Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-16 Planning Board Minutes Planning Board Meeting October 16, 2001 Members Present: John Simons, Chairman (7:07) Alberto Angles, Vice Chairman Richard Nardella, Clerk (7:15) Richard Rowen Felipe Schwarz, Associate Member Staff Present: Heidi Griffin, Planning Director Jacki Byerley, Planning Assistant Discussions: Campbell Forest Attorney Bob Lavoie representative for Mesiti Development informed the Planning Board that they have a settlement proposal for the town. Attorney Lavoie gave a brief history regarding the denials. He stated that Mesiti had filed 4 form A's to create 8 lots were there would have been four. Attorney Lavoie stated that there are certain criteria the Planning Board needs to see met in regards to approving a subdivision or an ANR plan. The elements of the ANR are existing way, frontage and zoning. Attorney Lavoie believed his client had met all these criteria for his Form A's. The subdivision Campbell Forest was in a frozen within the zoning that was in affect in 1992 when the plan was approved, the plans were not endorsed until 1996, which gives them 8 years from the date of signing to be frozen with the 1992 zoning. Attorney Lavoie stated that the denials were for Lot 28C, 27C, 26B & 20C. Lot 27C has frontage along Webster Wood, Lot 28C frontage along Webster Wood, Lot 20C frontage along Campbell Forest & lot 26B frontage along Campbell Road. Lot 26B would require access by an easement with the Conservation Commission approval. Within the zoning of 1992 the lots can be have frontage with wetlands in the front as access. .Mr. Nardella wondered why they didn't access lot 26B from Campbell Forest Street. Mr. Rowen questioned when sewer was added to the subdivision and how many extra lots were created then? Mr. Grandstaff stated that no new lots were created through the Campbell Forest Subdivision with the addition of sewer, they had created a new subdivision Stonewedge. Mr. Nardella stated that the issue seemed to be more of accessibility of the lots rather than the zoning. Attorney Lavoie stated the settlement is still on the table. Ms. Griffin questioned whether they could get access to lot 26B from their legal frontage? Mr. Grandstaff stated it would not be economical to do so, p w f �C The Planning Board informed the applicant that they would take the information under advisement and have Ms. Griffin contact them with a new meeting date. Public Hearings: Berrington Place-Rescission of Decision Attorney Jay Willis stated that his client is before the Planning Board to have the Planning Board decision regarding the Modification of Berrington Place rescinded. Attorney Willis stated that his client would like to build the approved and recorded 7 lot subdivision. Mr. Nardella read a letter from MPG realty into the record to state that MPG realty was in agreement and supported the applicant's request. (letter is in the Berrington Rescission file). Mr. Simons questioned the public for comments regarding the proposal in front of the Planning Board. Mr. McCollister of 206 Dale Street stated that he had received the notice and had written a letter to the Planning Board chairman John Simons. Mr. McCollister believed that his letter had spelled out his position. Mr. Simons suggested that he explain the letter to the other members of the audience and requested that Mr. McCollister keep his comments to the rescission request only. Mr. McCollister stated that the ANR Plan filed after the original subdivision is a bogus plan. Mr. Rowen questioned whether the Form A was part of the original 7-lot subdivision. Mr. McCollister stated yes. Mr. Rowen stated that the Form A was taken from Lots 7& 8. Mr. Rowen also stated that the Form A was carved out after the subdivision was approved. Mr. McCollister stated that the Planning Board approved something that never existed when they endorsed the ANR plan. Mr. Rowen questioned whether Mr. McCollister had ever challenged the decision for the definitive subdivision. Mr. McCollister stated no he had made an agreement with Mr. Smith to drop his objection. Mr. Rowen stated that it was not the Planning Board's jurisdiction to decide ownership just whether they comply with the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land. Mr. Rowen went on to say that a decision could be rendered without the owner of the property being the applicant. Attorney Willis stated that the definitive subdivision is in existence with the recording at the registry of deeds. s Mr. McCollister stated that the present owners do not have a valid easement to go over his property. Mr. Simons stated that this was a separate issue from the rescission. Attorney Willis stated that they are confident with the rescission. He went on to say that the seven buildable lots is the only plan recorded therefore could be constructed; it is a formality of the Planning Board to rescind the modification decision. Mr. Nardella motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing for Modification of Berrington Place-Rescission of Decision and instructed Ms. Griffin to draft a decision with Town Counsel to review, 2nd by Mr. Rowen voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Attorney Willis questioned the Planning Board whether the Cease and Desist Order was still in affect. Mr. Simons informed him that the order would be in affect until a decision had been rendered. Amend Rules &Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land Ms. Griffin informed the Planning board that the amendment before them was to add Section 5.16 Street Acceptance Procedures to the Rules & Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land. Ms. Griffin explained that the applicant would be responsible to meet with the Town Planner 4 months prior to Town Meeting, submit all documents to Town Counsel and Town Planner 45 days prior to Town Meeting. Ms. Griffin stated that an amended to the proposal should be that"bounds" are not required in Section B. Mr. Nardella motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing to Amend Rules & Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land, 2nd by Mr. Schwarz, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Nardella motioned to APPROVE the Amendment to the Rules & Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land as amended, 2nd by Mr. Schwarz, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Continued Public Hearings: Salem Turnpike Street-Seven Hills Foundation- Site Plan Special Permit Mr. Karl Dubay of MHF Design informed the Planning Board that the entrance was 200 feet from the proposed entrance at Boston Hill. Mr. Dubay stated that he had spoken with Massachusetts State Highway and they verbally Okayed the placement of the drive. Mr. Dubay stated that they had submitted revised plans to VHB and expected a satisfactory response. Mr. Nardella stated that the letter from MA Highway would need to be in hand before a decision can be drafted. The Planning Board instructed Ms. Griffin to draft a decision if VHB's comments are satisfied and MA Highway permits the placement of the drive for the next Planning Board meeting. l�� Discussions: Bradford Street-Watershed Special Permit Extension. i Rex Melton owner of the property informed the Planning Board that an extension had been issued last year. During that time he had received bids by the time a contract could be signed the year extension had come up again. Mr. Melton requested that the Planning Board issue another year extension. Mr. Nardella stated that because this was the second extension this would be the last one the Planning Board would be able to do. Mr. Melton informed the Planning Board that the footprint of the house is the changing slightly with a reduction in square footage being reduced from 4500 SF to 3000 SF but the placement of the house would be in the same spot. Mr. Angles motioned to EXTEND the Watershed Special Permit with the condition that the new design must be approved by the Town PIanner, 2nd by Mr. Rowen, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Continued Public Hearings: Lawrence Industrial Park-Definitive Subdivision Mr. Gabe Crocker informed the Planning Board that he had received comments from VHB and he believed 90% of them were cosmetic. With the comments the applicant would like to request additional waivers one for the cul-de-sac waiver, VHB's comments say that a 120' diameter can be done but the applicant would like to go with an off center cul-de-sac with a 100' diameter. The applicant is requesting a waiver for the street lay out for a 60-foot right of way. Mr. Crocker stated that the lot is an over size lot and would like a waiver from the CBA but states that they conform to the view of the requirements. Mr. Jeff Dirk of VAI Transportation Engineers &Planners informed the Planning Board that the traffic count had been conducted at seven locations during peak morning, weekday and evening peak. Mr. Dirk stated that there are 2172 vehicle trips to on average for weekday traffic. The weekday morning peak hour would generate 228 trips entering and 50 exiting. The weekday evening peak hour would generate 60 trips entering and 227 exiting. The total trucks entering would be 114-188; the weekday morning peak would be 3-15 and the weekday evening peak 3-12. The level of service to area presently is rated an F, without build-out in the year 2006 would be a level F, with build-out level F but with mitigation would change to A. The eleven traffic signal warrants are not met in 2001 or 2006 without build out so the site would not require a traffic signal if build out should occur in 2006, four of the criteria for a traffic signal would be met this is why the level changes to A. � 3� Mr. Nardella question whether Mr. Dirk was aware of how to place restriction on trucks traveling to sites. Mr. Dirk stated that he was only aware of Self Regulations that the town sets up where the developer provides maps of the route to the drivers with the map posted on the truck. Ms. Griffin questioned the amount a traffic light would cost if it were to be installed? Mr. Dirk stated that it could run about$100,000, but with the criteria not be met at the present the developer would not be able to place the signal in. Mr. Dirk stated that the underground equipment could be place now for a future signal. If the infrastructure were in place in would cost$50,000 to finish the installation. Mr. Angles questioned whether the equipment could be purchased now for future use. Mr. Dirk stated that it would be outdated by the time it was to be used. Mr. Dirk suggested that a portion of the signal be added to each building placed in the subdivision. Mr. Crocker stated that he was meeting with Mark Rees to discuss the buildout of the site and connnents made by DPW. Mr. Nardella motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearin for Lawrence Industrial Park-Definitive Subdivision until October 30, 2001, 2" Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Discussions: Forestview-Lot Releases/Bond Establishment Mr. Nardella motioned to ESTABLISH the bond for Amberville Road station 13+16 to 21+00 for$95,502.00, 2"d by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Nardella motioned to RELEASE lots 62A, 63A, 64A, 66A, 67A, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34 and 65 for Forestview Subdivision, 2"d by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. 357 Dale Street-Bond Release Mr. Rowen motioned to RELEASE all remaining bond money held for 357 Dale Street-Watershed Special Permit, 2"d by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Decisions: 11 Marbleridge Road-Watershed Special Permit Mr, Simons suggested that the relocating of the house should be placed in the Finding of Facts. /3t Mr. Angles motioned to APPROVE the Watershed Special Permit for I I Marbleridge Road as amended, 2"`�by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. 41 Marbleridge Road-Watershed Special Permit Mr. Nardella suggested that in If each October to each year. Mr. Nardella motioned to APPROVE the Watershed Special Permit for 41 Marbleridge Road as amended, 2"d by Mr. Rowen, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Continued Public Hearings: Boston Hill Condominiums-Site Plan Special Permit Mike Rosati representative fore the applicant stated they had been working on the erosion control sequencing and underground detention pond. The easement would be widened 10' and the site marked as an exclusive use area. Ms. Griffin questioned the recommendation made by the police of a 20 mph posting. Mr. Rosati stated that the road had been designed as 20 mph on the police recommendation. Ms. Giffin questioned what the exclusive use area would be? Mr. Rosati stated that 25- 30' behind each unit would be for the residents use while the surrounding areas would be marked as open space. Mr. Simons wanted the topography feature of the open space? Mr. Simons stated that it looked as though a lot of the open space was going to be disturbed. Mr. Rosati stated that the open space would be disturbed to build the site but would be Ieft to regenerate itself naturally. Mr. Rosati stated that a trail network was being provided around the property. Mr. Simons wanted to know the slope of the trails? Mr. Rosati stated he would look into this for the next meeting. Mr. Schwarz commented that the trail was to cross over the detention area and the lack of connection to parking. Mr. Rosati stated that he would look into the connection of the parking and stated that with the underground detention area the trail was now going to be placed to cross over. Mr. Rosati also stated that the applicant would be responsible for clearing the trail. Mr. Rosati informed the Planning board that the condominium association would be responsible for maintaining Parcel A. Mr. Angles questioned that in accordance with M.G.L. open space might be able to be calculated as build out with comprehensive permits. Mr. Nardella wanted to know how large Parcel A was. Mr. Rosati stated 18 acres. Mr. Simons wanted to know what the fill ratio was? Mr. Rosati stated that 35,000 yards would be off site. Mr. Simons wanted to know how much of the hill was to be disturbed? Mr. Rosati stated about 75%. Mr. Nardella questioned what methods of stabilization 3k R would be used? Mr. Rosati informed him that looming and seeding would be done before any new cuts to the hill, Mr. Nardella questioned their build out schedule? Mr. Rosati stated that the development did not fall under the phased or growth bylaw. Mr. Nardella requested that they put the schedule to a calendar and inform the Planning Board, Mr. Nardella stated that the site was very sensitive and if Mr. Rosati would eliminate g anything what would it be? Mr. Rosati stated he would get back to the Planning board with an answer at the next meeting. Mr. Rowen questioned the grading of the site as proposed? Mr. Rosati stated that it was at 6%. Mr. Angles questioned the slopes at the fill? Ms. Griffin wanted to know how they felt they were exempt from Section 6d of the bylaw? Mr. Ebner Pease stated that they were restricting the housing of older persons with 80% having to have at least one person over 55 years. The exclusion of children would have to be done by a covenant or deed restriction. Ms. Griffin stated that a covenant would have to be in place to be eligible for the exemption. Ms. Griffin went on to say that if they did not want to restrict children then they could use the option of 40% reduction. Mr. Dermot Kelly the traffic engineer informed the Planning Board that the driveway would be the standard 25'. His traffic analysis was based on comparing it to a retirement community. The applicant received approval from VHB. Mr. Simons requested a site visit to get a better idea of the roadway grades. Mr. Rosati believed that the road was staked out at 200' stations. The Planning Board scheduled a site walk for Saturday October 27 at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Chris Huntress informed the Planning Board that the vinyl siding would offer a variety of colors and that the detention basin will change the landscaping plans. Mr. Huntress will present the new plans at the next meeting. Ms. Bernice Fink, abutter, questioned where the residents would park their boats and/or RV's. Mr. Huntress would look into the possibilities but each unit was allowed 2 spaces with additional parking in the front. Ms. Fink questioned the blasting that would need to be performed on site? Mr. Rosati stated that he would have answers for the next meeting. Mr. Nardella stated that a guarantee would need to be in place for the restriction of 55- years and older to work. Mr. Pease stated that the deed would go with the land. Red Gate-Settlement Mr. Nardella motioned to authorize Town Counsel to request the court to remand this matter to the Planning Board for consideration of an approval of the subdivision in /31 accordance with the draft decision as prepared by the Planning Staff, 2""by Mr. Rowen, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Mi. Nardella motioned to ADJOURN the Planning Board meeting of October 16, 2001, 2"d by Mr. Rowen, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.