Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-05-07 Planning Board Minutes (5)Present: J. Simons, M. Colantoni, R. Rowen, D. Kellogg, L. Rudnicki. L. McSherry Absent: Staff Present: J. Enright Meeting began at 7:05pm. ANR 401, 391, 381 Stevens Street: Change of lot lines Tom Patenaude, Developer: Lots X, Y, and Z are not to be buildable lots and are to be combined with and become an integral part of land of C. Douglas & Megan W. Evans. The remaining lots still have sufficient lot area. MOTION A motion was made by R. Rowen to direct the Town Planner to approve the Form A for 401, 391, and 381 Stevens Street. The motion was seconded by D. Kellogg. The vote was unanimous. POSTPONEMENT CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, 1077 Osgood Street: Application for a Watershed Special Permit and Site Plan Review Special Permit. Applicant proposes to construct a 3,672 sq. ft. single story retail bank, parking lot, and stormwater structures within the Non-Discharge Zone and Non-Disturbance Zone of the Watershed Protection District. There is actually PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, 250 Clark Street: Application for Special Permit-Site Plan Review. Applicant proposes to expand the existing building. The expansion will include an additional hanger as well as additional office space, research and development space and storage space. The expansion will also provide additional parking, a larger septic system and stormwater facilities. Jill Mann, Representing the applicant: The Health Department has approved the location and design of the proposed septic system. The Conservation Commission has issued an Order of Conditions. The plans have been updated to relocate a propane tank on the parcel. MOTION A motion was made by D. Kellogg to close the public hearing for the Site Plan Special Permit for 250 Clark Street. The motion was seconded by L. McSherry. The vote was unanimous. A draft Decision was reviewed. MOTION A motion was made by R. Rowen to approve the Site Plan Special Permit for 250 Clark Street as amended. The motion was seconded by M. Colantoni. The vote was unanimous. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, 0 Great Pond Road: Application for a Watershed Special Permit. Applicant seeks to construct a single family dwelling with appurtenances on a presently undeveloped, buildable lot. M. Colantoni: Read notes related to 0 Great Pond Road written by Town Planner, Judy Tymon, dated May 7, 2013. Phil Christiansen, Christiansen & Sergi: L. Eggleston has reviewed the plans. Her comments were received after the first hearing. Changes have been made to the plans in response to her comments; including, a construction sequence has been included, notes were added to the plans related to the landscaping, and the amount of area disturbed has been reduced. Soil testing was conducted on Monday. The open issues are the size of the house, amount of land disturbance, and the issue of whether this is a new lot or an existing lot. The house will be connected to town water and sewer. The lot area is 94K sq. ft. The proposed amount of disturbance is approximately 19K sq. ft. If the home was to be built at the top of the hill there would be approximately 35K sq. ft. of disturbance. There are other lots nearby that get steep very quickly in the front and are flat at the top. This lot stays level in the front and gets steep in the back. The driveway has been revised from a pervious surface to a normal driveway with a pitch so the water will flow towards an infiltration trench on the side. The trench has water stops approximately every 20’. If the trench were to fill up and overflow the water would runoff and generally flow down and through the stone wall towards the lake. There are five drywells to collect the roof runoff. The soil type is fairly silty and is slow draining. J. Simons: Are there any complexities anticipated during the development process and how will they be handled? When you build anything on a slope there are risks when you open up the ground. P. Christiansen: That was the main reason for wanting the house lower on the lot. This will help to minimize any potential catastrophic event from the site. The construction sequence plan is developed to minimize risk. This project has been filed with the Conservation Commission as well. R. Rowen: What is the slope in the cut area? P. Christiansen: From the garage to the edge of the cut area is approximately a 5 to 1 slope. If the house has to be moved back the slope gets greater. P. Christiansen: Along the backyard there is a 4’ retaining wall. There will be stone run behind the wall and a pipe in the wall for an outlet. The water would drain into the backyard. The soil on the hill is a Paxton soil which does not retain a lot of water. R. Rowen: Advised that if there are springs that are interrupted it is far better to direct the water to someplace where it can escape. There should be a condition in the Decision for mitigation in the event this becomes an issue. L. Rudnicki: Recommended that the swale along the driveway be widened in the area that the driveway widens. P. Christiansen: A change can be made to widen the swale in that area. J. Simons: What fundamental difference would it make if the interpretation J. Tymon has regarding the year the lot was created is accepted? P. Christiansen: J. Tymon said in her letter that the Conservation Zone is 100’; however, in the Zoning Bylaw the Conservation Zone for lots created after 1994 is 150’. There is a table in the Bylaw that states 100’ but the text describing the Conservation Zone states 150’. If it is 100’ the proposed house is outside of the Zone. There is some clearing within the Zone. If it is 150’ the house would have to be moved back approximately 35’. J. Simons: If we look at it from a strictly environmental perspective an argument could be made that this is the best location for the house. If it was moved back 30 or 40 feet there would be more impact. P. Christiansen: There is a 15 to 20 foot grade difference if the house had to be moved back. The driveway would have to be longer, the backyard gets much steeper, instead of one 4’ retaining wall there may need to be two 4’ retaining walls or one 8’ wall. There would be approximately 5,300 sq. ft. of additional disturbance. J. Simons: It seems that if this was being designed from scratch this is where the house would be placed. Substantively the project went through the same process with the ZBA. R. Rowen: What variances were requested and granted from the ZBA and how would they be different if J. Tymon’s interpretation of the Lot is correct? P. Christiansen: The only variance requested was to have the house at the front of the Lot and that variance was granted. The variance request would have asked to build in the Conservation Zone but it would have been the same plan. The variance was granted to build in the Non-Disturbance Zone. There is a note on the Variance plan which has been signed by the ZBA that says the subject property was created prior to 1984 and it was designated at that time as Map 35 Parcel 38 and then in 2001 there was frontage and area added to the Lot but it is still the same Map and Parcel number. It is not a new Lot. J. Simons: We should be able to finish for the next meeting as long as all issues resolved with L. Eggleston. The next meeting will be June 4, 2013. NEW PUBLIC HEARING, 100 Dale Street: Application for a Watershed Special Permit. The project consists of two (2) building lots. Structures on Lot 2 are to be demolished. A single family home with associated clearing, grading, utilities and stormwater maintenance features is proposed for Lot 1 and Lot 2. Phil Christiansen, Christiansen & Sergi: This project has received a variance from the Board of Appeals for lack of frontage. Each Lot is approximately 90K sq. ft. One Lot has 77’ of frontage and the other has 151’. The existing house will be razed and two new homes constructed. All of the proposed construction is located outside of the Non-Disturbance Zone. The project is in the Non-Discharge Zone. Provided the Board a printout from MassGIS’s online printing tool. The Special Permit being requested is for both Lots. Reviewed three wetland areas depicted on the plans. L. Eggleston has reviewed the plans and a change to the driveway location has been made based on her comments. The soils are very good. A second review from L. Eggleston states that she agrees that confirmatory soil testing does not need to be done at this time and could be made a condition of approval. Also based on L. Eggleston’s comments a construction sequence has been added and stormwater facilities maintenance has been added. R. Rowen: Can the driveway for the house that sits further back be reconfigured where it meets Dale Street to minimize any potential issue with headlights facing the closer house as a car enters the driveway? P. Christiansen: It is located as far left as possible and is perpendicular to Dale Street. J. Simons: Explained the regulatory process and the variance that was granted by the ZBA to the abutters at the meeting. ABUTTERS: Dinelle Bere, 40 Berrington Place: Provided the Board an aerial view of the of the area that included her home, review comments from Eggleston Environmental dated April 26, 2013, email response comments from Phil Christiansen dated May 2, 2013, and a letter from Phil Christiansen to Judy Tymon dated May 6, 2013. These papers included some hi-lited comments that she requested to be honored. J. Simons: There is a certain amount of overlapping jurisdiction between Planning and Conservation. Conservation is generally the authority for wetlands. P. Christiansen: This project is not within 100’ of a wetland therefore it is not before Conservation. D. Bere: L. Eggleston expressed her concern that an ANRAD had not been filed nor had a NOI been filed. She stated in her review that it is her understanding that either one of these will be filed with the Conservation Commission. J. Simons: The wetlands will be confirmed. She is the technical consultant and every comment will be addressed. D. Bere: Reviewed the first comment from L. Eggleston’s review letter dated May 7, 2013. Stated that she also has privacy issue concerns. The applicant was granted 96’ of frontage for the variance granted which made the Lots extremely thin and limited where the houses could be placed. The proposed new home will be located directly behind her home and there will be clear cutting for the driveway within 5’ of her property line. The garage is situated on the side of the home. The headlights of the cars will be shining into her home. The existing home is off center behind her house and at a lower topography. The proposed home is directly behind her house and will be raised up to the elevation of the land. Questioned whether the setback requirement is being violated on the plan. P. Christiansen: The proposed house meets the required setbacks. D. Bere: Expressed a concern about where the water will go. There will now be two foundations on the property. It is an extremely wet area. R. Rowen: Can the driveway on the left be eliminated and instead have a common driveway. Can the proposed house be located closer to where the existing house is? P. Christiansen: In order to avoid using the same foundation hole as the existing home the proposed home was moved. Also, the land drains to the left. There is a tree cut line shown on the plans between the proposed house and Berrington Place. Will talk to the developer about the possibility of a common driveway, moving the proposed house closer to the existing house, and will look into the possibility of a headlight issue. There is an alternative, if there is going to be a problem with lights, to put up barriers or screening. D. Bere: The minutes from Nov. 2012 state that the Lots are not buildable until you sign off on it. They did receive the variance however the plans need to be approved by the Board. The plans seem to be comfortable and convenient for their potential new buyers. Thankful her concerns are being taken into consideration. Michele Rutter, 59 Berrington Place: Stated that she agreed with the concern that the wetland areas should be confirmed. There are multiple flags that appear to be marking a wetland that would be very close to the proposed house on Lot 1. J. Simons: Both the Town Planner and Conservation Agent will work together to look at this and someone will go out there. P. Christiansen: That area was marked by a botanist. H. Gaffney, Conservation Field Inspector, specifically reviewed that area to determine if it was a wetland under North Andover statutes and she determined that it wasn’t. J. Simons: Requested H. Gaffney to submit a letter regarding that site visit. P. Christiansen: Requested to have a Decision for the next hearing. J. Simons: We will do it as fast as we can but will not make any promises. There is too much open-ended. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Annual Town Meeting Zoning Articles Town Meeting Article to amend Sections 4.121 and 4.122 to allow the keeping of backyard hens in Residence 1, Residence 2, Residence 3 and Residence 4 Zoning District. Hillary Stasonis, 1514 Salem Street: Since the Citizen’s Petition was already signed the recommended changes at the last meeting could not be made. They would have to be made on the floor at Town Meeting. J. Simons: Suggested the Board would recommend favorable actions subject to certain revisions. Discussed ways the motion could be moved on the floor. R. Rowen: Reviewed the two recommended changes discussed at the last meeting. Thomas Ralph, 1483 Salem Street: The goal is to come up with a good ordinance that people are satisfied with. Any reasonable amendments would be listened to. L. Rudnicki: Stated she did not agree that the 40’ buffer was enough. MOTION A motion was made by R. Rowen to recommend favorable action subject to minor modifications. D. Kellogg seconded the motion. The vote was 5-1. R. Rowen, L. McSherry, J. Simons, D. Kellogg, and M. Colantoni voted in favor. L. Runicki voted opposed. Town Meeting Warrant Article to amend Section 6.5 Prohibited Signs to prohibit off-premise signs and overhanging signs. This will be voted on at the next Planning Board meeting. Town Meeting Warrant Article to amend Section 8.11 in order to put in place a one-year Moratorium for Regulations for Wind Energy Facilities. The Board requested J. Tymon email the red-line changes to the proposed language based on the feedback received from Board members. This will be voted on at the next Planning Board meeting. Town Meeting Warrant Article to amend Section 18.2 Downtown Overlay District to require a Special Permit for developments with more than 10 residential dwelling units. This will be voted on at the next Planning Board meeting. DISCUSSION Planning Board Report for Annual Town Meeting The Board requested an additional meeting be scheduled for May 20, 2013 at 8:00am to discuss all Articles not voted on at this meeting. Planning Board Report – DRAFT April 29, 2013 The Planning Board makes the recommendations regarding the following Town Meeting warrant articles as required by M.G.L. c.40A, Section 5 and Chapter 2, Section 9 of the Town Code: Article 4. Authorization to Accept Grants of Easements. To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen and the School Committee to accept grants of easements for access, water, drainage, sewer, roadway and utility purposes on terms and conditions the Board and Committee deem in the best interest of the Town; Or to take any other action relative thereto. Board of Selectmen This will be voted on at the next Planning Board meeting. Article 5. Authorization to Grant Easements. To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen and the School Committee to grant easements for access, water, drainage, sewer, roadway and utility purposes on terms and conditions the Board and Committee deem in the best interest of the Town; Or to take any other action relative thereto. Board of Selectmen This will be voted on at the next Planning Board meeting. Vote Required: Majority Vote Article 11: Citizen’s Petition – Conveyance of Property from Orchard Village, LLC to Town of North Andover. To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to accept, for no monetary consideration, the conveyance of the following property from Orchard Village, LLC, upon terms and conditions deemed by the Board of Selectmen to be in the best interest of the Town. That certain parcel of land, together with all buildings and improvements thereon, including without limitation the water pump station and all equipment and pump station apparatus, located off of Salem Turnpike in North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts, and more particularly described as Lot 33 on a plan of land entitled: “Definitive Subdivision Plan For ‘Orchard Village’ in North Andover, Mass. Record Owners: Agnes M. Kmiec 1996 Realty Trust, 1001 Turnpike Street, North Andover, MA 01845, Applicant: Orchard Village, LLC, 44 Great Pond Road, Boxford, MA 01921, Christiansen & Sergi Professional Engineers Land Surveyors, 160 Summer St. Haverhill, MA 01830, Tel. 978-373-0310”, dated April 2, 2009, last revised on June 9, 2009, and filed with the Essex North Registry of Deeds District of the Land Court on October 16, 2009 as Plan Number 18083E, to which plan reference may be had for a more particular description of said Lot 33 (hereinafter referred to as the “Subdivision Plan”). The above Lot is designated “Not a Building Lot” and contains 2,047 square feet (.0470 ac), more or less, according to said Subdivision Plan. Said property shall be conveyed subject to the following conditions: The fee in the roadway shown as the “Proposed Road” and Lot 34 on the Subdivision Plan shall be reserved to the Orchard Village, LLC. There shall be conveyed herewith the right to use, in common with the Orchard Village, LLC and those claiming by through or under the Orchard Village, LLC and others lawfully entitled thereto, the way shown on the Plan as Proposed Road (now known as Empire Drive) for the purpose of ingress and egress to the property granted herein. Orchard Village, LLC shall reserve unto itself, its heirs and assigns, all easements affecting the premises conveyed to the Town and shown on the Subdivision Plan. This conveyance shall be subject to the easements, conditions, and restrictions contained in the Subdivision Plan, and all other easements, reservations, covenants and restrictions of record, insofar as the same are in force and applicable, and acceptable to the Board of Selectmen, however not intending to revive any of the same. Orchard Village, LLC shall also grant to the Town a permanent and perpetual right and easement to re-install, maintain and repair the water mains and associated pipes and fixtures now located within said Lot 34, in common with Orchard Village, LLC and those claiming by through or under the Orchard Village, LLC and others lawfully entitled thereto to use Lot 34 for all purposes that street and ways are currently used in the Town of North Andover. The Grantor shall also reserve the right to install, maintain and repair utilities in Lot 34, excluding the water mains and associated pipes and fixtures. Upon any exercise of the easement rights that disturb the surface of the ground of Lot 34, the Grantee shall reasonably restore the ground to its previous condition. By acceptance of this conveyance, the Town shall accept responsibility for the maintenance, operation and repair of the water booster pump station and all related improvements and equipment located on said Lot 33 and the water mains and associated pipes and fixtures located within said Lot 34. There is reserved unto Orchard Village, LLC an easement and right to connect Orchard Village LLC’s remaining land to the water mains and associated pipes and fixtures located within said Lot 34, upon the payment of customary connection fees to the town, Or take any other action related thereto. Petition of Douglas B. Small, et al Board of Selectmen Recommendation: Favorable Action This will be voted on at the next Planning Board meeting. Vote Required: Majority Vote Article 20: Appropriation – Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2014. To see if the Town will vote to fund the Capital Improvement Program as listed under the heading “Board of Selectmen/Finance Committee/Town Manager Recommendations” and with the language included, or to take any other action relative thereto. Town Manager Board of Selectmen Recommendation: Favorable Action Finance Committee Recommendation: Favorable Action This will be voted on at the next Planning Board meeting. Vote Required: Two-third (2/3) Vote EXPLANATION: A capital improvement plan is a major, non-routine expenditure for new construction, major equipment purchase, or improvement to existing buildings, facilities, land or infrastructure with an estimated useful life of five years or more, and a cost of $25,000 or more. Items in this plan are funded by debt; the Town will issue bonds of 10, 15 or 20 years (depending upon the project) and pay principal and interest payments over that term. The bonds may be general obligation (funded by the general tax levy) or special obligation (funded by water or sewer rates). Article 21: Report of the Community Preservation Committee – Appropriation From Community Preservation Committee Fund. To receive the report of the Community Preservation Committee and to see if the Town will vote to raise, borrow, transfer and/or appropriate from the Community Preservation Fund, in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 44B, a sum of money to be spent under the direction of the Community Preservation Committee, or to take any other action relative thereto. List of Approved Projects – Community Preservation Fund Description Amount Category Preservation of Second Burying Ground $ 30,000 Historical Preservation McEvoy Field and Facility Refurbishment $ 903,350 Open Space Protection Town Farm: Construction of Playing Fields (Phase II) $ 300,000 Open Space Protection North Andover Historical Society: Building Preservation (per Master Plan) $ 397,000 Historical Preservation Stevens Estate – Roofing/Flashing/Coverings $ 436,950 Historical Preservation Scholfield Mill – Stabilization, Exterior Restoration, and Interior Restoration $ 130,000 Historical Preservation Ridgewood Cemetery – National Registry of $ 7,500 Historical Preservation Historic Places Veterans’ Housing $ 461,894 Affordable Housing Foster Street (Parcel 104D-0014): Purchase of fee interest in approximately 8.05 acres of open field wetlands and adjoining conservation land owned by Essex County Greenbelt, plus closing costs (final purchase price not to exceed appraised value of property, total cost to be reduced by amount of any government grants or private contributions). Purchase contingent on seller paying any and all roll back taxes per M.G.L. c61A $ 500,000 Open Space Protection Administrative Costs $ 30,000 Administrative and Operating Expenses Total for Approved Projects $3,196,694 From CPA Affordable Housing Reserve $ 251,000 Net New Appropriations $2,945,694 Community Preservation Committee Board of Selectmen Recommendation: To be made at Town Meeting Finance Committee Recommendation: Favorable Action J. Simons: Provided an overview of each line item. MOTION A motion was made by D. Kellogg to recommend favorable action on the CPA Article excluding the Foster Street line item. The motion was seconded by L. McSherry. The vote was 5-0 in favor. J. Simons recused himself. Planning Board Recommendation Favorable Action with the exclusion of the Foster Street (Parcel 104D-0014) line item Vote Required: Majority Vote EXPLANATION: The Community Preservation Act (CPA) addresses community issues such as acquisition and preservation of open space, creation and support of affordable housing, acquisition and preservation of historic buildings and landscapes, and creation and support of recreational opportunities. The CPA, adopted at a Special Town Meeting in January 2001, and by the voters at the Town Election in March 2001, levies a 3% surcharge on property taxes with two exemptions: $100,000 of the value of every residential property, and a complete exemption on property owned and occupied by people who qualify for low-income housing or low- or moderate-income senior housing. The Community Preservation Committee (CPC) annually recommends how funds should be spent or set aside for future spending among the allowable categories of a) open space; b) historic preservation; c) affordable housing; and d) land for recreational use, with a minimum of 10% required in each of the first three categories.  In addition, a maximum of 5% may be spent on administrative expenses by the CPC.  Town Meeting may either approve or reduce the recommended expenditures, but cannot add to them. North Andover received matching funds equal to $404,528 or 29.65% in FY13 from the Commonwealth. Article 26: Authorize the Acquisition of the Rea’s Pond Sewer Pump Station. To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to acquire by gift, purchase, or eminent domain the sewerage pump station and contiguous sewer lines, manholes, conduits and other appurtenances necessary for the flowage of sewerage and associated with the operation of the sewer system known as the Great Pond Road Pumping Station by Rea’s Pond, including but not limited to all right, title and interest in any easements associated with said sewer system, and all right, title and interest to all and every property interest, real or personal, in any manner associated with the sewer system, which are located in the areas shown as “Easement1” and “Easement 2” on plan of land entitled “Easement Plan, Rea’s Pond Pumping Station, Great Pond Road, North Andover, Massachusetts,” dated March 8, 2013, Scale 1” = 50’, drawn by Merrill Associates, Inc., Hanover, MA, and to pay no damages for said eminent domain taking, or to take any other action relative thereto. Town Manager Board of Selectmen Recommendation: F avorable Action Conservation Commission Recommendation: Favorable Action This will be voted on at the next Planning Board meeting. Vote Required: Two-third (2/3) Vote EXPLANATION: The Town is planning substantial upgrades to an existing sewer pump station at Rae’s Pond (see Article 20 above). This town owned pump station is located on an easement previously acquired from the Conservation Commission. This Article is a legal requirement prior to commencing work on said pump station. Article 27: Approve Special Legislation for Easement at Rea’s Pond Sewer Pump Station. To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to file a petition to the Legislature to authorize, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 97 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or any general or special law to the contrary, the Conservation Commission of the Town of North Andover to grant to the Town of North Andover Board of Selectmen a permanent easement upon the land shown as “Easement 1” and “Easement 2” on Plan entitled “Easement Plan, Rea’s Pond Pumping Station, Great Pond Road, North Andover, Massachusetts,” dated March 8, 2013, Scale 1” = 50’, drawn by Merrill Associates, Inc., Hanover, MA, which land is currently under the care, custody and control of the Conservation Commission, to be used for the use and replacement of the existing sewerage pump station and contiguous sewer lines, manholes, conduits and other appurtenances associated with the operation of the sewer system known as the Great Pond Road pumping station, or to take any other action relative thereto. Town Manager Board of Selectmen Recommendation: Favorable Action Conservation Commission Recommendation: Favorable Action This will be voted on at the next Planning Board meeting. Vote Required: Majority EXPLANATION: See EXPLANATION for Article 26 above. / MEETING MINUTES: Approval of April 16, 2013 meeting minutes. MOTION A motion was made by L. Rudnicki to approve the April 16, 2013 meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by L. McSherry. The vote was unanimous. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by M. Colantoni to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by R. Rowen. The vote was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm. MEETING MATERIALS: Agenda, 250 Clark Street: draft Decision, Site Plan dated March 26, 2013, Site Plan (4 pages) dated May 6, 2013, Operations & Maintenance Plan dated April 9, 2013, Response letters to Stormwater Review dated April 10 and April 3, 2013 from Williams & Sparages, revised 0 Great Pond Road: Site Plan of Land Great Pond Road Variance and Watershed Special Permit dated 5/1/13, Notice of Intent Plan Construction Details dated 5/1/13, : Site Plan of Land Great Pond Road Variance and Watershed Special Permit dated 5/6/13, Watershed Special Permit Site Plan Details dated May 6, 2013, Eggleston Environmental Stormwater Review dated April 22, 2013, email from Phil Christiansen, PE to Lisa Eggleston dated 5/2/2013 re: responses to stormwater review, email from Lisa Eggleston to Phil Christiansen, PE dated 5/1/2013 re: Scuito, 100 Dale Street: Site Development for Watershed Special Permit Plan dated 4/4/2013, Site Development for Watershed Special Permit Plan dated 5/6/2013, Wetland Location and Soil Types for Watershed Special Permit dated May 3, 2013, Eggleston Environmental Sormwater Review dated 4/26/2013, email from Phil Christiansen, PE dated May 2, 2013 re: 100 dale st,, Web Soil Survey (3 pages), MassGIS Online Mappoint Tool, aerial view Bere home and existing home, Planning Board Report—Draft dated 4/29/2013, 4/16/13 draft meeting minutes.