Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-14 Planning Board Minutes Planning Board Meeting APPROVED 12/5/2000 November 14, 2000 Members Present: Alison Lescarbeau John Simons (7:25) Richard Rowen Richard Nardella. (7:45) Alberto Angles William Cunningham Others Present: Heidi Griffin, Town Planner Jacki Byerley, Planning Assistant The Planning Board meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Discussions: Lot 51 A Bear Hill Road-Watershed Waiver Ms. Griffin stated that the homeowners Mr. &Mrs. Royal were not going to be changing the footprint of the house. The homeowners were requesting a waiver to be able to put a 3- season porch in place of the existing deck. Mr. Rowen questioned whether the homeowners had a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, Ms. Griffin stated yes and that no new utilities would be going in. Ms. Lescarbeau suggested some erosion control could be regulated within the waiver approval. Mr. Angles motioned to APPROVE the waiver with erosion control measures, 2"d by Mr. Cunningham. Voted 3-0-1 in favor of. The Sanctuary Bond Establishment DPW recommended a$93,100.00 bond establishment for the remaining four lots. Mr. Rowen motioned to establish the bond for$93,100.00 for The Sanctuary, 2"d by Mr. Cunningham. Voted 4-0 in favor of 25 Orchard Hill Road-Bond Release Ms. Griffin stated that she had been on site and the work had been completed. Mr. Angles motioned to release the full amount of$5000.00 plus interest from the 25 Orchard Hill Road bond, 2"d by Mr. Rowen. Voted 4-0 in favor of. Brookfarm Estates-Bond Release DPW recommended a partial release of$42,250.00. Ms. Griffin stated that the Planning Board shouldn't release money from the island because of some past drainage issues. The Planning Board recommended that the cul-de-sac island amount be kept at $5000.00 and that the maintenance amount be kept at $9500.00. Mr. Rowen motioned to release $31,750.00 leaving a remainder of$68,275.00 from Brookfarm Estates, 2'd by Mr. Angles. Voted 4-0 in favor of Windkist Farms-Partial Bond Release DPW recommended a partial release of$50,000.00. The Planning Board voted to keep 10% of the original bond for maintenance and recommended a partial release of $45,300.00. Mr. Rowen motioned to release $45,300.00 leaving a remainder of$50,000.00 from Windkist Farms, 2"d by Mr. Angles Voted 4-0 in favor of 0 Booth Street Don Borenstein representing Mr. And Mrs. Juba had come before the Planning Board on August 15, 2000 asking direction on whether the Mr. &Mrs. Juba could apply for a Form A or a Definitive Subdivision. Mr. Borenstein had spoken with the Town Clerk Joyce Bradshaw and found that Wallace Street is a paper street. Mr. Borenstein stated that with the regulations of today what Mr. &Mars. Juba want to do is not defined and wished for advice as to how to go about doing it. Ms. Griffin stated that the Planning Board could not place conditions on an ANR plan and to protect the Town a Definitive Subdivision would be best. Ms. Griffin went on to say the Planning Board could place waivers to put in the 50-foot roadway. Mr. Rowen suggested that the applicants build the roadway to look more We a driveway. i 2 The Planning Board does not agree that the application meets the requirements of an ANR lot because the proposed lot has no frontage on a public way. The applicant should proceed with a subdivision plan. Ms. Griffin stated that the package received from Mr. Borenstein to the Building Inspector would be acceptable for the Planning Board. Ms. Griffin informed Mr. Borenstein that he should get a letter from the Building Commissioner stating that the lot is grand fathered. Mr. Rowen informed Mr. Borenstein to look into easements to the property. Ber Street-Pro Deed Site Plan Mr. Peter Higorani is looking for the Planning Board's support to build a retail/office building on Berry Street/Route 114. According to today's requirements he would need to have 222 parking spaces and only has 167 parking spaces. The reason he needs the variance is that he needs four stories for his building or else he would have to place three single family homes along the Berry Street portion of the property. Mr. Hingorani stated he has been working with the neighbors and they would prefer to see the 4-story building vs . the 3 story building and the three single family homes. Mr. Hingorani is going to be going for a variance from the Zoning Board. Mr. Nardella wanted to know if there was the possibility of having the 55 parking spaces if the need should ever come up. Mr. Higorani stated yes but he would have to clear some area to do it. Ms. Lescarbeau instructed Ms. Griffin to draft a letter in support of the addition to the Zoning Board. Public Hearings: 1292 Osgood Street-For etta Flowers-Site Plan Review Chris Huntress representing the applicants stated that the Flower Shop would like to relocate up Route 125. Mr. Huntress stated that the Building Commissioner stated that the applicant was in compliance with Zoning. Ms. Griffin requested that the applicant get the information from the Building Commissioner to keep within the file. Mr. Huntress went on to state that the proposed building would be 1800 sf per floor, close to the roadway. The proposed site would have 19 p. arin spaces and 2 access points. E Currently the applicant is working with Mass Highway with the curb cuts. The shop 9 design would be a wood frame, asphalt shingle barn style with a farmer's porch. The elevation would drop in back. The lighting would be on the building and the proposed sign would be wood with up cast lighting. i Mr. Anthony Donato of Merrimack Engineering was working on the drainage with the applicants. Mr. Donato stated that the drainage would to going down west and that they were anticipating the same amount of runoff. The Septic is currently under review with i 3 is the Health Department. Mr. Donato is working with VHB and would be sending out the revised plans. Mr. Donato questioned VHB's comments requesting more than one handicapped ramp, stating that only one ramp was required. Ms. Lescarbeau questioned whether there would be a traffic increase due to the larger size of the proposed shop. Mr. Forgetta the owner stated that he didn't anticipate an increase in traffic because the Flower Shop would be taking the place of the farm stand traffic. Mr. Rowen motioned to CONTINUE the public hearing on 1292 Osgood Street until December 5, 2000, 2nd by Mr. Angles. Voted 5-0 in favor of. Citizens Petition-Section 89 of Zonin Bylaw Mr. Alberto Angles read the Citizens Petition into record(attached). Ms. Lynn Arvikar of 125 Barker Street North Andover presented the petition to the Planning Board. Ms. Arvikar then handed the Planning Board a copy of an article from the North Andover Citizen(attached). Ms. Arvikar stated that she had gotten 225 signatures from the residents of the Town in one day. By getting so many signatures in a day Ms. Arvikar claimed that this showed the fear residents have about the Health issues of cell towers. Ms. Arvikar then passed out a handout"Health Effects of Cell Phones and Cell Phone Antennae" (attached). Ms. Arvikar then stated that there is a perceived health issue in regards to cell towers and that some people will not want to live near them. This would decrease property value and tarnish the character of the Town. i. Mr. Cunningham wanted to know why 900 Feet from a lot line? Ms. Arvikar stated that the length was approved in the Town of Weyland and by the Attorney General. Ms. Arvikar went on to say that through the Telecommunication Committee it was found that 900 feet was the most they could feasibly do, it was stated that if they could have done more they would have. Mr. Simons questioned who was on the Telecommunications Committee and why none of the Planning Board members where informed of the meetings? Ms. Arvikar stated that William Scott had come to the meetings. Ms. Griffin stated that she had been present at requested with the Town Manager's Secretary that Mr. Cunningham one meeting and had be informed of upcoming meetings. Mr. Nardella stated t441 ft $P�gnq booOQut contained more information regarding the use of cell phones rather than cell towers. Ms. Arvikar commented that the research on cell towers had been limited and done more by the cell companies. Ms. Arvikar stated that the committee was trying to be reasonable and still have some coverage. Ms. Lescarbeau commented that the Planning Board could not recommend something that would open the Town for lawsuits. Ms. Griffin requested that the Ms. Arvikar come back to the Planning Board an December 5 with some maps showing the 900 foot set back to show the Planning Board that the cell towers will have places to go. Ms. Arvikar stated that she could give a general area with the set back but did not want to give the cell companies exact location. Mr. Simons stated that the phrasing of the petition now makes it that the cell companies would not be able to co-locate which is what the Zoning Bylaw now encourages. Ms. Lescarbeau wanted to know if the Citizen Petition took into consideration the idea that the property owner's dwelling might be closer than the 900 feet the petition allows. Ms. Lescarbeau asked Ms. Arvikar if she knew could find out Weyland's reasoning with 900 feet, what would make that amount safer? Mr. Cunningham stated that more research needs to be done by the Telecommunications Committee before the Planning Board could recommend the petition. Mr. Steve Anderson representing AT&T handed the Planning Board member a GIS map of the Town of Concord, MA showing a 1000-foot set back. Mr. Anderson then showed through the maps how the 1000 feet makes it restrictive for cell companies to come into Concord and provide suitable coverage. Mr. Anderson would like the Town of North Andover to make GIS maps of the area. Mr. Anderson went on to say that the regulations cannot be changed because of Health Effects and that Ms. Arvikar was only using that as the base for the 900-foot set back. Mr. Randy Jones representing Omnipoint demonstrated a dry test of the Town of North Andover, which showed areas that had acceptable level of coverage. Mr. Jones went on to say that cell companies were under an obligation to the Government that when cell towers are placed that they had to provide 25% of coverage areas and the 900 foot set back may make this difficult for the companies to do. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that the Planning Board would like more time to review the petition and more information to give an informed decision from the Planning Board to Town Meeting. Mr. Rowen motioned to CONTINUE the public hearing on the Citizens Petition until December 5, 2000, 2"d by Mr. Angles. Voted 6-0 in favor of. 1267 Osizood Street-Barker Farm AT&T Wireless-Site Plan Special Permit Mr. Steve Anderson representing:AT&T stated that the application had been continued for months now and would like the Planning Board to make a decision on the Special Permit tonight. Mr. Anderson stated that AT&T had been looking into alternative sites but because of the Citizen Petition a decision needed to be made to grandfather the location. 5 �� Y' I Mr. Anderson went through the last few months' process stating that the Zoning Board of Appeals had denied the variance for 120' and that the Planning Board had approved the Repetitive Petition request for 80' flagpole. Mr. Anderson stated that the flagpole antennae meet dimensional requirements except for height. The decision made tonight would have a conditional approval. Mr. Rowen requested that Mr. Anderson give the Planning Board a run down of the set back from abutters and the land owner. Mr. Anderson stated that the closest abutter was more than 300 feet from the flagpole and that the landowners would be around 150 feet. Mr. Anderson went on to say that these set back meet the requirements to everyone but the landowners and that the Planning Board would have to grant a waiver for the 150'. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that it was possible that the Planning Board may not have to grant a waiver because the 150' was from the landowners. Ms. Lynn Arvikar of 125 Barker Street stated that if the.Planning Board approved the Special Permit four families would loss their homes. Ms. Lescarbeau questioned how the families would loss their homes? Ms. Arvikar stated that the families would want to sell and move. Mr. Nardella commented that the decision should read the waiver is for the landowner. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that "additional" should be taken out on 18c. Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the public hearing for 1267 Osgood Street-Site Plan Special Permit, 2"d by Mr. Cunningham. Voted 6-0 in favor of Mr. Simons motioned to APPROVE the Site Plan Special Permit for 1267 Osgood Street as amended, 2"d by Mr. Cunningham. Voted 6-0 in favor of. Endicott Plaza-Osgood Street-Site Plan Review Mr. Chris Huntress representing Forgetta Development stated that they had submitted revised plans and have given more information. Mr. Giles Hamm of Vaness & Associates talked about the traffic study. Mr. Hamm stated that the proposed roadway had the capacity to handle 280 vehicles in an hour. Mr. Hamm stated that they used the Mass Highway standard form to come to the equation. Ms. Griffin questioned the number of cars using the proposed pharmacy drive thru. Mr. Hanan stated about 7-10 cars. Ms. Griffin also commented that VHB had requested information about past studies of drive thrus, Mr. Hamm agreed to get the information to VHB. i Ms. Lescarbeau wanted to know how the pedestrian crossing and drive thru differed? Mr. Huntress explained that the pedestrian crossing would be using different material so that drivers could see the difference. 6 �� V p� 9 Mr. Nardella questioned whether the applicant Mr. Barrett would be willing to put sidewalks in along Route 125. Mr. Barrett stated that he was all for sidewalks but with Route 125 being a state highway there were issues and a liability for having a dead end sidewalk. Mr. Barre tt had spoken withh his lawyer and was told that the sidewalks were not a good idea. Mr. Barrett also commented that to get the sidewalks done the State would need to be behind the project. Mr. Simons wanted to know whether hedging or a picket fence would be used along Route 125? Mr. Huntress stated that they would like to use a variety of material and have the shrubs brought closer to the parking area. Mr. Huntress commented by having the shrubs closer to the parking it would help mask the cars. Mr. Huntress also-stated that by placing a picket fence it would enable drivers along Route 125 to look over into the parking area. Mr. Huntress stated that there was a possibility of placing a stone wall between the shrubs to make it denser. Mr. Huntress stated that the construction would be scheduled to start in spring and that it would be a phased construction. Mr. Huntress also explained to the Planning Board that some of the companies interested in the hotel may want to purchase the land and explained that this may possible a Form A later with a Frontage Exception. Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the public hearing for Endicott Plaza-Osgood Street-Site Plan Review, 2"d by Mr. Angles. Voted 6-0 in favor of The Planning Board instructed Ms. Griffin to draft a decision for the December 5, 2000 meeting. Hawk Ridge-PRD, Definitive Subdivision Watershed Special Permit-Decision Mr. Tom Zahoruiko of Tara Leigh Development requested that the bond amounts be reduced. The Planning Board reduced the PRD bond to $5000.00, the Subdivision bond to $5000.00 and the Watershed Special Permit Bond to $10,000.00. Ms. Lescarbeau suggested that when buyers come for the lots that they are informed of sidewalks going in. Mr. Zahoruiko stated that a sign for the subdivision would be in place but would be taken down was the subdivision was complete. Mr. Simons requested that the final as built be submitted on disk. Mr. Simons motioned to APPROVE the Definitive Subdivision for Hawk Ridge as amended, 2"d by Mr. Angles. Voted 6-0 in favor. Mr. Simons motioned to APPROVE the PRD for Hawk Ridge as amended, 2"d by Mr. Angles. Voted 6-0 in favor of. 7 Mr. Simons motioned to APPROVE the Watershed Special Permit as amended, 2"d by Mr. Angles. Voted 6-0 in favor of. Minutes: Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the Planning Board minutes of October 3, 2000, 2 nd by Mr. Simons. Voted 6-0 in favor of Mr. Rowen motioned to .APPROVE the Planning Board minutes of October 17, 2000, 2 nd by Mr. Simons. Voted 6-0 in favor of Decisions: Boston Hill-Preliminar Subdivision Mr. Ken Grandstaff of Mesiti Development requested a decision on a 75-lot subdivision. Each lot would be 1 acre and a 50-foot road. Mr. Grandstaff stated that the submission was to be able to grandfather the subdivision before the new regulations were accepted in. Mr. Simons requested that Ms. Griffin amend the decision to read the question of zoning and write"no drainage calculations" Mr. Angles motioned to DENY the Preliminary Subdivision plan for Boston Hill as amended, 2"d by Mr. Rowen. Voted 6-0 in favor of. Informal Discussions: Boston Hill-Preliminar Discussions-Site Plan Review Mr. Ken Grandstaff of Mesiti Development requested an informal discussion on what the Planning Board would like to see built at the Boston Hill Site. Mr. Grandstaff commented that if there were an issue with the traffic the entrance could be moved 600 feet toward Middleton Street. Mr. Glgndstgff wanted to know whether the Planning Board would like to see fewer units in and whether they would like an emergency access only or be able to use the road for complete access. Mr. Rowen stated that Mr. GrandstafPs engineer Mr. Marchionda was unwilling to work with the Planning Board. Mr. Rowen commented that on numerous occasions Mr. Marchionda was asked about the phasing of the development and to show the Planning Board the time line with dates and on each occasion would not give a direct answer. . 8 �/ Mr. Simons asked that Mr. Grandstaff work with the hill and minimize the cutting and amount of units. Mr. Angles wanted to see a looped roadway instead of a long dead end road. Ms. Lescarbeau would like to see an underground detention structure instead of a detention.pond. Ms. Lescarbeau suggested that researching the structure utilized in the Chatham Crossing subdivision may be helpful. Mr. Rowen wanted Mr. Grandstaff to work with the hill and possibly have a 9% roadway so as not to require so many cuts in the hill. Mr. Nardella stated that Mr. Grandstaff should take all the ideas into consideration and possibly come up with some more creative ideas on how to get the project completed to everyone's satisfaction. Mr. Nardella stated that a good engineer would come up feasible ideas to keep the integrity of the hill intact and still get the project completed. Mr. Rowen suggested looking into other Town roadways with the same grade and see what worked for them and what did not work for theta. Mr. Rowen motioned to ADJOURN the Planning Board meeting of November 14, 2000, 2 nd by Mr. Angles. Voted 6-0 in favor of 3 9 9� 3 i