by L. McSherry. The vote was unanimous. 46 PUBLIC HEARINGS 47 CONTINUEDPUBLIC HEARING ,171 Brentwood Circle: Application for a Watershed 48 Special Permit for installation of an inground swimming pool, concrete deck/patio, chain link 49 fence, associated grading and utilities within 100 feet of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. 50 J. Tymon:All of L.Eggleston’s comments have been addressed, a pool maintenance plan has 51 been included, and an equipment pad had been added to the plan. 52 Jack McQuilkin, Registered Engineer JM Associates: A revised plan has been submitted along 53 with maintenanceplan thatdetails the process for draining the pool. 54 A draft Decision was reviewed. 55 MOTION 56 A motion was made by M. Colantoni to close the public hearing for 171 Brentwood Circle 57 Watershed Special Permit. The motion was seconded by D. Kellogg. The vote was 58 unanimous. 59 A draft Decision was reviewed. 60 MOTION 61 A motion was made by D. Kellogg to approve the Watershed Special Permit for 171 62 Brentwood Circle, as amended. The motion was seconded by R. Rowen. The vote was 63 unanimous. 64 65 NEW PUBLIC HEARING,72 Great Pond Road : Application for a Land Disturbance Permit 66 and a two (2) lot Definitive Subdivision Plan. One of the two lots contains an existing home. 67 J. Tymon:L. Eggleston has reviewed the Land Disturbance application and the scope of the 68 disturbance. She has determined that this permit is not required. The disturbance is less than an 69 acre and is not going to change the drainage more than an acre. The subdivision has its own 70 stormwater standards to comply with. The developer is asking for a waiver of the 50’ Right Of 71 Way. If it were to be a 50’ ROW there is a possibility that part of the existing home would need 72 to be torn down. L. Eggleston’s recommendedan infiltration trench on the side of the driveway 73 as opposed to a porous drivewaybecause of the 8% slope.There are roof infiltrators to a 74 drywell. Soil testing has been provided. 75 Tom Zahoruiko, Developer: Described the existing conditions, conventional subdivision plan, 76 and proposed site development of the Form A lot and Definitive SubdivisionPlan. This project is 77 currently before the Conservation Commission as well. The applicant has met with direct 78 abutters, John and Rosalee Niceforo, and they have submitted a letter in support of the proposed 79 driveway instead of construction of a street in order to preserve as many mature trees as possible 80 in the boundary area between the properties. There is a waiver request of the 50’ ROW down to 81 2 PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, November 20, 2012 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7:00 PM a 40’ ROW. A 50’ ROW can be constructed but if it is the part of the garage of the existing 82 home will have to be removed. 83 J. Simons: Can a portion of the ROWbe 50’ and a portion40’? 84 T. Zahoruiko:Yes, the pinch is only to get by the existing garage area. 85 R. Rowen: Another alternative is to go to Zoning to request a variance to the side setback. 86 T. Zahoruiko: It is really a self imposed hardship and may not get support. 87 R. Rowen: Is it at all possible to subdivide the back lot further in the future to put in another 88 house? 89 T. Zahoruiko: It is one acre, R-2 Zoning, sothere is no more possibility to subdivide it. 90 R. Rowen:Stated he prefers to leave the entire ROW at 40’ as opposed to going from 50’ to 40’ 91 back to 50’since to ROW will service just one house on one lot that can not be further 92 subdivided. 93 T. Zahoruiko: Reviewed the topography of the site,the wetland area,disturbance area, and 94 grading areas. 95 J. Tymon: L. Eggleston’s review is complete. The DPW and an abutter have submitted letters 96 stating they prefer a driveway to a conventional roadway. 97 J. Simons:This can be closed at the next meeting and a draft Decision prepared. 98 99 NEW PUBLIC HEARING , 1018 Osgood Street: Application for Site Plan Review-Special 100 Permit for proposed construction of a 2,250 sq. ft. coffee shop with drive-thru and associated site 101 amenities including drive-thru lane and twenty five (25) parking spaces. In addition, applicant 102 has filed for a Request of Determination of Applicability of Watershed Protection District 103 Requirements. 104 J. Tymon:This is a public hearing for Site Plan Review and to determine ifthis lot is subject to 105 the Watershed. The parcel is in the watershed. L. Eggleston has submitted a reviewletter dated 106 November 6, 2012that states, “based on surface topography, the southwest portion of the lot 107 (area IS on the pre-development drainage plan) drains in a southerly direction (toward Osgood 108 Street and the lake), while the remainder of the lot drains toward the small bordering vegetated 109 wetland (BVW) in the northeast corner of the lot”. In general, L. Eggleston states that the 110 amount of imperious surface covered on the site and to provide the infiltration makes this a 111 difficult site. There was also a discussion with Hancock Associates regarding the traffic and 112 parking. The applicant is providing 25 parking spaces, a fair amount or queuing space, a menu 113 board, drive-through window, and two entrances and exits.There is a possibility of reducing the 114 parking spaces with a waiver request tolessenthe impervious surface. 115 Mark Gross, MHF Design Consultants representing JFJ Holdings: Based on the reviews 116 received from the three different consultantsthere weresome opposing issues that have to be 117 dealt with in terms of satisfying the stormwater issues and some of the traffic issues.Twenty 118 seven parking spaces are required. This application requests a waiver down to 25 spaces. A 119 parking study is being completed to determine how many spaces are really needed. It may be 15- 120 20. The Bylawallows for a waiver up to 35% of the total parking requirement. There are nine 121 queuing spaces. There is additional queuing space possible, but it would block some parking 122 spaces that would be identified as employee parking spaces. The back three quarters of the 123 property drains to a wetland that drains to the Merrimack River. There is a possibility that some 124 3 PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, November 20, 2012 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7:00 PM of the water from the front of the site could cross Osgood Street and eventually get into the lake. 125 A Watershed Special Permit application will have to be filed for the front quarter of the property 126 and the drainage design will have to be modified. Based on comments from Mass DOT, the civil 127 engineer consultant, and traffic consultant the original proposal of one two-way driveway and 128 one exit only driveway will be revised to an entrance only and an exit only driveways. 129 Heather Monticup, Traffic Engineer, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.:The traffic study was prepared 130 in August 2012 and submitted to both the Town and Mass Dot. Although an existing business 131 two parcels down the road is moving to this site none of the existing traffic was taken off the 132 roadway, it was assumed to be there and the traffic numbers were built on top of them.Existing 133 condition including traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, and collision data were examined. Future 134 conditions were also looked at for the next five year period. A historical growth rate, 135 backgrounddevelopments, and roadway improvements along the corridor were included. 136 Reviewed expected trip rates for peak hours and Saturdays. A queueof up to 13 cars could be 137 accommodated on site without the line backing up onto Osgood Street. All the minimum 138 requirements for site distances can be met. The capacity analysis was reviewed which showed 139 there should not be any effect on Osgood Street. There will be minimal delays at the site 140 driveways. It is anticipated to operate at a level of service A with less than one vehicle waiting 141 at anytime to turn left into the site. The site driveways will have longer delays but thesite will 142 be modified to accommodate the enter only and exit only drivewaysso further analysis needs to 143 be completed. 144 M. Gross: Reviewed the proposed New England architectural design and elevations. An “Intent 145 for Construction”form will be filed with the FAA for their review. 146 J. Tymon: The applicant will probably not have enough time to make the changes to the plan 147 and have the changes reviewed by the consultants by the next meeting.This will have to be 148 continued until the second meeting in December. 149 150 NEW PUBLIC HEARING, 623 Osgood Street: Application for Frontage Exception Special 151 Permit and Definitive Subdivision. Applicant proposes creation of three lots, of which Lot 1 is 152 the subject of the Frontage Exception Special Permit. No new residential dwellings would be 153 constructed on the Premises. 154 J. Simon:Provided backgroundfor this application. At last year’s Annual Town Meeting to 155 Town put in a proposal under the CPA to purchase property at this location. The intent of this 156 application and permit is to put property in a conveyable form so thatthe Town can complete the 157 transaction. The intent of this proposal is not to construct a subdivision, new road orhouses on 158 this property but to actually allot the land in proper form so that if this transaction comes to a 159 proper conclusion the Town can purchase the property that it is interested in for conservation 160 purposes and the family can continue to own the remaining lot and have access to property. If 161 for some reason the Town does not end up purchasing the property the Subdivision and/or 162 Frontage Exception will go away. 163 John Smolak, Attorney for the applicant: At Town Meeting the voters voted to appropriate funds 164 to acquire most of 623 Osgood Streetin an attempt to maintain the family lot, while at the same 165 time, convey the balance of the property to the Town as Open Space. Three alternatives were 166 reviewed. The subdivision alternative was reviewed in detail. Lot 1 contains the existing family 167 4 PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, November 20, 2012 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7:00 PM residence. Lots 2 and 3 would be conveyed to the Town. It is not yet determined ifthe roadway 168 would be conveyed to the Town. An appraisal of the property is being completed. The Town 169 can not purchase property in excess of anappraised value. The reason for the separate 170 alternativeswas to try to anticipate the variation in value of the property based on different 171 scenarios. Waivers of the typical roadway construction have been requested simply because no 172 construction will be completed. 173 R. Rowen: If Lot 1 is created will it conform toZoning? 174 J. Smolak: Yes. 175 D. Kellogg: How would the public access Lot 3? 176 J. Smolak: There has been discussion about putting a small parking lot and a path to the 177 property. 178 ABUTTERS 179 Charles Daher, 653 Osgood Street: Requested clarification of what the parking situation would 180 be. 181 J. Simons: The parking is completely separate from thesubdivision proposal. If parking wereto 182 be put in it would be for 2-4 cars on the corner of the property. The Conservation Commission 183 would decide on that. This is conservation land and we want it to be as small and unobtrusive as 184 possible. 185 Christine McLaughlin, representing the owners of605 Osgood Street: Will there be a deed 186 restriction stating these lots are not buildable? 187 J. Simons: The Decision will state that if the sale of the property to the Town does go through 188 there will be a condition that a Conservation Restriction is placed on the land. If the sale does 189 not go through this subdivision will go away. 190 191 MOTION 192 A motion was made by D. Kellogg to close the public hearing for 623 Osgood Street. The 193 motion was seconded by R. Rowen. The vote was unanimous. 194 J. Simons: Reada letter dated November 20, 2012 from John Smolak requesting a 195 continuance for the Frontage Exception Special Permit until December 4, 2012. 196 A draft Decision was reviewed. 197 MOTION 198 A motion was made by R. Rowen to approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan for 623 Osgood 199 Street, as amended. The motion was seconded by L. McSherry. The vote was unanimous. 200 201 DISCUSSION 202 108 Campion Road:Request for a waiver of aWatershed Special Permit. 203 J. Tymon: There has been some vegetation clearing on the Lot. Pre-clearing aerial 204 photographs were distributed to the Board. This is in the Non-Disturb Zone, within 100’ of 205 a wetland that drains to the lake, which requires a Special Permit for vegetation clearing. 206 The Conservation Commission has looked at the project and would like to require as much 207 restoration as possible and as little lawn area as possible. This is still before the 208 Conservation Commission. They are willing to take direction from the Planning Board in 209 5 PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, November 20, 2012 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7:00 PM terms of whether you would like to waive the Special Permit and accept Conservation’s 210 conditions and restoration plan or to require a filing for Watershed and include a set of 211 conditions for the restoration plan. 212 Bill MacCleod:Reviewed the property lot lines, 25’, 50’, and 100’ distances from the 213 wetlands, and distance to the lake. Stated that a normal homeowner would not know that 214 this was actually a wetland, it does not look like a typical wetland. The homeowner was not 215 aware of the multi-layers of the Town regulations. Since the applicant is in front of 216 Conservation the Town will have oversight to the replanting and vegetation of this area. 217 There is no pavement or drainage being added. There is cost associated with filing for a 218 Watershed Special Permit, including a peer review. 219 J. Simons: This property is within approximately a few hundred feet of the lake. The 220 Planning Board has jurisdiction. Functionally the reviews by Planning and Conservation 221 are similar. Some of the fees can be waived; however, there has been a fairly egregious 222 violation, albeit unintentional. Expressed he would like to see a formal application and 223 plans. 224 B. MacCleod: At the Conservation Commission’s request the site has been stabilized. The 225 applicant is before Conservation to get the approval to re-plant. 226 J. Tymon: It would be a combination review. The Planning Board does have jurisdiction 227 because the entire area is in the Non-Disturb Zone. The Conservation Commission has 228 deferred tothe Planning Board and has not made any decisions yet. The Boards would be 229 working together on the same restoration plan. 230 R. Rowen: Agreed the fees can be waived; however, protecting the lake is or importance. 231 J. Simons: Requested that the applicant file a Watershed Special Permit application. 232 233 MEETING MINUTES: Approval of October 16, 2012 meeting minutes. 234 MOTION 235 A motion was made by L. Rudnicki to approve the October 16, 2012 meeting minutes. The 236 motion was seconded by L. McSherry. The vote was unanimous. 237 238 ADJOURNMENT 239 MOTION: 240 A motion was made by M. Colantoni to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by 241 D. Kellogg. The vote was unanimous. 242 243 The meeting adjourned at 9:10pm. 244 245 MEETING MATERIALS: Agenda,Letter dated Nov. 20, 2012 from Benjamin C. Osgood, Jr., 246 P.E. RE: Red Gate Pasture subdivision, Draft Notice of Decision 171 Brentwood Circle, 72 247 Great Pond Road: Letter dated Nov. 12, 2012 from John and Rosalee Niceforo, interoffice 248 Memorandum dated Nov. 14, 2012 from Gene Willis, Definitive Subdivision Plan “Turkey 249 Hill dated Oct. 1, 2012, Site Development Plan of Land Lot B dated Oct. 22, 2012, Existing 250 Conditions Plan dated Oct. 1, 2012, 1018 Osgood Street: Site Development Plan dated July 251 6 PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, November 20, 2012 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7:00 PM 18, 2012, Existing Conditions Plan, Letter dated Nov. 6, 2012 from L. Eggleston RE: 1018 252 Osgood Street Watershed Protection District Applicability, Traffic Impact and Access Study 253 from GPI dated Aug. 2012, Summary of reviews memo dated Nov. 13, 2012, 623 Osgood 254 Street: Letter dated Nov. 20, 2012 RE: continuance request for Frontage Exception Special 255 Permit from John T. Smolak, Application for Definitive Subdivision Approval, Application 256 for Frontage Exception Special Permit, Definitive Subdivision Plan of Land dated Nov. 14, 257 2012, Letter dated October 31, 2012 from John T. Smolak, Form I Covenant and Form J Lot 258 Release, draft Decision-Definitive Subdivision Plan, Letter dated October 9, 2012 from J. 259 Hughes, Conservation Administrator, and J. Tymon, Town Planner, RE: 108 Campion Road 260 violation, Pictometry pictures 108 Campion Road, draft 10/16/12 meeting minutes. 261 7