Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-06 Planning Board Minutes nwo Led North Andover Planning Board Unapproved Minutes January 6, 2004 Regular Meeting Members Present: Alberto Angles, Chair, George White, Vice Chair, John Simons James Phinney, Associate Member, Felipe Schwarz, Clerk Rick Nardella Staff Present: Heidi Griffin,Acting Town Planner, Debbie Wilson, Planning Assistant The Chair called the meeting to order at: 7:05PM Informal Discussions: Saville/Wallace Street—Request from MarvJo Czielewski to discuss Subdivision/private Agreement with Developers Ms. Czielewski introduced herself to the board and explained her concerns for her home and driveway from the work the Saville/Wallace Street developer did on her lot. She has concerns about the potential hazard that could occur due to the sever slope of her driveway. She is worried that someone may get hurt and she wants to know who would be responsible. She indicated that the developer stated he would put in a guardrail and she has not heard back from him. She would like to know if there is anything that the board can do to protect her property and ensure the developer will follow through with their agreement. White asked if the driveway design was on the original plans. The board reviewed the plans with Ms. Czielewski. Angles stated that there is bond money established, but the board may not be able to use the bond money for a private deal. Angles would like clarification if the wall were on the plans. The plans presented indicate a brick brack wall and not a retaining wall. . Ms. Griffin conducted a site visit of Ms. Czielewski's property the 3`a week in December. Ms. Czielewski submitted a letter to the Board and Ms. Griffin requested Ms. Czielewski speak to the board members. The inspection revealed that when the Ahern Subdivision of Saville/Wallace was built her driveway was relocated. The relocation itself has resulted in a retaining wall with a slope that rivals Foxwood. Ms. Griffin has forwarded the information to Jack Sullivan, Director of Engineering who will also review the property in question for engineering practicality and safety of her property. It is important to note that this agreement is private, and is not on the subdivision plans. Ms. Czielewski stated that she only wishes the board to be aware of her situation so that in the future when the developers request a bond release that she be notified. Angles stated that they could request that the developer come before the board and clarify the issue of the slope and retaining wall. Schwarz suggested mediating a meeting with all parties concerned. Ms. Griffin agreed that a meeting would be beneficial after Jack Sullivan takes a look at the property. [Simons 7:20PM] Withdrawal of the Foster Farm Elementary School Application: Based on previous meetings with the Planning Board, the applicant has submitted their withdrawal of the foster farm elementary school site plan review public hearing/special permit. Bond release—919 Great Pond Road - $3,000 Ms. Griffin stated that this is a request for outstanding monies for a watershed special permit. Ms. Griffin stated that everything was built in accordance with the plans. Motion by Schwarz to approve the release of the$3,000 Watershed S ecial Permit Bond for 919 Great Pond Road, second bWhite Discussion none Motion carries 4-0 Bond Release— 11 Marbleridge Road - $4,000 Ms. Griffin stated that this is a request for outstanding monies for a watershed special permit Ms. Griffin stated that everything was built in accordance to the plans. Motion by Schwarz to a approve the release of the 4,000 Watershed Special Permit Bond for 11 Marbleridge Road, second by White Discussion none Motion carries 4-0 The E uestrian Shop—Re uest for extension on Site Plan Special Permit Ms. Griffin stated that the applicant submitted a request to extend their special permit after it expired on December 20, 2003. The legal opinion obtained states that "Special permit granted under the provisions contained herein shall be deemed to have lapsed after a two (2)year period from the date on which the Special permit was granted unless substantial use or construction has commenced. If the applicant can show good cause why substantial use or construction has not commenced within the two (2)year period, the Special Permit Granting Authority, as (sic) its discretion, may extend the Special Permit for an additional one(1)year period." Mr. Proulx addressed the board and stated that the reason that he was unable to build this property was for financial reasons. Ms. Griffin read the decision to the board to clarify any questions they may have. Simons made a motion to extend the Site Plan S ecial Permit for one ear• second b Schwarz Discussion none Motion carries 4-0 New Public Hearings 7:41PM North Andover High School Modifications Ms. Griffin informed the audience that the public hearing would be heard on January 20th. Ms. Griffin informed the board that originally, the revised plans for the high school was scheduled for this meeting but they have continued to the January 2CP meeting. This is due to the fact they are revising their drainage plans based on feedback from the conservation commission consultant and did not have final revised plans for VHB to review in time for this meeting. They have submitted a continuance. This has been continued to the January 20th Planning Board Meeting Continued Public Hearings: 1789 Great Pond Road—Watershed Special Permit Ms. Griffin addressed the board and stated that she discussed the issue of the driveway and access to the lot with Mr. Nicetta, Building Commissioner and since there was a difference of opinion she requested the advice of town council. Don Bornstein addressed the board and makes an issue that the driveway was laid out in 1979 and this is the first lot in which the driveway was established. He stated that the driveway was created prior to the 1989 bylaw change. Mr. Bornstein asked why the watershed permit was not issued if this is a separate issue. Ms. Griffin stated that an approval could not be issued if the plans did not conform to the bylaw. Simons stated that town counsel concurs with the Planning Board and that the applicant must obtain appropriate relief from the zoning board in order to obtain a watershed special permit, or revise the plans if possible. Ms. Griffin stated that town counsel indicated we could either keep continuing the public hearing until the necessary zoning relief is obtained, or draft the decision subject to receipt of proper zoning relief. Counsel felt is was preferable to keep the public hearing continued rather than draft the decision subject to the zoning relief being obtained. Attorney Bornstein stated that the Form A Plans back in 1979 grandfather the lot and does not require a special permit. He would lake Town Council to review this again and consider the grandfather clause. Ms. Griffin stated that she discussed this matter with Mr. Nicetta, Building Commissioner and she did not feel that this would be very involved in the pursuit of a zoning variance. Angles stated that the applicant needs to go before zoning and this will be continued until this matter is resolved. John Desmond addressed the board and introduced Mary Ellen Driscoll. He stated that 21 years ago he sued so that this lot would not be built upon. He stated that this lot is not buildable and stated that the lot could not perk. He stated that this lot was purchased to keep the other two lots in tact and make this lot unbuildable. He stated that the driveway is too steep and the lot would destroy the protection of the watershed protection district. Mary Ellen Driscoll addressed the board and stated that this lot was not supposed to be built upon and she is not in favor of having another home built in this area. Mr. Desmond stated that a builder from Georgetown tried to do this before and the board denied it. He stated that John Thompson could also fill the board in, but he could not be here since his father passed away. He stated that this lot was unbuildable for 20 years and why would it be now. He stated that the hill was too steep and does not know how someone could deal with the rise in the driveway. Attorney Bornstein asked if the watershed questions had been resolved. Ms. Griffin stated that a draft decision was written. Angles stated that the board's direction is that the applicant needs to go before zoning and then return back to the Planning Board. Mr. Arnone asked how town council came up with their opinion. Ms. Griffin stated that the entire file was sent to town council and that is how he obtained his opinion. This has been continued to the March 16th Planning Board Meeting [Nardella arrived at 8:45PM] CVS—Rte 114 & Peters Street—Site Plan Special Permit Attorney Manzi addressed the board and stated that all of MHF's comments have been addressed. Pat Dunford, VHB addressed the board and stated that the traffic issues have been addressed and the issue of the tree. He stated that they have taken the 9 spaces in the area of Peters Street and land banked them which reduces the parking for the site. He stated that minor issues would be addressed with MHF. The tree is listed as a 36"maple in which appears to be three trees instead of one large tree. He stated that by moving the building over it would take more than one tree therefore making it impossible to save this tree. He stated that he is trying to get a good traffic flow through the site that cango around the back of the building which would make it further complicated to save the tree. Mr. Dunford stated that any building size smaller would not accommodate the CVS Company itself. He stated that even if he were able to save the tree it would be a safety issue since there are low hanging branches. Nardella asked what could the board do so that the applicant could save the tree. Mr. Dunford stated that they did not want to go for a variance at this stage in the planning process. White stated it appears that the tree could be saved if the setbacks were changed for the store. Simons asked the tree radius. Mr. Dunford stated that it is 30-foot radius around the tree with no paving or building. Simons stated that if the two parcels are in common ownership then the lot lines could be changed to make the tree work for the site. Mr. Manzi addressed the board and stated that the property is not in common ownership for both parcels. Nardella stated that maybe another tree should be planted in place of the big tree. Schwarz asked about the area of the drive thru. Mr. Dunford stated that it is placed in the best location for traffic. Mr. Dunford stated that the tree it is a safety issue since they are uncomfortable with fallen branches and the tree needs to be removed. Brian McAndrews, CVS stated that the drive thru needs to stay where it is and that is why the store cannot be flipped. He stated that the inside store traffic helps with sales and that us why he wants the pharmacy placed where it is. Mr. Manzi addressed the board and stated that they have stated all of the reasons why the tree could not be saved and the applicant has concluded that the tree must be removed. He stated that it needs to be determined if the tree is more important than the project. Schwarz asked if it all CVS's are rectangle. Mr. McAndrews stated yes. Bill Scott, Architect for the building addressed the board and stated that the tree has out lived its life span and there are three tree trunks that have grown in together and the tree will block the building. He stated that the area of the tree faces the intersection and that is a focal point for the store. Nardella asked if the tree has to be taken down what would the applicant do to make this site special? Mr. Manzi stated that a very good landscaping plan would be presented at the next meeting. Schwarz stated that he would like to see alternative site plans. Schwarz stated that he wants to see a street level view of the site. Ms. Griffin stated that an arborist could be sent to the site to check out the life of the tree. Simons would like to see a better design that includes a good landscaping plan. Mr. Scott presented architect plans for the board to review. He stated that they have made changes to the design at the request of the board members. The designs were numbered A, B, C, D etc. Nardella stated that he liked"C" and stated the applicant made a better effort in this design. Simons stated that he does not like the way the site is turning out and would like to see something more colonial. Phinney made some suggestions to the appearance of the building that might make the building more appealing. Mr. Dunford stated that at the next meeting the applicant would bring a final site plan and a landscaping plan for the board to review. This has been continued to the January 2e Planning Board Meeting Decisions: 1003 Osgood Street—Site Plan Special Permit Ms. Griffin addressed the board and discussed the decision with the members. Simons asked what the agreement would be in regards to the soccer field. Mr. Huntress addressed the board and stated that the field is used for children ten and under. The agreement is for$1.00 a year and the fields would be leased to the town. The watershed and special permit decisions were discussed with the board for their review. v S l Motion by Schwarz to approve the V�a�e,�;shelieci„P �..Permit for 1003 Osgood St, Second by, White Discussion none Motion•carries 5-0 Motion by Schwarz to approve the Site Plan Special Permit fay 1003 Osgood Street as amended second by White Discussion none Motion carries 5-0 Approval of the Minutes Motion by Schwarz to approve the 11/6, 11/25, 12/2 & 12/15 minutes, second b White Discussion none Motion carries 5-0 Motion bv Nardella to adjourn at 10:3$PM second b Simons Discussion none Motion carries 5-0