Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-12-04 Decision SPR Lots 1 & 2 MNH MIN TOWN OF NORTH AN DOVER lI ii � MASSACHUSET `I' S 2 ' � KpRrk O A Any appeal shall be filed within (20) days after the date of filing of this Notice �SSA"`US£i In the Office of the Town Clerk, NOTICE OF DECISION December 4, 19 89 Date. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date of Hearing i Petitionof •Riparian Realty Trust, c/o Rivers Development nt . . . elo�me Corp.Cor. , . . P:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Premises affected Berry♦Street - Assessors's Mai, 106v Parcel 44 I Referring to the above petition for a special permit from the Pequire►►lents i of the North Andover Zoning Bylaws - Section 8.3, Site Plan Review SO 8S t0 permit ,tt;e consxt�etio of. ,a. .1,7,6Q0. SfT,• 1., ,. 3vP. SvFy. biliXding.of. commercial condominium on Parcel 4q and the construction of a 35,600 sq.ft.two story building and a •59.200 sq.♦it. two st b pr�. Wldipg. P�r, pP�t�P1P a .COPd s vmRium .on.L'axcQi .63 Parcel .44 on Berry Street, Parcel 63 on the Salem Turnpike, Rte 114. After a public hearing given on the above date, the PIMMing Board voted Conditionally to Approve the . Site Plan Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . based upon the following co►idlitions : cc: Director of Public Works Board of Public Works Signed � , . Building Inspector George Perna, 7r. . , Chairman Board of Health . . . . . • . • • Conservation Commission dol)n Simons, Clerk Assessors • . • , • , • . . . • , • Police Chief Erich Nitzsche Fire Chief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applicant John Draper Engineer ' File Interested Parties " T1 1ii►i�ig Board ' . . . j OFFICES OF: fir' m Town of 12r�Main sti,eet ROMPBUILDING Milli Andover CONSERvNrION NORTH �I�I)®V Massy chusetis 0 1845 HEALTH y"s°" eQ`�Q DIVISION O (508)682-6483 PLANNING PLANNING & COMMUNX'FY ®EVELOPMEMY KAREN H.P. NELSON, IDIRGCT'OR i December 4 , 1989 Mr. Daniel Long, Town Cleric Town Hall 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re : Lot 1 & Lot 2 Berry Street, Site Plan Review Dear Mr. Long: The North Andover Planning Board field a public Dearing on November 17 , 1988 in the Town Hall , Selectmen ' s Meeting Room, upon the application of Riparian Realty Trust, c/o Rivers Development Corp. , 24 Gould Street, Reading, MA. The hearing was duly advertised in the North Andover Citizen on October 27 , 1988 and November 3, 1988 and all interested parties were notified . The petitioner seeks Site Plan approval for the construction on of a 17 , 600 sq. ft. , two story building of commercial condominium on Parcel 44 and the construction of a 35 , 600 sq. ft. two story building and a 59 , 200 sq. ft. two story building for commercial condominiums on Parcel 63, both found on the Assessors Map #106D, on Berry Street and the Salem Turnpike respectively. The following members were present, George Perna, Vice Chairman; Erich Nitzsche and Michael Leary. Paul Hedstrom arrived at 8:08 . John Simons, Clerk was absent, Erich Nitzsche read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Dennis Cronin was present representing the applicant . Mr. Cronin stated that there were two lots . one of the projects proposed is a major site plan and the other is an intermediate project. He stated that he has met with the Technical Review Committee . William Bergeron, Hayes Engineering , spoke to the Board . He stated that the buildings would be two stories . There are two independent proposal on 14 . 7 acres . Conservation Commission has had a hearing on this project. Page 2 : George Perna asked what the use was of the buildings. Mr. Bergeron stated that they would be used for office and manufacturing. He said that there was substantial amount of wetlands on the property, that there were two separate watersheds . Drainage calculations were submitted for the 2 , 10, and 100 year event. There will be on-site septic systems. Erich Nitzsche questioned the septic systems and the lots . Paul Hedstrom questioned the zoning. William Bergeron stated that they would be connecting to the sewer when available . George Perna asked what guarantee was there for the sewer connection. Paul Hedstrom said a covenant. Mr. Bergeron said that they needed Fire Department approval for the location of the hydrants and alarm system. The proposed has been reduced by 26 , 200 sq. ft. to 96 , 200 sq. ft. There will be 5% for retail (or fast food ) , 45% for office use , and 50% for industrial use . Scott Stocking, Town Planner asked that the maximum ( 10% ) be used for retail/restaurant. The issue was stressed because of parking using the largest scenario . Scott Stocking read from the Bylaw. Dennis Cronin asked if there was a condition that could be made relative to the issue . The Town Planner has asked the Building Inspector to clarify the matter. William Bergeron spoke on a traffic study that was done . He said that MEPA, State D . P . W. have copies . George Perna spoke on curb--cut on Route 114 . Mr . Bergeron stated that deceleration and accelerations lanes would be combined with those of the Elm Square Project. He also stated that there would be limited tree cutting. Erich Nitzsche questioned the landscaping on Berry Street. Mr. Bergeron said that Arborvitae would be used. Scott Stocking questioned the timetable on the HEPA filing . The response from Mr. Bergeron was next week. Scott stated that it is a policy of the Board not to close the public hearing until a report comes in on the MEPA filing . Erich Nitzsche said that the proposed project is abutting the wetlands with no buffer. Scott Stocking asked Bill Hmurciak if he had concerns . Bill Hmurciak, D . P. W. stated he had concerns with Berry Street being only 18 ' wide . George Perna stated that he would like to see Berry Street up-graded. Erich nitzsche said tie felt that the project was squeezing the site . Nancy Houghton, Berry Street abutter, wanted to know the hours for the manufacturing. She cited loud noise already from the Elm Square site . Page 3: Paul. Hedstrom read from the Bylaw citing no nescience to an area. A motion was made by George Perna to continue the public hearing until. December 15 , 1988. The motion was seconded by Erich Nitzsche and voted. unanimous by those present. On December 15, 1988, the Planning Board held a regular meeting. The following members were present: Paul Hedstrom, Chairman; George Perna, Vice Chairman; John Simons , Clerk and Michael Leary. Erich Nitzsche was absent. John Simons read a letter from the Building Inspector. A letter was also received from the Conservation Commission regarding Lot 1 Berry Street and Lot 2 Salem Turnpike , dated December 14 , 1988 and is available for anyone to read, addressing eight issues related to the project. Scott Stocking, Town Planner summarized the letter from the Conservation. Scott Stocking stated that the Conservation Commission was ready to issue a decision, a denial based on the plan before the Board. The applicant asked that the Conservation Commission hold off until there is more input from the Planning Board on it. If the plan is marketably changed then Conservation will issue its decision to deny, if there is substantial changes, the Conservation Commission will asked them to withdraw the application and submit another Notice of Intent. John Simons stated that he could not understand if the plan was going to change why didn' t the applicant withdraw this site plan. Scott Stocking said the issue is how significant the plans are going to change . Scott Stocking went over some of the issues that are still outstanding with the Planning Board: 1 . Parking standards 2 . Driveway connection between the two buildings 3. Improvements to Berry Street 4 . Improvements of intersection of Route 114 5 . Drainage 6 . Setback between Industrial and Residential Zones . Bylaw calls for 100 ' between Residential and Industrial Zone . 7 . Wetland impacts 8. Technical issues related to septic design 9 . Easement documents for septic systems - two different lots . 10 . Landscaping screening details . Scott Stocking stated that those are the major issues . Dennis Cronin, representing the applicant, was present as well as William Bergeron, Hayes Engineering, and Mr. Rivers from the Riparian Realty Trust. Mr. Cronin spoke to the Board on the technical review process and that the applicant had four meetings with the Conservation Commission and with the Planning Board. 1 Page 41 Mr. Cronin said he felt quite confident that a design could be adapted that would satisfy the concerns of the Conservation Commission and he said he is looking for direction on the issues of the Planning Board brought up by Scott Stocking, Town Planner. He said on the parking issues and letter from the Building Inspector that it is a statement of what the principal is and the application in the particular case, you have to develop a design which incorporates the projected use and that is what is incorporated in the plan is what the potential uses are and any conditional approval should incorporate those projected uses on the parking layout and must comply with that. Mr . Cronin said that is . what is meant in that section of the Bylaw was where there were no ' uses specified. Mr. Cronin also spoke on the VR and Industrial requirements in that the applicant has complied with the dimensional requirements of the VR District as it abuts the Residential Zone . He has presented a letter to Scott Stocking which indicates under this type of situation where you have a grandfathered right of use that a reasonable regulation is what he applied, applicant is asking that the Board apply Industrial dimensional requirements on the other side of the project where it abuts Industrial use . Mr. Bergeron, Hayes Engineering, spoke to the Board on some of the issues Scott Stocking, Town Planner, brought up. Mr. Bergeron stated that he was somewhat surprised when at the last Technical Review Committee Meeting when the issues of improving Berry Street was brought up, bringing Berry Street up to Town standards. Mr. Bergeron stated that Scott said that lie would be going to visit the site . Mr. Bergeron said that there was a stone wall along Berry street also a substantial amount of large trees along that area and subsequently would have to be removed which was not their desire . An easement or right-of-way was also requested along the dirt section of Berry Street for the future so the Town would not have to do any land taking . Mr. Bergeron stated that it would pose a problem because it was the primary area for septic system disposal . Mr. Bergeron provided a letter from D . E . Q . E . saying it was alright for building 2 and 3 to discharge sewage to another lot as along as there is a long term easement or lease between the lots . Mr. Bergeron said that someone b . E . Q . E . had spoken to Erich Nitzsche and that his concerns should be rested. Mr. Bergeron stated that he has been working with the different departments trying to satisfy their concerns . John Simons asked what the total upland area was . Mr. Bergeron replied that 14 acres were upland. Conservation says there are 9 . 75 acres of upland and 5 . 5 acres of wetland, of that John asked how much was covered for parking . Mr. Bergeron said that 51% was for parking. John Simons raised issues on the parking lot and wetlands . Scott Clarified some of the issues as raised by the Conservation Commission on those issuers 1 . Boundary dispute 2 . Resource area used for detention for stormwater run -off: . Page 5 s 3. Performance standards of protecting the wetlands . 4 . Driveway to Lot 2 eliminated . 5 . Extensive work in buffer zone , 6 . Suggesting imposing a 25 ' no construction zone around the bordering vet. wetlands . 7 . Problem with replication plan . Scott said those were main issues with the Conservation Commission. John Simons stated that based on those issues that would be substantial changes in the plans before the Board . The applicant is working on those issues . John wanted to see the architectural plans, something that would show the height of the building and the screening of the surrounding property. George Perna and Mr. Bergeron went over some of the issues the Planning Board halo 1 . Parking area show where it could be if business changed -- not to construct it, show it on the plans , 2 . Zoning issues -- do they go with the current zoning (VR ) setbacks, applicant next to VR District what' s there is non-conforming and was put there before the VR went into effect. 3 . ENF (Environmental Notification Form) to be done for the State curb-cut. Board asking applicant to file , applicant would like to hold-off because of Berry Street and the wetland crossing . This was on Scott ' s recommendation. A lengthy discussion took place on the connecting of the two parcels and the wetlands . George Perna said there should be some restrictions of commercial traffic in the Residential Zone . Bill Hmurciak would like to have more figures on the drainage , Scott Stocking spoke on the width of Berry Street and the fact that the impact on Route 114 and Berry Street would be greater. Dennis Cronin wanted feedback on the connecting of the two parcels . A motion was made by Michael Leary to continue the public hearing until the first meeting in February and accept an extension until February 16th . The motion was seconded by George Perna and voted unanimous by those present. On February 2 , 1989 the Planning Board held a regular meeting . The following members were present.. Paul Hedstrom, Chairman; George Perna, Vice Chairman; John Simons, Clerk; Erich Nitzsche and Michael Leary. John Simons read letters from Scott Stocking, Town Planner, the Fire Department and the Building Inspector . i Page 6 � William Bergeron, engineer, went over the concerns of the Lire Department. Mr. Bergeron stated that they have been before the Conservation Commission . He also stated that the revised plans show the building is 100 ' from the Elm Square Development as requested by the Planning Board. The applicant is asking for a waiver from the 50 ' buffer, for access to three buildings . There is a parking garage shown on the plans to address the parking issues. Ninety percent of the parking spaces are for the office space requirements and 10% for retail use . A total of 300 spaces required for the project. The parking garage could accommodate 165 parking spaces . Mr. Bergeron showed the Board floor plans ( 3 scenarios) , each containing 20 ' x60 ' modules . Mr. Bergeron went over the list of issues from Scott Stocking, Town Planner. Easement document supplied for septic systems . Landscaping added near the detention area. John Simons wanted the wetlands delineated on the plans . Mr. Bergeron showed John where they were . John also asked what percentage of upland would not be disturbed . Mr. Bergeron said basically a third. Scott Stocking, Town Planner, asked about the type of rip--rap . Mr. Bergeron said stone . Erich Nitzsche asked if the bridge design had been submitted. Mr Bergeron said, no, he had just received the okay from the Conservation Commission. George Perna asked about lighting . John Simons asked about the design of the buildings . Mr. Bergeron showed the Board, asked about what they will be made of , Mr. Bergeron said concrete (textured) . George Perna asked about the signs . Mr. Bergeron showed the Board the type of signs . George Perna and Erich Nitzsche elaborated on lighting and size of the signs. John Simons stated that a registered landscape architect stamp was needed. John also commented on the need for common driveway applications or Form A Plan. Erich Nitzsche would prefer Form A lots. Mr. Cronin stated that the land was grandfathered in 1985 . George Perna asked if the parking garage was permitted in the area. Mr. Bergeron said, yes . He also asked about the septic systems . Mr. Bergeron stated that all have been submitted to the Board of Health. Paul Hedstrom questioned whether parking garage was allowed. Erich Nitzsche questioned the letter from the Board of Health . Mr. Bergeron aid that since the letter, he has met with the Board of Health to address the issues . An extension is needed from the applicant to extend the public hearing. I Page 7 : A motion was made by Michael Leary to accept an extension until April 30, 1989 with readvertising the hearing . The motion was seconded by Erich Nitzsche and voted unanimous by those present. The Planning Board held a regular meeting on March 2 , 1989 . The following members were present: George Perna, Vice Chairman; John Simons, Clerk; Erich Nitzsche and Michael Leary. Paul Hedstrom arrived at 10:00 p. m. John Simons read a letter from Dennis Cronin asking for an extension on the public hearing . Erich Nitzsche stated that if an extension on the public hearing was granted, the Board would be asking for an extension on the decision. A motion was made by John Simons to continue the public hearing to April 2 , 1989 . The motion was seconded by Michael Leary and voted unanimous by those present. On April 6 , 1989 the Planning Board held a regular meeting . The following members were present: Paul Hedstrom, Chairman; George Perna, Vice Chairman, John Simons, Clerk and Erich Nitzsche . Michael Leary was absent. John Simons read a letter from the applicant requesting an extension. A motion was made by John Simons to continue the public hearing until May 27 , 1989 . The motion was seconded by George Perna and voted unanimous by those present. On April 27 , 1989 the Planning Board held a regular meeting . The following members were present: George Perna, Vice Chairman; John Simons, Clerk; Erich Nitzsche and Michael Leary. Paul Hedstrom arrived at 10 : 25 p . m. John Simons read a letter from the applicant requesting an extension on the public hearing . A motion was made by John Simons to accept an extension, but the request is to be put on the standard form for extension. The motion was seconded by Michael Leary and voted unanimous by those present. On May 18, 1989 the Planning Board held a regular meeting. The following members were present: George Perna, Vice Chairman; John Simons, Clerk and Erich Nitzsche . Paul Hedstrom, Chairman arrived at 9: 00 P. M. John Simons read a letter from the applicant requesting an extension on the public hearing . A motion was made by George Perna to vote a denial subject to the applicant coming in with a suitable extension, the facts of the Boards denial are in the file . The motion was seconded by John Simons and voted unanimous by those present. On June 8, 1989, the Planning Board held a regular meeting. The following members were present: George Perna, Vice Chairman; John Simons, Clerk; Erich Nitzsche and Michael Leary. Paul Hedstrom, Chairman arrived at 8 : 35 p . m. I i Page 81 Dennis Cronin, attorney, gave the Board background on the application before the Board. He stated that since the first public hearing in October, the project has been scaled down from 125,000 sq. ft. to 95,000 sq. ft. A new notice of intent has been filed with the Conservation Commission . George Perna wanted the issues identified before the Board went any further with this application. Dennis Cronin said that the issues were the design of the project and a letter from the Building Inspector relative to the interpretation of the parking and whether an accessory parking garage was necessary to accommodate the proposed. Dennis Cronin stated that Mr . Nicetta had not seen the plans at that time and has since reviewed them and the parking meets the requirements for what is proposed. John Simons questioned how many separate lots there were . Mr. Cronin stated that there were two separate lots . Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering, went over changes as a result of the Conservation Commission. Mitigation of Drainage Report was given to the Board to review. Chris Huntress stated that he had spoken to Richard Doucette , Conservation Administrator, on the fifty ( 50 ) foot buffer area and Richard stated that the Conservation Commission was strongly opposed, that a portion of the project was being built within the 50 foot buffer area. Peter Ogren stated that at the Conservation meeting on June 7 , 1989 , was the first time any reference was made to a 50 foot buffer zone . John Simons questioned the percentage of upland that would not be disturbed. Paul Hedstrom stated that the report says 48% including wetlands. John Simons wanted to see a landscaping plan . Mr. Ogren was waiting for site plan approval before submitting . John Simons said it was part of the requirements of a submittal . A lengthy discussion took place on what the issues were and information that is needed in the site plan review process . These issues were in a letter, dated February 7 , 1989 from the Planning Office . Some of the issues were : 1 . Landscaping 2 . Form A Plan 3 . Building elevations along Berry Street 4 . Rip-rap design 5 . Sign Design b . 'Three story parking garage is accessory building 7 . Order of Conditions from Conservation 8 . Dumpsters/screening 9 . Drainage calculations submitted to D . P . W. before closing the public hearing . Page 9 , 10 . Details of retaining walls 11 . Redesigning parking area to North of Building #2 12 . What material will be used to stabilize the retention area. Some of the concerns were : 1 . Lighting 2 . Parking 3 . Residential area abutting 4. Too intense of a project The Board wanted to know the outcome of the Conservation meeting. Dennis Cronin stated that the abutters may not have been notified properly and that the applicant is going before the Conservation Commission on June 21 , 1989 . Perc tests have been done on the project. A motion was made by George Perna to continue the public hearing to the first meeting in August and accept and extension for three months . The motion was seconded by Michael Leary and voted unanimous by those present. On August 24 , 1989 the Planning Board held a regular meeting . The following members were presents George Perna, Chairman; John Simons, Clerk; Erich Nitzsche and Jack Graham. John Simons read a letter to the applicant from Christian Huntress, Planner, with a list of concerns . Bill Bergeron spoke to the Board on the site plan . Modification of that plan relative to retaining walls, per Conservation Commission and a note on the plans relative to landscaping. Plans were given to the Board members . The Board wanted the heating and air conditioning shown in the elevation, along with the screening of same . The Board expressed concerns with the building along Route 114 and the flat roofs . They would like to see front and side views of the buildings. The Board members expressed their concern of being uncomfortable with what the buildings will look lime , would prefer seeing jogs in the footprint, not all flat. Mr. Osborne spoke to the Board on landscaping the property. Plans of the landscaping were presented to the Board for review. Mr. Osborne went over the different types of tree plantings that will be used at the site . John Simons spoke on the density being too high, over development of the wetlands . Brad Latham gave figures on the percentage of pavement, building, landscaping , and wetlands . There are 186 ,000 sq. ft. of wetlands for a total of 309 ,000 sq. ft. of undisturbed land. Total paved area, 145 , 676 sq. ft. ; footprint, 49, 600 sq. ft. ; sidewalks 7 , 120 sq. ft. for 31 . 5°% being disturbed. Page 10 : The Board requested the following information: 1 . Look of the buildings 2 . Show material to be used. 3 . Show top of the buildings along Route 114 and the screening. 4 . What the signs will look like . 5 . Type of lighting to be used. The Board expressed concerns with the following : 1 . Appears to be over development of the site . 2 . Area of wetlands vs area of uplands . New landscape plans will be submitted to the Board for review. Christian Huntress stated the deadline on this application was September 6 , 1989 . A rough draft will be available on September 7 , 1989. An extension will be needed till the end of September. The applicant will provide the Board with an extension till September 26 , 1989. Erich Nitzsche to review the drainage calculations of May 10th. A motion as made by Erich Nitzsche to continue the public hearing to September 7 , 1989 , accept the extension to September 26 , 1989 and direct the Planner to draft a decision. The motion was seconded by John Simons and voted unanimous by those present. The Planning Board held a regular meeting on September 7 , 1989 . The following members were present: George .Perna, Chairman; John Simons, Clerk and Erich Nitzsche . Jack Graham was absent. A letter from Christian Huntress to the applicant was read into the record. The Board expressed their concern with the view of the project from Route 114 , size of the signs which are to be placed on the buildings , possibility to tie into sewer should it be extended past the property, and the ability of the surface drainage getting into the detention ponds . Mr. William Bergeron, of Hayes Engineering, stated that the signs being placed on the building will be less than 2" tall so as to fit within the ornamental brick strip on the facade of each structure . Mr. Bergeron went on to say that the septic system is in compliance with Title V as it is located 10 ' away from the property line of Berry Street. A motion was made by John Simons to continue the public hearing to September 21 , 1989 Planning Board Hearing . The motion was seconded by Erich Nitzsche and voted unanimous by those present. Page 11s The Planning Board held a regular meeting on September 21 , 1989 . The following members were present% George Perna, Chairman; John Simons, Clerk and Erich Nitzsche . Paul Hedstrom arrived at 8s15 P. M. Jack Graham was absent. The applicant has submitted an extension. George Perna said that the applicant needs approval from the Board of Health and the State D. P.W. George also stated that the mechanical of the building should not be showing. The sign will have a 2 ' band around it. The applicant should meet with the Planner, Christian Huntress, on the over all safety along Route 114 . Christian Huntress stated he would like to contact the State D . P . W. regarding the safety issue . George Perna also spoke on the issue of safety and the accesses to the property. A motion wa made by Paul Hedstrom to accept the extension. The motion was seconded by John Simons and voted unanimous by those present. On September 28, 1989 the Planning Board held a regular meeting. The following members were presents George Perna, Chairman; John Simons, Clerk; Erich Nitzsche and Jack Graham. John Simons read two letters from the applicant requesting an extension in which the Board must act until October 26 , 1989 . A motion was made by John Simons to accept the extension until October 26 , 1989 . The motion was seconded by Erich Nitzsche and voted unanimous by those present. The Planning Board held a regular meeting on October 19 , 1989 . The following members were presents George Perna, Chairman; John Simons , Clerk; Jack Graham and John Draper. Erich Nitzsche arrived at 8s15 p. m. A letter was received from the applicant requesting an extension to November 10, 1989 . A motion was made by John Simons to accept an extension to November 10, 1989 . The motion was seconded by Erich Nitzsche and voted unanimous by those present. The Board wants an additional extension beyond November 10 , 1989 . On November 2 , 1989 the Planning Board held a regular meeting . The following members were presents George Perna, Chairman; John Simons Clerk; Erich Nitzsche , Jack Graham and John Draper. The following issues were discussedi 1 . traffic 2 . intensity of use 3. proximity with the parking near the wetlands . Sill Bergeron spoke to the Board on down scaling the project. The footprint will be the same , but will be used industrially. The parking requirements will be less , thus reducing the traffic . 1 i Page 12 : George Perna expressed concerns about possible other types of uses for the buildings, like putting up partitions and making more office space. Bill Bergeron said that the issuance of the building permit from the Building Inspector will ensure that what the Planning Board approved will be constructed. George Perna wants a restriction put on the deed. Christian Huntress, Planner, told the Board of a possible septic system problem. The system could handle one ( 1 ) shift. Mr. Bergeron told the Board that once a sewer is installed along Route 114, this project will be hooked up to the system. A lengthy discussion took place on the parking as Mr. Bergeron explained it to the Board. Erich Nitzsche spoke on the landscaping. He cited that it was mostly retaining walls . Bill Bergeron told the Board that the Conservation Commission asked for retaining walls . A brief discussion took place on the amount of wetlands on the property. A motion was made by John Simons accept an extension to December 5, 1989 and continue the public hearing to November 30 , 1989 . The motion was seconded by Jack Graham and voted unanimous by those present. On November 30 , 1989 the Planning Board held a regular meeting. The following members were present George Perna, Chairman; John Simons, Clerk; Erich Nitzsche and John Draper. :lack Graham was absent. John Simons read a letter from the Board of Health . Also read was a letter from the Department of Public Works . Christian Huntress, Planner, stated that the Board had a dead line of December 5 , 1989 . He presented the Board with a draft decision. The draft decision does not include the concerns from the D . P.W. The Board added to the draft decision a condition to tie into the sewer when available . George Perna asked that the words Special Permits be replaced by Site Plan Review. A discussion took place on the letter from the Board of Health as it relates to Condition #2 (b ) reducing the size of the footprint. Also discussed was adding to that portion of the condition after ( b) section ( c ) regarding the physical conditions found on the site . John Simons asked if there was a condition that relates to all necessary permits being obtained , for example common driveways . Christian Huntress stated that Condition #23 addresses the issue . A further discussion took place on Condition #2 ( b ) . The applicant did not agree with the recommendations from the Board of Health. Page 131 A motion was made by Erich Nitzsche to approve the Conditional site plan approval for Riparian Office Park as drafted and amended during discussions . The motion was seconded by John Simons and voted unanimous by those present including the Chairman, George Perna. A list of those conditions is attached. Sincerely, Planning Board Georg Perna, Jr. , Chairman IJe attachment CC: Director of Public Works Board of Public Works Highway Surveyor Building Inspector Board of Health Conservation Commission Assessors Police Chief Eire Chief Applicant Engineer File 1 RIPARIAN OFFICE PARK. Conditional Site Plan Review Approval . FINDINGS OF FACT: The Planning Board makes the following findings regarding this Site Plan Review application as required by sections 8 . 3 and 10. 31 of the Zoning Bylaws: 1 . The proposed use and site design for this lot are appropriate, due to it' s location in Town, (With the addition of conditions listed herein. ) 2 . Adequate vehicular and pedestrian access into the surrounding site has been provided. (With the addition of conditions listed herein. ) 3 . The landscaping plan as shown meets the requirements of section 8 . 4 of the zoning Bylaws. 4 . The site drainage system is designed in accordance with the Town Bylaw requirements. 5. The applicant has met the requirements of the Town for Site Plan Review as stated in Section 8 . 3 of the Zoning Bylaw. (with the addition of conditions listed herein. ) 5, The Applicant has met the procedural requirements of the Town' s Special Permit process as found in section 10 . 3 of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw. The Planning Board finds under Section 8 . 35 of the Zoning Bylaw that the proposed site plan generally complies with the Town Bylaw requirements but requires minor conditions in order to be completely in compliance with Town Bylaws. Finally, the Planning Board finds that this proposal complies with the Town of North Andover Bylaw requirements so long as the following conditions are complied with. Therefore, in order to fully comply with the approval necessary to construct the facility as specified in the Special Permit before us, the Planning Board hereby grants a Special Permit to the applicant provided the following conditions are met: SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. The final plans shall include the following in one packet: a. Site Plan b. Building Elevations C. Detail sheets d. Profile sheets (with appropriate revisions as noted below) e. Landscape plan f. Plan showing phasing of construction activities and erosion control methods. All plans shall be on 24" x 36" sheets 2 . The overall footprint of all structures found on this site shall not exceed 36, 000 square feet, and the total gross floor area of all buildings found on this site shall not exceed 70, 000 square feet. The Planning Board places this condition on this site for the following reasons: a. The negative impact this site will have on traffic safety along the route 114 corridor. b. Recommendation from the North Andover Board of Health that the proposed septic system will not adequately support the proposed structures. c. The physical conditions found on this site, with regard to topography and wetlands, call for such limitations as found within this decision. 3 . In no instance shall additional pavement, construction or building additions be allowed at any time in the future after the final site plan has been approved except as allowed through Site Plan Review. 4 . All revisions which are herein required shall be placed upon the final plans prior to endorsement and filing with the North Essex Registry of Deeds. 5 . All Planning Board Order of Conditions are to be placed upon the recorded Definitive Plan, ( Cover Sheet ) prior to endorsement and filing with the Registry of Deeds. 6 . All uses and operations located on this site shall be limited to one, eight hour shift per day. Violation of this condition shall enable the Building Inspector to retract any occupancy Permit which has been issued for that structure. This condition shall also be incorporated in the deed for each individual unit, and all deeds shall be submitted to the Planning Department to be included in the file. 7 . In no instance shall the use percentage for any structure exceed that which is found on the record plans. Violation of this condition shall enable the Building Inspector to retract any Occupancy Permit which has been issued for that structure. This condition shall also be incorporated in the deed for each individual unit, and all deeds shall be submitted to the Planning Department to be included in the file. . j 8 . The applicant shall receive State DPW approval for the curb-cut prior to receiving a permit to build for any structure located on this site i 9 Throughout all lands, tree cutting shall be kept to a minimum in order to minimize erosion and preserve the natural features of the site. Accordingly, the developer in conjunction with a registered arborist, shall submit a tree cutting and reforestation plan consistent with the provisions of Section 5. 8 of the North Andover Zoning Bylaws ( The plan is for areas of substantial cutting and filling ) to be reviewed by the Planning Staff prior to the applicant receiving a Building Permit. This Plan shall explicitly include specific trees to be retained. Also, the developer shall inform the Town Planner when significant tree cutting is to occur in order that the Planner may determine the need to be to be present. 10 The contractor shall contact Dig Safe at least 72 hours prior to commencing any excavation, 11. Gas, Telephone, Cable and Electric utilities shall be installed as specified by the respective utility companies. 12 . All catch basins shall be protected and maintained with hay bales to prevent siltation into the drain lines during road construction. 13 . No open burning shall be done except as is permitted during burning season under the Fire Department regulations. 14 . No underground fuel storage shall be installed except as may be allowed by Town Regulations. 15. All buildings shall have commercial fire sprinklers installed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, per order NAFD. 16. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued for any structures, this site shall have received all necessary permits and approvals from the North Andover Board of Health. 17 . Bonds, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Board, shall be posted to ensure construction and/or completion of site screening and other pertinent public amenities. These bonds shall be in the form of a Tri-Party Agreement. 18 . Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued for any structures, the site shall be reviewed by the Planning Board. Any additional screening as may be reasonably required by the Planning Board shall be added at the owners expense. 19 . Prior to endorsement of the plans, all off site utilities j I shall be submitted to, and approved by the North Andover DPW and Planning Board. 20. Prior to the Building Permit being issued for the first structure and again prior to occupancy of the first structure, u ture, the applicant shall receive a written determination from the Conservation Commission that all work under their jurisdiction is being satisfactorily performed and maintained. 21 . Any Plants, Trees or Shrubs that have been incorporated into the Landscape Plan approved in this decision, that die within one year from time of planting shall be replaced by the owner. 22 . A final set of plans shall be drawn with regard to the conditions contained herein. The Plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Board prior to endorsement and filing with the North Essex Registry of Deeds. 23 . Prior to the issuance of a permit to build the applicant shall submit an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan to the Planning Board for review and approval. The plan shall show existing lots 1 & 2 combined into one lot entitled "lot 1-A" . 24 . The provisions of this conditional approval shall apply to and be binding upon the applicant, it' s employees and all successors and assigns in interest or control. 25 . The applicant shall connect into the Town ' s sewer system as soon as it becomes available to this site. cc: Director of Public Works Board of Public Works Highway Surveyor Building Inspector Board of Health Assessors Conservation Commission Police Chief Fire Chief Applicant Engineer File