Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-02 Planning Board Minutes Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2001 Members Present: John Simons, Chairman Alberto Angles, Vice Chairman Richard Nardella, Clerk Richard Rowen Felipe Schwarz, Associate Member Staff Present: Heidi Griffin, Planning Director Jacki Byerley, Planning Assistant Public Hearings: 1.1 Marbleridge Road-Watershed Special Permit Mr. Donato, engineer, informed the Planning Board that the project before them was for a special permit to re-build a dwelling within the watershed district. The previous house was donated andmoved by the historical committee. The wetlands have been flagged. Mr. Donato stated that due to Ms. Griffin's comments the house has been moved from the no disturbance zone by 15'. An RDA was filed with Conservation and a negative determination was made. Mr. Lavoie, attorney for the applicant, stated that the relocated house had been built in the 1600's and donated to the historical society. Mr. Lavoie believed that the criteria had been met and comments made to Ms. Griffin's concerns along with VHB's concerns. Mr. Rowen questioned the size of the historical house and the proposed? Mr. Lavoie, attorney for the applicant, stated that the historical home was 5625 sf the proposed was 5766 sf. Mr. Donato stated no new lawn was to be created so the area will be maintained as is. Ms. Griffin stated that the applicant had answered all concerns and would be restricting the use of fertilizers on the property. Ms. Griffin was not concerned with the water quality issue but with the direction of the flow from the roof. Mr. Donato stated that roof dry wells were being proposed. Mr. Nardella motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing for 11 Marbleridge Road Watershed Special Permit and instructed staff to draft a decision, 2"d by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. 1 41 Marblerid e Road-Watershed Special..Permit Mr. Donato, engineer for the applicant, informed the Planning Board that the proposal was to add a pool with associated landscaping. Mr. Donato stated that the pool would be surrounded with a concrete apron and was outside of the non-disturbance zone. Mr. Donato stated that a concern of Ms. Griffin was the backwashing of the pool. Mr. Donato stated that the pool company now manufactures non backwashing cartridges that are disposed of when they clog. Mr. Donato informed the Planning Board that annually in October the pool would be drained 6" for the winter. Mr. Donato assured the Board that with this happening in October a zero chlorine level could be reached. Ms. Griffin stated that structural plans of the pool should be provided to the Planning Department by October 9, 2001. Ms. Griffin was concerned with the fill being brought in if there would be sufficient room for the machines without going beyond the proposed haybales. Mr. Donato stated that the haybales could be moved back to provide enough space, it was their intention to allow the machines to work over the haybales. Mr. Nardella was concerned with the proposed wall being placed on the sewer easement. Mr. Donato stated that there was no restriction preventing that from happening. Mr. Nardella wanted a condition placed that if the sewer needed to be accessed it would be at the owners expense to remove the wall. Mr. Donato proposed that a splash pad could be in place for the 6" drainage of the pool in the fall.. Mr. Nardella suggested that they drain the pool to the front of the property to keep it further from the non-disturbance zone. Mr. Angles wanted to know about the geo-synthetic reinforcement. Mr. Donato answered that the concrete blocks are pre cased which would not require a foundation these would then be hand placed for minimal disturbance to the area. Ms. Griffin informed the applicant to provide revised plans showing the haybales further away, the revised splash pad and information regarding the disposable cartridges. Mr. Nardella motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing for 41 Marbleridge Road Watershed Special Permit and instructed staff to draft a decision when revised plans were submitted, 2nd by Mr. Rowen, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. c 2 Continued Public Hearings: Salem Turnpike Street-Seven Hills Foundation Site Plan Special Permit Mr. Karl Dubay, engineer, informed the Planning Board that the proposal was for a modular structure. Mr. Dubay provided the Board with examples of the modular structures. Mr. Dubay had just responded to VHB's engineering comments, most issues were house keeping. The site was going to contain plenty of landscaping. Mr. Dubay requested a waiver to having a certified landscape architect stamp the plans. Screening was to be placed in front of the pumping station this was not only for the public but for the occupants also. Mr. Dubay stated that the specific plant species would be specified this was being worked out with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Dubay informed the Board that a letter had been received from the Mass Highway Department. Mass Highway wanted the radii of the driveway changed to 30' and wanted the applicant to try to line their driveway up with the proposal submitted by Boston Hill. Mr. Dubay didn't have a problem working with Boston Hill but his client did not have much room to play with their driveway. Ms. Griffin questioned what was happening with the dumpster location. Mr. Dubay stated that they dumpster will be moved to the side of the building but they were limited in location because of the wetlands. Mr. Dubay went on to say that the present location would be well screened. Mr. Angles wanted to know about the downstream defender. Mr. Dubay stated that the parking lot runoff goes to the manhole to have the downstream defender treat to clean up the water as much as possible. Mr. Dubay informed the Board that the manufacturer was responsible for the maintenance of the defender it was within the agreement when purchased. Mr. Simons suggested keeping the hearing open until something was worked out about the driveways lining up. Mr. Nardella motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Salem Turnpike Street Seven Hills Foundation, 2"d by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Lawrence Industrial Park-Industrial Subdivision Mr. William Seymor, representative for the applicant, gave a brief history of the project. Mr. Seymor stated that the industrial subdivision is a joint venture between the Town of North Andover and the City of Lawrence. The Enterprise Commission is looking to subdivide the land into 4 lots. The project contains 41 acres, 22 of which are buildable. Two of the lots are bisected by the airport access road that is 22 feet wide. Proposed lots 3 &4 have frontage on Clark Street that ends in a cul-de-sac. 3 Of Mr. Nardella wanted to know whether the plan was to lease or sell the proposed buildings? Mr. Seymor stated that whether to lease or sell was still under discussion. Mr. Nardella commented that if the land was leased then the Town of North Andover would not receive any money from the project. Mr. Nardella also wanted to know if they need approval from the airport commission to sell the property. Mr. Seymor stated that the airport commission was in control of the property but the City of Lawrence was still the owner, presently they were looking into whether a sale was possible without approval. Mr. Seymor also stated that if the airport commission sold the property the commission would receive reduced money that is funded by the stated by what the land is sold for. Mr. Seymor informed the Planning Board that four waivers were being requested: 1. 90 ft radius of the cul-de-sac 2. extension to the length of the cul-de-sac 3. 3:1 requirement for slopes within the right-of-way 4. installation of side walks to cul-de-sac extension The parking calculation was based on 10% office space the remainder being industrial uses. Mr. Nardella wanted to know if they would have enough parking if the building were to be 100% office. Mr. Seymor stated that with all office space more parking would be required which would require them to reduce the footprint of the buildings. Mr. Mike Howard, of Epsilon Associates, informed the Planning Board that the project was currently in front of the Conservation Commission for a Notice of Intent. An RDA was approved by the Conservation Commission and they were expected to close the NOI on October 10, 2001. The project does not fall within the watershed protection district but they have an ENF with MEPA, they have contacted the DEP and Army Corps. Mr. Simons questioned whether the project fell within the Rivers Act? Mr. Howard stated that the portion that was by the river was for utility work, which meets the standards of the Rivers Act. Mr. Simons wanted to know the elevation above the river? Mr. Howard informed him that it was about 18-20 feet. Ms. Griffin wanted to know about the proposed detention basin on Lot 2. Ms. Griffin asked what the size of the basin was in comparison to the building. Mr. Gabe Crocker, Gale Associates, stated that the basin was over one acre with the building being smaller. Ms. Griffin was concerned with the size stating this would make it difficult to attract occupants with such a large detention basin. Mr. Crocker stated that with the storm water management compliance lot 2 is the only place infiltration is possible. All of the storm water would be going to the upper detention basin, this would also capture and treat pavement and roof run off. Mr. Rowen wonder what the elevation of the pond in comparison to Crusader Paper? Mr. Crocker stated that Crusader Paper was at a higher elevation. Mr. Crocker stated that the pond was designed to take the entire 100-year storm event. Mr. Rowen wanted to know what the rate was that the water infiltrates. Mr. Crocker stated that it would recharge the 4 same water that was on site before the project, 20,000 cubic feet total. There is course sand in the area, which makes it an ideal site for the detention basin. Mr. Crocker stated that the water was going to be going to the area anyway so they wanted to make sure the detention basin could handled the amount. Ms. Griffin stated that with the access being within view of the detention basin proper screening should be in place. Mr. Crocker stated that lot 3 access road is acting as the driveway and an easement is being provided. Mr. Simons questioned the mitigation on the site. Mr. Howard informed the Planning Board that the required mitigation was in place, the state has mandated that it is not prime soils and not agricultural use. Mr. Howard informed the board that more information would be forth coming with the MEFA process. Mr. Crocker informed the Board that they would like to connect directly to GLSD for sewer tie-in instead of going through to Holt Road down Route 125 then to GLSD. Mr. Simons wanted to know whether there were trails along the river. Mr. Howard stated that there is no legal access, people do go down there to fish though. Ms. Griffin stated that the railroad authorities had written a letter voicing their concerns with the project. Mr. Seymor informed Ms. Griffin that he had contacted the railroad authorities and they are about 60 feet from the tracks with the water directed away from the tracks. Mr. Nardella questioned the square footage of the property? Mr. Crocker stated that buildings 1,3, &4 are single story and the total buildout was 320,000 sf. Mr. Crocker stated that the revised plans now depict proper setbacks and the additional waiver to the 3:1 along the detention basins. Mr. Nardella motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Lawrence Industrial Park-Industrial Subdivision until October 16, 2001, 2 n'by Mr. Angles, voted 4- 0 in favor of the motion. Boston Hill Condominiums-Site Plan Special Permit Mr. Chris Huntress, representative for the applicant, requested a continuance until October 16, 2001 to give the applicant time to revised the plans to show the open space, construction schedule and drainage. Mr. Angles motioned to GRANT the request for a continuance until October 16, 2001, 2nd by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. 5 3: 65 Flagship Drive-Site Plan Special Permit Mr. Mark Gross of MHF Designs informed the Planning Board that the addition the existing building was for 9100 SR The driveway has been widened to 25 feet, lighting diagrams have been provided. Mr. Gross stated that they had received approval from Conservation Commission. Mr. Nardella questioned whether it was the same tenant going into the addition? Mr. Gross was unaware of who the tenants would be. Mr. Angles motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing for 65 Flagship Drive-Site Plan Special Permit, 2n1 by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Ms. Griffin informed the Planning Board that she had drafted a decision for the special permit. Mr. Nardella motioned to APPROVE the Site Plan Special Permit for 65 Flagship Drive, 2nd by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Steven's Estate-AT&T Wireless Steven's Estate-Sprint PCS Attorney Steven Andersen representative for AT&T informed the Planning Board of the history regarding the project. Atty. Andersen went on to say that AT&T had applied to place a wireless facility at Barker Farm, the application was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals. After the denial AT&T filed an appeal on the decision. There after the town put together a sub-committee to look for alternative site for towers. One of the sites decided on was Steven's Estate. An RFP went out and two bids were received within hundreds of dollars from each other. The town then decided that instead of deciding between the two bids received to place both towers at Steven's Estate. AT&T and Sprint PCS were before the Planning Board with two proposals. The first being two poles at 90' the next being one 100' pole. Attorney Andersen understood that if the Planning Board was in favor of the one pole a height variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be necessary. The bylaw allows for 10' above the average tree canopy height. The height of the trees is 81'. Attorney Andersen has been in contact with the Historical Commission. Attorney Andersen had received comments from VHB and would be responding to the issues. Some of the responses would be to request waivers such as for a boundary survey. Mr. Rowen questioned the advantage of the two poles? Attorney Andersen stated that the two poles would speed up the permitting process because it would not require a height variance. Attorney Andersen stated that with the approval of the 100' pole it would leave the option open to adding a second pole at a later date, also it would provide better coverage. The 100' pole option would be less expensive and minimize clearing. The 100' pole would be able to be seen from the parking lot of China Blossom and the Lake pump station. Attorney Andersen did not recommend using a flagpole design because it 6 would look out of place and draw attention in the middle of the forest. Attorney Andersen did not recommend the tree pole because it would be required to be striped and lit by the FAA and again that would draw unnecessary attention to the pole. Mr. Nardella questioned the length of the lease? Attorney Andersen stated it would be for 10 years under the RFP. Mr. Nardella asked if an approval took place would a cash bond be posted or a surety. The representative for Sprint stated that a surety bond would be preferable but if a cash bond were requested they would do that. Mr. Nardella stated that they should look into whether a surety could be good for the length of the lease. Attorney Andersen requested that whichever option the Planning Board was in favor of that they do not deny the other option. If the Planning Board preferred the 100' pole and denied the two 90' then the applicants were denied for the height variance it would bring every one back to the beginning of re-filing new plans. Mr. Simons questioned Ms. Griffin on whether the hearing could be closed. Ms. Griffin stated that it should be left open until VHB reviews the applicants' comments. Mr. Rowen motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for AT&T Wireless- Stevens Estate, 2'd by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Rowen motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Sprint PCS-Stevens Estate, 2nd by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Discussions: Foxwood-Update Ms. Griffin informed the Planning Board that Tim Willett, Mike O'Neill, Ed Cordoza and Tim McIntosh had met on site and agreed on some changes, new plans have been submitted by Mr. O'Neill and approved by VHB. Ms. Griffin stated that the developer could start work any time now. Linda O'Connell representative for the developer stated that the developer will bid out the job and that should be going out this week. As soon as a contractor had been picked she would inform the Planning Board and have them start work. Ms. O'Connell wanted to know what would be happening with $128,000 in bond money the Planning Board was holding. Mr. Simons stated that he liked that momentum was happening and would like to see the work get started before discussing the bond release. Ms. O'Connell wanted confirmation that bond money would be released on a scheduled basis. Mr. Rowen stated that they would be willing to release funds as the work progress unless something needed to winter over and leave a 10% contingency. Mr. Rowen wanted to know what the cost of the work would be and how much it would be to complete the remaining work, all this would be taken into consideration before any release took place. Mr. Nardella stated that the Planning Board was willing to release funds but they would not be able to give a schedule to it until the say how the work was progressing. Ms. O'Connell stated that she would come back before the Planning Board 7 C��l with numbers of the cost. Mr. Devlin stated that he spoke with Bill Hmurciak of DPW and DPW's recommendation was to have the site winter over for the drainage issues. Mr. Simons stated that this work should be started as soon as the contractor had been decided on but would like to see the Foxwood representatives come before the Planning Board on October 16 to give another update. a Heritage Estates-Partial Bond Release Mr. Nardella motioned to keep $142,900 and release remaining amount for Heritage Estates, 2°d by Mr. Schwarz, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Rowen motioned to ADJOURN the Planning Board meeting of October 2, 2001, 2"d by Mr. Schwarz, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. 8 13 �