HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-12-04 Planning Board Minutes DRAFT
REV 1217107
12/11/07, 12/13/07/12/17/07
1 Noerp
pF�SLeu r6gN0
4 '6 Lp
5
6 n
� e
� O� mcLsewcwc.�
7 SACHUs���y
8
9 Town of North Andover
10 Planning Board
11 Minutes of the Meeting
12 December 4, 2007
13 Town Hall, 120 Main Street
14 7:00 PM
15
16 Members present: Richard Nardella, Chairman
17 John Simons, Vice Chairman
18 Alberto Angles, Clerk
19 Richard Rowen, regular member
20 Jennifer Kusek, regular member
21 Timothy Seibert, alternate member
22
23 Staff present: Lincoln Daley, Town Planner
24 Mary Ippolito, Recording Secretary
25
26
27 Chairman Nardella introduced the panel to the assembly 7:15 PM
28
29 CHAIR ANNOUNCED THERE ARE NO POSTPONEMENTS:
30 None
31
32 CHAIR CALLED FOR DISCUSSION ITEMS:
33
34
35 1. Discussion regarding a letter by the PB relative to a temporary moratorium.
36 Chair asked the PB if they saw the BOS meeting of last night?
37 Chair stated that the first discussion item is to put a letter together to send to various
38 parties regarding cell towers has now become a moot point since last night's (1213107)
39 BOS meeting. Atty. Urbelis gave a factual account of PB meetings, dates, time, setback
40 issues etc. Chair urged the PB to view the BOS meeting. Chair wants to hold off on this
41 letter until the PB has had a chance to view the BOS meeting. Chair stated that he wants
42 to hear from the PB at the end of tonight's meeting of what progress the Cell Tower
43 Committee is making.
44
45 RR wants to put together some thoughts of where from the PB perspective the current
46 Bylaw needs to be improved, send it thru the PB representative to the Cell Tower
Minutes of the Meeting
December 4,2007
Page 1
a
DRAFT
REV 1217107
12/11/07, 12/13/07/12/17/07
1 Committee so that the Committee has the PB's thoughts ahead of time so that these ideas
2 can be addressed. Chair wants this item for discussion for another PB meeting.
3 Chair stated the Bylaw is almost unenforceable and the PB needs to do the best they can
4 to dance around it; we know where the issues are.
5
6 DISCUSSION:
7
8 2. Summons by Stacey Hughes-Birch to the Town of North Andover Planning Board.
9
10 Town Counsel will represent the PB in the lawsuit. Lincoln asked to have Richard
11 Rowen's name be removed from this lawsuit. JS directed Lincoln to check with Atty.
12 Urbelis to talk to Ms Birch to find out if Ms Birch intentionally did what she did or just
13 inadvertently did what she did?
14
15 Lincoln stated he would contact Atty. Urbelis and ask that question personally.
16
17
18 CHAIR CALLED FOR THE CONTINUED HEARINGS:
19
20 3. Danielle&David Dellovo,5 Village Way,Map 104C,Parcel 111.
21 Request for a Watershed Special Permit to construct garage, house additions, deck and pool R-1
22 Zoning District. Received VHB review 10131107.
23
24 Per review responses from VHB and comments from Ben Osgood, Jr., Lincoln stated that
25 he's close to recommending to close the public hearing.
26
27 VHB sent a review and Ben Osgood Jr, who submitted his revised plans back to VHB for
28 their comments. The plan did not change, 1. Layout is the same, 2. Supplied a test pit for
29 the infiltrator and supplied drainage calculations, VHB responses were: 1. Seasonal high
30 ground water; 2. Specify invert; 3. Driveway has stone bed for water to fall thru, catch
31 basins added.
32
33 Lincoln asked about the proposed fence on the W. portion of the property which is
34 located within the area of trees, will there be tree clearing in the area? Ben responded run
35 the fence thru the woods.
36
37 Lincoln stated that all of the proposed construction would be located outside of the Non-
38 disturb and Non-discharge zones.
39
40 Ben stated that adding gutters to a new and existing house, putting them thru infiltrator
41 systems and letting that infiltrator percolate the water in the ground over time.
42
43 Chair stated there was a question about gravel or pavers instead of impervious surface on
44 the driveway?
45
Minutes of the Meeting
December 4,2007
Page 2
DRAFT
REV 12/7/07
12/11/07, 12/13/07/12/17/07
1 Ben stated it's impervious asphalt pavement it's actually like a regular asphalt pavement
2 but you can run a hose on it water goes right thru it into sub base which will be crushed
3 stone.
4
5 Lincoln stated it will be maintained over a period of years and be vacuumed too. There is
6 a catch basin located next to the impervious surface to catch all of the excess runoff.
7
8 AA asked does pervious pavement have the same run off as regular gravel pavement?
9 Ben stated yes. A crushed stone sub base is proposed. Sand beneath stone is graded off,
10 to get full 8 inches of stone.
11
12 Lincoln stated see draft decision on page 2 letter E for editing.
13
14 Motion by AA to close the public hearing tonight for 5 Village Way, 2 d by RR,vote was
15 6-0 unanimous.
16
17 Draft decision. Chair stated infiltrations system and backwash system shall be placed in
18 the deed. RR asked was there restrictions already on the property or are these restrictions
19 in place already in conflict with the deed? Lincoln stated he sees no conflicts, this will
20 add more restrictions because of the pool issue. Lot created prior to 1986. Ben Osgood,
21 Jr. specified pervious pavement actually is on the plan, JS stated put this as a condition in
22 the decision.
23
24 Motion to approve 5 Village Way Watershed Special Permit as amended tonight by
25 JS, 2nd AA, vote unanimous. 6-0. (AA stated show location of test pit, and inverts
26 going out of catch basin.)
27
28
29 CONTINUED HEARING;
30
31 4. Toru Zahoruiko, Tara Leigh Development LLC,Map 62,Parcel 139-1 & 139-2
32 Watershed Special Permit, Common Driveway,Access Other Than Legal Frontage to
33 construct Lot 1 &Lot 2 to develop said lots for two single family dwellings within RTI
34 Zoning District.
35
36 Lincoln stated that he contacted Atty. Urbelis to ask if using one Special Permit for two
37 lots is acceptable? According to Atty. Urbelis its ok.
38
39 Lincoln stated there were no changes made to this plan since 2003. PB will use the
40 previous review done by VHB. Con/Com verified the wetlands on the plan are accurate.
41 Lincoln stated Watershed SP applies to both lots so long as the deed references the
42 information. Both applicants' deed will reference the proposed approved WS SP. See
43 page 1, P #3 in decision to address separate parcels 139-1, 139-2.
44
45 RR is Tara Leigh at old address? Tom Zahoruiko stated no,however, the current
46 application references the current address of 115 Carter Field Road. Property is legally
Minutes of the Meeting
December 4,2007
Page 3
DRAFT
REV 12/7/07
12/11/07, 12/13/07/12/17/07
1 two lots now. Applicant will get 2 copies of the Watershed SP decision one for each lot.
2 Bond $3,000.00 applies as an individual bond for each lot. Lot#2 applies to access other
3 than legal frontage decision only,
4
5 Motion by AA to close public hearing tonight for Tara Leigh Development,2"a by
6 JS,vote was unanimous. 6-0.
7
8 Motion by AA to approve a Watershed SP, Map #62, Parcel#139 and Lot I and Lot
9 2 as amended this evening, 2"1 by RR, vote was unanimous 6-0.
10
11 Motion by RR to approve a Shared Driveway SP for two lots references Map 62,
12 Parcel 139 and Lot 1 and Lot 2 as amended this evening, 2nd by AA, vote was
13 unanimous, 6-0.
14
15 Motion by AA to approve A Special Permit for Access Other Than Legal Frontage
16 for Map 62, Parcel 139. Lot 2, 2"d by RR, vote was unanimous 6-0.
17
18
19
20 CHAIR CALLED FOR CONTINUED HEARINGS:
21
22 4. Frederick McCarthy,357 Dale Street,Map 64,Parcel 24. Watershed Special
23 Permit to raze existing dwelling and replace with new dwelling attached to existing garage
24 within the R-1 Zoning District,
25
26 Ben Osgood Jr. stated there are no issues w/DEP and he's waiting for Com/Com to issue
27 the Order of Conditions. Mr. Osgood stated the applicant would take down the existing
28 house and put up a new dwelling behind the existing house. Old dwelling to be razed
29 after new dwelling is completed. Existing residence is on septic system, which will have
30 to be removed. New residence will be connected to Town sewer. Erosion control in
31 phases to protect wetland while razing house. May take out paved drive and existing
32 pool, which is phase 3 of erosion control. Will be lowering impervious area by 2,500.00
33 s.f.
34
35 RR asked if new house is on top of current septic now, connect sewer to old house first,
36 and then put in the new house connect the sewer and then try to get rid of septic tank?
37 Mr. Osgood stated that Mr. McCarthy wouldn't find this out until he locates septic
38 system, dig next to it to see if he can dig his foundation there. Need to be 10 feet from
39 front of house.
40
41 PB directed staff to put sequence of events into decision, Mr. Osgood to provide this
42 to Lincoln.
43
Minutes of the Meeting
December 4,2007
Page 4
DRAFT
REV 1217107
12/11/07, 12/13/07/12/17/07
1 RR doesn't want a failed septic there. Mr. Osgood inspected septic system in 1995,he
2 will have to determine if septic tank cannot remain before he pours foundation for house,
3 put this in decision.
4
5 Please note: John Simons took over as acting chair now at 7:50 pm.
6
7 Mr. Osgood stated that Mr. McCarthy doesn't want to commit to taking out the existing
8 pool now. Mr. McCarthy may have to come back for a minor modification to his
9 Watershed SP or at least come back in front of PB for discussion.
10
11 Mr. McCarthy doesn't want to commit now on whether he will remove the driveway and
12 pool.
13
14 RR wants to put a time frame on demolition of old house.
15
16 Lincoln stated that Gerry Brown is adamant that no one is living in both houses on this
17 project.
18
19 Motion by RN to close public hearing tonight, 2"d by RR, vote was unanimous.
20
21 AA stated there is a net reduction of 2,513 s.f. of impervious to be removed,. if that is the
22 intent of the applicant at this time he thinks it will be ok.
23
24 Lincoln stated see page#5, #9 of the decision for edits.
25
26 Motion by RN, 2"d by AA to approve a Watershed SP as amended tonight,vote was
27 unanimous 6-0.
28
29
30 CHAIR CALLED FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS:
31
32 6. Edgewood Retirement Community,Inc. 575 Osgood Street,Map 36,Parcels 3, 17, 18,
33 & 19. Determination of Repetitive Petition pursuant to Zoning Bylaw, Section 10.8
34 relative to the Special Permit Application before the Zoning Board of Appeal to alter an
35 existing dairy barn into two individual dwelling units.
36
37 7. Edgewood Retirement Community,Inc. 575 Osgood Street,Map 36,Parcels 3, 1.7, 18,
38 & 19. Site Plan Review Special Permit and Continuing Care Retirement Center Special
39 Permit to construct 22 new single-family attached and detached"cottages", 3 residential
40 units in existing structures,greenhouse,new 20-foot wide access roadway, and informal
41 dining area and 2-story Adult Social Day Program additions to the existing Continuing
42 Care Facility.
43
44 JS wants applicant to limit her presentation to 2 minutes on#6 explaining what has been
45 changed in the new application.
46
Minutes of the Meeting
December 4,2007
Page 5
DRAFT
REV 12/7/07
12/11/07, 12/13/07/12/17/07
1 #6. Stacey Furlong, of Linbeck, stated the changes include reduced number of units from.
2 27 to 25, new configuration of units to fit into restricted area because of wetland,made
3 grading changes, driveway reconfigured and trees added. Went from 8 units to 7. Area
4 G has two different style cottages with different footprint, saved some trees with road
5 configuration. Reviewed drainage requirements, condensed into large area now.
6
7 #7. New application submitted in November 2007, had traffic and fiscal impact study
8 waivers? Are they now accepted?
9
10 RN stated Planning staff would incorporate waivers into decision. ANR application
11 approval to consolidate into one lot. Stacey wants this included as condition into
12 decision.
13
14 Stacey submitted the new plans to VHB and VHB did their first review, they are minor in
15 nature. Drainage items will be addressed thru Con/Com. VHB needs more time to
16 respond to some comments.
17
18 JS asked was milk barn being torn down previously? No, structure was always going to
19 be restored. Applicant is preserving the two barns.
20
21 RN asked where are tress located in order to block out the mass of buildings located in
22 the front. Applicant put trees along the Osgood Street entrance driveway.
23
24 RR asked if all the property is being combined into one lot regarding the ANR
25 application? Stacey stated yes.
26
27 Peg Wheeler, Trustee of Reservation, addressed drainage issue onto Trustee's property.
28 Her consultant is looking at this new drainage issue and has not had time to evaluate it.
29 Is there no encroachment onto Conservation area with this new plan?
30
31 RN asked if applicant changed the process of drainage in that area? Stacey stated she
32 changed to process of drainage off site in this new application.
33
34 Lincoln stated this is with VHB now for their review.
35
36 RN wants Lisa Eggleston, wetland specialist, to look at Ms Wheeler's area and make sure
37 there is no rate of drainage runoff there.
38
39 Tony Capachietti, Engineer of Christiansen and Sergi, introduced multiple detention
40 areas that have to be maintained, however, its application on this site was questionable
41 because the location of driveways was of concern because of the plastic piping located
42 there. He removed storm water treatment away from units as much as possible.
43
44 Cathy Keys was present and stated that she is under contract to purchase a house located
45 on half mile hill. What is the plan for the existing driveway that comes from Osgood
Minutes of the Meeting
December 4,2007
Page 6
i
DRAFT
REV 12/7/07
12/11/07, 12/13/07/12/17/07
I Street and goes up the hill to her house? Stacey said it would be restored to be a paved
2 road with added trees.
3
4 Ms Keys stated there is an easement on the property now as an alternate driveway to her
5 property. JS said this easement has to be settled privately.
6
7 Lincoln stated the plan requires more information to satisfy the lighting issue. Lincoln
8 wants Mr. Capachietti to review it. Work w/applicant to create parking up I/2 Mile Hill,
9 (located at turn left at gate).
10
I I JK likes the look of where the trees are placed because the lights of oncoming cars will
12 not shine in people's eyes.
13
14 Lincoln to edit his reviewed document.
15
16 AA to read the 2nd page of decision. Findings of Fact: Oct. I I 1h 2007 ZBA application
17 unlike the previous application of requested variances shows 2 less units show 13 units
18 being reconfigured to avoid any variances being needed and contains requests only for
19 ZBA relief in the form of a SP and/or a finding to alter/rehabilitate the existing milk barn
20 a pre existing non-conforming structure which lies within the 100 foot setback perimeter.
21 Community Inc. Edgewood Retirement does not represent a so-called repetitive petition.
22 The PB voted on on Nov. 6, 2007 to confirm that the redesigned plan submitted by
23 Edgewood Retirement to the North Andover ZBA are in the opinion of the PB
24 substantially different in several material respects from the plans previously submitted by
25 Edgewood to the North Andover ZBA when variances were requested for buildings from
26 100 foot perimeter setback called for under Section 13 of the North Andover Zoning
27 Bylaw relative to Continuing Care Retirement Community. Accordingly, Edgewood
28 Retirement Community may proceed with SP application with the ZBA in accordance
29 with Section 10.8 of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw.
30
31 JS add change in drainage scheme and beef up landscaping to the decision,
32
33 RR stated if this was a Repetitive Petition then PB wouldn't want to look at it.
34
35 JS stated this is a determination request as to whether this is a Repetitive Petition or not?
36 The decision is that a motion should be made this is not a repetitive petition.
37
38 Motion by RR stating this application is not a Repetitive Petition because it is
39 substantially different from what was proposed before as per this decision amended
40 tonight, 2nd by AA, vote was unanimous. 6-0.
41
42 Stacey asked if the PB would vote tonight to approve the decision? PB stated no.
43
44
45 CRAM CALLED FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Minutes of the Meeting
December 4,2007
Page 7
DRAFT
REV 12/7107
12/11/07, 12/13/07/12/17/07
1
2 8. Park Street Redevelopment LLC,498 Chickering Road,Map 71,Parcel 26. Site
3 Plan Review Special Permit. Removal of existing structures of gas station and automobile
4 service station and build a new one-story retail building.
5
6 Steve Stapinski, Engineer, stated this project is before the PB for a redevelopment from a
7 gas station located on Rte. #125. Applicant is proposing to remove a mobile station,
8 canopies, in order to to construct a retail building, to contain 3 separate tenants and ATM.
9 Two curb cuts on 125, and curb cut on Park St.
10
11 Mr. Stapinski wants to eliminate Park St. curb cut and keep just two curb cuts on 125
12 only. There is a 10-foot drop from Park to the corner of Chickering Road, Based on
13 Bylaw applicant is required to have 26 parking spaces, they have 29 parking spaces, front
14 and side and space in rear for employees. Separate dumpsters on rear of site. Perimeter
15 will be landscaped by Chris Huntress,place major trees around perimeter, flowerbeds in
16 corner, and shrubbery along edges. If vehicles line up in queue there is an escape lane
17 around path from the queue, Drainage located on Chickering Road, or Franklin St. Take
18 roof water and infiltrate it, catch basin will collect water then discharge it when system is
19 overflowed.
20
21 Dick Landry, Architect, was present and presented a "colonial style" building, vinyl clap
22 board siding below, stone base around building, lighting over exit doors to comply with
23 building code. No drive-up ATM just a walk in ATM.
24
25 Lincoln stated concerns with access around entire property, and the drop on the property
26 down to 11 feet next to the drive thru facility. Concerning initial discussion with the Fire
27 Department and as long as the building is sprinkled and measures taken to ensure that
28 they have access to the site that they are generally satisfied with the layout. More
29 discussion is required because access distance wise are still prevalent to the drive-up.
30 This has been reviewed by Department heads.
31
32 VHB comments have not been submitted yet.
33
34 Mr. Stapinski stated the Fire Dept wants building filly sprinkled, and connect alarm to
35 central alarm,master box. Dumpster is 3 feet back from fence. Fence is 35 feet from
36 bldg. with 15 feet landscape buffer.
37
38 RR doesn't see pathway from middle school to the new site? Mr. Stapinski will put a set
39 of steps to connect from Park St. to site.
40
41 TS said he's thrilled that this property is being redeveloped. Owner hired a licensed
42 professional and ground is below contaminated level for commercial use. Underground
43 storage tanks have been removed.
44
45 1S wants the Health Department to look at this project.
Minutes of the Meeting
December 4,2007
Page 8
DRAFT
REV 1217107
12/11/07, 12113107112117107
1
2 Lincoln stated parking area for employees angle one another could Steve move this
3 around? Mr. Stapinski stated it's planed like that to have vehicles move back and forth.
4
5 AA wants traffic analysis done? Mr. Stapinski stated he wasn't planning to do one.
6 Maybe Dermott Kelly could do a small-abbreviated report.
7
8 AA stated that on the SE side of the site when vehicles are pulling into oncoming traffic
9 it looks as if it could be a lot to deal with?
10
11 RR stated the.coffee shop in the AM hours would be busy. Mr. Stapinski stated that no
12 other coffee shops would be placed in this area; there shouldn't be any competition.
13
14 JK pointed out an area that could get blocked up with vehicles.
15
16 JS wants examples of other buildings similar to this project in this area. Architect
17 couldn't think of any. Architecture may be similar as plaza where Fuddruckers is
18 located. JS wants another window added to dress up the building. Proposed dormers on
19 2nd floor are only for architectural appeal there is no proposed storage space on this floor.
20 Continued this until the next PB meeting.
21
22 No questions from the audience.
23
24
25 CHAIR CALLED FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS:
26
.27 S. RCG North Andover Mills,LLC, East Mill, 21 High Street and 120 Water Street,
28 Map 69,Parcel 1 and Map 68,Parcel 10.Preliminary Plan Approval for Planned Development
29 District(PDD) Special Permit for the redevelopment of 65,000 s.f. of existing buildings to 50 1-
30 and 2-bedroom apartments,renovation of 50,000 s.£ of existing space for commercial uses
31 allowed in the PDD district, construction of 137 new residential units, and associated
32 improvements to parking areas and landscaping.
33
34 Lincoln stated this is Phase 2 for conversion of vacant office space into residential units.
35 Atty. John Smolak was present to represent the applicant and introduced the members of
36 his team to the PB. Atty. Sm.olak stated he would work with the neighborhood
37 conservation guidelines as that would be appropriate at this time and would like to
38 receive the PB comments on this project after the presentation.
39
40 David Steinberg gave an overview. Existing buildings are not being taken down, they
41 will be restored. Uses are consistent w/PDD requirements. Continue to add residential,
42 20 residential in Bldg 3A and 11. Use Water Street lobby to put 70 apartments on top
43 floor. Expanding the parking lot from 30 spaces push parking lot to the pond. Wants to
44 expand the I-S uses as allowed. He reconfigured the parking areas there now and wants
45 364 more parking spaces on this site. Add new parking around the parking structure. 39
46 units along pond are residential. 98 new units on top of existing garage. 2-story garage
Minutes of the Meeting
December 4,2007
Page 9
DRAFT
REV 1217/07
12/11/07, 12/13/07/12/17/07
1 becomes 6 stories, which is 98 units. Around pond area will have anew deck,put in new
2 culvert because flooding has been a problem in the last couple of years. Restore path
3 around pond and open it to the public. Mr. Steinberg spoke w/-neighbors and met w/two
4 closest neighbors on Water Street. He then met w/Machine Shop Village neighbors
5 regarding how big the condo buildings will be? Where will they be placed? Elevation
6 plans were submitted to the PB in their packets.
7
8 John Connery, Connery Associates, spoke about fiscal impact of project. See page 2 for
9 summary of findings. Larger residential component. Considerable office component.
10 Look at entire project there is a net fiscal benefit $350,000.00 for annual basis. This
11 location is a typical location. One and two bedroom units, however, no 3-bedroom units
12 in this development. Project will produce$250,000 permitting fees. Project will add
13 $59M of total assessed valuation. Project is not low-income units.
14
15 Mr. Steinberg stated he wanted to work w/mill building in a modern and historical way,
16 keep the long windows. Original sketch of parking garage/with buildings over it has
17 gotten some feedback on it. Elevation of proposed garagelbuilding is 55 feet.
18
19 Architect stated how elevation was figured on garage building. Existing footprint will be
20 used for the garage.
21
22 TS stated he thinks this rendering of the condo building looks very square.
23
24 Chair wants the condos to look more like an apartment complex architecturally.
25
26 JS asked what concept could he grasp regarding architectural feel of the condo buildings.
27
28 Architect stated drawings show a traditional New England look for the condos, the idea is
29 to marry residential and factory esthetic look but not a factory fagade that happens to
30 have apartments behind it. Don't get fussy with ornate details.
31
32 Chair asked if the windows are similar to the mill building windows? Architect stated
33 some windows are larger than the mill building windows. He said maybe provide smaller
34 pains of glass in the windows.
35
36 PB stated would the existing garage allow the look of a brown stone such as in Boston?
37 Architect stated this is a first pass and he would like to incorporate the PB comments and
38 work w/clients to redevelop the look of the condos.
39
40 RR asked are you incorporating balconies? Architect stated yes, one apartment per
41 balcony.
42
43 Chair stated this looks like a plain apartment building; maybe do not add balconies, as
44 they may look bad.
45
Minutes of the Meeting
December 4,2007
Page 10
DRAFT
REV 1217/07
12/11/07, 12/13/07/12/17/07
1 JS stated look at the building next to the 4 Seasons Hotel in Boston, it strikes him as
2 stately(and expensive) but the Architect varied the look.
3
4 Chair wants Architect to do home work, maybe exclude balconies and include more
5 square footage into condo instead. Fire Dept. won't allow cookouts on the balconies.
6
7 Mr. Alex Steinberg (father) stated there are 2 approaches; modern condos that people like
8 because it has outdoor space (but owners clutter them up with grills)however, owners
9 can get sun outdoors. Other look is keeping the mill bldg. look. He's done this look in
10 Salem, MA. His company can go either way with the look of the condos. Modernist
11 look will be more popular in the market place.
12
13 JK likes the look of the sketch of the condos building.
14
15 AA stated if you tried to mimic the exact mill bldg. look then it would not do it justice.
16 Entertain a different material, and make a different look there. The mass of the structure
17 needs to be broken up.
18
19 RR thinks condos look boring and sterile.
20
21 TS stated there are residential homes surrounding this neighborhood; take some of the
22 ideas from the homes in this neighborhood. TS asked if the tree line is a fair
23 representation of how the trees are located? Architect stated it's just a fair representation.
24
25 RR wants to know if there is a green area on slope? Mr. Steinberg stated it's an existing
26 swale and it's going to be replanted and greener space. RR asked Mr. Steinberg to present
27 an elevation from High St. so it's not looking like the worst-case scenario.
28
29 JS stated is the parking in existing garage for residents of condos only? Mr. Steinberg
30 stated 750 spaces are now but 400 have to be used for a current easement for across street
31 businesses.
32
33 JS asked are garages used today? Mr. Steinberg stated it's mostly vacant,
34
35 RR asked what is the design of 39 units near the pond? Mr. Steinberg said it's the mill
36 concept design.
37
38 Ann Waldrep, 39 Prescott St. submitted a letter to AA to read into the record. Mrs.
39 Waldrep is a close abutter to where the proposed parking garage and condo expansion is
40 to take place. Her property is located just feet from the backside of the garage where two
41 levels of parking is being proposed.
42
43 AA read some of the letter. In 1984 Mr. Marty Spaggette planned to build a 3 level
44 parking garage, Mr. Spaggette stated he would require a Variance in order to build the
45 garage, however, it would make the garage closer to the ground which would mean that
Minutes of the Meeting
December 4,2007
Page 11
DRAFT
REV 12/7107
12/11/07, 12/13/07/12/17/07
1 the garage would be built closer to Mrs. Waldrep's property. They didn't want it closer
2 but it sounded like a better option. A Variance was granted thru the ZBA w/restrictions,
3 (decision attached) garage structure was restricted to no more than 2 levels. Mrs.
4 Waldrep feels now as she did in 1984 that a structure of that height so close to her
5 property would have a negative impact upon the value of Mrs. Waldrep's property.
6 Existing 2 level garage turned into an eyesore etc. Graffiti on the wall where it faces
7 Mrs. Waldrep's property,bricks have fallen off the wall and repairs have not been made.
8 Large opening in back of wall has been boarded up to keep vandals out and it was never
9 bricked up properly. Small patch of woods which runs between garage and sidewalk that
10 is overgrown and underbrush and poison ivy infringe on the sidewalk so that people have
11 to walk in the street in order to get by. It is littered with broken glass and beer cans and
12 trash that blows in or out or is thrown in, One time Mrs. Waldrep did call the owner to
13 complain when someone dumped a washing machine there. None of the property owners
14 have taken care of the backside of the parking garage. Mrs. Waldrep is asking that this
15 problem be addressed and I would like to see something done sooner rather than later.
16
17 Mrs. Waldrep requested that Mr. Steinberg clean up the garage wall, get it repaired
18 properly, clean up poison ivy, be fully landscaped, plant evergreens to screen the garage
19 for all seasons. She would expect these plantings to be maintained and be replaced
20 whenever necessary. She would like to see a well thought out plan by a landscape
21 Architect who would meet w/her so that she can review the plan and have some input in
22 the design. She feels these concerns are reasonable and she's asking that you put yourself
23 in her place and consider how you would feel if this property was yours. (Letter for the
24 record).
25
26 JS asked Lincoln to take a look at the decision and see if there is anything in the decision
27 that is applicable.
28
29 Phil Pelletier, 18 E. Water St., stated the size and scope of the existing garage bldg. is 470
30 feet long by 240 feet wide, it's close to 2 1/2 acres of footprint. Visual of elevation of
31 proposed condos needs to be considered. Surely North Andover doesn't have any 5 story
32 residential buildings. He feels it will look like the Bronx as far as the scope and size of it
33 and will not be in keeping with the rest of the Town. People on Prescott St. will have a
34 35-foot brick condo wall located feet from their property. He feels he would like to see a
35 topography map in order to determine the actual visual effect would have on the
36 neighborhood. We need to consider the density and impact of it visually. Folks on
37 Prescott St. and High St. beyond that which is clearly a residential neighborhood abutting
38 it to the E. is Walker Road where the buildings are not anything close to that kind of a
39 density and those folks on Walker Road would have a five story brick wall 30 to 40 feet
40 from their back doors and similarly for some of the homes on Prescott St. and at the
41 intersection of High and Prescott St. He's personally opposed to this project.
42
43 Ms. Jan Williams, 88 Elm St. stated that she's excited about this project. She wants to
44 ensure that in the condo government laws that the owner's occupy their units and that
45 owners won't rent them out. How will this burden our school system? How will this
Minutes of the Meeting
December 4,2007
Page 12
DRAFT
REV 12/7/07
12/11/07, 12/13/07/12/17/07
1 over burden the Fire and Police situation in our Town? People park along both sides of
2 Elm St. and they have opened up parking on one side, for one hour parking, good luck
3 trying to enforce this. Restaurant will need places for their customers to park,but people
4 aren't respectful now to this issue. Problem with traffic and speeding and she would like
5 to open up a discussion in conjunction with this;put a 4 way stop at Water St. and Elm
6 St.
7
8 TS has concerns about traffic on Elm St. DPW argued that with all new cars coming here
9 a 4 way stop sign would cause a real queue of vehicles down High St. as these people go
10 to work in the AM. The issue of the grade of road going up to Elm St. makes it not
11 favorable to a 4 way stop sign. The good news is with one side parking (and if people are
12 already parking in front of your house and the signs say they cannot park have them
13 towed) that with the increase density of traffic including the cars along High St. this
14 should cause vehicles to slow down as they are driving down High St.
15
16 Chair stated no matter how a project starts out if there is only a 2 way stop sign there
17 now, as time goes by there is still always an opportunity to make a change later on.
18
19 Mary Gravel, 34 Prescott Street, located directly across the street from the garage, stated
20 she could look across the street from her home and see the pond (which was a pretty site).
21 Then they put a garage up now she's going to look at brick walls, and they look like a
22 mill. If the potential owners of the proposed condos need to make$125,000.00 a year to
23 afford to live there if she could afford that she would live in another home and would not
24 spend her money on a mill. Prescott St. and High St. is narrow, where is the increase in
25 traffic to go? When One High St. was going full blast in the beginning you were lucky to
26 get out of those streets with all the traffic corning out of the parking spaces. Where will
27 the 500 cars go?
28
29 Fire and Ambulance is using Prescott and High Street because of the nursing home in that
30 area. How will the ambulance and fire truck get buy on High Street with all of the cars
31 parking along these streets? She doesn't want to see a brick wall nor does she want to
32 lose being able to see the pond during the change of seasons. Mrs. Waldrep has a
33 swimming pool located in her back yard, now she looses her privacy because of the
34 condos. Mrs. Gravel wouldn't buy one of these condos and she doesn't want to look out
35 her windows at it, and is not in favor of this project.
36
37 Liz Fennessey, 77 Elm St., stated that overall she supports the development in general
38 they respect the history of the site in the area. She is concerned about going for a modern
39 look,how does this fit in a neighborhood in a conservation district to avoid this? She's
40 looking for a positive outlook on the appearance but would the PB consider this? New
41 building is focused on the mill but consider how it does relate to the neighborhood? RCG
42 can help by helping us, she's had a master plan in place for a while and signage things,
43 they could do some things to lend a cohesive look to the area with some signs, on their
44 property or street signs in the neighborhood. Consider how the new building does relate
45 to the neighborhood with front on Prescott St. with not exactly Brown Stones but some
Minutes of the Meeting
December 4,2007
Page 13
DRAFT
REV 1217107
12/11/07, 12/13/07/12/17/07
1 town house type structure on the Prescott St. side to blend in with the scale and
2 appearance of the neighborhood? She looks forward to meeting to discuss these issues
3 where do we go with the design process and the neighborhood meetings?
4
5 Lincoln stated this is a preliminary conceptual design plan process tonight. The next step
6 is to submit a definitive SP plan, go over traffic analysis, architectural renderings,
7 drainage design, conservation restriction, open space, etc. Tonight's meeting is to see if
8 the PB is happy or dissatisfied with the design and offer guidance. This is an opportunity
9 for the audience to get involved with their comments to the developer along with the PB
10 to shape this as best to the community.
11
12 Chair said how long does a preliminary plan stay open? Link stated by the next PB
13 meeting. Keep this open until the next PB meeting.
14
15 Chair stated that neighbors would lose their view of the pond; the builder will work with
16 neighbors.
17
18 Atty. Smolak stated that between now and the 18th have the PB and the neighbors meet
19 and have further discussion on the design issues before coming back in on 18t1i. Work
20 w/Lincoln and send c-mails out to see who can come.
21
22
23 CHAIR CALLED FOR DISCUSSION:
24
25 Lincoln gave an update on the Cell Tower Committee. Issues to look at are: setback
26 issues, filing requirement,maintenance requirements, for time being looking at filing
27 requirements.
28
29 Chair stated that major areas are setbacks, and renewal of a SP these are the only SP
30 issued that are renewable.
31
32 JS framed the renewal of a SP as more of license renewal. Maintenance or submittal
33 requirements are also being looked at. Instead of doing annual RF requirements other
34 towns have been doing a structural analysis done on the Tower's themselves every 5
35 years?
36
37 RR stated that maybe we should have tower SP and what goes onto the towers. Those SP
38 that we grant for the antennas should remain indefinite until such time as the equipment
39 needs to be changed.
40
41 AA asked why do we have an annual maintenance done, we don't do that for buildings,
42 church towers etc.?
43
44 Chair stated if it was a monopole Tower then RR had a good point, but we only have one
45 in town.
Minutes of the Meeting
December 4,2007
Page 14
DRAFT
REV 12/7/07
12/11/07, 12/13/07/12/17/07
I
2 Lincoln stated regarding AA point, we have ice loading that over time these towers need
3 inspection because of that.
4
5 AA stated if you have a shopping mall like the N.A. shopping mall and you've got this
6 big roof there is ice loading, snow loading things and you have to maintain these
7 structures as you do any other structures.
8
9 Lincoln stated the difference is the fall zone.
10
11 RR stated if the fall zone is limited or established correctly so that if the tower fell down
12 no other property is going to be impacted then RR will agree with AA.
13
14 RR stated if fall zone is established correctly then let the buyer beware? If tower fell
15 over and it would hit somebody then clearly you have to establish different criteria.
16
17 RR stated make it idiot proof and establish the fall zone appropriately.
18
19 AA doesn't want to complicate it any more than it is already.
20
21 Lincoln compared North Andover Bylaw with other towns; our Bylaw is pretty good to a
22 certain extent, however, we/it could be simplified to a great deal.
23
24 RR stated as far as meeting the requirements of the FCC his understanding is that we're
25 not even close to what FCC requirements are? It's not appropriate to have individual
26 companies to put this equipment in because it's difficult to differentiate, if we're in the
27 monitoring business he would rather take the money from them and monitor everything
28 in Town once every 3 years or whatever. Let them pay for the monitoring exercises that
29 way you can monitor a spike with everything that is on it rather than trying to
30 differentiate;
31
32 Chair stated if applicant makes RF emission is X the technology is such that there is no
33 matter what they do there is a good possibility they cannot go above that and build for
34 that, if it's only 20 decibel then it's only going to operate at 20 decibels, (Please note that
35 Rick's voice was fading.)
36
37 Chair stated to put this item on the PB agenda of what things should be changed,put it in
38 writing and give it to Tim and he can bring it to the Cell Tower Committee, extend an
39 invitation to ZBA.
40
41 RR stated that the Cell Tower Committee is well intended, there are aspects on different
42 points of view that they are not aware of and it's our obligation to let them know what
43 aspects of the Bylaw don't work. Let them work toward solving any real problems.
44
45
Minutes of the Meeting
December 4,2007
Page 15
DRAFT
REV 1217107
12/11/07, 12/13/07/12/17/07
1
2 APPROVAL OF THE"MINUTES".
3
4 10. Minutes for the following Planning Board Public Meetings:
5 ❑ November 6, 2007
6 ❑ November 20,2007
7
8 Lincoln recommended holding off on approval of all the Minutes until the next PB
9 meeting. Jennifer stated that she's going to be out of the country for a while and won't
10 be able to edit the minutes,
I1
12
13 UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS:
14
15 11. December 18, 2007
16 January 15, 2008
17
18
19
20 Motion,by RR, 2°d JK to adjourn tonight meeting at approximately 10:35 PM, vote was
21 unanimous meeting adjourned.
22
23
24
25
26 By order of the Planning Board
27
28
29 Approved
30
31
32 AttachmentlZBA Special Permit decision for parking garage.
33
34
Minutes of the Meeting
December 4,2007
Page 16