Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190130 Historic Planning Board Minutes - Miscellaneous - 0 GREAT POND ROAD 4/6/2004 North Andover Planning Board Unapproved Minutes April 6,2004' t Regular Meeting E Members Present: Alberto Angles,Chair,George White,Vice Chair,John Simons James Phinney,Associate Member,Felipe Schwarz,Clerk Rick Nardella , Staff Present: Julie Parrino,Town Planner,Debbie Wilson,Planning Assistant 1 The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:02PM Informal Discussions: Endorsement of MacLeod Hanger Mylar 1 The Planner explained the mylars to the board and the board members endorsed them. 3 Roadway Acquisitions:Jack Sullivan from DPW addressed and stated he would like a favorable motion for the following streets:Coachman's Lane,Concord Street,Easy Street,Highland View Avenue, Morningside Lane,Russet Lane. He stated that he wishes to take these roads my eminent domain and present these roads at town meeting.He stated the taking of these streets are just the start of this project. Angles asked why these streets were selected. Sullivan stated that after reviewing all of the streets these 3 were the ones that DPW felt they could repair.Simons stated that some of these streets should have been bonded so that it did not incur a cost to the town. Mr.Sullivan stated that these are old non-bonded streets. Simons made a motion for favorable acquisition of Coachman's Lane,Concord Street,Easy j Street,Highland View Ave.,Morningside Lane and Russet Lane,second by White.Discussion: none Motion carries 4-0 The Planner stated she and DPW have been working with the developers to address any outstanding issues on each of the roadways. DPW has primarily been responsible for the Foxwood acquisition and roadway and drainage improvements. The Planner stated that Campbell Forest issues have been resolved with minor improvements to be conducted prior to Town Meeting including minor roadway and shoulder improvements in addition to securing the weirs within the culverts. Planting of 14 trees must be conducted at County Club Circle. Money should be held in retainer for the trees over the neat year. Weyland Circle/Foxwood—Mr.Sullivan stated that the town is looking to proceed with the street acceptance.There is approximately$50,000 left in this account after the road has been taken care of.Mr. Sullivan stated the streetlights and the drainage problems have been taken care of.Nardella stated that left over money should be put in the general fund. Simons makes a motion for Street Acceptance of Weyland Circle and Foxwood Drive,second by White Discussion none Motion carries 5-0. i Avery Park Drive/Webster Woods Lane—The Planner stated that looming and seeding needs to done to repair the area from the snow plowing this year.Nardella stated that if the road were not complete he would rather not vote until it is complete.Mr.Sullivan stated that the weather was a factor in regards to having this complete prior to this meeting. Mr.Russell addressed the board and presented pictures to show the status and stated that the street work will be done shortly.The Chair stated this should be held over until the April 201"Planning Board Meeting. He stated if the work were completed he would see that word got to the Selectman's meeting to let them know since they are also meeting on the same night. Country Club Circle—Mr.Sullivan stated that the developer will be planting trees prior to April 20'h and feels everything else at this development has been done.The Chair stated he would like to see that the i r trees are planted prior to the April 200'meeting.The Chair stated this should be held over to the April 20t"meeting.He stated if the work were completed he would see that word got to the Selectman's I. meeting to let them know since they are also meeting on the same night. i 73 Main Street: The Planner stated that this applicant has decided not to come before the board tonight.Applicant was seeking to open an ice create stand business on the property,which was previously an appliance repair shop. 3 Site Plan Review'Waiver a s 56-58 Water Street 1 3 The Planner stated that the applicants are proposing a small eating establishment modeled as a"tea room" serving teas,small sandwiches and pastries.Small gift items will also be sold.Approximately 8 tables, 3 serving 2 people each will be in the storefront of the business.The business was fonnerly"Rosie's Cakes and more". The back of the business will be used as a kitchen and limited private function area,to host small birthday and tea parties,bridal showers,etc.This area was currently used as office space.Hours i will be 11:30 am to 5:00 pm,five days per week and will be open on Saturday and Sunday. The ' applicant,Dianne O'Brien stated St.Michaels has no objection to the business using the church parking lot. Nardella would like to see a letter from the church in regards to the parking. White asked if there would be major renovations to the building. Ms.O'Brien stated that there would only be minor renovations. She stated that she discussed this with the fire department and they did not see a problem. Nardella would like a letter from the building inspector in regards to the parking. Ms. O'Brian stated that her interpretation of the bylaw indicated this type of change would be acceptable for this area.Nardella stated he would still like to see a letter from the building department in regards to the parking.Motion by Nardella to waive site plan review for 56-58 Water Street contingent upon a letter from the buildin department authorizing the parking for the business,second by Schwarz. Discussion: none.Motion carries 5-0 3 Town Meeting Article Discussion updates by the Planner The Planner briefly discussed the articles and stated this is scheduled for the April 20`h Planning Board Meeting. • Residential Adaptive Re-Use Special Permit- • Phased Development Bylaw—Nardella stated he will work on this • Removal of Growth Management • Flood Plain District • R-4 Zoning Amendment for 2 Family Dwellings-Nardella stated he will work on this. • Definition article • Section 9 amendments f • PCDD-The Planner gave the board changes on the PCDD f • Rezoning of Waverly Road/Route 114 to GB • Rezoning of Waverly Road/Route 114 to PCDD • Amendments to section 8.8 i • Rezoning of 1060 Turnpike Street • Planning Board study- t r i i M1 t d Continued Public Hearings: ' I I 1789 Great Pond Road i The Planner stated that this has been continued to the May 3`d Planning Board Meeting. The Planner stated that the Planning Department has not yet received revised plans as of April 2, 2004. i CVS-Site Plan Special Permit Mr.Manzi addressed the board and stated that the applicant has met all of requirements from j the board. The Planner stated revised plans dated March 24, 2004 have been submitted to the Planning Department.A copy of the Mass Highway Permit application has been submitted and a minor change to the roadway width in front the Peters Street entrance was submitted on a revised plan. Conditions regarding signage and easements from the church should be included in the decision. VHB has no further comment. Schwarz asked Mr. Taylor from VHB to explain the landscape plan to the board. Schwarz asked how the height of the trees are measured, are the measured from the base of the bulb?Mr.Taylor explained that he was not the landscape engineer and presented the plans to Schwarz for clarification. Schwarz would like to see the height of the plantings on the plans. Simons stated we could close the public hearing and request the tree heights be noted on the plans. Simons would like to have ample time to review the decision before he votes. The Planner asked Mr.Manzi if he has obtained information regarding maintenance of the sidewalks, Mr.Manzi stated that he would grant an easement to access the sidewalks as a public access/easement. The decision was discussed with the board members. Nardella made a motion to close the public hearing for CVS• second by Phinne-T,Discussion none Motion carries 6-0 f New Public Hearings E 121 Carter Field Road—Watershed Special Permit ' The Planner stated the applicant submitted a Watershed Special Permit for construction of an inground pool in the Non-Discharge Zone. This home was previously approved under a Watershed Special Permit and PRD. The Planner stated that the house is complete and the pool will be located within previously permitted cleared areas. The Planner stated the French-drain system would be installed along the edge of the pool patio to provide for infiltration. The review by VHB was waived on the basis that the plans are stamped by an engineer, drainage F calculations and drainage mitigation be designed by an engineer.The Planner stated the pool filter information was received by the Planning Department today.Mr. Zahoruiko explained the s filter system to the board. Nardella asked where the back-wash goes. Mr. Zahoruiko stated that the back-wash water is recycled back into the pool and the solids go into a separation tank . Mr. Zahoruiko stated all the lot grading and alterations have been done. The Chair instructed the Planner to draft a decision for the next meeting. Motion by Schwarz to close the public hearing for 121 Carter Field Road Watershed Special Permit second by Simons. Discussion none Motion carries 5-0 j I 54 Spring Hill Road—Frontage Exception Special Permit I Mr. Christian addressed the board regarding 54 Spring Hill Road.He stated the applicant wants to create three Iots by obtaining a Frontage Exception Special Permit. He stated that if he improved Molly Town Road he could build 5 homes,but his intention is to just build two homes i and add some land to the Gillian's lot. Nardella stated that something would have to be added to the decision so that lot three could not be built further out. Nardella stated that it is highly likely that someone will build out Molly Town Road and he wants to be sure he knows what the applicant is building. Mr. Gillian addressed the board and stated he wants to keep the land as s stated on the plans,but does not want a restriction on his lot. The Planner stated the proposed f lots would include two with frontage on Summer Street and one with frontage on Spring Hill Road. Mr.Benuncisa addressed the board and stated he supports the applicant. Torn Cargell asked about the easement that goes across the lot. Mr. Christianson showed the board where the easement is located on the plans. Suzanne,liostow addressed the board and asked if the owner on lot 2 could put up a fence. Mr. Schwarz stated that the Planning Board does not regulate fences. Nardella stated that the reason for this special perni t is to issue their decision under special circumstances. Nardella would like to see this decision conditioned to prevent additional building on lot 3. Simons stated that it may be better to have something such as this where by Lot 3 may not be built upon for five plus years. Simons would like to see the frontage staked on Summer Street and rear property corners staked on Molly Towne Road. Mr. Christianson stated he would come back to the next meeting with a build-out plan for Lot 3. ! Nardella asked if the applicant intended to create easements on lot 2 or lot 3. Mr. Christianson stated no. Angles requested that the applicant put stakes on Summer Street and Molly Town Road for the board to review b the next Planning Board Meeting. The Chair stated this has been continued to the April 20"Planning Board meeting. Old Salem Village—Preliminary Subdivision The Planner stated this must be acted upon 45 days from filing which was March 4,therefore approval with conditions or denial must be rendered by April 14,2004 The Planner addressed the board and stated the applicant has submitted a preliminary plan displaying a cul-de-sac roadway and proposed location for storm water BMP's on an i undeveloped parcel of land containing two lots located in the Village Residential District. The { proposed plan did not display the future development of the lot. Upon meeting with the applicant,he presented a plan for a 53-condominium unit complex. Permitting of the development will be according to the requirements of Section 8.5 (PRD) and will be approved under a Site Plan Review Special Permit. Angles asked if the applicant presented a complete application. The Planner stated that a detailed drainage was not included as part of the application for this site. She stated the board should review the VHB comments. Howard Speicher introduced himself to the board and stated a separate site plan review would be presented to the board for a multi family development. The actual development would be 53 units. Chris Huntress addressed the board and presented plans that proposed the 53 units on seventeen acres. White asked if there was more than one form of egress. Mr.Huntress stated currently there is one egress. Steve Delmarco asked Mr.Huntress how traffic would be affected. Mr. Huntress stated a traffic study has not been done at this time. Tim fakes asked to see the plans for clarification of the building location. Simons stated that Village Residential requires one unit per acre. The Chair instructed the Planner to get clarification of the zoning for this project.Nardella asked why the applicant was proposing a two-lot subdivision. It was stated they are locking in zoning under chapter 40A. Nardella asked what else is required for a completed application. The Planner stated that more detailed drainage calculations would be needed. Nardella stated that he would like to see the drainage calculations. Mr.Speicher stated he felt he complied with all of the requirements. He stated that buildings are not stated on the plans and he feels he should not have to provide the drainage calculations. Mr.Speicher requests that the board approve it subject to additional drainage information be submitted under F the Definitive filing. The Chair stated this would be continued to the April 20"'hearing. The i i applicant has provided a written authorization letter allowing a continuance to the April 30'2004 i meeting. Lot 2,3 &4 Great Pond Road—Watershed Special Permit � The Planner stated all three lots have separate filings. The application is a i�Ziling of previously approved Watershed Permits,which have expired. The Planning Board previously issued a common gravel driveway permit to service lots 3 and 4. The Planner stated that lot 2 was serviced by a separate driveway directly adjacent to the common driveway with only a 3 foot grass strip separating the two.The driveways are completed and the Planner is currently reviewing the driveway for compliance,however many problems currently exist. One driveway is currently servicing three homes. The three-foot strip is not present.The Driveway lights and stone indicating the lots need to be.in compliance. Development of Lots 2, 3 &4 will be located in the Non-Discharge Zone associated with wetland resource areas. Limited clearing has been conducted on the lots. Review by VHB has been waived as the filing is exactly as that reviewed and approved previously. The Planner stated that the permit expired over two years ago.The Planner requested that detailed information be subridued regarding the engineering calculations for the sizing of the groundwater recharge systems.In addition,clearing associated the installation of the sewer should be clarified and minimized to the extent possible. The Planner stated that there is no bond money in place.Jim Demetri stated that he is the new owner and would have no problem posting a$5,000 bond. Attorney Bornstein stated that this should be covered under the original permit since work has been done on this lot. Mr.Bornstein handed out information from the zoning manual in regards to his interpretation of the law.He feels since substantial completion has occurred,the project may go forward under the original special permits.The Planner explained that substantial has occurred under the Special Permit for the roadway but substantial work has not commenced for the individual lot developments which had separate permits. Mr.Bergeron presented plans to the board.He stated that he is addressing the questions presented by the Town Planner.He indicated a three-foot grass strip would be put back in place. Nardella would like to see a more solid divider between the driveways.The Planner stated that the fire department may have a problem accessing over the driveway and plantings were installed in the medium strip.Angles stated he would like to see the previous plans and permits from 1999. The Planner provided the information to the board.Nardella asked if wetlands have moved on the lots. Mr.Demetri stated that he is currently working with conservation under the enforcement order.The Planner stated the wetland line should be re-staked on the lots since the markers are probably missing.Simons requested that the Planner review thed_nlans/Hermits.Mr.Bergeron stated the front of the lot will be improved by adding l lights and stone markers as requested.Nardella asked for clarification of the location of the lights on the E property.Nardella would like a determination of which lot would be responsible for maintaining the lights t for the subject properties The Chair stated this would be continued to the April 20"'Planning Board € Meeting. Decisions: CVS—Site Plan Special Permit { Angles took a pole of the board members and the conclusion is that the vote will not be taken tonight. E E Brooks School- 1160 Great Fong Road--Watershed Special Permit (1' Motion by Nardella to approve the 1160 Great Pond Road,Watershed Special Permit as amended this evening,second by Schwarz 5-0 Discussion None Motion carries 5-0 i ILA Mile Hill CPA Project Schwarz explained the board the details of the r/2 mile hill CPA project and asked for their support. Motion by Nardella to support the r/2 mile hill second by Phinney Discussion none Motion carries 6-0 { Motion by Nardella to adiourn at 10:42,second by Schwarz Discussion none Motion carries 5-0 , W 4 ,Q North Andover Planning Board Unapproved Minutes May 4,2004 Regular Meeting Members Present: Alberto Angles,Chair,George White,Vice Chair,John Simons Felipe Schwarz,Clerk Staff Absent: Rick Nardella,James Phinney Staff Present: Julie Parrino,Town Planner,Debbie Wilson,Planning Assistant The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:03PM Informal Discussions: Town Meeting Article Presentations Heidi Griffin addressed the board to discuss the Town Meeting article presentations. The Planner stated that the board could use summary sheets as guidance.Ms. Griffin provided a hand out with bullet items j summarizing the changes that would be beneficial.Ms.Griffin stated that she would present Article 41. Simons will present article 42 and Ms.Griffin stated she would include a handout for clarification.Ms. Parrino will present article 43. Alberto will present article 45. Schwarz would like to have slides as a back up to the GB article. Simons suggested pictures from a site in Lawrence as an example. Lucent TIF proposal Mark Rees presented the TIF proposal for Lucent that will be voted upon at Town Meeting, Mr.Rees introduced Laurie Goldstein,Ellen Keller and Michael Shaffto the planning board. He presented a handout to the board members regarding the TIF for the former Lucent properties. He stated that Lucent used to be the#1 taxpayer in North Andover.He stated that Ozzy is interested in helping with the North Andover economic development.The terms of the TIF would be over a 20-year period. It is an incentive for focussing on growth to the area.The TIF will only apply to commercial property. The developer would like to have expandability options within the TIF. This would begin starting in the year 2006. Ozzy Properties has agreed to allow the town up to 5,000 square feet for municipal office space.Mr.Rees would like the board to support the TIF and offer their support at town meeting.Angles asked if the base value would increase.Mr. Shaff stated the base value could increase based on the base assessment of the town. Schwarz asked if there is marketing in place to see that the building is utilized. Ms.Goldstein stated that it would depend on the overall state of the market. Schwarz would like to have the applicant commit to the TMA. The Planner stated that she is willing to discuss the TMA with Ms. Goldstein. Schwarz asked how many fields are on the site. It was stated that there is 4 soccer fields.The Chair asked how the proposed improvements were projected. Ms. Goldstein stated that it was an estimate based on the estimated use of the building. Simons asked if the zoning accommodated the proposed uses. Ms. Keller stated that the zoning was appropriate and if there were a need for something else the applicant would come before the board. Simons asked if a new train stop would be considered. Ms.Goldstein stated that she would appreciate help in any way with this effort.White asked how close in the future would there be businesses in place for this site. Ms. Goldstein stated that the TIF needed to be in place in order to market the property. Simons asked if the owner flipped the property would the TIF stay in place. Ms. Goldstein stated that for the record Ozzy intends to keep the property. Schwarz asked if there were other town benefits that need to be thought about. The consultant stated that there was a wide range of benefits that could benefit the town.Schwarz stated if the applicant was interested in a mix use for the area by mixing residential. Ms.Keller stated that the potential applicants would prefer not having j residential in the area. Motion by Simons for favorable action on this motion;second by Schwarz Discussion none Motion carries 4-0 I The Chair opened up the public hearings at 7:46PM Bond Release-Delucia Way(Smolak) it The Planner stated that the Notice of Decision for the 5-lot subdivision was issued on July 16,2001.A Performance Bond in the amount of$70,270 was established.A bond release in the amount of$35,170 was released in July of 02 leaving a balance of approximately$35,100,The subdivision has been I completed and is scheduled for street acceptance on the warrant article however the applicant failed to submit all his legal documentation in a timely manner therefore the street will not be accepted at this Town Meeting.It appears the file is in order and all restrictions and covenants have been submitted. I walked the site with Jack Sullivan on 4/28/04. Several issues were identified including the need to re- loam and seed roadway shoulders,correction to the street sign which has a spelling error,and relocation of a portion of the sidewalk as stone bounds are located in the middle of the sidewalk The Planner stated 4 according to Section 5.8.2,a release up to a maximum of$17,550 is allowed.DPW Director of Engineering has recommended a partial release in the amount of$17,500.Motion by Nardella to release all but 25,000 on Delucia Way,second by Schwarz Discussion none Motion carries 4-0 i Watershed Special Permit Extension-284 Salem Street V/ The Planner stated a permit was issued on December 19,2001 for reconfiguration of the existing f driveway and installation of storm water structures,related landscaping and reduction of the existing deck E within the Non-Disturbance Zone. The Planner stated that the permit expired on December of 03 and the i only work that has been completed is partial removal of the deck.Activities were being conducted along the edge of a wetland resource area. A$500 bond was required. The applicant is requesting an extension I to the expired permit in addition to proposed modifications. Bill Needham addressed the board and present plans for the board to review. He explained the proposed storm water system to the board. Mr. Needham stated that the applicant is working with a botanist. Nardella stated that the applicant would need to reapply. The applicant stated that the pool collapsed and that is the only work that has been done to the area. The Planner stated that they have to go before the conservation department for a modification of conditions.The Chair stated the applicant should reapply and the board would do their best to expedite the process, The Planner would like to see a comprehensive drainage report.The applicant was instructed to reapply and contact the Planning Department if they have any questions. _ I Forest View Bond Estimate i VHB has established a performance bond estimate for the last phase of the Forest View Subdivision identified as Garnet Circle. Motion by Nardella for the establishment of the bond for Phase C in the amount of 155,377.50,second by Simons Discussion:The Chair asked for clarification if this is the final phase and the Planner stated yes Motion carries 5-0 Discussion-Treadwell Site Development-Hearthstone Development Bill Perkins stated that he is here to have an informal discussion regarding the Treadwell site. Mr. Perkins stated that he has not met with Treadwell's„but has heard they are interested in keeping an ice cream building in place. He stated the office and retail building has a lot of glass to maintain the colonial i feel. The second floor would have office space. Simons asked where the property line is and Mr.Perkins clarified it on the plans. It was stated that the office area would be facing the lake. Schwarz stated that they are on the right track. Schwarz stated the proposed ice cream shop should be further off of the road or closer to the other site. The Planner stated that it is just outside of the 100-foot buffer zone. He stated that this is still in the development stage.The Chair would like to see a pedestrian friendly area. The ' Chair would like to see a sidewalk.The applicant stated that he has waivers he may need to discuss in the s future with the board.The Planner stated that the applicant would be attending the next TRC meeting. j Nardella arrive at 8:46PM Planning Board Warrant Recommendations(Not public hearings): I s { i T Articles to be reviewed by the Planning Board: I Article 20: Amend Section 8.8-Adult Use Zone of the Zoning Bylaw Simons made a motion for unfavorable recommendation for Article 20 second.bl Schwarz Discussion none Motion carries 5-0 a Article 21: Procedure for Review of Proposed Trash Transfer Facility Agreement The Chair wants to know if the board has to take action since he indicated that this is not a Planning issue. The Planner stated she would check into this and inform the board. s 3 Article 23:Planning Board Study of Land north of Sutton Street on Rt, 125 3 The Planner stated the zoning task force has a similar study in place. Simons made a motion for unfavorable action-on Article 23,second by Schwarz Discussion none Motion carries 5-0 3 I Town Warrant Public Hearings s Article 41:Amend Zoning Bylaw Section 9.3 Pre-Existing Non-Conforming Single and Two Family Residential Structures and Uses in the Residential 1,Residential 2,Residential 3,Residential 4 and i Residential 6 Districts(Non Conforming Uses) j Motion for favorable action on Article 41 second b Nardella opposed b Schwarz 4-1 Discussion none Motion carries 5-0 Article 45:Amend the Zoning Bylaw by Adding a New Section-Section 15 Planned Commercial Development District. The Planner stated that minor modifications would still need to be made. The board would like to see a funeral parlor and art gallery as a special permit.The board also stated no more than 1 unit per acre of 12 units.The Planner clarified the verbiage with the board. Motion by Simons for favorable action based on minor recommendations to Article 45,second by Nardella 3 Discussion none Motion carries 5-0. rticle 46:Amend Zoning Bylaw Section:3.1 Establishment of Districts(Zoning Districts and Boundaries)—Adding Planned Commercial Development District and Amending Table I and Table 2 of the Zoning Bylaw Motion by Simons for favorable action for Article 46,second by White Discussion none Motion carries 5-0 i i s Continued Public Hearings; 3 54 Spring Hill Road—Frontage Exception The Planner stated that this hearing was continued to allow drafting of a covenant restricting the amount of developable lots on Lot 3.Mr.Christiansen passed out the restrictive covenant to the board members. Simons asked for clarification regarding the total lots that would be available for house lots. It was stated 6 that the maximum lots would be 5. The Planer stated that the covenant would be forwarded to town j council for review.Motion by Simons to close the public hearing;second by White Discussion none j a Motion carries 5-0 1789 Great Pond Road-Arnone—The applicant has requested a continuance to May W.Angles stated that he will give the applicant until the next meeting to resolve this issue or the board could vote to deny this application New Public Hearings: 316 Johnson Street Watershed Special Permit Judy Reilly,Bob Daily and Rob Reinhold are here to address the board.Ms.Reilly stated she has lived in this home for 11 years and she would like to make some additions to her home and redirect her driveway. i Ms.Reilly stated she is proposing to construct a garage,house addition,terraces,reconfiguration of driveway area and extensive landscaping. The Planner stated that this is within the 100'Non-Disturbance Zone. She stated the project would result in the increase of over 7,000 s.f of impervious area. Storm water Management has been provided.Mr. Daley addressed the board and discussed the plans and design. He presented the leaching pit and how the run off would be handled. The Planner asked if the applicant would consider,gravel driveways. Angles asked if the applicant would consider gravel. Simons asked ' how far the nearest wetland was located. Mr.Dailey stated 45 in one area and 50 feet in another area. Simons stated that under today's zoning this house would never have been built. He stated that since this house is so close to the lake the board needs to consider the impact to the town's water supply. Schwarz asked about the VHB review. The Planner stated the applicant needs a certification letter. The Planner stated that the increase could not be more than 25%.The new area increase is at 24%. The Planner read the VHB comments to the board. She stated that formal run off calculations needs to be presented to the board. Simons asked if the Fossil filter would need maintenance? Mr. Daley stated no. The Planner stated that soil samples should be clone. Simons stated that the sewer connection would need to be a condition. The Planner stated that 3%nitrogen would be required for landscaping and it is difficult to locate.The Planner stated that the applicant is currently in the conservation process and she stated that the board might want to wait until they have issued their order of conditions. The Chair stated to the applicant that they should consider a reduction to the impervious area. He stated that the applicant needs to consider gravel for the driveways. The Chair would like to see the final review from VHB and further comments from the Planner. Simons asked for clarification of the current driveway. Mary Packard addressed the board and explained the location of her driveway. The Chair continued this to the May E 1$n'hearing. Mylar Endorsement-Broolis School Faculty Housing Project The board signed the mylars Mylar Endorsement-North Andover High School Athletic Facility Applicant has requested that the requirement to record the mylars be waived,as it will cost over$4,000. '< The board stated the plans must be recorded. The board signed the mylars f Approval of the Minutes 3/2,3123,4/6,&Q.10 's Motion by Nardella to approve the April 200 minutes as amended,second by Schwarz Discussion none Motion carries 5-0 E Motion by Nardella to approve the March 2 23&A ril 5 minutes as written second by White p , Discussion none Motion carries 5-0 3 Decisions: j a Lots 2,3,4 Great Pond Road s The Planner reviewed the decision with the board. Motion by White to approve Lots,2,3,&4 as amended,second by Nardella Discussion none Motion carries 5-0 Motion by the Chairman to record the watershed special permits,second by Nardella Discussion none Motion carries 5-0. Motion to adjourn at 10:23PM E f 7 i l i ed 7 Planning Board Meeting Senior Center June 4,1996 Members Present: Richard Rowen,Vice Chairman, Alberto Angles, Associate Member,R:_tchard Nardella arrived at 7:20 p.m. John Simons arrived at 7:30 p.m. Joseph V. Mahoney,Chairman, and Alison Lescarbeau, Clerk were absent. Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner,was present. The Meeting was called to order at 7:20 p.m. Minutes: On a motion by Mr. Nardella, seconded by Mr. Angles,the minutes of May 21, 1996 and May 28, 1996 were unanimously approved. Discussion: ScullyproppM(Great Pond Road)-_common driveway Jim Bergeron was present and stated that there are 3 existing Form A lots on Great Pond Road. In order to avoid crossing wetlands in the Watershed area,the applicant is proposing a common driveway adjacent to a single driveway. There will be an actual crossing of the wetlands, therefore, the applicant is requesting that the Board allow the common driveway and the single driveway to merge for a small section. Mr. Rowen stated that he does not want to see three homes off a common drive, and suggested the applicant find a way to use a subdivision road for access. Mr. Nardella asked that if the Planning Board only allowed a common drive to two homes, what happens? Mr. Bergeron replied that the Conservation Commission would have to allow more wetland filling. Ms. Colwell to work with the applicant to find a better way around this. The Planning Board continued discussions to June 18, 1996. Old Center Lane-Preliminaa Subdivision Plan Ben Osgood, Jr. from New England Engineering was present and stated that he is proposing a two home subdivision off of Johnson Street approximately %.mile from the fire station on the left hand side of the road. He is proposing a 3 50' long cul-de-sac, the road will turn to the right following the contour of the land. As it is a small road, 24' of pavement is proposed. The homes will be on Town sewer and water and the detention area will be underground. Ms. Colwell stated that some easements should be provided for connection through to Salem Street. Mr. Osgood stated that he doesn't think he should provide easements, without monetary value, in order to enable another developer to build and sell a subdivision. 1 Mr. Osgood to provide a letter of extension to the Planning Board. The Planning Board continued discussions to June 19, 1996. Pleasant Street/Chickering Road - Site Plan Review Waiver Atty. Jay Willis was present and stated that the existing building on the corner of Pleasant Street and Chickering Road contains a doctor's office and empty space(the former site of Eaton's Pharmacy). The doctor's office wants to expand into the empty space and, as this would require five or more parking spaces, site plan review is triggered under the new bylaw. Ms. Colwell stated that as there will be no new construction she recommends waiving the full site plan review requirement,but having the applicant meet the basic requirements i.e. painting/lining the parking lot and spaces, providing landscaping and storm water drainage. Atty. Willis stated that all work will be done interior,but they will provide landscaping and 28 parking spaces. There will be no more than 9 employees on site at any given time. Mr. Rowen suggested that Ms. Colwell draft a very short statement as to why the Planning Board should waive the site plan review process and fax it to the Board members for review. CbWer 61D-Right of first refusal on 277 Famum Street Mr. Simons suggested that Ms. Colwell look at the purchase and sale agreement, and also determine just where the location of the property is. Ms. Colwell stated that in reality the Town does not have the funds to purchase the property,but an informed recommendation in accordance with the Open Space Plan will be given and the money issue left to the Selectmen. Growth Management Bylaw-Regulations The public hearing to adopt the regulations is scheduled for June 18, 1996. Mr. Rowen presented the Board with his ideas of how to implement issuing the building permits. The Board discussed the ideas, talked about changes, and will have a final bylaw for presentation on June 18, 1996. Public Hearings(7:34 p.m) New: Rocky Brook Phase H-Definitive Subdivision Mr. Angles read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Tom Neve was present representing Ogunquit Homes and stated that they are proposing a 6 lot subdivision located between Rocky Brook Road and Bennett Road,which is in Boxford. The proposed cul-de-sac road is 1400' long with one fairly steep wetland crossing. There are three natural ponds for stormwater retention. At the end of the cul-de-sac the applicant is proposing 2 two frontage exception lots in order to limit the length of the cul-de-sac. Lots 1 through 6 are the new lots, 10A, I IA, 12A and 13B are the reconfigured lots of Rocky Brook I. There will be Town water,and the applicant is not adverse to installing sprinkler systems in the homes. Mr. Nardella asked if sidewalks are planned and Mr. Neve replied no. Mr. Simons asked about the septic testing and Mr.Neve replied that there are acceptable perk and deep hole tests. Mr. Rowen asked what are the steepest grades on the road and Mr. Neve replied under 4%the whole way. Mr. Rowen stated that sidewalks should be built. Mr. Neve will speak with the Town of Boxford regarding access from Bennett Road and will report back to the Planning Board. Continued until July 2, 19%. 150 Flagship Drive- Site Plan Review Mr. Angles read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Paul Kneeland, president of Channel Building,was present and stated that the location of the property is lot 1 North Andover Business Park with frontage on 150 Flagship Drive. The proposed building is to house Town Printing currently located on Charles Street. It is a 50,000 sq fI parcel formerly zoned residential, but changed at Town Meeting to Industrial-I. The site plan was developed keeping in mind all the covenants placed on the property years ago i.e. building height,buffer zones, site lighting,trash management, noise level. No abutters were present, but Greg Weich from Channel Building stated he will send to Peter Novello, an abutter, the list of items covered in the covenant and how they are being addressed. Frank Monteiro, MI-IF Group in Salem,N.H. was present and stated that the property is 8.9 acres and access will be through a 50' wide lot. A Form A has been submitted to avoid a wetland crossing. There will be a row of white pines installed and landscaping done around the perimeter of the building. There is existing water and sewer and a detention pond will be provided. There is a swale around the perimeter of the property and a 2 to 1 cut slope to swale. The building is at elevation 263. Mr. Simons asked Mr. Monteiro why clear as much land as shown on the plan and Mr. Monteiro replied that it is necessary so that the building will be on one elevation. Mr. Simons asked why can't you put the drainage into the subdivision drainage and Mr. Monteiro replied it can't accommodate any more. Mr. Rowen stated that because of the steep slopes we may require interceptor drains. Mr. Rowen asked where will you place snow storage and Mr. Monteiro replied off to the side of the building. Mr. Nardella asked what are the hours of operation and Mr.Poore replied 7 am to 11 pm 5 days a week, some Saturdays and very minimum Sundays. Mr. Simons asked Mr. Monteiro to address the lighting and Mr. Monteiro stated that there will be several 30' high poles around the building and wall pack lighting on the building. Ms. Colwell stated that she is waiting for a report from John Chessia on the drainage calcs, but doesn't feel there will be anything overwhelming. A site walk is scheduled for June 15, 1996 at 8 a.m. Continued until June 18, 1996. 3 1 White Birch R-Subdivision Modification Mr. Angles read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Dan Betty,the developer,was present and stated that the citizens who live in the development don't really want the sidewalks installed. There are some extremely large old trees and they would have to be sacrificed in order to install the sidewalks. Mr. Nardella stated that the Planning Board has been fighting long and hard for sidewalks in subdivisions. Mr.Betty stated that he, of course,will donate to the sidewalk fund. A resident of the development pointed out that there are only 4 homes and it is a dead end street,therefore,there seems no need for sidewalks. Ms. Colwell recommended that the requirement for sidewalks be waived in favor of a donation to the sidewalk fund given the small number of homes on the street. Mr. Rowen invited the Planning Board to visit the site on their own and be ready to vote at the June 18, 1996 meeting. Continued until June 18, 1996. Continued: 200 Chickening Road MMa es] Site-plan Review Mr. Angles read a letter from Atty. Hatem requesting a continuance until June 18, 1996. Decisions: Abbott Village- Subdivision Modification On a motion by Mr. Simons, seconded by Mr.Nardella,the Board voted unanimously to approve the draft decision as amended. Lots 19&20 Nutmeg Lane Abbott Village}-Common Drive On a motion by Mr. Simons, seconded by Mr. Angles, the Board voted unanimously to approve the DENIAL decision as amended. Bond Releases/Updated Coventry I bond-update Ms. Colwell stated that Bob Halpin is scheduled to meet with David Alt from the bank on June 15, 1996. The Planning Board will be kept up to date via Ms. Colwell. The Crossroads-bond release 4 Ms. Colwell stated that some landscaping still needs to be completed, and as-built plans have not been submitted yet. The Town is hold a$20,000 bond and Ms. Colwell recommends releasing $15,000 and retaining$5,000 to cover the landscaping and as-built plans. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Nardella,the Planning Board voted unanimously to release$5,000 and retain$15,000. O id a Estates-bond release Ms. Colwell stated that she reviewed the site and recommends releasing all of the remaining bond money. The Town is currently holding$2,000. On a motion by Mr. Simons, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Board voted unanimously to release all of the remaining bond money. Jerad Place Phase I-bond release Jerad Place Phase II-bond release Ms. Colwell referred to a letter from D.P.W. recommending that an amount of$2,000 be retained in the Jerad Place Phase I bond and that the Jerad Place Phase II bond be released. On a motion by Mr. Nardella, seconded by Mr. Angles,the Board voted unanimously to retain $2,000 in the Jerad Place Phase I bond and to release the Jerad Place Phase II bond. FORM A Lots Lot A&Bon the corner of Peters Street&Brewster Street The Planning Board is not happy that the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance on this property. The Board instructed Ms. Colwell to draft a letter regarding the variance to John Leeman, Chairman, Board of Selectmen. The Board directed Ms. Colwell to endorse the plans. Adjournment: On a motion by Mr. Angles, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. 5 Planning Board Meeting APPROVE 9/1. /2001. September 4, 2001 Members Present: John Simons, Chairman Alberto Angles, Vice Chairman Richard Nardella, Clerk Richard Rowen Felipe Schwarz,Associate Member Staff Present: Heidi Griffin, Planning Director Jacki Byerley, Planning Assistant The Planning Board Meeting of September 4,2001 was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Discussions: Foxwood Ms. Griffon presented a summary of the proposed drainage improvements to the Foxwood Subdivision. Ms. Griffin stated that town officials, the developer's engineer and the residents had met regarding the issues at Foxwood Subdivision. Through the discussions it was determined that any proposed drainage improvements within the right-of-way are field changes; any other eventual improvements made to the subdivision that entail going on private property will require the applicant to file for a subdivision modification. Mr. O'Neill, engineer for the developer, wanted to provide the Board with a run through of VHB's comments. VHB's first comment in regards to Mr. Cordoza's memo that the underdrain should be extended to station 10+00, VHB agreed with this. Mr. O'Neill believed there was a problem with the Swale at the upland part of the hill. Mr. O'Neill believed that the existing hill would undermine the existing swale. He felt that it might be able to be extend an additional 10 or 15 feet but would like to meet VHB on the site to come to an agreement. Mr. Devlin a resident of Foxwood stated that water was breaking out at the proposed extension. VHB's memorandum stated that they recommend constructing the under drain at Station 19 as proposed by Mr. O'Neill by using a small swale there. Mr. Devlin stated that there was no apparent water there. The Planning Board agreed that the under drain should be kept as part of the plan. VHB recommended that the swale should be extended to Lot No. 7. Mr. O'Neill did not agree with this recommendation because it would extend the swale to the catch basin in front of lot 7, which has a landscaped wall. The landscaped wall would make it difficult to construct the Swale. Mr. Cordoza stated that he did not recommend extending the swale to Lot 7 but to extend to the manhole. Mr. O'Neill believed that he would be able 1 �o� I to create the swale that grades back to the manhole with the extension of 1S feet. W. O'Neill suggested that he meet with VHB on site and possible extend the swale an additional 15 feet from the proposal, VHB could not make a recommendation with regards to the icing and neither could Mr. O'Neill whereas Mr. O'Neill had visited the site during spring and summer. Mr. Devlin verified that icing does occur. Mr. Simons questioned Mr. O'Neill on what adjustments could be made for icing? Mr. O'Neill was not aware of the concerns mentioned with the icing and the draining at the center of Weyland Circle. Mr. Simons understood that an answer could not be obtained today but would like a suggestion made to the Planning Board at the next meeting the applicant attends. Mr. Devlin suggested drainage with cuts inside going to the back of the lots. Mr. Simons questioned whether the icing occurred from surface water? Mr. Devlin answered yes. Mr. O'Neill stated that the back of the lots are landscaped and any possible changes to the residents property would require easements. Mr. O'Neill was going to look into a resolution to the problem. Mr. Simons questioned Mr. O'Neill on when the work could be sta.-ted to resolve the agreed upon issues? Mr. O'Neill answered that he could start immediately following the meeting with VHB. Mr. O'Neill stated that everything he proposed on the Drainage Remediation Plan dated August 16, 2001 could be dome immediately with the approval of the Planning Board and VHB. Mr. Simons stated that Mr. O'Neill meet with on site with VHB and the Town Planner and once an agreement is made between them that he starts the work. Mr. Rowen motioned to have the Foxwood developer start the work once an agreement is made on site with Ms. Griffin and VHB, 2"d by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Public Hearings: Boston Hill Condominiums-Site Plan Special Permit Mr. Chris Huntress representative for Mesiti Development gave the Planning Board a brief description of the proposed project. Mr. Huntress stated that the proposal consisted of 108 units that would be senior age restricted(55 and older). The entrance way has been moved away from Johnson Street by about 600 feet. Mr. Huntress stated that a 70% reduction of site work had been accomplished with this proposal. The units have a smaller footprint. Mr. Huntress believed the applicant was exempt from the Growth Management Bylaw and Phased Development due to the zoning freeze and the age restriction. Mr. Simons stated that the Planning Board would look into whether the applicant was exempt. Mr. Sileski the architect for the applicant stated that through his designs they have developed the rear of the dwellings and decreased the footprint to achieve a more natural 2 /o appearance. The uphill buildings look taller from the road and smaller in the back. The downhill buildings have a garage on the main living level with the face of the building more prominent. The backs have dormers,possible sunrooms and more architectural detail. The uphill dwellings have more detail in the front. The floor plans of the downhill dwellings are spread more to the back with two bedrooms and optional rooms for various buyers. The uphill buildings show the garage at the lower basement and three bedrooms. Mr. Rowen question how large the dwelling would be? Mr. Sileski stated that the living space for the uphill is approximately 2400 sf, the downhill has about 2200 sf with the option of an additional 400 sf if the occupants finish the basement. Mr. Nardella questioned the outside finishes? Mr. Sileski stated at the moment they do not know if they will use wood or vinyl but it would have a clapboard look. Mr. Sileski stated that he would provide that information at the next meeting. Mr.Nardella asked if the dwellings have chimneys? Mr. Sileski stated that they are equipped with a gas fireplace with horizontal ventilation. Mr. Simons questioned whether Mr. Sileski had done any previous work similar to this? Mr. Sileski stated that he had worked on Fuller Pond in Middleton. Mr. Schwarz questioned how much of the building could be seen from the street? Mr. Huntress stated that there were limited glimpses. Mr. Nardella wanted to know what the open space plan showed,whether the Iand outside the dwellings was to be considered open space, Mr. Huntress stated that they had thought of placing a covenant on the property limiting the uses, also there was the possibility of making the 30 feet off the buildings private open space. Mr. Nardella stated his concern was the"definition" of the open space and its delineation. For example, if the owner of one unit wanted to have a barbecue down by the mailboxes, it would appear from this plan that could occur, as there is no reference to the open space on the plan. Mr.Nardella stated he would like a clear delineation of the open space parcels on the plan and what its uses would be as it relates to how it would affect the owners of the dwellings. Mr. Rowen stated that the applicant would have to develop a schedule that would protect the foundations throughout the winter months if they planned on started the proposal this year. 3 1� � eet of driveway that Mr. Dermot Kelly,traffic engineer, stated that they are proposing 54 f is 25 feet wide, Mr, Kelly stated that this is similar to what is happening at the Forestview Subdivision. Mr. Kelly stated that VHB had commented that the Saturday traffic should be documented along with Mr. Kelly's stamp be placed on the final study. Mr. Simons questioned what the site distance was? Mr. Kelly stated that at 55 mph there is about 550 feet of site and the posting on Route 114 is 45 mph. Mr. Simons questioned what the level of service was for left turns? Mr. Kelly stated that the exiting was at level C and entering a level B. Mr. Kelly stated the trips in and out in the morning are at 29 and in the evening are 27. 1 Ms. Griffin stated that she still had concerns for housing"55 years of age and older" because with this type of housing you cannot restrict the residents from having children. Ms. Griffin stated that would leave a concern for school bus pick-up as the School Department has provided a memorandum that indicates they could not provide school bus service at this site due to the slopes of the road and no where for the children to be picked up at the site. Ms. Griffin recommended the applicant draft and provides a covenant to the Planning Board that would clearly restrict school bus pick-up at this site. Mr. Brian Levy, attorney for the applicant, stated that the applicant would be willing to include within such a draft covenant that they(the applicant)would utilize the maximum restrictions for 55 years of age and older housing that are allowed by law. Mr. Nardella stated that they done a similar project at Green Street and suggested the applicant obtain a copy of that restriction and use that when drafting their covenant. Ms. Griffin suggested that the applicant provide the Planning Board with the covenant containing this restriction and she will have Town Counsel review them. Mr.Nardella stated that until these restrictions are provided the applicant may still have school bus issues. Mr. Grandstaff stated that he would make provisions for the turn Mr. Rowen questioned the size and location of the detention pond? Mr. Huntress stated the detention pond would be used like a revegetated use of wild life resource with upper story ornamentals. Mr. Nardella questioned how wide the road was? Mr. Kelly stated that is was 25 feet. i I Mr. Rowen questioned whether there was a common meeting center proposed on site for the residents? Mr. Huntress stated no. Mr. Schwarz asked whether there was a trail proposed? Mr. Huntress stated that a trail is proposed leading to trustee land. Mr. Nardella wanted to know what the max slope of the roadway is and the location of it? Mr. Rosati stated that the first 500 feet is at an 8%grade with the remainder being a b% grade. 4 <o� Ms. Bernice Fink of 1250 Turnpike Street questioned what laws allow a restriction of 55 and older? Mr. Simons stated that the issue of restriction would be discussed at the September 18 Planning Board meeting. Ms. Fink didn't feel that the Village Residential for density was frozen in. Ms. Fink presented a handout to the Planning Board. Ms. Fink commented that the storm of March 2001 cause flooding of the hill, Ms. Fink would like this to be taken into consideration by the Board. Mr. Simons questioned whether the open space suit was still in front of the courts? Attorney Levy stated that the suit in regards to the Building Inspectors interpretation has been dismissed while the suit Mr. Farnum filed is still in the courts. Ms. Fink questioned whether blasting would be performed on the hill? Mr. Rosati stated that there could be some but they would stay in compliance with the town. Mr. Rosati stated that he would give more information at the September 18 meeting. Ms. Fink stated that the placement of the detention basin would prevent the widening of Route 114. Mr. Keith Neich of 1084 Johnson Street questioned the placement of the underground detention areas? Mr. Rosati stated that the placement of the detention basin was to hopefully help reduce the risk of flooding. Mr. Neich question how far away the Brooks Street intersection was from their proposed opening? Mr.Kelly stated that the range looked to be about 500 feet but he would look into it for the September 18 meeting. Mr. Rob Ray of85 Boston Street stated that he didn't believe that the trip study took into account the hazards in the area. Mr. Kelly stated that the State mandates whether a traffic signal is required presently with the estimates the State would not allow a traffic light to reduce the hazards. Ms. Griffin stated that she would like the applicant to respond to the following issues at the next Planning Board Meeting: 1. Proposal for an aboveground detention pond vs. an underground detention structure—What are the reasons why an aboveground detention pond is being proposed when the Planning Board has made it clear on the past application they would prefer an underground detention structure? 2. Why is an easement not proposed for the future widening of Route 114? If one is not being proposed the applicant should demonstrate to the Planning Board, in writing, that there is ample space for the State,to widen Route 114 within the State Right-of-Way. 3. Where would the snow storage be on site? This needs to be placed on the plans. 4. It appears that on the site plans a height variance may be needed from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed height of the buildings? If they believe one is not needed, written documentation should be explained as to 5 (vf why one is not needed. Mr. Huntress stated that they would prove to the Planning Board at the next.meeting that a height variance is not needed. 5. Ms. Griffin commented that the memo from the Police Department dated 8121/01 requests that the proposed roadway be reduced to a suggested speed limit of 20 mph. Ms. Griffin noted that VHB's memorandum supports this suggested speed also. Ms. Griffin further noted that VVHB's memorandum states that many of the proposed vertical curves do not meet 30mph design criteria with respect to stopping sight distance. Ms. Griffin recommended that the 20 mph speed be implemented as requested by the Police Department and VHB, along with rectifying the appropriate vertical curves and stopping sight distances with this new speed within the roadway. 6. Ms. Griffin stated the applicant should also include in the draft covenant to be provided to the Planning Board that the detention pond and drainage systems will be the responsibility of the owner to maintain and repair these structures and that the owners of the dwellings may NEVER petition Town Meeting for the DPW repair and maintain these structures. Additionally, the covenant should clearly state the owners may NEVER petition Town Meeting for the DPW to provide trash/refuse service to the development. And, as mentioned earlier in the evening,the covenant should clearly state the owners may NEVER petition Town Meeting or the School Committee for public transportation anWor school bus service for any children within the development. Ms. Griffin stated she would like answers to the above questions responded to in writing and/or delineated on the plans(as appropriate)prior to the next public hearing. Mr. Schwarz questioned whether the applicant had gone before the Conservation Commission? Mr. Huntress stated they were scheduled for September 5,2001. Mr. Rowen motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Boston Hill Condominiums Site Plan Special Permit until September 18, 2001, 2nd by Mr.Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Salem Turnpike Street-Seven Hills Foundation-Site Plan Special Permit Mr. Karl Dubeau of MHF Designs, filling in for Mark Gross the engineer for the project, stated that the site is 2 acres. Currently the site has a pump station'located on it. The applicant, Seven Hills Foundation, is proposing a 5600 sf professional building. The proposal consists of a colonial style within the Village Commercial Zoning District. There are 18 parking spaces proposed. Mr. Rick Martell, construction manager for Seven Hills Foundation, stated that the offices were to be utilized for the Seven Hills Staff. Presently they have offices located 6 i in Wakefield and Lowell. This is a proposal for a single tenant office building with 10- 12 people working in the office. Mr. Dubeau stated that an NOI had been submitted with the Conservation Department, Mr. Dubeau stated that the dumpster was located at the front which will be screened. Mr. Nardella questioned why the building was placed so far away from the road? Mr. Nardella went on to say that the VC District was created to allow the building to be closer to the roadway with the parking hidden in the rear. Mr. Dubeau stated that they had tried to keep with the natural design of the site. Presently the site narrowed in the back,which would make it difficult to fit parking in. Mr. Simons requested that the applicant show profiles of the proposal. Mr. Nardella questioned the maximum height of the building? Mr. Dubeau stated that is was about 30 feet. Mr. Simons questioned whether they were a non-profit organization? Mr.Martell answered yes. Mr. Dubeau went on to say that the dormers were for aesthetics;the building would be fully sprinklered and alarmed. Also the applicant was placing a fire hydrant. Mr. Angles questioned whether they were within the 100'buffer zone? Mr. Dubeau stated yes they are. Mr. Nardella questioned how many parking spaces were required? Ms. Griffin stated 19 parking spaces. Mr. Dubeau is proposing 18;he stated that what is showing within the bylaw the calculation shows the spaces to be 18.3. Mr. Dubeau had thought that showing 18 would be sufficient. Mr.Nardella stated that the applicant should show 19 parking spaces on the plan. Mr. Schwarz questioned whether handicapped parking was proposed? Mr. Dubeau stated that one handicapped parking spaces is proposed which follows the guidelines of the zoning bylaw. Mr. Dubeau stated that the landscaping was going to be placed to fill in any gaps and along the existing pumping station. Sod was proposed instead of seeding and looming. Mr. Simons wanted to know about the entryway,how it was going to be lit. Mr. Dubeau stated that one light is proposed as you enter and three along the parking lot. The fights are to be downcast. Mr. Rowen questioned when they planned to start the construction`? Mr. Martell stated that they hoped to break ground about 90 days after approvals. Mr. Simons questioned what the sign would look like? Mr. Martell stated that it would a hand carved all wood with upward lighting. 7 rlo Mr. Simons requested that the applicant bring in pictures of the existing modular buildings to the next meeting. Mr. Dubeau stated that the stonewall along the side property was to be built to be able to use as a seat also. Timber guardrails are proposed. Mr. Angles questioned the elevation difference? Mr. Dubeau stated is about 2 feet. Ms.Bernice Fink an abutter to the project questioned why a 4-inch water line was proposed.? Mr. Dubeau stated that the size is within code and that they will place whatever size the DPW recommends. Ms. Fink wanted to know what type of heating fuel is proposed? Mr. Dubeau stated they would be using oil that will be stored in the basement. Ms. Fink commented that there may be a problem with digging the foundation,when she had built on her property she had dig deeper than normal to be able to stabilize the site. Mr. Dubeau stated that with the applicant going before the Conservation Commission a requested to be placed on the October 2 agenda. Mr. Rowen motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Salem Turnpike Street-Seven Hills Foundation-Site Plan Review until October 2, 2001, 2ad by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. 65 Flagship Drive-Site Plan Special Permit Mr. Karl Dubeau, engineer for the applicant, explained to the Planning Board that the proposal was for a 9000 square foot addition to an existing building. Mr. Dubeau stated that they have supporting parking for an office/manufacturing company. An underground detention/retention basin is proposed with a recharge system. Thisis proposed to capture existing water flow and send it to be recharged. Mr. Nardella questioned the width of the driveway? Mr. Dubeau stated is 25 feet. Mr. Dubeau stated that the applicant had submitted an NOI with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Simons requested that the applicant provide pictures for the September 18, 2001 meeting. Mr.Nardella asked whether a new tenant was expected? Mr. Dubeau stated that they didn't know at the moment. 8 1 r� Mr. Simons questioned the height of the roof? Mr. Dubeau stated that the floor elevation was to stay the same but he would check the height for the September 18,2001 meeting. Mr. Simons wanted to know whether HVAC units were proposed on the flat roof? Mr. Dubeau believed that they were. Mr. Simons requested that the applicant show the Planning Board what sound deadening procedures would be implemented at the September 18 meeting. Mr. Nardella questioned what lighting is proposed? Mr. Dubeau stated that there are three existing lights and would have more information for the September 18 meeting. Mr. Dubeau stated that there was residential area in the back of the property and screening is proposed. Mr. Nardella instructed Ms. Griffin to look into the existing Special Permit for the property to see if there are restrictions regarding the proposal. Mr.Nardella motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for 65 Flagship Drive- Site Plan Special Permit until September 18, 2001, 2nd by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Continued Public Hearings: Turnpike Street Lot 4N-Merrimack Building-Site Plan Special Permit i Ms. Griffin informed the Planning Board that the applicant had addressed most of the issues that were brought up at the July 24, 2001 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Pat Garner, engineer for the applicant, stated that the sewer line had been added along with a fire hydrant that the Fire Department had requested. Mr. Dermot Kelly informed the Planning Board that a 30-foot radius is showing; a 15:1 taper is showing. Massachusetts Highway standard opening is 25 feet. Mr. Doug Shedel,the noise engineer, stated that there is a 60-tan roof top capacity towards the highway there is a one decibel level, a three decibel level towards Ash& Berry Street. Mr. Shedel believed that the decibels would increase. Mr. Nardella read the draft Restrictive Covenant and suggested that the applicant delete the words "for retail or other use". Mr.Hingorani stated that he would change it. Mr. Simons wanted the applicant to show the sign in more detail, Mr. Nardella informed the applicant the Building Inspector still needed to approve the sign. Mr.Nardella suggested to Ms. Griffin to have all proposals for signs reviewed by the Building 9 ��L j Inspector and to inform all applicants that they still require a building permit even after the Planning Board approves the special permit. Mr.Nardella requested that Ms. Grim place within the decision that the 3 acres on Berry Street are to be deeded over to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Simons requested that the applicant show a picture of the sign at the September 18 meeting. Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing for T�rnpike Street Lot 4N Site Plan Special Permit and instructed Ms. Griffin to draft a decision for September 18, 2001, 2"d by Mr. Nardella, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Nardella motioned to convene into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation,2"d by Mr. Rowen,voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Remaining Discussion Items: Delucia Way-Endorsement of Plans The Planning Board endorsed Delucia Way Definitive Subdivision Plans. 777 Great Pond Road-Lots 23.4 Watershed Special Permit&Lots 3 and 4 Common Dtiv Special Permit-Extensions Mr. Scully informed the Planning Board that they are presently working on the site;they haven't done substantial work as of yet so they are requesting a one-year extension of the special permits. Mr. Nardella motioned to EXTEND all special permits granted for 777 Great Pond Road for one year,2"d by Mr. Rowen,voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Heritage Estates-Partial Bond Release Mr. Rowen commented that he had been by the site recently and had questions for the developer David Kindred. Mr. Rowen instructed Ms. Griffinn to have Mr. Kindred come to the Planning Board meeting of September 18. Mr. Rowen motioned to NOT RELEASE any bond money from Heritage Estates Subdivision,2"d by Mr. Angles,voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. 10 113 Sterling Lane-Salem Forest IV-Partial Bond Release Ms. Griffin informed the Planning board that DPW recommended a release of$16,500. This amount accounts for the release for the binder coat,topcoat, sidewalks,bounds, street trees, bituminous, loam and seeding, detention area, erosion control, and retaining wall. Ms. Griffin also informed the Planning Board that the developer would be corning for street acceptance at the next Town Meeting. Mr.Nardella motioned to RELEASE $16,500.00 leaving a remainder of $14,200.00 from Sterling Lane-Salem Forest IV Subdivision, 2nd by Mr. Rowen, voted 5- 0 in favor of the motion. Mr.Nardella motioned to APPROVE the August 7, 2001 Planning Board minutes, 2"d by Mr. Angles, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Mr.Nardella motioned to ADJOURN the Planning Board meeting of September 4, 2001 at 11:30 p.m., 2nd by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. 11 it� Planning Board Meeting Senior Center June 4,1996 Members Present: Richard Rowen, Vice Chairman, Alberto Angles, Associate Member,Richard Nardella arrived at 7:20 p.m. John Simons arrived at.7:30 p.m. Joseph V. Mahoney, Chairman, and Alison Lescarbeau, Clerk were absent. Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner, was present. The Meeting was called to order at 7:20 p.m. Minutes.- On a motion by Mr. Nardella, seconded by Mr. Angles,the minutes of May 21, 1996 and May 28, 1996 were unanimously approved. Discussion: cullly property Great Pond Road)-common drivewgy Jim Bergeron was present and stated that there are 3 existing Form A lots on Great Pond Road. In order to avoid crossing wetlands in the Watershed area,the applicant is proposing a common driveway adjacent to a single driveway. There will be an actual crossing of the wetlands, therefore,the applicant is requesting that the Board allow the common driveway and the single driveway to merge for a small section. Mr. Rowen stated that he does not want to see three homes off a common drive, and suggested the applicant find a way to use a subdivision road for access. Mr. Nardella asked that if the Planning Board only allowed a common drive to two homes, what happens? Mr. Bergeron replied that the Conservation Commission would have to allow more wetland filling. Ms. Colwell to work with the applicant to find a better way around this. The Planning Board continued discussions to June 18, 1996, Old Center Lane-Preliminary Subdivision Plan Ben Osgood, Jr. from New England Engineering was present and stated that he is proposing a two home subdivision off of Johnson Street approximately %.mile from the fire station on the left hand side of the road. He is proposing a 3 50' long cul-de-sac,the road will turn to the right following the contour of the land. As it is a small road, 24' of pavement is proposed. The homes will be on Town sewer and water and the detention area will be underground. Ms. Colwell stated that some easements should be provided for connection through to Salem Street. Mr. Osgood stated that he doesn't think he should provide easements,without monetary value, in order to enable another developer to build and sell a subdivision. 1 Mr. Osgood to provide a letter of extension to the Planning Board. The Planning Board continued discussions to June 19, 1996. Pleasant Street/Chickering Road- Site Plan Review Waiver Atty. Jay Willis was present and stated that the existing building on the corner of Pleasant Street and Chickering Road contains a doctor's office and empty space(the former site of Eaton's Pharmacy). The doctor's office wants to expand into the empty space and, as this would require five or more parking spaces, site plan review is triggered under the new bylaw. Ms. Colwell stated that as there will be no new construction she recommends waiving the full site plan review requirement,but having the applicant meet the basic requirements i.e. painting/lining the parking lot and spaces,providing landscaping and storm water drainage. Atty. Willis stated that all work will be done interior,but they will provide landscaping and 28 parking spaces. There will be no more than 9 employees on site at any given time. Mr. Rowen suggested that Ms. Colwell draft a very short statement as to why the Planning Board should waive the site plan review process and fax it to the,Board members for review. Qgpter 61B-Right of first refusal on 277 Farnum Street Mr. Simons suggested that Ms. Colwell look at the purchase and sale agreement, and also determine just where the location of the property is. Ms. Colwell stated that in reality the Town does not have the funds to purchase the property, but an informed recommendation in accordance with the Open Space Plan will be given and the money issue left to the Selectmen. Growth Management Bylaw-Regulations The public hearing to adopt the regulations is scheduled for June 18, 1996. Mr.Rowen presented the Board with his ideas of how to implement issuing the building permits. The Board discussed the ideas,talked about changes, and will have a final bylaw for presentation on June 18, 1996. Public Hearings(7:30 p.m) New: Rocky Brook Phase II-Definitive Subdivision Mr. Angles read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Tom Neve was present representing Ogunquit Homes and stated that they are proposing a 6 lot subdivision located between Rocky Brook Road and Bennett Road, which is in Boxford. The proposed cul-de-sac road is 1400' long with one fairly steep wetland crossing. There are three natural ponds for stormwater retention. At the end of the cul-de-sac the applicant is proposing 2 two frontage exception lots in order to limit the length of the cul-de-sac. Lots 1 through 6 are the new lots, 10A, 11A, 12A and 13B are the reconfigured lots of Rocky Brook I. There will be Town water,and the applicant is not adverse to installing sprinkler systems in the homes. Mr. Nardella asked if sidewalks are planned and Mr. Neve replied no. Mr. Simons asked about the septic testing and Mr.Neve replied that there are acceptable perk and deep hole tests. Mr. Rowen asked what are the steepest grades on the road and Mr. Neve replied under 4%the whole way. Mr. Rowen stated that sidewalks should be built. Mr.Neve will speak with the Town of Boxford regarding access from Bennett Road and will report back to the Planning Board. Continued until July 2, 1996. 150 Flag_stu',p Drive- Site Plan Review Mr. Angles read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Paul Kneeland, president of Channel Building,was present and stated that the location of the property is lot 1 North Andover Business Park with frontage on 150 Flagship Drive. The proposed building is to house Town Printing currently located on Charles Street. It is a 50,000 sq ft parcel formerly zoned residential, but changed at Town Meeting to Industrial-I. The site plan was developed keeping in mind all the covenants placed on the property years ago i.e. building height, buffer zones, site lighting,trash management, noise level. No abutters were present, but Greg Weich from Channel Building stated he will send to Peter Novello, an abutter, the list of items covered in the covenant and how they are being addressed. Frank Monteiro, MHF Group in Salem, N.H. was present and stated that the property is 8.9 acres and access will be through a 50' wide lot. A Form A has been submitted to avoid a wetland crossing. There will be a row of white pines installed and landscaping done around the perimeter of the building. There is existing water and sewer and a detention pond will be provided. There is a swale around the perimeter of the property and a 2 to t cut slope to swale. The building is at elevation 263. Mr. Simons asked Mr. Monteiro why clear as much land as shown on the plan and Mr. Monteiro replied that it is necessary so that the building will be on one elevation. Mr. Simons asked why can't you put the drainage into the subdivision drainage and Mr. Monteiro replied it can't accommodate any more. Mr. Rowen stated that because of the steep slopes we may require interceptor drains. Mr. Rowen asked where will you place snow storage and Mr. Monteiro replied off to the side of the building. Mr. Nardella asked what are the hours of operation and Mr.Poore replied 7 am to 11 pm 5 days a week, some Saturdays and very minimum Sundays. Mr. Simons asked Mr. Monteiro to address the lighting and W. Monteiro stated that there will be several 30' high poles around the building and wall pack lighting on the building. Ms. Colwell stated that she is waiting for a report from John Chessia on the drainage calcs, but doesn't feel there will be anything overwhelming. A site walk is scheduled for June 15, 1996 at 8 a.m. Continued until June 18, 1996. 3 i a White Bir h II-Subdivision Modification Mr. Angles read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Dan Betty,the developer,was present and stated that the citizens who live in the development don't really want the sidewalks installed. There are some extremely large old trees and they would have to be sacrificed in order to install the sidewalks. Mr. Nardella stated that the Planning Board has been fighting long and hard for sidewalks in subdivisions. Mr. Betty stated that he, of course,will donate to the sidewalk fund. A resident of the development pointed out that there are only 4 homes and it is a dead end street,therefore,there seems no need for sidewalks. Ms. Colwell recommended that the requirement for sidewalks be waived in favor of a donation to the sidewalk fund given the small number of homes on the street. Mr. Rowen invited the Planning Board to visit the site on their own and be ready to vote at the June 18, 1996 meeting. Continued until June 18, 1996. Continued: 200 Chickering Road finniesl�Site Plan Review Mr. Angles read a letter from Atty. Hatem requesting a continuance until June 18, 1996. Decisions: Abbott Villaste- Subdivision Modification On a motion by Mr. Simons, seconded by Mr. Nardella,the Board voted unanimously to approve the draft decision as amended. Lots 19&20 Nutmeg Lane Abbott Village -Common Drive On a motion by Mr. Simons, seconded by Mr. Angles, the Board voted unanimously to approve the DENIAL decision as amended. Bond Releases/Updated Coventry I bond-update Ms. Colwell stated that Bob Halpin is scheduled to meet with David Alt from the bank on June 15, 1996. The Planning Board will be kept up to date via Ms. Colwell: The Crossroads-bond release 4 Ms. Colwell stated that some landscaping still needs to be completed, and as-built plans have not been submitted yet. The Town is hold a$20,000 bond and Ms. Colwell recommends releasing $15,000 and retaining$5,000 to cover the landscaping and as-built plans. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Nardella,the Planning Board voted unanimously to release$5,000 and retain$15,000. Oakridge Estates-bond release Ms. Colwell stated that she reviewed the site and recommends releasing all of the remaining bond money. The Town is currently holding$2,000. On a motion by Mr. Simons, seconded by W. Rowen, the Board voted unanimously to release all of the remaining bond money. Jerad Place Phase I-bond release Jerad Place Phase H-bond release Ms. Colwell referred to a letter from D.P.W. recommending that an amount of$2,000 be retained in the Jerad Place Phase I bond and that the Jerad Place Phase II bond be released. On a motion by Mr. Nardella, seconded by Mr. Angles,the Board voted unanimously to retain $2,000 in the Jerad Place Phase I bond and to release the Jerad Place Phase II bond. FORM A Lots Lot A&B on the corner of Peters Street&Brewster Street The Planning Board is not happy that the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance on this property. The Board instructed Ms. Colwell to draft a letter regarding the variance to John Leeman, Chairman, Board of Selectmen. The Board directed Ms. Colwell to endorse the plans. Adjournment: On a motion by Mr. Angles, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. 5 Planning Board Meeting APPROVED 9/1.8/ O01 September 4,2001 Members Present: John Simons, Chairman Alberto Angles, Vice Chairman r Richard Nardella, Clerk s Richard Rowen Felipe Schwarz, Associate Member Staff Present: Heidi Griffin, Planning Director Jacki Byerley, Planning Assistant The Planning Board Meeting of September 4, 2001 was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Discussions: Foxwood Ms. Griffin presented a summary of the proposed drainage improvements to the Foxwood Subdivision. Ms. Griffin stated that town officials, the developer's engineer and the residents had met regarding the issues at Foxwood Subdivision. Through the discussions it was determined that any proposed drainage improvements within the right-of-way are field changes; any other eventual improvements made to the subdivision that entail going on private property will require the applicant to file for a subdivision modification. Mr. O'Neill, engineer for the developer, wanted to provide the Board with a run through of VHB's comments. VHB's first comment in regards to Mr. Cordoza's memo that the underdrain should be extended to station 10+00, VHB agreed with this. Mr. O'Neill believed there was a problem with the swale at the upland part of the hill. Mr. O'Neill believed that the existing hill would undermine the existing swale. He felt that it might be able to be extend an additional 10 or 15 feet but would like to meet VHB on the site to come to an agreement. Mr. Devlin a resident of Foxwood stated that water was breaking out at the proposed extension. VHB's memorandum stated that they recommend constructing the under drain at Station 19 as proposed by Mr. O'Neill by using a small swale there. Mr. Devlin stated that there was no apparent water there. The Planning Board agreed that the under drain should be kept as part of the plan. VHB recommended that the swale should be extended to Lot No. 7. Mr. O'Neill did not agree with this recommendation because it would extend the swale to the catch basin in front of lot 7, which has a landscaped wall. The landscaped wall would make it difficult to construct the swale. Mr. Cordoza stated that he did not recommend extending the swale to Lot 7 but to extend to the manhole. Mr. O'Neill believed i;:hat he would be able 1 i to create the swale that grades back to the manhole with the extension of 15 feet, Mr. O'Neill suggested that he meet with VHB on site and possible extend the swale an additional 15 feet from the proposal. VHB could not make a recommendation with regards to the icing and neither could Mr. O'Neill whereas Mr. O'Neill had visited the site during spring and summer. Mr. Devlin verified that icing does occur. Mr. Simons questioned Mr. O'Neill on what adjustments could be made for icing? Mr. O'Neill was not aware of the concerns mentioned with the ' icing and the draining at the center of Weyland Circle. Mr. Simons understood that an answer could not be obtained today but would like a suggestion made to the Planning Board at the next meeting the applicant attends. Mr. Devlin suggested drainage with cuts inside going to the back of the lots. Mr. Simons questioned wheth�,r the icing occurred from surface water? Mr. Devlin answered yes. Mr. O'Neill stated that the back of the lots are landscaped and any possible changes to the residents property would require easements. Mr. O'Neill was going to look into a resolution to the problem. Mr. Simons questioned Mr. O'Neill on when the work could be stwrted to resolve the agreed upon issues? Mr. O'Neill answered that he could start immediately following the meeting with VHB. Mr. O'Neill stated that everything he proposed on the Drainage Remediation PIan dated August 16, 2001 could be done immediately with the approval of the Planning Board and VHB. Mr. Simons stated that Mr. O'Neill meet with on site with VHB and the Town Planner and once an agreement is made between them that he starts the work. Mr. Rowen motioned to have the Foxwood developer start the work once an agreement is made on site with Ms. Griffin and VHB, 2°d by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Public Hearings: Boston Hill Condominiums-Site Plan Snecial,Permit Mr. Chris Huntress representative for Mesiti Development gave the Planning Board a brief description of the proposed project. Mr. Huntress stated that the proposal consisted of 108 units that would be senior age restricted(55 and older). The entrance way has been moved away from Johnson Street by about 600 feet. Mr. Hurrress stated that a 70% reduction of site work had been accomplished with this proposal. The units have a smaller footprint. Mr. Huntress believed the applicant was exempt from the Growth Management Bylaw and Phased Development due to the zoning freeze and the age restriction. Mr. Simons stated that the Planning Board would look into whether the applicant was exempt. Mr. Silcski the architect for the applicant stated that through his designs they have developed the rear of the dwellings and decreased the footprint to achieve a more natural 2 appearance. The uphill buildings look taller from the road and smaller in the back. The downhill buildings have a garage on the main living level with the face of the building more prominent. The backs have dormers,possible sunrooms and more architectural detail. The uphill dwellings have more detail in the front. The floor plans of the downhill dwellings are spread more to the back with two bedrooms and optional rooms r for various buyers. The uphill buildings show the garage at the lower basement and three bedrooms. Mr. Rowen question how large the dwelling would be? Mr. Sileski stated that the living space for the uphill is approximately 2400 sf, the downhill has about 2200 sf with the option of an additional 400 sf if the occupants finish the basement. Mr. Nardella questioned the outside finishes? Mr. Sileski stated at;the moment they do not know if they will use wood or vinyl but it would have a clapboard look. Mr. Sileski stated that he would provide that information at the next meeting. Mr. Nardella asked if the dwellings have chimneys? Mr. Sileski stated that they are equipped with a gas fireplace with horizontal ventilation Mr. Simons questioned whether Mr, Sileski had done any previous work similar to this? Mr. Sileski stated that he had worked on Fuller Pond in Middleton. Mr. Schwarz questioned how much of the building could be seen from the street? Mr. Huntress stated that there were limited glimpses. Mr. Nardella wanted to know what the open space plan showed,whether the land outside the dwellings was to be considered open space. Mr. Huntress stated that they had thought of placing a covenant on the property limiting the uses, also there was the possibility of making the 30 feet off the buildings private open space. Mr. Nardella stated his concern was the "definition" of the open space and its delineation. For example, if the owner of one unit wanted to have a barbecue down by the mailboxes, it would appear from this plan that could occur, as there is no reference to the open space on the plan. Mr. Nardella stated he would like a clear delineation of the open space parcels on the plan and what its uses would be as it relates to how it would affect the owners of the dwellings. Mr. Rowen stated that the applicant would have to develop a schedule that would protect the foundations throughout the winter months if they planned on started the proposal this year. t 3 3 Mr. Dermot Kelly, traffic engineer, stated that they are proposing 54 feet of driveway that is 25 feet wide, Mr. Kelly stated that this is similar to what is happening at the Forestview Subdivision. Mr.Kelly stated that VHB had commented that the Saturday traffic should be documented along with Mr. Kelly's stamp be placed on the final study. Mr. Simons questioned what the site distance was? Mr. Kelly stated that at 55 mph there is about 550 feet of site and the posting on Route 114 is 45 mph. 4 Mr. Simons questioned what the level of service was for left turns? Mr. Kelly stated that the exiting was at level C and entering a level B. Mr. Kelly stated the trips in and out in the morning are at 29 and in the evening are 27. Ms. Griffin stated that she still had concerns for housing"55 years of age and older" because with this type of housing you cannot restrict the residents from having children. Ms. Griffin stated that would leave a concern for school bus pick-up as the School Department has provided a memorandum that indicates they could not provide school bus service at this site due to the slopes of the road and no where for the children to be picked up at the site. Ms. Griffin recommended the applicant draft and provides a covenant to the Planning Board that would clearly restrict school bus pick-up at this site. Mr. Brian Levy, attorney for the applicant, stated that the applicant would be willing to include within such a draft covenant that they(the applicant)would utilize the maximum restrictions for 55 years of age and older housing that are allowed by law. Mr. Nardella stated that they done a similar project at Green Street and suggested the applicant obtain a copy of that restriction and use that when drafting their covenant. Ms. Griffin suggested that the applicant provide the Planning Board with the covenant containing this restriction and she will have Town Counsel review them. Mr. Nardella stated that until these restrictions are provided the applicant may still have school bus issues. Mr. Grandstaff stated that he would make provisions for the turn Mr. Rowen questioned the size and location of the detention pond? Mr. Huntress stated the detention pond would be used like a revegetated use of wild life resource with upper stogy ornamentals. Mr. Nardel]a questioned how wide the road was? Mr. Kelly stated that is was 25 feet. I Mr. Rowen questioned whether there was a common meeting center proposed on site for the residents? Mr. Huntress stated no, j Mr. Schwarz asked whether there was a trail proposed? Mr. Huntress stated that a trail is proposed leading to trustee land. Mr. Nardella wanted to know what the max slope of the roadway is and the location of it? Mr. Rosati stated that the first 500 feet is at an 8%grade with the remainder being a 6% grade. 4 lad Ms. Bernice Fink of 1250 Turnpike Street questioned what laws allow a restriction of 55 and older? Mr. Simons stated that the issue of restriction would be discussed at the September 18 Planning Board meeting. Ms. Fink didn't feel that the Village Residential for density was frozen in. Ms. Fink presented a handout to the Planning Board. Ms. Fink commented that the storm of March 2001 cause flooding of the hill, Ms. Fink would like this to be taken into consideration by the Board. Mr. Simons questioned whether the open space suit was still in front of the courts? Attorney Levy stated that the suit in regards to the Building Inspectors interpretation has been dismissed while the suit Mr. Farnum filed is still in the courts. Ms. Fink questioned whether blasting would be performed on the hill? Mr. Rosati stated that there could be some but they would stay in compliance with the town. Mr, Rosati stated that he would give more information at the September 18 meeting. Ms. Fink stated that the placement of the detention basin would prevent the widening of Route 114, Mr. Keith Neich of 1084 Johnson Street questioned the placement of the underground detention areas? Mr. Rosati stated that the placement of the detention basin was to hopefully help reduce the risk of flooding. Mr. Neich question how far away the Brooks Street intersection was from their proposed opening? Mr. Kelly stated that the range looked to be about 500 feet but he would look into it for the September 18 meeting. Mr. Rob Ray of 85 Boston Street stated that he didn't believe that the trip study took into account the hazards in the area. Mr. Kelly stated that the State mandates whether a traffic signal is required presently with the estimates the State would not allow a traffic light to reduce the hazards. Ms. Griffin stated that she would like the applicant to respond to the following issues at the next Planning Board Meeting: 1. Proposal for an aboveground detention pond vs. an underground detention structure—What are the reasons why an aboveground detention pond is being proposed when the Planning Board has made it clear on the past application they would prefer an underground detention structure? 2. Why is an easement not proposed for the future widening of Route 114? If one is not being proposed the applicant should demonstrate to the Planning Board, in writing, that there is ample space for the State to widen Route 114 within the State Right-of-Way. 3. Where would the snow storage be on site? This needs to be placed on the plans. 4. It appears that on the site plans a height variance may be needed from the I Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed height of the buildings? If they believe one is not needed, written documentation should be explained as to 5 (a, i i I why one is not needed. Mr. Huntress stated that they would prove to the Planning Board at the next meeting that a height variance is not.needed. i 5. Ms. Griffin commented that the memo from the Police Department dated 8/21/01 requests that the proposed roadway be reduced to a suggested speed limit of 20 mph. Ms. Griffin noted that VHB's memorandum supports this suggested speed also. Ms. Griffin further noted that VHB's memorandum states that many of the proposed vertical curves do not meet 30mph design criteria with respect to stopping sight distance. Ms. Griffin recommended that the 20 mph speed be implemented as requested by the Police Department and VHB, along with rectifying the appropriate vertical curves and stopping sight distances with this new speed within the roadway. 6. Ms. Griffin stated the applicant should also include in tie draft covenant to be provided to the Planning Board that the detention pond and drainage systems will be the responsibility of the owner to maintain and repair these structures and that the owners of the dwellings may NEVER petition Town Meeting for the DPW repair and maintain these structures. Additionally, the covenant should clearly state the owners may NEVER petition Town Meeting for the DPW to provide trash/refuse service to the development. And, as mentioned earlier in the evening,the covenant should clearly state the owners may NEVER petition Town Meeting or the School Committee for public transportation and/or school bus service for any children within the j development. Ms. Griffin stated she would like answers to the above questions responded to in writing and/or delineated on the plans(as appropriate)prior to the next public hearing. Mr. Schwarz questioned whether the applicant had gone before the Conservation Commission? Mr. Huntress stated they were scheduled for September 5, 2001. Mr. Rowen motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Boston Hill Condominiums Site Plan Special Permit until September 18,2001, 2"d by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Salem Turnpike Street-Seven Hills Foundation-Site Plan Special Permit Mr. Karl Dubeau of MHF Designs, filling in for Marls Gross the engineer for the project, stated that the site is 2 acres. Currently the site has a pump station,located on it. The applicant, Seven Hills Foundation, is proposing a 5600 sf professional building. The proposal consists of a colonial style within the Village Commercial Zoning District. There are 18 parking spaces proposed. Mr. Rick Martell,construction manager for Seven Hills Foundation, stated that the offices were to be utilized for the Seven Hills Staff. Presently they have offices located 6 l�% in Wakefield and Lowell. This is a proposal for a single tenant office building with 10- 12 people working in the office. Mr. Dubeau stated that an NOI had been submitted with the Conservation Department. Mr. Dubcau stated that the dumpster was located at the front which will be screened. Mr. Nardella questioned why the building was placed so far away from the road? Mr. Nardella went on to say that the VC District was created to allow the building to be closer s to the roadway with the parking hidden in the rear. Mr. Dubeau stated that they had tried ? to keep with the natural design of the site. Presently the site narrowed in the back,which would make it difficult to fit parking in. Mr. Simons requested that the applicant show profiles of the proposal. Mr. Nardella questioned the maximum height of the building? Mr. Dubeau stated that is was about 30 feet. Mr. Simons questioned whether they were a non-profit organization? Mr. Martell answered yes. Mr. Dubeau went on to say that the dormers were for aesthetics;the building would be My sprinklered and alarmed. Also the applicant was placing a fire hydrant. Mr. Angles questioned whether they were within the 100' buffer zone? Mr. Dubeau stated yes they are. Mr. Nardella questioned how many parking spaces were required?'Ms. Griffin stated 19 parking spaces. Mr. Dubeau is proposing 18;he stated that what is showing within the bylaw the calculation shows the spaces to be 18.3. Mr. Dubeau had thought that showing 18 would be sufficient. Mr.Nardella stated that the applicant should show 19 parking spaces on the plan. Mr. Schwarz questioned whether handicapped parking was proposed? Mr. Dubeau stated that one handicapped parking spaces is proposed which follows the guidelines of the zoning bylaw. Mr. Dubeau stated that the landscaping was going to be placed to fill in any gaps and along the existing pumping station. Sod was proposed instead of seeding and looming. i Mr. Simons wanted to know about the entryway, how it was going,to be lit. Mr. Dubeau stated that one light is proposed as you enter and three along the parking lot. The lights are to be downcast. Mr. Rowen questioned when they planned to start the construction`? Mr. Martell stated that they hoped to break ground about 90 days after approvals. Mr. Simons questioned what the sign would look like? Mr. Martell stated that it would a hand carved all wood with upward lighting. 7 1l0 f i I i i Mr. Simons requested that the applicant bring in pictures of the existing modular buildings to the next meeting. i Mr. Dubeau stated that the stonewall along the side property was to be built to be able to use as a seat also. Timber guardrails are proposed. Mr. Angles questioned the elevation difference? Mr. Dubeau stated is about 2 feet. Ms. Bernice Fink an abutter to the project questioned why a 4-inch water line was proposed? Mr. Dubeau stated that the size is within code and that they will place whatever size the DPW recommends. Ms. Fink wanted to know what type of heating fuel is proposed? Mr. Dubeau stated they would be using oil that will be stored in the basement. Ms. Fink commented that there may be a problem with digging the foundation,when she had built on her property she had dig deeper than normal to be able to stabilize the site. Mr. Dubeau stated that with the applicant going before the Conservation Commission a requested to be placed on the October 2 agenda. Mr. Rowen motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Salem Turnpike Street-Seven Hills Foundation-Site Plan Review until October 2, 2001, tad by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. 65 Flagship Drive-Site Plan Special Permit Mr. Karl Dubeau, engineer for the applicant, explained to the Planning Board that the proposal was for a 9000 square foot addition to an existing building. Mr. Dubeau stated that they have supporting parking for an office/manufacturing company. An underground detention/retention basin is proposed with a recharge system. This pis proposed to capture existing water flow and send it to be recharged. Mr. Nardella questioned the width of the driveway? Mr. Dubeau stated is 25 feet. Mr. Dubeau stated that the applicant had submitted an NOI with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Simons requested that the applicant provide pictures for the September 18, 2001 meeting. Mr.Nardella asked whether a new tenant was expected? Mr. Dubeau stated that they didn't know at the moment. S Mr. Simons questioned the height of the roof? Mr. Dubeau stated that the floor elevation was to stay the same but he would check the height for the September 18, 2001 meeting. Mr. Simons wanted to know whether HVAC units were proposed on the flat roof? Mr. Dubeau believed that they were. Mr. Simons requested that the applicant show the Planning Board what sound deadening procedures would be implemented at the September 18 meeting. Mr. Nardella questioned what lighting is proposed? Mr. Dubeau stated that there are three existing lights and would have more information for the September 18 meeting. Mr. Dubeau stated that there was residential area in the back of the property and screening is proposed. Mr. Nardella.instructed Ms. Griffin to look into the existing Speciai Permit for the property to see if there are restrictions regarding the proposal. Mr.Nardella motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for 65 Flagship Drive- Site Plan Special Permit until September 18, 2001, 2"a by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Continued Public Hearings: Turn ike Street Lot 4N-Merrimack Building-Site Plan Special Permit Ms. Griffin informed the Planning Board that the applicant had addressed most of the issues that were brought up at the July 24, 2001 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Pat Garner, engineer for the applicant, stated that the sewer line had been added along with a fire hydrant that the Fire Department had requested. Mr. Dermot.belly informed the Planning Board that a 30-foot radius is showing;a 15:1 taper is showing. Massachusetts Highway standard opening is 25 feet. Mr. Doug Shedel,the noise engineer, stated that there is a 60-ton roof top capacity towards the highway there is a one decibel level, a three decibel level towards Ash& Berry Street. Mr. Shedel believed that the decibels would increase. Mr. Nardella read the draft Restrictive Covenant and suggested that the applicant delete the words "for retail or other use". Mr.Hingorani stated that he would change it. Mr. Simons wanted the applicant to show the sign in more detail. Mr. Nardella informed the applicant the Building Inspector still needed to approve the sign. Mr. Nardella suggested to Ms. Griffin to have all proposals for signs reviewed by the Building 9 i Inspector and to inform all applicants that they still require a building permit even after the Planning Board approves the special permit. Mr.Nardella requested that Ms. Griffin place within the decision that the 3 acres on Berry Street are to be deeded over to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Simons requested that the applicant show a picture of the sign at the September 18 meeting. j Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing for T�rnpike Street Lot 4N Site Plan Special Permit and instructed Ms. Griffin to draft a decision for September 18, 2001, 2 by Mr. Nardella, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Mr.Nardella motioned to convene into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation,2"d by Mr. Rowen,voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Remaining Discussion Items: Delucia Way-Endorsement of Plans The Planning Board endorsed Delucia Way Definitive Subdivision Plans. 777 Great Pond Road-Lots 2.3.4 Watershed Special Permit&Lots 3 and 4 Common' Driveway Special Permit-Extensions Mr. Scully informed the Planning Board that they are presently working on the site;they haven't done substantial work as of yet so they are requesting a one-year extension of the special permits. Mr. Nardella motioned to EXTEND all special permits granted for 777 Great Pond Road for one year, 2"d by Mr. Rowen, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Heritage Estates-Partial Bond Release Mr. Rowen commented that he had been by the site recently and had questions for the developer David Kindred. Mr. Rowen instructed Ms. Griffin to have Mr. Kindred come to the Planning Board meeting of September 18. Mr. Rowen motioned to NOT RELEASE any bond money from Heritage Estates Subdivision,2"d by Mr. Angles,voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. 10 Sterling Lane-Salem Forest IV-Partial Bond Release Ms. Griffin informed the Planning board that DPW recommended a release of$16,500, This amount accounts for the release for the binder coat,topcoat, sidewalks,bounds, street trees, bituminous, loam and seeding, detention area, erosion control, and retaining wall. Ms. Griffin also informed the Planning Board that the developer would be corning for street acceptance at the next Town Meeting. Mr.Nardella motioned to RELEASE$16,500.00 leaving a remainder of $14,200.00 from Sterling Lane-Salem Forest IV Subdivision, 2,d by Mr. Rowen, voted 5- 0 in favor of the motion. Mr. NNardeIla motioned to APPROVE the August 7, 2001 Planning Board minutes, 2nd by Mr. Angles, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Mr.Nardella motioned to ADJOURN the Planning Board meeting of September nd 4, 2001 at i 1:30 p.m., 2 by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion, i i 11 I