HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-21 Planning Board Minutes Jen's edits 10/27/08
1 Town of North Andover
2 Planning Board
3 October 21, 2008
4 Minutes of the Meeting
5 7:00 PM
6
7
8 Members present: John Simons, Chairman
9 Jennifer Kusek, Clerk
10 Timothy Seibert,regular member
11 Michael Walsh,regular member
12 Courtney LaVolpicelo, alternate
13
14 Member absent: Richard Rowen, regular member
15
16 Staff present: Judy Tymon, Town Planner
17 Mary 1ppolito, Recording Secretary
18
19 Chair called the meeting to order at approximately 7:10 PM.
20
21
22 Postponements:
23 1 None
24
25 Chair called for the following General Discussion:
26
27 2 Elm Development Services, LLC: Ernie Gralia, 1275 Turnpike Street (a/k/a
28 Boston Hill)proposes to construct a CCRC containing 96-apartment community to be
29 located at base of Boston Hill site within V-R zoning district.
30
31 Paul Marchionda and Ernie Gralia are present tonight. Mr. Marchionda presented and
32 pointed out that there will be more open space as part of this project, we has a
33 Conservation restriction executed,but amend it thru the State. Mr..Marchionda stated
34 that Mr. Gralia's CCRC development will be located at the bottom right corner of the lot
35 instead of on the upper part of the lot.
36
37 Judy discussed issues w/Gerry Brown and agreed that Phase Development Bylaw applies
38 to subdivisions.
39
40 Does Mr. Gralia need to pull an Earth removal permit? Judy stated it depends on
41 volume; if volume fell within guidelines for Zoning then a SP would be required.
42
43 Chair stated if Mr. Marchionda doesn't do 5K yards then he would be ok. Mr.
44 Marchionda argued that the previous Building Inspector had a different opinion than
45 Gerry Brown.
46
Page 1
Jen's edits 10/27/08
1 Mr. Marchionda stated CCRC zoning overlay,perimeter setback of 100 feet in CCRC no
2 buildings can be within the green belt? Judy stated she doesn't consider a parking lot a
3 structure, perimeter setback except for road and utility crossing,parking lot is not
4 considered a structure. Chair stated we could make the argument that Mr. Marchionda
5 doesn't have the room to move the parking elsewhere; the building will be more than 100
6 feet from perimeter. Chair will soften up the parking in order to avoid a sea of concrete.
7
8 JK asked what if Rte. 114 is widened? There is a 10 feet easement in case it gets
9 widened, and Mr. Marchionda will leave enough room in case that happens.
10
11 Mr. Marchionda asked if building height is limited to 35 feet? Mr. Marchionda stated
12 with pitch roof on building the height is 44+ feet at the highest point. Mr. Marchionda is
13 asking the PB to determine this as an ornamental/architectural feature he wants it waived.
14 Mean grade of abutting of land to ridgeline to roof is definition. Judy stated tower
15 ornament would be excluded from elevation. Take citing to the top of the ridgeline not to
16 the top of the orientation. Chair stated we are allowed a bit of flexibility in this case.
17 Judy to check what rooflines are at Edgewood?
18
19 Section 13.5D3 in zoning. Mr. Marchionda stated this is allowed in V-R district, see use
20 regulations it shows an N check this out may be a type-o. Parking in table, setback along
21 Rte.114 front yard setback are 100 feet. Front setbacks in Industrial, first 50 feet should
22 not be used as parking. Will have contiguous 20+ acres for open spaces.
23
24 Chair stated this is a much better project, this is a good alternative.
25
26 JK will do a site visit, top of building looks so long, try to be creative with the parking.
27 Mr. Marchionda stated that architect is trying to mask the parking.
28
29 MW assumes this will go thru the full application process. Johnson St. issue of traffic and
30 signaling, a light crossing, this may be a project for Mr. Gralia to do. Traffic studies done
31 in 2002 are not current for traffic in 2008, number of elderly people at this busy site.
32 This is a State highway so developer may have some pull. Johnson St. could qualify for a
33 traffic light; Mr. Gralia would put the light right at Johnson St. near a courtyard area.
34 Ambiguity lays in the fact that Mr. Marchionda doesn't want to push the building back to
35 the upper portion of the lot, he wants to keep it on flat land.
36
37 Chair said Judy look at existing parking along Rte.114. Chris Huntress will buffer the
38 visual affect along Rte. 114.
39
40 Chair called for the following General Discussion :
41
42 3 PBJ Development, 1.79 Hillside Street, applicant proposes to re-construct a
43 residential structure into a professional office building pursuant to Residential Adaptive
44 Re-use Bylaw within R-3 zoning district.
45
u
u
't
Page 2
.Ten's edits 10/27/48
1 Judy stated applicant came before the Town to talk about change of use and possible use
2 of the adaptive re-use bylaw, this building is currently a residential building situated in
3 back of Cross Roads Plaza, will share some parking with existing parking lots, if
4 applicant were to demolish the existing entire building it would require a zoning variance,
5 issue of handicapped accessibility.
6
7 Atty. Peter Shaheen purchased property in March 08, it's a 6 room cape,built 1975, lot
8 size is 20,195 s.£. Atty. Shaheen will change the use to commercial, professional offices,
9 look at New England Dermatologist building as an example.
10
11 This is an old building, trying to adapt it would be difficult, however, it makes more
12 sense to raze the building to the foundation and replace it with a new building. Wants
13 support from PB.
14
15 Chair is opposed to this because this is an absolute perversion of adaptive re-use bylaw.
16 Bylaw is meant.to put commercial uses as buffer zones it's not to tear them down, he
17 doesn't see how this qualifies under the bylaw.
18
19 Atty. Shaheen got input from various boards in Town that indicated that it would be
20 preferable to put a new building there,because using the current structure wouldn't be
using new structure techniques or to make ADA compliant.
21 preferable to
22
23 Bylaw is on the books, Atty. Shaheen stated look at Peters St. and Rte. 114 which abuts
24 Burrton's Restaurant it's the only adaptive re-use, people are not taking advantage of the
25 bylaw,but it seems impossible to use the bylaw. Atty. Shaheen would like to comply
1
26 with current codes and current zoning. He now goes to ZBA for a SP and then back to
27 the PB for a Site Plan review.
° 28
29 CL stated if you choose to use the existing residence you would run the risk of some of
30 the residences looking like the ones located on Rte. 114(they aren't the nicest looking
31 things) Courtney thinks it would be better to have a new looking building.
32
33 TS stated this would be just one individual parcel affected would this be spot zoning?
34
35 Chair stated when rezoning from residential to commercial creates the idea that is who
36 ever is next to that has a problem. You've just marched the line-up the street to the next
37 house. This is markedly different from what is currently there. Moving a line and
38 pushing it into a residential area, if neighbors came forward they may have some things
39 to say.
40
41 Atty. Shaheen stated he's trying to make it look as residential as he can. It's a two story.
42 cape now approximately 1,700 s.f. Would have a larger footprint if rebuilding it.
43
44 What is total square footage? 4K s.£ is higher than a 25 %increase. Chair said bylaw
45 states what you can do.
46
Page 3
Jen's edits 10/27/08
1 JK wants to do more research w/bylaw, she's not crazy about encroaching and pushing
2 commercial onto that road.
3
4 MW stated he can see the purpose of the bylaw no more than 25 % of existing structure
5 can be demolished,he knows this property, if this was located on Rte. 114 then he would
6 be more amenable to this.
7
8 Atty. Shaheen asked if he stays within the parameter of the bylaw would he have the
9 support of the PB?
10
11 CL asked would you downsize the building from 4K s.£ to something else? Atty.
12 Shaheen stated if he has to he would.
13
14 CL asked if he could prevent the entrance onto Hillside Road? Atty. Shaheen stated it
15 would make it more difficult for people to wind their way thra and unsafe to get to their
16 doctor appointment (if a doctor's office were to utilize the commercial space).
17
18
19 Chair called for CONTINUED HEARING:
20
21 4 DF Parker Company,LLC, 500 Sutton Street, Map 74, Lot 1-B. Site Plan
22 Review Special Permit to permit the construction of a 20,540 s.f. two-floor masonry and
23 steel pet care facility and a Watershed Special Permit for the construction of a detention
24 basin in the Non-Discharge buffer zone. Meeting kept open, decision drafted.
25
26 Atty. Mann was present tonight. Judy wants to address the memo from Gene Willis;
27 monitoring wells, removal of sump, storm scepters, etc. Judy stated that applicant
28 addressed these issues; submitted a new plan and all of Gene Willis' issues are addressed.
29
30 Chair stated that Richard, Jennifer, Tim and himself are the only 4 PB members who can
31 vote on this project.
32
33 Atty. Mann stated that Richard Rowen would read the"Minutes" in order to vote at the
34 Nov. 12"' Special meeting. Minor grading and drainage structure is within Watershed
35 District and submitted a site plan that requires a couple of waivers. Keep this meeting
36 open until Nov. 12th. No questions from the PB tonight.
37
38 Judy included drafts of decisions. $lOK bond amount. See special conditions. Four PB
39 members to meet on Nov. 12`h at the DPW at 7PM.
40
41
42 Chair called for CONTINUED HEARING:
43
44 5 Robert H. Farnum,Jr., 673 Great Pond Road, map 63, Parcel 27. Watershed
45 Special Permit to resurface rear patio and 347 s.£ of heated impervious surface area will
Page 4
Jen's edits 10/27/08
1 be added to existing patio to include a 64 s.f. spa located within the non-discharge zone
2 of the watershed. Draft decision for Oct. 21 meeting.
3
4 Judy stated that stronger language is required from wetland scientist. Judy researched
5 and found a statement with lighter language from a wetland scientist, (regarding Marble
. 6 ridge Road application) has a less restrictive statement, Judy talked w/VHB and they
7 were referring to the Treadwell development. Actually, 673 Great Pond Road isn't as
8 large a project etc. Judy drafted a decision. Judy read erosion control measures need to
9 be put in place she read this from the decision.
10
11 Dan Vasconsolos, Wetland Scientist of Wetland Inc.; stated there is existing indoor pool
12 in the house, everything goes into Town sewer system and spa would be connected to this
13 same pool, water will be going into Town sewer. Only ranoff will be from new pavers,
14 200 feet of buffer, which is outside of jurisdiction of Con/Com.
15
16 Judy stated this is a flat area, very little slope.
17
18 Motion by MW to close public hearing, 2nd by TS, vote was unanimous 4-0.
19
20 Chair stated he is excusing himself he will not vote on this one.
21
22 JIB stated change application filing dates on draft decision.
23
24 Motion by MW to approve Watershed SP as amended, 2nd by JK, vote 4-0. Simons did
25 not vote on this one.
26
27
28 Chair called for PUBLIC HEARING:
29
30 5 John Cahill— 166 Salem Street, Map 37D, Parcel 21. Definitive Subdivision
31 known as The Captain Nathaniel Berry Homestead, consisting of a new 292 foot long
32 roadway and 3 new proposed lots each containing 25,000 s.f. & existing lot containing
33 32, 174 s.f. with existing single-family dwelling within R-3 zoning district. Postponed
. 34 until.Oct. 21.
35
36 6 John Cahill— 166 Salem Street, Map 37D, Parcel 21.Watershed Special Permit
37 to construct a new 292 foot long roadway and 3 new single-family homes,portions of the
38 roadway, one house and a storm water detention/infiltration basin will be within the non-
39 discharge buffer zone. Postponed until Oct. 21,
40
41 Judy read her review; There are a number of waivers,minimum width 40' as opposed to
42 50', minimum pavement waived to 20 feet. Reviewed by VHB, and applicant addressed
43 their issues. Look at applicant summary and not all of the VHB comments. Judy did a
44 site visit w/ applicant's engineer, show plan with tree scape, look at storm water detention
45 system, etc. Safety issue in terms of waiving the right of way.
46
Page 5
r
Jen's edits 10127103
1 Phil Christenson, Engineer,presented; 2 lots exist at present, lot w/an existing house,
2 another lot to the right on the property exists because applicant did a Form A. Tree issue
3 is important consideration,minimize impervious cover. This is also in watershed.
4
5 He likes 20-foot wide road, 270 feet in length of road is proposed. He submitted a proof
6 plan with same profile, can't tell if there is too much difference. Don't get any greater lot
7 yield when asking for waivers. Will do tree plantings on property rather than on right of
8 way.
9
10 Chris Huntress presented. He submitted a landscape plan tonight. Existing house is
11 historic, well-detailed fence and setting is good. Narrow pavement to 20 feet and
12 eliminate sidewalks because they are in the Watershed. A beach tree was pointed out and
13 by narrowing the pavement the beach tree will be saved. Stonewall is existing now,.grade
14 back and lose trees on front of property,mirror image of picket fence across frontage on
15 entry drive.
16
17 JK asked what is s.f of houses? Approximately 2800 s£ & 3200 s.f.
18
19 Mr. Christenson has issue to establish were wetland is, it's off property,but located
20 wetland on neighbors property thru GPS site. 150 feet off site work is where stonewall is
21 located. Jennifer Hughes, Con/Com did a site visit and is satisfied that the wetland is
22 where Mr. Christenson said it is. It's in the non-discharge buffer zone.
23
24 Chair asked how-many square feet of the lots shifted when you moved the right of way
25 out? Mr. Christenson stated 32K s.f. lot and other two lots are 25K s.f.
26
27 Chair asked if property abuts non-developed parcel? Mr. Christenson stated extend the
28 roadway. 12 feet grade change from cul de sac to the end it's very steep,would need
29 deep cut if extending the roadway.
30
31 Chair feels this is aggressive stress on property due to size of project. But you have put
32 some good thought into project.
33
34 Judy read VHB comments, not too many issues w/technical side of storm water. See
35 VHB review.
36
37 Peter Devlin, abutter, received legal notices and wanted information regarding this
38 project. Chair explained the guidelines that have to do with groundwater issues are to
39 protect community; a lot of what PB does is confronting the waivers regarding ground
40 water issues. Chair stated ask any question you would like to.
41
42 Two separate hearings one is to create a subdivision on this property, PB evaluates this
43 regarding bylaw and PB rules and regulations deal with road width, storm water,
44 groundwater issues, outside consultant is hired to review all applicants designs etc.
45 Waivers don't have to do with ground water. They have to do with roadway issues etc.
46
Page 6
Jen's edits 10/27/05
1 Mr. Devlin got another notification regarding moving something off topography? Chair
2 stated engineer for project states pre and post development, are reviewed. Chair
3 explained the watershed and how water sheds into our lake.
4
5 Charlie Foster, asked does this require a variance from ZBA? Chair stated no.
6
7 Keith Mitchell, 188 Salem St., commended Judy for improving communications with
8 abutters etc, and for making a site visit as well. Lots of huge old trees existing. Mr.
9 Cahill has taken a personal interest and plans to stay on the property as well, it's a
10 commendable plan. He would support the-road width waiver. The more he can push the
11 house away 10 feet from his property he will support this. Two other trees that are not on
12 the map, these trees were not to be disturbed he would like to keep these to create
13 screening for his house. Very tall pine tree on his property on corner, issue is if you are
14 going to remove soil that will undermine the 49-foot pine tree. If this is going to be dug
15 out 2 or 3 feet then it creates an issue of stability for this tree. He's pleased with this
16 project.
17
18 Chair wants to arrange a site visit.
19
20 MW said DPW recommended non-landscaped cul de sac but VHB recommends the
21 opposite?
22
23 JK asked who is responsible for maintaining an entrance to the subdivisions? Chair stated
24 residents maintain it.
25
26 MW stated switch location of detention pond with lot 4? Judy stated that's the lot in the
27 watershed.
28
29 Mr. Christenson stated its infiltration pond as well as detention pond, difficulty not much
30 room in front of property to take drainage.
31
32 CL would you put in pervious pavement? DPW would not approve a roadway of,
33pervious pavement. Convince DPW.
34
35 Judy read a memo from DPW stating the waivers they opposed.
36
37 Mr. Christenson can do an 8:00 AM site visit this Saturday. PB to pull into driveway of
38 existing house.
39
40 Keep this meeting open.
41
42 Judy advised the PB that 500 Sutton Street, dog kennel project meeting would be held on
43 Nov. 12'h at the DPW at 7:00 PM.
44
45 Chair stated he would look at petitions and divvy it up. Get an extension for subdivision
46 if necessary.
i
Page 7
Jen's edits 10/27/08
1
2
3 Chair called for PUBLIC HEARING:
4
5 6 David Pickles, Jr. 31.4 Salem Street, Map 37B, Parcel 68 ----Watershed Special
6 Permit to add a mudroom & 2 car garage to existing residential dwelling in the Non-
7 Discharge zone within R-3 zoning district_
8
9 Charlie Foster presented, his applicant received variance for frontage exception area from
10 ZBA, and ANR plan was done to change a lot line. Reduced frontage to 50 feet.
11 Proposed work is within non-discharge zone. VHB reviewed plan. Wetland scientist
12 flagged plan.
13
14 Judy read review.
15
16 Mr. Foster complimented Judy Tymon, and Mary 1ppolito, for being very helpful and told
17 the Chair that he had a good staff. Because a variance was granted of 33 feet now the
18 non-discharge line is moved and proposed construction lies within this zone. Lot is
19 narrow, left drops off towards wetlands, proposed addition is on highest part of lot, and
20 language is stated within decision from ZBA. Arial photo showing several acres,
21 indicating the rear of Mr. Pickles' property is 600+/- feet to the nearest dwelling on Dale
22 Street. This is in harmony with the bylaw. Garage and mudroom will have concrete
23 floors; dig out with large backhoe, material placed outside of proposed foundation,
24 backfilled completely in 5 days. Less than 1-foot grade distance. Equipment can use
25 existing driveway with less disturbance than normal installation. Run perimeter drain
26 around foundation with 4 inch pipe one foot a one half stone base and gutters on building
27 will have down spouts on four corners and water will be disbursed in sand base. Town
28 sewer exists and all utilities are already brought in.
29
30 Judy has a copy from. Arrow Wetland Scientist, stating that they don't have any issues.
31
32 JK asked what is square footage now ? Mr. Foster stated 774 s.f. and total floor space
33 1850 s.f.
34
35 TS asked what is ZBA variance for 150 feet? Judy explained applicant needs 3 times the
36 required lot area, a waiver was submitted because applicant didn't have 3 times the lot
37 area.
38
39 Chair asked where will run off go? Mr. Foster stated goes into perimeter drain, come
40 down the down spouts and empty into trench near garage.
41
42 Engineer in 1990 did perk tests, they dug a test pit and it showed a rate of 2 minutes for
43 water to drop one inch.
44
45 Chair asked is the rest impervious always been there? Mr. Foster stated it's been there
46 for many years. Just paving the last 4 feet to taper up the garage floor.
Page 8
3V
Jen's edits 10/7/08
1
2 When creating the new lot line, you will have to go thru the back of the property? Mr.
3 Foster stated it's Mr. Pickles lot too and he created an access easement.
4
5 Chair asked Judy to look at bylaw about access.
6
7 Deep this meeting open. Probably close it at the next meeting, draft a decision.
8
9 Mr. Foster stated it's difficult to work on construction with hay bales too near, VHB
10 didn't designate how far? Will put hay bales on other side of property, he doesn't feel
11 this is necessary because land slopes and that's where run off will come.
12
13 Chair will address this at next PB meeting.
14
15 Chair called for PUBLIC HEARING:
16
17 S Bank of America, 154 Main Street, Map 41, Parcel 33 — Site Plan Review
18 Special Permit to expand existing parking by removing the rear drive-through aisle and
19 increase the parking area to accommodate an additional six parking spaces for a total of
20 18 parking spaces within G-B zoning district.
21
22 Judy read her review,will increase impervious parking area. This is big improvement in
23 terms of removing an old drive up window and making 6 more parking spaces. They
24 went to Con/Com and will go back tomorrow, asking for denser planting behind retaining
25 wall. Wants poured concrete wall, abutters concerned about appearance of wall. VHB
26 required more detail on several things. Engineer will submit a more detailed plan tonight.
27
28 John Cavanaugh, Cavanaugh Consulting, thanked Judy for her helpfulness. Section 8.3
29 asks for review when increasing parking,he's improving an existing non-compliant and
30 inefficient facility. DPW asked for more improvement in the right of way today. Mr.
31 Cavanaugh will submit his comment to VHB and will comment to Judy tonight. Closing
32 one of the curb cuts, and just have entrance exit to parking and exit only on West side.
33 Make handicapped spaces compliant. Increasing number of parking spaces by moving
34 existing guardrail back 10 or 15 feet and will realign angle parking on back. He's going
35 to Con/Com tomorrow night. Included landscape plan include mature trees etc. for Judy's
36 review. Placed more landscaping around perimeter of building. Submitted storm water
37 management.
38
39 TS asked because the next door florist shop has recently gone in, have you noticed a lot
40 of increased traffic activity as a result of that?
41
42 At last Con/Com meeting owner of florist shop explained a lot of people are actually
43 hitting each other in the parking lot, which has gone on quite a lot. Worried about
44 retaining wall and how it would affect Rennie's Florist property? They will work this out
45 with Rennie's Florist. They will have to work out the impact on the construction and
46 work this out with Rennie's.
Page 9
Jen's edits 10/27/08
1
2 Chair stated this is great that the bank is doing this. If you can do as well as what
3 Rennie's Florist did it would be a big plus. He's glad you are enhancing the landscaping
4 all around the building.
5
6 TS asked any you can make exit the entrance? Wider entrance is on Water St., it's a
7 two way in and out. In brick walkway the one that crosses the street, what happens is,
8 people don't stop. They come down Main St, from the library direction then take right
9 onto Water Street then into parking lot in one swift motion.
10
1.1 Engineer stated it really isn't wide enough.
12
13 Chair wants Judy to have Gene Willis take a look at this? The problem is three streets
14 coming together and there's the island,
15
16 Water St. is getting congested,but people are parking on both sides of Water St., and you
17 can't pass. Engineer stated look at how island is configured and look at pedestrian rules.
18
19 Chair wants to keep this open until the next PB meeting. Judy has issue that needs to be
20 reviewed such as how retaining wall will work?
21
22
23 APPROVE MINUTES OF THE MEETING:
24
25 October 7, 2008 Minutes.
26
27 Motion by JK to approve the October 7, 2008 "Minutes", 2nd by TS, vote unanimous 4-0.
28 Simons abstained from voting.
29
30 Judy stated that the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission would be happy to speak to
31 the PB at their December meeting.
32
33 PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS:
34 November 4, 2008 meeting cancelled due to Presidential election.
35 CHECKING AVAILABILITY of PB members to schedule a Special Meeting in
36 November.
37 November 18, 2008
38 December 2, 2008
39 December 16, 2008
40
41
42 Mary to send PB e-mail relative to this Saturday 8:00 AM site visit to 166 Salem
43 Street, Chris Huntress needs to bring coffee!
44
45 Motion by TS to adjourn, 2nd by JK, vote was unanimous, meeting adjourned at
46 approximately 9:45 PM.
Page 10
Jen's edits 10/27/05
1
2
3 By order of the Planning Board
4
S
6 Approved
7
8
9
Page 11
� 7