The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-03-03 Planning Board Minutes Judy took Minutes Mary made additional edits DRAFT 3131/09 4/6/09 Mary's edits approved 4/7/09 1 Town of North Andover 2 Planning Board 3 March 3, 2009 a 4 Minutes of the Meeting 5 7:00 PM 6 7 Members present: John Simons, 8 Jennifer Kusek, Clerk 9 Richard Rowen, regular member 10 Timothy Seibert,regular member 11 Michael Walsh, regular member 12 13 Member absent: Courtney LaVolpicelo, alternate 14 15 Staff present: Judy Tymon, Town Planner 16 17 Staff absent: Mary Ippolito, Recording Secretary 18 19 20 Chair announced he would hear MetroPCS draft decision first. 21 22 POSTPONEMENTS: 23 none 24 25 DISCUSSION: 26 Traffic Signal: 27 ® Mr. Thomson, 210 Holt Road, applicant has installed signalizatinn at Holt Road 28 and Rte. #125, as required by the Board of Health — site assignment and the Planning 29 Board's Site Plan Review decision. There are remaining funds to be placed in an escrow 30 account to be used for future changes to the installed traffic signals. Mr. Thomson to 31 attend. 32 33 Judy did not get a response from Mr. Thomson. Chair: can get his attention by telling him 34 PB isn't going to give him some money back. JT: he may be on vacation. 35 36 DISCUSSION: 37 ® JT: would the PB like to have a discussion on March 16th about the wireless 38 bylaw? The Committee would Iike to come to the next PB meeting to discuss changes. 39 Chair said whoever comes should not have the intent to fight. It's got to be a good faith 40 discussion on both sides. PB would like to see something submitted in advance by 41 Committee. Yes,put it on March 16th agenda. 42 43 44 Page 1 March 3, 2009 Minutes Judy took Minutes Mary made additional edits DRAFT 3/31/09 4/6/09 Mary's edits approved 4/7/09 1 2 DISCUSSION: 3 0. Chair: regarding down town overlay district? Does it eliminate or modify with 4 setbacks? JT: there is language in there it's overlay district language about mixed use 5 and dimensional language. 6 7 Chair: start with a redevelopment mentality and then build the zoning around what you 8 think you are going to be able to do. Look at it as a parcel by parcel basis. To just think 9 you are going to just tweak a few things is going to make it better, it's riot! Send PB a 10 version of it and ask Curt to come to our BP meeting. 11 12 13 Chair called for CONTINUED MEETINGS: 14 15 ® John Cahill— 166 Salem Street, Map 37D, Parcel 21. Definitive Subdivision 16 known as The Captain Nathaniel Berry Homestead, consisting of a new 292 foot long 17 roadway and 3 new proposed lots each containing 25,000 s.f & existing lot containing 18 32, 174 s.f with existing single-family dwelling within R-3 zoning district. Meeting not 19 closed. Waiver on file until March 31, 2009 final..plaq su.bxnitted 21118/09 20. 21 JT: has a copy of 2-page review document that she had put together, and a memo from 22 Gene Willis on 3` page, and copy of E-mail received from Chief Martineau. 23 24 Phil Christensen, Engineer, was present,there are two lots there now and existing house 25 and form A lot on the right,provided a 50-foot right of way, asked for a wavier on 26 roadway construction and basically have a driveway. JT: there should be a plan showing 27 without waivers the 3 lots similar to what was shown with the 4 lots. 28 RR: work to make sure plan is totally conforming 29 don't need another sheet showing cul de sac 30 sheet 1 is fine showing road not built according to Town standards 31 Deed restriction 32 Decision will be recorded 33 add another rain garden where depression was 34 Salem St. is at crest and is super-elevated towards cemetery 35 flow goes to 2 catch basins on either side of entrance 36 Gene wants driveway to go downhill. Match edge of existing pavement and then 37 go downhill 38 line of easement 39 will wall come down? 40 keep the stonewall if possible 41 42 Address: 43 Chief Martineau prefers 166 Salem St. address. 44 Residential Sprinklers: Page 2 March 3, 2009 Minutes Judy took Minutes Mary made additional edits DRAFT 3131/09 416109 Mary's edits . approved 417109 1 Order of Conditions: required them for all subdivisions 2 life safety issues 3 feels very strongly that if sprinklers are properly installed they save lives 4 has no problem wlno hydrant and no cul de sac, show this in Order of Conditions 5 if more than 50%re-construction,would like sprinklers, life safety. 6 7 Changes to be made to plan: 8 add small rain garden at depression 9 10 Sprinklers: 11 Chair has no problem not requesting sprinklers for existing house but would like 12 to have..2 new houses sprinkled. 13 14 Jack Cahill: Existing house has been cleaned up, no constriction done. Tiffany Lane 15 sprinkler installation was done at request of previous Fire Chief, as Tiffany Lane is 16 located far out country. Engineer has located fire hydrants at two locations on 166 Salem 17 St., and Mr. Cahill prefers not to install sprinklers. In consideration of time and distance 18 rational it seems that to sprinkle 166 Salem St. property would be unreasonable. 19 20 Chair: there are other circumstances that PB would ask for a structure to be sprinkled, not 21 just distance, additional factors as well were considered such as a very long driveway. 22 23 TS: are sprinklers an expense issue? 24 25 Mr. Cahill: thinks it's unreasonable,he doesn't see any benefit to sprinklers, they are 26 deficient rather than efficient. 27 28 Chief Martineau: feels strongly about approving sprinklers, Tiffany Lane being the first 29 one because it was so far out,there were also additional residential structures in far out 30 areas that were sprinkled, also, Leanne Drive which is located next door to the Fire 31 Department was sprinkled. If sprinklers are properly installed then they don't cause 32 problems. 33 34 TS: in general has no issues 35 36 RR: in general has no issues 37 38 JK: in general has no issues 39 40 MW: in general has no issues,has no problem requesting sprinklers 41 42 Chair: thanked Mr. Cahill for time and effort he put into this, keep this open and draft a 43 decision for the next meeting. 44 Page 3 March 3, 2009 Minutes Judy took Minutes Mary made additional edits DRAFT 3/31109 4/6/09 Mary's edits approved 417109 I m John Cahill— 166 Salem. Street, Map 37D, Parcel 21. Watershed Special 2 Permit to construct a new 292 foot long roadway and 3 new single-family homes, 3 portions of the roadway, one house and a storm water detention/infiltration basin will be 4 within the non--discharge buffer zone. Meeting not closed. Waiver on file until March 31, 5 2009. final plan submitted 2118/09 Chair said: keep this open and draft a decision. 6 7 8 DISCUSSION: 9 Sign Bylaw: Atty. John Smolak to present: 10 Chair: In a couple of cases we were able to waive filing requirements, notion of waiving 11 zoning related dimensional requirements is not something we've ever had the right.to do, 12 doesn't want to take authority that the Board should not have. 13 14 Atty. Smolak: is representing RCG, 21 High Street applicant. They have been going thru 15 the multiple phase development for redevelopment of the East Mill site. Already gone 16 thru 2 phases, about another 2 phases away from completion. He wants a master 17 comprehensive plan for this site. RCG has been working w/Community Development to 18 create a better understanding of the signage plan for Machine Shop Village. Chair: RCG 19 is going to make a contribution to Community Preservation Committee for that signage 20 as well. Because this property is within the I-S zoning district it enabled RCG to propose 21 a PDD. He's provided a master plan and is referencing the last two pages regarding types 22 of signs,but in that master plan it didn't pay particular attention to the signage 23 provisions. 24 25 RR: As part of the overlay district, can a mini sign bylaw be set up within the district? 26 JT: Machine Shop Village is a historical conservation district, so it doesn't have a 27 corresponding overlay it governs appearance, get permission for certain exterior 28 improvements. 29 30 Chair: who is the granting authority for sign bylaw: JT: it's Building Commissioner and 31 he issues the building permit. 32 33 Atty. Smolak requested that the PB approve the sign bylaw and condition it accordingly. 34 - Our Bylaw has a waiver condition that allows PB to waiver requirements. See Section 35 11-5 as opposed to Section 6, 36 37 JT: summarized that Atty. Smolak is asking the PB to go beyond Section 16 the Overlay 38 District and waive the requirements. Atty. Smolak: yes, it's under the guise of a SP so if 39 PB doesn't like what they see then condition it accordingly. 40 41 JT: there should be consistency in design standard for Machine Shop Village and with 42 our down town area. 43 44 TS: RCG is doing a great job and he's inclined to help them out. Page 4 March 3, 2009 Minutes Judy took Minutes Mary made additional edits DRAFT 3131109 416109 Mary's edits approved 417109 1 2 JK: agreed. 3 Atty. Smolak will file the article. 4 5 6 7 CHAIR CALLED for MetroPCS first: 8 ® Metro PCS, 70 Elm Street, Special Permit,proposes to install 6-paneI antennas 9 at a centerline of 80' in existing church steeple and related BTS cabinet within R-4 10 zoning district. Waiver on file until March 31, 2009. 11 12 Tim Seibert recused himself from voting on this petition. 13 14 Chair and PB.will edit draft decision: 15 16 Bill McQuade was present, stated he submitted a report which complied w/8.95di4 17 (location filing requirements of Bylaw) showing a map of other pre-existing and 18 approved wireless facilities in N. Andover and outside of N. Andover with one mile from 19 it's boundary. List of 40 sites were compiled by his RF Engineers. Some sites actually 20 contain two facilities in some cases. Note by Judy#16 should be Middleton. 21 22 Bill Pastuszek,Newton, MA, real estate appraiser, presented a real estate study. He 23 viewed 70 Elm Street site and collected 'information on some of the competitive sites and 24 prepared the study presented to the PB tonight. First part contains analysis and second 25 part contains data as back up for the report regarding antenna in church steeple. Reached 26 conclusion that there is no impact on real estate value (report for the record). Look at 27 location D in Newton, Lincoln St., mixed uses in addition to a Church, that steeple 28 contains communication equipment within the steeple but has an antenna plainly visible 29 on the top. Looked at condo sales and single-family sales; in looking at the sales in close 30 proximity to the Church he saw no real difference in prices based on market. 31 32 MW: in your methodology did you include talking with realtors,brokers, assessors, home 33 owners, and were they all included in each of these sites? Mr. Pastuszek, in some cases it 34 depends on the site. Newton site he spoke to brokers, assessors, appraisers, homeowners 35 in close proximity, spoke to church secretary, inquired if they received any feedback 36 about the installation and he didn't. 37 38 JK: how long have the towers existed? Mr. Pastuszek: Newton towers have been there 6 39 or 7 years. Location of tower on Mass Ave. in North Andover that tower is less then 2 40 years old. Tower in Haverhill 4 or 5 years. 41 42 Chair: PB is about to close the public hearing and asked that if members in the audience 43 wished to make a comment to please make the comment relative to something that the PB 44 has not heard already or that it pertains to one of the topics raised this evening. Page 5 March 3, 2009 Minutes i 5. Judy took Minutes Mary made additional edits DRAFT 3/31/09 416109 Mary's edits approved 417109 1 2 Steve Tryder, Chestnut St., Is there any documentation, and did people who bought the 3 property know that a cell tower was installed in these Church steeples when they 4 purchased or sold? Mr. Pastuszek: some were aware and some were not. Mr. Tryder:is 5 this documented in your report? Mr. Pastuszek: doesn't know if it is. 6 7 Mr. Tryder: Mr. Pastuszek's study is a study of sales and neighborhoods that have 8 churches; there is no variable of cell antennas in that study, no documentation that the 9 buyer's knew that cell towers were installed. Mr. Tryder feels this report is invalid and 10 should have no bearing on real estate values. II 12 Thea Fournier, Main St., asked Mr. Pastuszek who paid you to do this report? Mr. 13 Pastuszek, stated MetroPCS. 14 15 James Fennessey, 77 Elm St.,his daughters are being put to sleep about 65 feet away 16 from where the church has decided to put a cell antenna. Stated the Bylaw is being mis- 17 applied by the current Building Inspector. Read letter regarding applying the bylaw to 18 this application. Ironic part is that we're fighting our own Town, asking that BP allow 19 for the application of Bylaw as it was intended and applied in the past. Mr. Fennessey 20 said that RR said even though the outcome is different between the past two Building 21 Inspectors the BP was consistent in following the decision of the Zoning Enforcement 22 Officer? RR said yes. Mr. Fennessey stated: last week Atty. Morin stated that possibly 23 reasoning behind current Building Inspector's recent decision which are contrary to the 24 previous Building Inspectors decision is that the current Building Inspector may feel that 25 any decision he makes while following a 600 foot setback decision would not hold up in 26 court. 27 28 Chair: you're getting into a little bit of hear-say, you're drifting, stay with facts, please 29 finish your statement ....Mr. Fennessey interrupted: ...the BP is following the decision of 30 the Zoning Enforcement Officer on advice of Town Counsel which means the Bylaw 31 passed at Town Meeting is being diluted by the opinion of one person which doesn't 32 seem right. By differing to opinion of Zoning Enforcement Officer and Town Counsel 33 who works not for the PB but for BOS the BP isn't making their own independent 34 decision with or without input from its own independent counsel, any approval from this 35 Board is based on the Zoning Enforcement Officer and Town Counsel. PB hands are not 36 tired here and a vote for approval is not mandated by any prior decision by any other 37 Town Board. 38 39 Steve Tryder, 300 Chestnut St., --what is appeals process? Chair: Within 20 days of a 40 filing of a decision you can file an appeal in State Court. Chair further answered Mr. 41 Tryder's questions regarding the appeal process. 42 43 RR: if you appeal the decision, you appeal because you may disagree with the 44 interpretation that the PB is following the Bylaw. Mr. Tryder: appeal would include the Page 6 March 3, 2009 Minutes Judy took Minutes Mary made additional edits DRAFT 3/31/09 4/6/09 Mary's edits approved 4/7/09 1 fact that as a PB you are letting the Zoning Enforcement Officer snake your decision for 2 you. Chair: we don't want toget ahead of this, PB will make their decision if you don't 3 like the results of the decision you can appeal it. 4 5 Motion by RR to close public hearing, 2na by MW, vote was unanimous. 6 7 Draft decision, edits were discussed. RR: check findings of facts: See Section##3 edit was 8 made by Judy. Chair: where did number 4 go, move the numbers down. MW section 17, 9 in findings of fact, documentation is now 16. Chair take what is at bottom of 3 and make 10 it 4 it will be 17 again, so make your changes first and then go back and check the 11 sections. Chair: see condition 15, change after 3 years and make it 2 years. On 12 performance guarantee put in specific amount. JT first one is insurance, second is annual 13 maintenance in all prior decision we did not have an amount, Chair: in 3A just put instead 14 of SPGA just put the Town Planner and the same thing on 3B. JT: look at next page 15 under 4D applicant shall maintain....3B may have been a condition of a wireless facility 16 of Town's own.property? Chair take 3B out. JT in 4B there was reference to maintaining 17 .... Chair that should be sufficient then. JT bond amount prior to start of construction is 18 specified it's for $5K. MW in 4A SP issues shall be valid for 3 years, is that what we just 19 corrected? RR no there are two different things. 20' 21 Motion by RR to approve SP for MetroPCS, LLC and Trinitarian Congregational Church, 22 as amended a Wireless SP for 70 Elm St. 2nd by MW, vote was unanimous. 23 24 Chair thanked everybody for their civility and patience and... There was a boo from Mr. 25 Tryder who interrupted and said your decision was made long before people lined up to 26 talk to you...thanks for representing your community. 27 28 29 Please note: Chair then moved back to 166 Salem Street (Cahill project). 30 31 32 PUBLIC HEARING: 33 None 34 35 36 37 Motion by RR to adjourn, 2"d by JK,vote was unanimous. 38 39 40 By order of the Planning Board 41 42 Approved 43 Page 7 March 3, 2009 Minutes s Judy took Minutes Mary made additional edits DRAFT 3/31/09 4/6/09 Mary's edits approved 4/7/09 1 Plse. note: The Planning Board reserves the right to take items out of order and to 2 discuss and/or vote on items that are not listed on the agenda. 3 Page 8 March 3, 2009 Minutes