Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-01 Planning Board Meeting Minutes PLANNING BOARD fes" Meeting Minutest l� Tuesday, March 1, 2011 1 Town Hall, 120 Main Street �� 7.00 PM 1 Present: J.Simons, R. Rowen, M. Colantoni,C. LaVolpicelo,T.Seibert 2 Absent: R.Glover 3 Staff Present:J.Tymon,J. Enright 4 Meeting began at 7:04, 5 POSTPONEMENT 6 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 1679 Osgood Street,Definitive Subdivision for•8 single-family 7 residential lots within the R-3 District,submitted by GMZ Realty. 8 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING; 288 Sutton Street"Mathews Way".Proposal of a Five{5}Lot 9 Definitive Subdivision. 10 11 BOND RELEASE 12 Edgewood requested a release of two bonds,totaling$65,000,associated with a CCRC Special Permit 13 issued in September, 2008 and Site Plan Review Special Permit issued October, 1989. 14 LT mon: Has completed a site visit with Kevin Tremblay,representative from Edgewood. Submitted 15 photos. A competed as-built has been received that includes the cottages,new addition, existing buildings 16 and roadway. DPW(Gene Willis and Tim Willet)have reviewed the as-built and communicated that they 17 do not have any issues with the site. Con Conn has released 90% of their funds. Remaining funds are 1r8 held back to make sure plantings in the constructed wetlands take over the winter. There is also a letter 19 submitted from B.Lavoie, attorney for applicant, giving some history of the site and requesting the 20 release of the bonds. 21 L Simons: Is this a release of all of the remaining funds. 22 J. Tymon: Yes 23 R.Rowen: Commented that the project,as completed,is beautiful and an asset to the town. 24 MOTION 25 A motion was made by R.Rowen to release all the bond money for Edgewood. The motion was 26 seconded. The vote was unanimous. 27 PUBLIC HEARINGS 28 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 125 Fla shi Drive,Application for Wireless Facilities Special Permit-Site 29 Plan Review. Proposal for construction of a 110 foot multi-carrier wireless tower,with associated equipment at the 30 base of the tower and the installation of 9 panel antennas with associated equipment cabinets in the Industrial l 31 zoning district. 32 J.T mon: There have been two previous Public Hearings. Since then additional items have been received---a fall 33 zone affidavit,hydrologic affidavit, and a noise report. The noise report has noise measurements 50'. The 34 requirement of the bylaw is that the measurement is less than a 50 decimal reading at the security area. The 35 Engineer stated that,based on the equipment,the readings may be just a little over at 51 decimals and recommended 36 a full height,wooden fence that the applicant has agreed to provide. The applicant is requesting to provide the 37 'documentation required for the structural design when they apply for a building permit. Does the Board want to 38 condition the Decision based on them providing that information at the time of applying for the building permit? 39 J. Simons: What has happened at the ZBA? 40 J.Tymon: All the variances that were required were approved by the ZBA. It was not appealed. 41 Jackie Slaga,representing the applicant:Submitted the noise report as well as the revised fall zone affidavit. The 42 structural report for new pole requires extensive Geo Tech and soil analysis and this is not normally done until the A3 permitting process. The information could be provided to the Board when we apply for the building permit. ! Submitted a copy of a spec sheet for a tower sectional thatgives more detail on dimensions.It is generic but a good 45 representation of what a 1.40'pole would look like dimensionally. Mar 1, 2011 meeting minutes DRAFT J r PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 1, 2011 Town Wall, 120 Main Street 7.00 PM 46 J.Tynnon: VH13 made recommendations of what information they should provide at the time of the permitting 47 process if we choose to go that route, 48 J. Slaga: Would be happy with a condition of approval that if we find anything going forward that would materially 49 change the site that we would come back to this Board for approval. Not anticipating this but if there is any material 50 change for anything we would come back. 51 T. Seibert: Explain the FEMA issue again. 52 J. Slaga: Environmental flood plain. We are going through the federal FEMA process and are in discussions with. 53 the state and local commissions. We are asserting that it is not in the flood plain and are asking for a modification to 54 the FEMA maps. If there is anything that comes out of that process that materially changes the site plan we would 55 come back for approval. The process will take several months. 56 T. Seibert: So we would snake it a condition. Discussed wind speeds that would cause a collapse. Would the 57 adjacent building be hit if the pole was fall within the 62' fall zone? , 58 J.Ti� non: No. 59 T. Seibert: The ZBA Decision did not reference the letter submitted by that property owner. I think we should 60 reference it in our Decision. 61 R.Rowen: Is the exact tower that you want to install designed already and is the affidavit stating that the tower,as 62 designed and proposing to put in,will break at 62'? 63 J. Slaga: We can't order the tower until we know what the soils and foundation issues are going to be. 64 R.Rowen: I understand that you can't design the foundation until you know what the soils are but I don't 65 understand why you can't design the tower. 66 J. Slaga: I have been told they go hand-in-hand and you can't engineer one without the other. When we do order 67 the tower the design will be ordered as part of the tower. 58 R.Rowen: Reluctant to approve a tower that is not designed with the promise that it will be designed correctly. 69 How can an affidavit be submitted that says this tower will break at 62' when you don't have a tower that is 70 designed yet? 71 J. Slaua: It will be part of the record and assuming part of this Board's vote. Whatever is submitted to the Building 72 Deptartrrrent has to be consistent with what happens here. There are more than sufficient safeguards. 73 R.Rowen: All of the applications for cell tower facilities come under approvals and go through tremendous 74 scrutiny. So we go overboard to assure that when they are approved,if they are approved,that everything was done 75 correctly.If the next property were more than double the height of the tower I wouldn't have anywhere near the 76 issue we are talking about now. I want to see evidence that you have designed a tower that would break at 62'. 77 J. Slag I think your concern is safeguarded by the remainder of processes that we still have to go through. 78 J. Simons: The scope of what we are supposed to approve is that our primary focus is to deal with the visual 79 elements of the site and the gaps in coverage. They have told us a lot more in addition to that. Not sure it is 80 fundamentally more than what we go through when we do a Site flan Review. We see some designs and where the 81 footprint is but there are some things that are subject to the building permit process. We have an assurance that what 82 we saw in the plans is what we are going to get. 83 R.Rowen: Going forward basically they can put in a tower umoviewed. 84 T. Seibert: The affidavit references Ma state building codes dictating how these towers must be built. It states that 85 the tower must be build in accordance with the building codes. 86 J. Simons: We can condition it so that it has a collapse zone of X. 87 R. Rowen: Long term we should have applications for cell service and a separate structural application when they 88 are going to build a new tower. 89 J. Simons: Does not think we are the right venue for that. 90 J. mon: When they apply for the building permit they have to meet these specifications and have an engineer 91 stamp on the plans. 92 R.Rowen: Then we will have to write the requirements that they have to meet before getting a building permit in 93 the Decision. �4 T. Seibert: Can't we just state that they must be in accordance with the affidavit that they have submitted? 5 J. Simons: We will keep the meeting open and vote at the next meeting. 96 J. Slag a; Will submit revised drawings showing the fence that was recommended by the consultant. Mar 1, 2011 meeting minutes DRAFT 2 t PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 1, 2011 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7.00 PM 97 98 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 1003 OSGOOD ST. Watershed Special Permit and Site Plan Review 99 Special Permit for construction of a new 21,000 sq,ft.restaurant/office/retail building. 100 J. en: L.Eggleston has signed off on this project. At the last meeting the applicant discussed the traffic 101 circulation within the site. They have made a minor change to the plan changing the entrance radius. The Fire Dept. 102 has sent a letter saying they approve the site and do not have any issues with the site. Two draft decisions were 103 distributed for review. 104 MOTION 105 A motion was made by R.Rowen to close the Public Hearing for 1003 Osgood Street. The motion was seconded by 106 T. Seibert. The vote was unanimous. 107 MOTION 108 R.Rowen made a motion to approve the Site Plan Special Permit,Common Driveway Special Permit,Off-Site 109 Parking Special Permit for Osgood Properties LLC, 865 Turnpike Street as amended this evening. The motion was 110 seconded by C.LaVolpicelo. 'The vote was unanimous. 111 J.Smolak,Representing the applicant: Requested the bond amounts be changed to remain consistent with the 112 amounts required for the adjacent 1025 Osgood Street project. 113 J. Simons: Recommended to leave the bonds as they are. 114 MOTION 115 A motion was made by R.Rowen to approve the Watershed SP for 1003 Osgood Street,as amended this evening. 116 The motion was seconded by C.LaVolpicelo. The vote was unanimous. 117 118 NEW PUBLIC HEARING: 858 Great Pond Road: Application for a Watershed Special Permit to :9 construct a vertical expansion of existing structure from one story to two stories, construct a small 120 addition,and to expand the two car garage to three and to connect it to dwelling structure by means bf a 121 roofed walkway. 122 J.Tycoon: We are opening a new Pubic Hearing for 858 Great Pond Rd. The applicant is proposing to increase the 123 impervious surface 546 sq.ft. The property is within the 250 foot non-disturb zone. L.Eggleston did a review of 124 the project. A second infiltration well has been put on the plans so that the entire roof area for the dwelling unit will 125 be infiltrated to the two drywells. He also put in a trench in the back of the garage for infiltration of any runoff from 126 the garage area. There is no clearing planned. It is a fairly flat site. L.Eggleston has done a second review and she 127 has approved the changes made. 128 Jacic Sullivan,Engineer for applicants Gay and David Tracy: The parcel is over 4 acres. The lot was created in 129 1968. Only increasing lot coverage 546 sq,ft.and will be infiltrating over 2,000 sq. ft.of roof area. Have a NOI 130 filed with Con.Com. There is a river along the westerly side but all the work is outside 100'of the river. They were 131 fine with it but I wanted to continue it until I met with the Planning Board to hear what kind of comments there 132 were. Deed restrictions have been volunteered as far as fertilizer use and prohibiting any type of herbicides or 133 pesticides. There will not be any tree cutting or grading changes. We will be back before the con corn March 9. 134 C.LaVolpicelo: Why are you infiltrating so much when you are only increasing the impervious surface 516 sq. ft? 135 J. Sullivan: I don't need to. Originally I was going to do a 2 for 1. When L.Eggleston said she would rather see the 136 whole roof picked up I increased it to that. 137 T. Seibert: How does this get evaluated against our stormwater regulations? 138 J. mon: By having it reviewed by L.Eggleston she tries to conform to the MA stormwater regulations even 139 though those aren't spelled out in the Watershed Special Permit. 140 J. Sullivan: Single family homes are exempt fi-orn the stormwater policy but as far as the drywell design the DEP 141 policy requires a 2 foot separation to the ground water table. I provided that. 142 J. Simons: We will leave this open until the next meeting and draft a Decision. 143 144 DISCUSSION ITEMS o Wireless Bylaw: Discussion of Wireless Facility Bylaw that has been proposed for the ATM 11 Warrant Mar 1, 2011 meeting minutes DRAFT 3 PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 1, 2011 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7.00 PM 146 J. mon: We should schedule the PB Public Hearing for Town Meeting items,including the Wireless Bylaw, In 147 the past we have done it for the first meeting in April. The only zoning item is the Wireless Bylaw, There is also 148 Carter Field Road street acceptance. 149 J.Simons: Was the article submitted exactly the way it was or have you made changes? 150 1 Tymon: One of the Selectmen actually submitted it in the same form as it was on the Warrant last year. 151 R,Rowen: We really ought to be separating towers and structures from wireless facilities. They are two separate 152 discussions. 153 J.Tymon: Two years ago there was a bylaw submitted that had some separation. Some of that older bylaw is in this 154 bylaw being submitted. 155 J. Simons: Asked R.Rowen to take another look at the article to see if he could recommend edits. 1.56 157 MEETING MINUTES 158 MOTION 159 A motion was made by T.Seibert to approve the meeting minutes for the Planning Board meeting held on .160 02/15/2011. The motion was seconded by M. Colantoni. The vote was unanimous. 161. 162 ADJOURN 163 MOTION 164 A motion was made by R. Rowen to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded-by T.Seibert. The vote was 165 unanimous, 166 j7 The meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM. .r6$ 169 Meeting Materials: Agenda, PB meeting summary notes, Marchionda&Associates, L.P. letter dated 11/30/2010 170 for Edgewood bond releases, Devine Millimet Letter dated 2.24.2011 requesting Edgewood bond releases, E G 171 Advanced Engineering Group, P.C. letter dated 2/24/2011 for 125 Flagship, Infinigy Engineering letter dated 172 12/30/2010 for 125 Flagship,Infinigy Engineering ietter dated 12/9/2010 for 125 Flagship, Bay State Design letter 173 dated 12/6/2010 for 125 Flagship,Sectional poles USA spec sheet for 125 Flagship,Zoning Board of Appeals Notice 174 of Decision dated 12/23/2010 for 125 Flagship, Draft Decision 1003 Osgood Street Special Permits---Site Plan 175 Review,Common Driveway,and Off-Street Parking, Draft Decision 1003 Osgood Street WSP, Letter dated 176 2/22/2011 from Gene Willis regarding 288 Sutton St., Definitive Plan "Mathews Way", Letter from L. Eggleston 177 dated 2/17/2011 for 288 Sutton St., Proposed site development plan for 858 Great Pond Rd.,Zoning Bylaw for 178 Wireless Service Facilities, R. Rowen edits for-Wireless Service Facilities bylaw, Pictures of site visit to Edgewood. 179 Mar 1, 2011 meeting minutes DRAFT 4