HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 Decisions DEF SUB Town of North � �1�RT►.�
Office of the PlanningDepartment/
�.
F 0
Community
Development and Services Division
27 Charles Street R.K.
'!�YKw4Mrnt■ '*
This is to certify that twenty(20)days North Andover, Massachusetts DREC
have elapsed tom i
I VE D �ssacHus�`�t
P m date of decision,filed
without Ming of an appeal. Telephone (978)egg_ �-
t3ate �2 'f � � � �' 9�3�
Fax Jay .®rad9haw 685-9542
Town 01@fk IBC
RTH ANDOVER
PLANNING DEPARTMEW,1
Notice Of Decision
Any appeal shall be filed
'L 'ithin (20) days after the C CD
CD
Date of filing this Notice CD
In the Office of the Town z n
Clerk >CD m
CDmcDrTI .
CD
Date: November 14, 2001� � >
Bate of Hearing* November 13 2
g Cs6I
N
Petition of: Redgate Realty Trust, 33 Walker Road North Andover, IVSA 01 845
Premises Affected: off Salem Street, North Andover MA � a
Referring to the above petition for a Definitive Subdivision.
The application was'-
,.
submitted in accordance with the Second Order +of Remand �s-st�ed by the hand Court on .
October 22, tool
JT i
So as to allow: for a four(4) fo . .
. four lot subdivision, made up of four new single family h
within the R-2 ZoningDistrictg Y �s
After a public hearing given on the above dates the .
Planning hoard doted to APPR[]vE,
the.Definitive Subdivision, based upon the following conditions*. g .
Signed
age Is Zlocic.
Cc: Applicant
n S' ons, Chairman ---
..,�
berto Angles, Vice Chairman
Engineer � Richard Nardella, Clerk
Abutters Ric �
Richard RoWp
DPW Fell - .
ge S chwA�,A s6c.i
to Me n b er
Building Department
Conservation Department
Health Department
�A
A TrUe COPY
0 4��
js;e ■
pe%N,n Clerk
&q0C44VV04P
V0 "dpolooe,
BOARD OF-UPEAT S E,�Sw9 541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION.-TIO 68R-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PI.ANNIN CCS.pp- ��-z
Vt J�. ..
S '
Ys i
R.edgate Pasture Definitive Subdivision
The Planning Board herein APPROVES the Definitive Subdivision for a four (4) lot
subdivision, made up of four new single family homes known as R.edg ate Subdivision.
Redgate Realty Trust, 33 walker Road, North Andover, MA 01845 submitted this
application on May 14, 2001 in accordance with the order of Remand issued by the Land
Court on October 22, 2001. The area affected is located off Salem Street in the R-2
Zoning District, Map 65, Lot 21 & 164. This approval is for the construction of four
lots ONLY.
The Planning Board makes the following findings as required by the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land.-
A.. The Definitive Plan, dated November 22 1996 revised last on 2/26/01 incl
udes
all of the information indicated in Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations
concerning the procedure for the submission of plans.
B. The Definitive Plan adheres to all of the design standards as indicated in Section 7
of the Rules and Regulations.
C. The Definitive Plan is in conformance with the purpose and intent of the
Subdivision Control Law.
. D. The Definitive Plan complies with all of the review comments submitted by
various town departments in order to comply with state law, town by-laws and
insure the public health, safety and welfare of the town. A-review by Coler &
Colantonio, the town's outside engineering consultant, dated March 20, 2001
indicates that all outstanding engineering issues have been addressed. Also, a
review by .lames Rand, Director of Engineering from the Department of Public
Works, indicates that all slopes have been stabilized satisfactorily. (memos
attached). Furthennore, a separate cash,,performance bond, as provided in
condition 3c, will be posted to ensure the stabilization of the slopes,for a period
of three years from the date of completion of slope construction or acceptance
of the subdivision roadway by Town Meeting, whichever comes,first.
E. The Definitive Plan complies with all standards and requirements of the Zoning
g
Bylaw and the Board of Health.
Finally, the Planning Board finds that the Definitive Subdivision complies with Town
Bylaw requirements so long as the following conditions are complied with:
l
L F
i
I) Environmental Monitor; The applicant shall designate an independent
P g p
environmental monitor who shall be chosen in consultant with the Planning Department.
The Environmental Monitor must be available upon four (4) hours' notice to inspect the
site with the Planning Board designated official, The Environmental Monitor shall
make weekly inspections of the project and file monthly reports to the Planning Board
throughout the duration of the project. The monthly reports shall detail area of non--
compliance, if any and actions taken to resolve these issues.
The environmental monitor referred to in condition #1 must provide in-depth
reports relative to the stabilization of the slopes located on the rear of Lots 2 and 3.
The environmental monitor shall make weekly inspections during the construction
of the slopes and file the weekly reports to the Planning Board throughout the
duration of the project. The environmental monitor shall schedule monthly
inspections with the Town planner and the Town Engineer of the Department of
Public works during the cdristruction of the slopes until the slopes-'have been fully
constructed. The environmental monitor shall appear before the Planning Board
at one point during and upon completion of the construction of the slopes to present
their findings as to the slope stabilization.
2) Prior to endorsement of the plans by the Planning Board the applicant shall adhere
to the following:
•
a) A Site opening Bond in the amount of ten thousand ($10,000) dollars to be
held by the Town of North Andover. The Site Opening Bond shall be in the
form of a check made out to the Town of North Andover that will be placed
into an interest bearing escrow account. A covenant (FORM I)securing all lots
within the subdivision for the construction of ways and municipal services must
be submitted to the Planning Board. Said lots may be released from the covenant
upon posting of security as required in Condition S(c).
b) The applicant must submit to the Town Planner a FORM M for all utilities and
easements placed on the subdivision.
c) All subdivision application fees must be paid in full and verified by the Town
Planner.
d) The applicant must meet with the Town Planner in order to ensure that the plans
conform to the Board's decision. A full set of final plans incorporating a
landscaping buffer comprised of trees of an evergreen species along the
frontage of Lot 1 on Salem Street to adequately screen the detention pond
must be submitted to the Town Planner. Additionally, the plans must be
revised to incorporate a detail of erosion control matfing far the slopes on.dots
2 and 3; and to include a detail of the detention pond depicting a v-shaped
outlet containing adjustable baffles to accommodate the 25, 50 and 100 year
storm must be submitted to the Town Planner for review and approval prior to
2
f
l
endorsement by the Planning Board, within ninety (90) days of filing the
decision with the Town Clerk.
e) The Subdivision Decision for this project must appear on the mylars.
f) All documents shall be prepared at the expense of the applicant, as required by
the Planning Board Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land.
3) Prior to ANY WORD on site:
a) Yellow "Caution" tape must be placed along the lirni.t of clearing and
grading as shown on the plan, The Planning Staff must be contacted prior to
any cutting and or clearing on site.
b) All erosion control measures as shown on the plan and outlined in the
erosion control plan must be in place and reviewed by the Town Planner.
c) A Slope Stabilization Bond in the amount of twenty thousand($20,000)to be
herd by the Town of North Andover. The Slope Stabilization Bond shall be
in the form of a check made out to the Town of North Andover that will be
Placed into an interest bearing escrow account. These monies may be
utilized by the town to ensure the stabilization of the slopes. These
monies, or the balance thereof, will not be released until three years from
the date of completion of slope construction or acceptance of the
subdivision roadway by Town Meeting, whichever comes first. For
purposes of this section, "date of completion o,,f slope construction"shall
be d e ned as complete when the Town Engineer certifies in writing to the
Planning Board that the slopes have been constructed in accordance with
the approved plans and this decision. Furthermore, the Town Engineer
shall not make this determination until ajoint site visit has been scheduled
with the Planning Board.
4) Throughout and During Construction:
a) Dust mitigation and roadway cleaning must be performed weekly, or as deemed
necessary by the Town Planner, throughout the construction process.
b) Street sweeping must be performed, at least once per month, throughout the
construction process, or more frequently as directed by the Town Planner.
c) hours of operation during construction are limited from 7 a.m. to 5 .m., Monday
y
through Friday and S a.m.—5 p.m. on Saturdays.
d) A construction schedule shall be submitted to the Planning Staff for the
purpose of tracking the construction and informing the public of anticipated
activities on the site.
3
e ,
ti
eel
5) Prior to any lots being released from the statutory covenants:
a) Three.(3) complete copies of the endorsed and recorded subdivision plans and P p one
(1) certified copy of the following documents: recorded subdivision approval,
recorded Covenant (FORM I), recorded Growth Management Development
Schedule, and recorded FORM M must be submitted to the Town Planner as proof
of recording.
b) The applicant must submit a lot release FORM J to the Planning Board for
signature.
c) A Performance Security in an amount to be determined by the Planning Board, shall
be posted to ensure completion of the work in accordance with the plans%.approved
as part of this conditional approval. The bond must-be in the form acdeP table t o the
North Andover Planning Board. Items covered by the Bond may include, but shall
not be limited to:
i) as-built drawings;
ii) sewers and utilities
iii)roadway construction and maintenance
iv)lot and site erosion control
v) site screening and street trees
vi)drainage facilities
vii)site restoration
viii)fYnal site cleanup
6) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an individual lot, the following
information is required by the Planning Department.-
a) The applicant must submit a certified copy of the recorded FORM I referred to in
Condition 5(b)above.
b) A plot plan for the lot in question must be submitted which includes
q all of the
following:
i) location of the structure,
ii) location of the driveways,
iii) location of the septic systems if applicable,
iv) location of all water and sewer lines,
v) location of wetlands and any site improvements required under a NACC order of
condition,
vi) any grading called for on the lot,
vii)all required zoning setbacks,
viii)Location of any drainage, utility and other easements.
4
c) All appropriate erosion control measures for •the lot shall be �n place. The Planning
Board or Staff shall make final determination of appropriate measures.
d) Lot numbers, visible from the roadways must be posted on all lots.
e) An as-built plan must be submitted to the Division of Public works for review and
approval prior to acceptance of the sewer appurtenances for use.
f) The roadway must be constructed to at least binder coat of pavement to properly
access the lot in question. Prior to construction of the binder coat, the applicant shall
ensure that all required inspection and testing of water, sewer, and drainage facilities
has been completed. The applicant must submit to the Town Planner and the
Department of Public works an interim as-built, certified by a professionai engineer,
verifying that all utilities have been installed in accordance with the P
plans and profile
sheet.
P
g) The applicant is required to pay sewer mitigation fees in accordance with
the current and prescribed policies at the Department.of Public works.
Proof of payment must be supplied to the Planning Department.
artm.ent.
h) If a sidewalk is to be constructed in front of the lot, then such sidewalk must be
graded and staked at a minimum,.
7) Prior to a Certificate of occupancy being requested for an individual lot, the
following shall be required:
a) All necessary permits and approvals for the lot in question shall be obtained
q ne from the
North Andover Board of Health, and Conservation Commission.
b) Permanent house numbers must be posted on dwellings and be visible from the road.
c) There shall be no driveways placed where stone bound monuments and/or catch
basins are to be set. It shall-be the developer's responsibility to assure the proper
. � P Pe
placement of the driveways regardless of whether individual lots are sold. The
Planning Board requires any driveway to be moved at the owner's expense if such
i Pe
driveway s at a catch basin or stone bound position.
8) Prior to the final release of security retained for the site b the Town the following
y � g
shall be completed by the applicant:
a) An as-built plan and profile of the site shall be submitted to the DPW and Planning
Department for review and approval.
5
' r -
k
a ' a
b) An as-built plan and profile of the slopes on Lots 2 and 3 must be submitted to the
DPW and Planning Department for review and approval.
c) The applicant shall petition Town Meeting for public acceptance of the street. Prior
to submitting a warrant for such petition the applicant shall review the subdivision
and all remaining work with the Town Planner and Department of Public works.
The Planning Board shall hold a portion of the subdivision bond for continued
maintenance and operations until such time as Town Meeting has accepted (or
rejected in favor of private ownership) the roadways. It shall be the developer's
responsibility to insure that all proper easements have been recorded at the Registry
of Deeds.
9) The Applicant shall ensure that all Planning, Conser~ration C+onunission, Board of
Health and Division- of Public:works requirements are satisfied and that construction
was in strict compliance with all approved plans and conditions.
1 o)The applicant shall adhere to the following requirements of the Fire Department.-
a) open burning is allowed by permit only after consultation with the Fire Department.
b) Underground fuel storage will be allowed in conformance with the Town Bylaws
and State Statute and only with the review and approval of the Fire Department and
Conservation Commission.
1-1)There shall be no burying or dumping of construction material on site.
12)The location of any stump dumps on site must be pre-approved by the Planning Board.
13)The contractor shall contact Dig Safe at least 72 hours prior to commencing any
excavation.
1 4)Gas, Telephone, Cable, and Electric utilities shall be installed as specified by the
respective utility companies.
1 S)Any action by a Town Board, Com.nussion, or Department which requires changes in
the roadway alignment, placement of any easements or utilities, drainage facilities,
grading or no cut lines,may be subject to modification by the Planning Board.
16)The utilities must be installed and the streets or ways constructed to binder coat two
ears from this approval. If the utilities are not installed, the streets or ways are not
constructed to binder coat and the Planning Board has not granted an extension by the
above referenced date, this definitive subdivision approval will be deemed to have
lapsed.
17)This Definitive Subdivision Plan approval is based upon the following information
which is incorporated into this decision by reference:
6
•s [
f
f
1 t r LLL
Plan titled: RedGate Pasture
Definitive Subdivision Plan
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
Dated: November 22, 1996_, revised 912197, 12/26/97, 1/19/98, 6/14/99,
2/26/01
Applicant: RedGate Realty Trust
33 Walker Road
North Andover,MA 01845
Civil Engineer:Neu England Engineering Services,Inc.
33 Walker Road, Suite 23
North Andover,MA 01845
Sheets: 1 -7
Scale:
Report titled: Drainage Report
Prepared by: Daniel Roravos, P.E.
25 Teloian Drive -
Hudson,NH 03051-3937
Dated: April 4, 1999,revised March 22, 2000
Attachments: March 20, 2001 Engineering Review,Coler & Colantonio
Memorandum to Heidi Griffin from Jim Rand dated 6/4101
7
' i r
c
' t
FORM I
C0v�NANT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT WHEREAS the undersigned has submitted an
application dated November 22, 1996 to the North Andover Planning Board for approval of a Definitive
Plan of a certain subdivision bearing the name Red Gate Pasture Definitive Subdivision, and has
requested that the Board approve such plan without requiring a performance bond,
THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH THAT,for the consideration that the Forth Andover Planning
Beard waive the aforesaid requirement for a bond,the undersigned covenants and agrees with the Town
of North Andover as follows:
1. The undersigned will not sell any lot until the work on the ground necessary to serve such lot
fP
adequately has been completed in the manner required in the aforesaid application,and in
accordance with the covenants,conditions and agreements thereof,(except for the following
particular items of work,the performance of which shall be exempt from the conditions of this
contract):
NONE
2. The undersigned agrees to record this agreement in North Essex Registry of Deeds as required by
the Rules and Regulations of the North Andover Planning Board
3. The undersigned agrees that this contract shall be binding upon his heirs,executors, and
administrators,and particularly upon any grantees of the undersigned.
It is the intention of the undersigned and it is hereby understood and agreed,that this contract shall
constitute a covenant running with the land. Lots within the subdivision shall respectively be released cif
from the foregoing conditions hereof upon the recording of a certificate of performance executed by a 'r� '::•
majority of said Planning Board which certificate shall enumerate the specific lots to be released.
There are no mortgages of record or otherwise . �-
eon any of the land 'in the aforesaid subdivision except as
described below and the present holders of said mortgages have assented to this contract prior to its
execution by the undersigned.
IN WITNESS WIIEREOF,the undersigned,applicant as aforesaid,does hereunto set his hand
and seal this 6�day of April,2006.
p C=�
]A"a
�6%Y. I e, rustee of Redgate Realty Trust _.--J
�WA/t July 31, 1996,recorded at �
ssex Registry,Bovk 45G1,Page 10
L
n
1
Description of Mortgages:
Enterprise Bank and Trust Company,mortgage recorded in the Essex North Registry,Book 9023,Page
186 on August 31,2004.
Assent of Mortgagee:'
ENTERPRISE BANK.AND TRUST COMPANY
Steven R.Larochelle,Sr.Vice President
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss. _April.;2006
On this _th day of April,2006,before me,the undersigned notary public,personally
appeared Steven L.Larochelle,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification,which was a
Massachusetts driver's license,to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document,and'
,acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purposes.
.y
Not c
Pe ed name: J ak-v
M Commission expires: __:� k
COMMONWEALTH OF MAS SACHUSETTS
2006ril
ESSEX., ss. April�.
On this th day of April,2006,before me,the undersigned notary public,personally
appeared John J.Burke,Trustee,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification,which was
personal knowledge,to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document,and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purposes.
Not Public
P ' d name• . o ��-
My ornssion expires:
401440V-1
s
FORM M
lI CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENTS AND UTILITIES
John J.Burke,Trustee,of Redgate Realty Trust uldlt dated July 31, 1996,recorded at Essex North
District Registry of Deeds,Book 4561,Page 10,with an address of 71 Sutton Dill Road,forth Andover,
MA 01845,Essex County,Massachusetts for the consideration of One Dollar($1.00),hereby grants,
transfers and delivers unto the Town of North Andover,a municipal corporation in Essex County,the
following:
A. The perpetual fights and easements to construct,inspect,repair,replace,operate and
forever maintain(1)a sanitary sewer or sewers with any manholes,pipes,conduits,and
other appurtenances,(2)pipes,conduits and their appurtenances for the conveyance of
water,and(3)a covered surface and ground water drain or drains with any manholes,
pipes,conduits and their appurtenances,and to do all other acts incidental to the
foregoing,including the right to pass along and over the land for the aforesaid purposes,
in,through,and under the-whole of Red Gate Lane and drainage easements on a plan
entitled"Red Gate Pasture Definitive Subdivision Plan,Sheets 1-7,dated November 22,
1996,as revised through March 8,2006,said plan is made and said plan is incorporated
herein for a complete a detailed description of said roads.
B. The perpetual rights and easements to use for all purposes for which public ways are
used,the following parcel of land situated on Salem Street in said Town of North .y
Andover and bounded and described as follows: Red Gate Land as shown on the above- 3 .
described plan.
The grantor warrants that the aforesaid easements are free and clear of all liens or encumbrances that lie
has good title to transfer the same,and that he will defend the same against claims of all persons, C`;
r
For grantor's title see deed from Benjamin C.Osgood,Trustee dated July 31, 1996,and recorded in the
Essex North District Registry of Deeds,Book 4561,Page 16,or under Certificate of Title No.
registered in District of the Land Court,Book_ ,Page
This is not a homestead property.
To be completed if a mortgage exists: ,,,
And Enterprise Bank and Trust Company,the present holder of a mortgage on the above described land,
which mortgage is dated August 31,2004,and recorded in sad Deeds,Book 9023,Page 186,for 0'
consideration paid,hereby releases unto the Town of North Andover forever from the operation of said ..,C>
mortgages,the rights and easements herein above granted and assents thereto.
ENTERPRISE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
By: f
Stev R. Larochelle,Sr.Vice President 0 T:Jo .Burke,Trustee
ri
i !Y
COMMONWEALTH of MASSACHUSETTS
ES SEX, ss. April oo�
It
On this th day of April,2006,before me,the undersigned notary public,personally
appeared Steven R.Larochelle,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification,which was a
Massachusetts driver's license,to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document,and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purposes.
No Y We
Pub c
Pri ed n . J0
My Commission expires:
COMMONWEALTH of MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX,ss. April
2006
On this th day of April,2006,before me,the undersigned notary public,personally
appeared John J.Burke,Trustee,proved-to me through satisfactory evidence of identification,which was
a Massachusetts driver's license,to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document,and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purposes.
No Public
Prin name: ,ry
My Commission expires: ' ,
Town of .North Andover � �0
Ire 16
0,7fice'&the Planm*ng Department
�, ....: .
ti
Community Develoand Services Division.
NIU
2■ Charles Street A tacrs�c�ew.c�
aa�+1'r�p F�Q�ti �j
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 ��0 �'
CRUSE
Heidi Griffin Telephone (978)685-9535
Plaiming.Director Fax(978)688-9542
Notice Of Decision C=3
Any appeal shall be filed C:)
Within (20) da s after the 1�'M nn 3'' rW~ ��r�rn
Date of filing this Notice w
In the office of the Town. '
Clerk .. rn c60 CD
0 rn
.�.w
Date: July 3 0, 2001 ,U
Date of Nearing: June 5, 2001 &
June 19, 2001
Petition of: Redgate Realty Trust, 33 Walker Road, North'Andover, MA 01845
Premises Affected: off Salem Street, North Andover, MA
Referring to the above petition for a Definitive Subdivision. The application was
submitted in accordance with the order of Remand issued by the Land Court on April 19�
2001
p
So as to allow: for a four(4) four lot subdivision, made up of four.new single family homes
within the R 2.honing District
After a public hearing given on the above dates,the Planning Board voted to DENY, the.
Definitive Subdivision, based upon the following conditions:
Signed:
terto
n Si ns Chairman
Cc; Applicant
Angles, vice Chairman
Engineer Richard Nardella, Clerk
Abutters Richard Rowen
DPW Alison Lescarbeau
Building Department
Conservation,Department
Health Department
ZBA
BOARD OF-APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDTING 688-9545 CONTSERv.LmON 685-9530 PIEAJ-,TH 683-9540 PLAINTNIFING 688_9535
i
i
Redgate Pasture
Definitive Subdivision Denial
The Planning Board herein DENIES the Definitive Subdivision for a four (4) lot
subdivision, made up of four new single family homes known as Redgate Subdivision.
Redgate Realty Trust, 33 walker Road, North Andover, MA 01845 subrm4tted this
application on May 14, 2001 in accordance with the order of Remand issued by the
Land Court on April 19, 2001. The area affected is located off Salem Street in the R-2
Zoning District,Map 65, Lot 21 & 164.
1
The Planning Board makes the following findings as required by the Rules and
} Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land:
z
k'
p
A. The Definitive Plan is NOT' in conformance with the u ose and intent of the
Subdivision Control Law. The purpose of the subdivision control law is to
"protect the safety, convenience and welfare of the inhabitants of the cities and
towns in which it is... But the applicant's intent is to maximize the
development on this property without due regard for the existing topography,
groundwater conditions, or the existing drainage infrastructure, which will lead to
long-term maintenance difficulty for the town and new residents of the
subdivision from groundwater breakout.
B. The proposed engineering solutions to the inherent problems of the site, including
a high water table and steep slopes are also an area of concern noted by the town's
outside engineering consultant. Item#S of Coler& Colantonio's engineering
report (memorandum attached) states that "it should be noted that long term
maintenance difficulty for the town may result due to groundwater breakout,
unstable slopes and maintaining vegetation on slopes". Item.#6 of the Purpose
of the Rules and Regulations states that the subdivision shall "secure adequate.
provision for water, sewerage, drainage and other requirements where necessary
in a subdivision". Long--terra maintenance difficulty for the town resulting
from groundwater breakout due to unstable slopes does not secure adequate
provision for drainage and other requirements necessary in a subdivision. Mr.
Ben Osgood Jr., engineer for the applicant, stated at the June 5, 2001 Planning
Board meeting that "the existing drainage system does back up, and cannot handle
a 100-year rainstorm". (Minutes attached) It is important to note that drainage
calculations are based on models with assumptions. The long-term
maintenance difficulty resulting from potential groundwater breakout due to
unstable slopes, coupled with the inadequate existing drainage system on Salem
i
Street, does not secure adequate provisions for .e drainag The applicant has not
sufficiently demonstrated that this groundwater breakout will not occur.
3
f
C. As noted previously, due to the topography and soils on the site, the potential
E
j drainage impacts are very complex and extensive. If the runoff is detained too
long and recharges on the South (Redgate) side of Salem St., there is a risk of
t
3
flooding on the abutting Cyr property. If removed too quickly, the runoff can
(and has) flooded basements in homes across Salem St. one element of the
drainage design which might mitigate this risk, but which was rejected by the
applicant, is the provision for an adjustable outlet so that the developer, and then
later the DPW, can adjust the runoff rate to balance the opposing needs.
� pp g
D. Item#1 of Cofer& Colantonio's report dated March 20, 2001 contained
{ comments that state "Constant flow from these groundwater sources into the
infiltration basin may shorten the useful life of the basin. The runoff from the
subdrain located on the east side of the (inv. �00slope 170. should be directed
awayfrom the eastern abutter to be consistent with the hydrology catchment area
� gy
plans. Care should be taken during construction to assure the eastern abutter is
g not impacted from an increase of storm water onto their property.". Although
following comments in the report indicate that the drain appears to have adequate
capacity to dissipate groundwater flow, the applicant failed to demonstrate to the
Planning Board that the construction of the subdrain and infiltration basin would
occur in such a manner that adequately demonstrated the abutter would not be.
impacted. The plans failed to contain a note or specifications as to how this _
construction and its phasing would occur.
B. The Definitive Plan does NOT comply with all of the review comments submitted
by various town departments in order to comply with state law; town by-laws and
insure the public health, safety and welfare of the town. A review by Cofer &
Colantonio, the town's outside engineering consultant, dated March 20, 2001
states that "it should be noted that long term maintenance difficulty for the town
may result due to groundwater breakout, unstable slopes and maintaining
vegetation on slopes". Due to its location, existing topography, groundwater
conditions and the proposed development of this site, slope stabilization has been
of paramount importance. on more than one occasion the Planning Board has
made recommendations to the applicant as to ways he may deal with the
excessive slopes that are proposed on this property. Some of the suggestions the
board has made include, but are not limited to the following: 1) increase the road
slope so as to minimize the slope on the hill; 2) pull the houses down closer to the
main road to minimize the cut; (3) reduce the number of lots on the subdivision to
minimize the cut; 4) use some sort of slope stabilization method such as geogrid
to prevent the slopes from sloughing off. None of the above mentioned
suggestions were developed to any detail and presented to the board, the
suggestions were merely dismissed.
F W F. The applicant was asked by several Planning Board members at the June 5, 2001
Planning Board Meeting to pursue the utilization of geo- rid or a similar material
g
for stabilization of the slopes, methods that are recommended by a g eotechnical
engineer who specializes in the stabilization of slopes. The Planning Board
also directed the applicant at that meeting to address the issue of slope
stabilization during the design phase, and not the construction phase as it was
noted by the outside engineer in his 3/20/01 memorandum that the slopes could
pose a longterm maintenance issue for the Town. The Planning Board noted
that the subdivision directly adjacent to the area (Foxwood) was comprised of a
P y till soil which is also the soil composition of this site and that the Foxwood
Subdivision had major difficulties with their slop g es including groundwater
breakout and instability, hence the concern for addressing the slope stabilization
t
during the design phase.
f
G. The applicant chose not to pursue any of the slope stabilization methods
suggested by the Planning Board and asked Mr. James Rand Jr., Director of
Engineering to comment on the stabilization of the
slopes pursuant to Coler &
p
Colantonio's suggestion listed in the memorandum as item #1. Although the
Planning� g Board respects Mr. Rand s comments listed '�n his memorandum. dated
61412001, they asked the applicant to employ the services of a eotechnical
p y g
engineer because a geotechnical engineer is a professional who specializes in
slope stabilization methods. Finally, there is no note or detail on the plans
indicating what type of planting or seed mix would be utilized on the slopes to
ensure the stabilization of the slopes or to alert the contractor as to how to
stabilize the slopes during the construction process. The stabilization of the
slopes has not been addressed adequately during the design phase to adequately
ensure the Planning Board that these slopes will not become a long-term
maintenance issue for the town.
Decision:
The Planning Board hereby DENIES the Definitive Subdivision Plan titled RedGate
Pasture. The denial is based on non-compliance with Section 5C(2) and Section 5C(4)
and Section 7N(1) 7N(3) and Section 7N(8) of the Rules and Regulations Governing the
Subdivision of Land, North Andover, Massachusetts, Revised February 1989.
This Definitive Subdivision Plan denial is based upon the following information which is
incorporated into this decision by'reference:
Plan titled: RedGate Pasture
Definitive Subdivision Plan
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
Dated: November 22, 1996,revised 912197, 12/26/97) 1/19/98, 6/14/99
Applicant: RedGate Realty Trust
33 walker Road
North Andover,MA 0f 845
j
Civil Engineer:New England Engineering Services, Inc.
33 Waller Road, Suite 23
North Andover,MA 01845
Sheets. 1 -7
Scale: 1"=40'
Attachments: March 20,2001 Engineering Review, Coler & Colantonio
3 Memorandum to Heidi Griffin from Jim Rand dated 614101
f
Planning Board Meeting Minutes,June 5,2001
s
1
I
ff
{SS'
S
f
4
{E
S
J
i
i
COLANTON10
z
ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS
1
i
March.20, 2001
i
1
f
Heidi Griffin
f
Planning Board
27 Charles Street
forth Andover,NIA 01845
RE: Supplemental Engineering Review
E f
Red Gate Pasture
Revised Definitive Subdivision
Dear Ms. Griffin.-
In response to your request, Coler&Colantonio, Inc. has reviewed the supplemental
submittal package for the above referenced.site. The project has been reviewed for
conformance to the requirements of the "Rules and Regulations Governing the
Subdivision.of Land"'in North Andover as well as standard engineering p ractice. The
submittal package included the following information.-
Plans Entitled:
r * "Red Gate Pasture,Definitive Subdivision Plan"seven sheets dated 11/22/96,
revised on 2/26/01,Prepared by New England Engineering Services,Inc.
Reports Entitled
* Response letter dated February 26, 2001 prepared by Benjamin C. Osgood,Jr.
CuiTent conu-nents are in italics. Previous comments are screened.
Subdivision Requirements. -
1. Section 3. C.) 3.) c.)A test pit is shown in the original detention pond area. used
upon the infonnatien in Ne,�&,En c;han d En alne erin g Services letter, ground water is
located 2 to 3 feet below the surface. The new detentiOD ponds -�c located in cut
areas ranging in depth from 8 to E2. feet. Th-ts could result in unstable slopes in the
detention basins. we anticipate that slope stability wi-1I be a Concern. The Applicant-
may want to consider alternatives to patchi lip U 11stable slopes with rip rap. This is not
desired in residential sites.
101 Accord Park Drive 781 952-5400 1
Norwell, MA 02061-1685 Faux:781 902-5490
r -
-a
Test pits s wll y should bi-,!provided in the i4einirs=of the�'pr-opose hoer*se Iocscctir�rt.s,
and the�et=rr t��rt basin•i�r �� Lot _ :f e='� ���:sr:�.5� ��� ir, be.p 1)�-rr ed by a licensed.soil
pre
�� lcrirrcrtrjr to irrcli'�ftc.Ir.i�; <�r+crtrrrcl `�tF� -conditions. art ��iou s�•sy�.bini,s.sions it-has
been rec(I rrri.e l that tlr:�.Yea.s'ono7 i crier.table is ctj.-jlrro irrrateN lo-inches belolir
r"r le.
'rcr crcl�lirl or-rcrl te�stirr;fir has been l.'r oviclecl.As noted above e��rhnated hi uh gr-orrndi titer
IS �Ttl tin 10►'cry•the su Oace. `Ire el esi rt r`rrilic-crte.s. c.#unda#i€ n s bel oar the high
rcrr rr� �Alt}r-€levatio n. Pie���arts arrrl c���tfri�'�s i���icr�x�����rujacicrtrc�rr�.Irr�zrr�s�r��3�r�h
he rrs:r, Itr'ch rli,sc:�harge overland. lire mirrirrnon c-,oi.trr.aver the proposed curtain
drains should be indicated.A slope stab il i atiorr and rr aintertance plan rrrc:lidding
de oJ'stabilization methodsshould be Pro)•ided.
No Additional resting it fi.rrtnation has been provided.for the&ivale within lot 4. It is
OW'antlers tandirkg tlrcit esrhizated high grourrc iwater-is within 10 of'the existing
.su fke. i,-ei all, the s ttf rc�grrirt=,s e.x-ter-rsii-e crrt. Gi-otiizcliv(rter i v prol,)o (.)d to be
direc red to the ziyij�i ltr atiorzlci`f.=reni-iart basin vier crrr#airy. drains,ftnindarion drains or
overlaa d,fl'oirftom these pipes. The grt.- run water-could corrtr ibrttc'aaensive ftoir to
the basin' even► wring a non-storm per toll. Constant"floir fi'rorrr these groundwater
sources Mro the irr ltrafion basist rrra.•shorten the . e trl life rl�e ha�srrt. The runoff
firom they subdrefin located on the east side of the slolm(irrr. 170.00)should be
directed aii-ay.�'c3�rr the ear:�•rerrt abutter to be corrsiste-rrt with the hydrology cut lrijrt7rzt
area Plans. Care should be taken during construction to a v sure. the eastern ab"wer+i.s
not inipacredfrom an increase (f sYtorrn water onto their pr-operry.
i
The lrrirr.irtrtun corer over the Proposed c urrc-tirr drain crivear:s to be 30''. 7h-e slope
stabilization Plan inchide.s placing rip-rap in the areas o
f gr ourrdwcrter break-out, irrth
loam and seed covering the r'--rap. The D.1 I sIroulcl review and comment on the
slope stabilization rrret'hot
A gravel drain has been added to the bottom of the infiltration basin. .the,amain
appears to have adequate capacity to dissipate groundwater f ow. We recommend
the DPW to comment on.slope stabilization.
Section 3. Cf.) 3.)d.) Sec Drainage.Issues below,
Section 3.} U a,) Satisfactory, roadwi,,i stabonhic;has been added.
4. Section 3. C.)3) k.) h.) S at-i sfactoty, the -[at phin has been corrected.
5. Section 3. C.) 3.) k.)J.) S ati sfi-xtor ,The w cri ter main has been relocated and die
h Brant has been' shown.
6_ Section 3. C'.)3.1) k.) k.) Sans ac toi-y. the coritoti -s 1-lave been extended.
7. Section 3. C.) 3.) k-.) i._} Satisfactory. the fol i=i Ee line has been added to the drain age
pItt1S.
2
I
i
Section 3. .}-�.) k.) in.) PreviOU'S' cOITCIIS dence recommended that test pits he
E�-a td wit-hit) -opased daent'M basin and at locatiojis of 111"ClJt I,ClIts in slopes
to de-t.e�•inine the elevation of the arocindw ater. table. Reportedly, seasonal high Nvator
•ill be as close as .10'`to the surface based on hand testing; performed. This could
I-eSUlt.in Iona terra maintenance difficulty for the town dire to groundwater breakout,
ur�stible sloe. and difl'ic�rit�.� �nirtcinig vegetation. Subdraizs shotid he located
upgrade of potential groundwater breakout on the cut slope;, generally this is at or near
the top of the slol)e. Swales to the catch basins should be more defined. There is
sigi-iific;(tnt flow to these inlets in large storm events
,C■ze sit-��6L�L���r4�f•�a�,E����� i�R������s#f[�}I�j�Ft }'Y i!h the C+plans.i�3�. �r��f��m�?J�F }G fF�SLbll�J•.
i The si v{zie detail ha s beers snot' eel to 71 ranch tite elan s. Tit e swale pitch as 18%.mid it
; i
is unclear Mar it will not erode elite to high flow s'elocirie ti.
t
Me zswale detail lzas been mod�fiecl. Vie detail showS a L.) depth o p-rci ,
} consisting of stone ben vee n 6 uncl I O in.size. Ir si ou lti sae noted th(It Io7ig torn-t
rrt� r'� tE3�c rtr� �fHenI ty,for Me Town inay result Ae to groundwater breakoutr
ft
unstable. slopes and maintainin a ve&-,tat-r'o r on the s7opes..
E
I 9. Section 3, C) 3.) k.) n. We recommend that the existing dra.inagre ch"Innel. wilich
was observed by cis in the field, he indicated on the plans. This channel should also
. he used in the drainage calcrcrlations for the flow path. This channel.was located in the
slope and not in the field.
If
f
L Y o?fiii-ther C'oTIxme-n-t.
o. Section 3.C.)3-)k.)p.) The profile does not comply with all the requiren ielits of this
section. The proposed roadway grade should he indicated and the location of the
benchmark should be indicated on the plan. Existing sideline grades have not been
sho,vn, elev rations have not been labeled at the top and bottom of all even grades:
intervals and on vertical er.rves. The stopping sight distance at the vortical curve
station 00+40 to 00+90 is inadequate for a speed of 30 miles per hoxtr. Information is
still missing from the profile. Specifically, roadwa��grade is not indicated, sideline
grades have not been shown, elevations -rt 25-foot intervals on vertical curves and
stopping sight distance is not in conforrnanc�e �.�.it:h the reqrirements_ It is asscrrried
that a w Lilver will be requested from the stopping sight distance requirement.
Th
e plans hen',e been atne7i led to h7cl ude road t av gratle.s. ,side line greides, add uare
ve ,rrcc t[:'t n'e deisiq n and 5 foot eleration s hiter►7 ls at rertic al cm-i,-e IO(_'rttiO7?s_ A
,ght tan e study and t-emediation�dan ��c.�ti�been�.��-��-fo nned an :s�rr mitre(t N(.�
.fur tIzer cc nnnent.
i l. Sec ri on 3. C-)-i) S at i sfact ors:.
3
. Section 7. A ��.)b.) T v Is insuf-ficient data on the profile to deten-ai-ne If-the
12 ) � . hei
a( -.i
1.A.Vchnu area is, Jequ,, te.
See, 10. Aboi
7
-ith et I%sl(pe. Tly iv comiment i.vaweef rs to be a '70 lei Wing areu ii
soti#itetori1v ttehlresse(L
13, Section 7. D. OUr nderstandi the Planning Board will decide whether a) It iS U m_;
sidewalk is required or a donation w ill be made to the sidewalk fund.
N - ent.
A Orthei comm
street trees are shoNv o tt plans. The P ing
14. Section 7. E.).1 Safisf-actory, the stj rn n ic ns Jann
Board may require iii-formiation on the type of tree to be plante'd. Trees should be
indicated outside of the right of way.
The pr e oposd se. e e
tree tres have been rlocated ourfif/e of the R.0.W Nofitrlher
comment.
1 ection 7. .) .) atis factory,electric lines shown on the plans,
.5. S G 1 S
16. Section 7. L.) 1.) Satisfactory. the proposed fire hydrant 1-s shown.
17. S a SfelC ti tort', a north 'BlTow has been shown on the Locus plan.
18. Erosion control measures are shown on the phrins. however,they should be clearly
labelcd and/or shown on the legend. Erosion control naeasures should
also be shown
around catch basins and detention pond outlets. We recommend ftett 01 stabilized
constriction entrance be provided and erosion control be installed along the 'Salem
Street right of way.
M., reconvizen-d M-cit ci satisfitaoty slope imvpectioei, maintenance and stabilizeition
plan be submifted. A stabilized cons.frix--tion entrance has beef-L indicat(�d oil the Plans_
Erosion control has be(Wprovie-led rhrouohout flw Hinit qf work. No,further conunenr.
0
19. '1-'he proposed sub-drain locations should be shown on the plans and detailed. The
plians seem to P-idfeate eTos.ion control measures only. We understand the symbols on
the plants.
Nofivi-ther connnent.
Drainage Issues;
�O. Sarisfactorv, both Pre. and Post construction drainsage area plans have been submitted.
2L Satisf-actorv, runoff curve numbers iio'\,v illClUde meadow.
4
r f 2/2 Satis.i ac tore, [lie sheet flot lengths used in t�le r��-5 5 �•ai�����t%o�ns are now .00��€:et or
less.
:3_ The comment r c nt o the outlet structure is iio bong ai li :�rl�lc. � , i �i�a et of e�;istin
flow andilc c�ac.itf theler� �: cr�inaeJ� tn. :�l1oc:ld cosidered. It is
St
s
Possible thG t the ler streets st:rr is ��nore �restric�t-is�e them the proposed outlet
st� c�t� :e. This could resc.alt in offsitO in pacts. Outflov.;s from the liroposed outlet
r
struc lure will enter the ���.�nieip��# d����i na��� s�-ste��-� for the 10 and I��0-y��t�-5to�-n�s_ .
o these starins. �oruncnr remains.The existingrrr & Ss s l
r
The Proi_-)osed.ffaii•.s and volumes to the e-vistfng muTdcil' (r1sto�rffnvester S�A)Stem are
reducedftoln E'x1stin cortrlitifrrt s. The pr•c�7tr.sed CIcteiTrlf7iZlltififtrYltioYt ba.virr sIrotrlrf be
e.,xe-avared to thc� ele,vation ref�th�y unde,rlyin sandy gaff enid aekftIle.�tip:ith si��rif���-1
_ .
perry ous nuiterial. TIreftinc.�`tionalit`�;cif this li�r.s•r'rr is �ia�tirr,�errt ft,�c�rr �s•rritc�l�le sails at
the bottom ofithe basin,
A acre has been added to sheet.5, Sediment basin and ire f iftratic.nld-efention pond
detail .sterting of l lown, .subsoil.fill or other deleterious s•mateilal shall he r ento ed ir1
the area q f the basin bottom and- r erlac:ed with clean sand. Top ai-ea with.4" 1oainy�
sand, rake stnooth and,sty ed. ioc nzy sand has a lou,er penneal dill than
sand, We recommend thwt tes rt`ng to derrion st r ate compliance, with the design be
requit �
S
A gravel Frain has been added to the bottom of the infiltration basis. The drain
appears to have adequate capacity to dissr'pate groundwater, ow.
'204. It is unclear if the woposed drai.nacyc channel will be located in.the Saiein Street fight-
of-way. The The dimensions of the chan-nel.its detailed, are inconsistent w1.
'th the
i
overflow ditch described in the drainage report. The overflow ditch dons clot appear
to be included in the:drainage model. Capacity calculations should be included in the
dr-amage report to support the proposed desi.P. '`he plans do not ijidreite. a channel,
although a channel detail is '111CILOCd ir1 the report.
to rii)--ral�sn-i=ales:should be indicated a� such oit the plans. Viese swalets'shoal be
modeled for reloc' =and c�r�a►a€'if��. The-, reported siv�rf e at�5't�i'errc �'tr e��t should be.
hudicated and Itrodele .
The rip-rap swale detail ii;as cf c�ri f ic7cl. .fiepor tedl i;, there i s•:ro %-wale ayist*
ing or-
Proposed at i5alern Str ect, The dc sigrn calc.•rrJc non,f br•the lei,,cal spreaeler-should be
sufrmitte(L Exi.s ting spat gr ades1 in rite vicinity o f'the proposed level spreafler•sltorrld
be sftbin tted.
Based on the new spot elevation,'', thefloir.from the detenrion ha.Witt crlaP.Mrs to fio1v
into Sal ein Street ivithin a Proposed de?rE's sion. � � a v � a
1 I The proposed e�c l��ertrrrrx ,crt tfrc. _
11t{rrtheact property corner(Elev. 144.74) is higher their Me northwe_steriv elevati,(rrt of
143 67. The }iin o0he e...i:sting c:arch basin located nor rhwixst of'rhis circa IS elev.
Cacfcticrsftic fc�cl ll spreader(ire. included itl tl fatter resp .-e-
144.99. c e
5
Yhc7 detail curd plans shoir a lera9rh oj'apprcjvinlatehf _15 Theca-&-ulations use 31'.
l �rcj c` rlc-ulaticros cic) not appeal'tO b c:-OMi,�tC17t irith the i�l�trts° ftrrr dc�tr�rls.
Additional spot grades have been added to the grading plan and the flow from the
basin appears to ow to the double catch basins. Satisfactorily addressed.
�5_ The regiihati ons�requi re a catch basin to �n����hc�le ��tT���.� ernent. The.plans i indicate the
outlet '-otn Po-nd f7 enters a catch ha~si-n. The violet froin this pond should disc harue
into is manhole. This desi y-n ShOUld be revised to comply with Town requirernonts.
Sa.tisfactoTv.
rcr,fi�rThE>r"co
inten .
'6. 111e Ultimate discharge of the closed storm. ater system in Saleii-i Street is not
described in the report. CalcUlations ,should show this s astern has the capacity for the
new flows. The intent of the design is to meet or redLice existing runoff rates. The
timing of-this runoff-to the strect system and tllie additional rUnOff Volume may impact
the exi st2 n z wstem. If the capacity of Salem Street s,Yste m i s restticted, the increase
in total. t•tinOff could result in of site impacts. The Post--development runoff volume
entering the Salem Street drainaue system will inc.�t-ease for all storms. The
Department.of Public Works should lie aware of this especially if the draina.ge system
is eui•rently undersized. �loI€�rr�e calculations for the infiltration area should be
clarified its the •eport. In addition, we.recommend that the infiltr-ation.system he
farther detailed to indicate sections and elewation.s on the plans. The sample dc5ign ill
the report indicates pipe outlets fi-otn each InfiltT�ttor lversus the designproposed- :fit is
unclear that the increased volume from development has been accommodated in the
desiun. The repoil lists total :runoff��olu.tne.pre and.post, 1101yever� it is unclear,v here
the values for post development are in the report.
The proposed sub-s arfizce detention &1.017 has recut redesigned as r1.sr-ificce
infiltration basin. It iss unclear that the proposed Dcvnition Basin oil Lot.1 is locatetl
above the grortnd1vater table. In addition, the ultimate discharge point,from..
Derentiorr..F Basin A-1 should be c!larif red. detailed and model c�d. A model fin-this bas•irt
should he provided and a,sathyftktor-A;orer flow should be cle:siyqtwd and indicate'(l= The
berm on this betsin should be i isiderted to 8-feet
Die gradr'n firer the swale area irithin Lot 4 will result in the di.tcltcr}�q e of
roundivater to the.lm wle. The discharge por'rrt fior beisin.A--1 has been clarified.
Please secs corrrrrr.ew#24 regarding the.spot grades. The ber in width has been
widerted to 8-fact.
Pat grades have beenp-rr�videcl. however it is trrtelectr; bused on the pr-c}posed;spot
grades how or wliere the water ivill enter the Salem Street drainage. .si,.st(!tr from thc�
proposed itt fil tr(rtirrrtldc.?tcrr tticrr t 1RUirr. Ae wak---r-a1,:)pears to 1)addle ben i,c,ert th e
c� tsting catch basin loc ated nor•tlreast gfthe proposed enn-ance and the pr(r .�o.��ed spot
1 �
elcivulion (?f 144.74.
Satisfactorily addressed.
6
1 r
i
i
Additional Comments
Z''` . proposed rc�rd��� . .�1-11 ha\:e a slope of��?�. ft:is our understand.ino this issuewas
clisc:ussed� rith the Ph
ltLrrd�rnci the cane in arcade was recommended.
V0,fi1Yt1?(!1
. The detent.ic n ponds do not pi
-ovRfe an eniergenev spillw ay. Calculations shoLrIrl
include rc��ttin of the l0U- errr stc�rrr �•i h a lu ed outlet to assure. the s�ill�=air is
ade rate y sued. ��erflo .from basic s c�� iId damicige homes as����{r•endy designed.
Spillways ha�► Lee -ovide and havo ode Uate capacitv. Note that the design
reclr Tres that.overflow spillways discharge to the street.
The Mipact qf this condition should he modeled and Wdicate.d.Sec rV.VJ7071 (' tO c.01117110rf 26
29. The drainage desi€m at the steep slope may.result in maintenance problems. The
calc;u.tated 100-year flows from srnccatchrrient area 5 and 6 acre 6.1 and 3.3 efs
{ respectively. This flow could resent in scour at the bottom of the slope. Sf.nc:e the
swale is proposed to be located within-the rialit--of way, the Town will he responsible
foj-all niai.ntenance associated with this Swale. ]details of these~wales should be
included in the plans. Grate capacity calculations should also Ive included in the
Mport tO suppOrt the design and assure flow'does no,%t by-pass catch bas—his. S ales
h ave been el irni crated ;rnd in Iets pr•ovi cied. r-ate c:apacit}•caIculati ons have not been
provided.
Inler c:•ai��bIrle.s Irti1'c� beeti pr ovit-ic7d hoii-c.q-,e)-ectc h cI'thc it l��t�i c'YC' rrr'tlr'l�el} o c:�tl�ti •c�
the indicated�~�pacidle.s. The c alcidl tions are based on an tz.�sumed depth (Y.11ow.
Acmal)-alues should be rctilizt-cW.
Inlet capaciti,calc'ntations hai,e been rr oriole to represent the actualfl_w depth
C011diti071 •. BA-pasiv he-is been indic etted at catch buslAy 7&8, whi"Ch is n(v consistent
with the model, havilever it is unlikely to have a signs ream impact. Aloltrr thei-
Commeat.
0. Detentian pored E) is missing the 174' contour on the up]-H side. .Satisfactory.
3 f. Detention pond t7 is missing the 1C`�' contour on the uphitl side. Sat'isfa.ctory.
3 . 1t i s Lim[ear where reach � is located. rl"l�e calc��lations ar•�z r at c:or�siste�lt with the
design in this area..
No fits ther-comment.
t.
33. The ,M-ea measured for subcatchment area I was 6.1 acres_ `T'he ie-port uses 5.62. The
area s h 0 U I d he ctotthle checiced. Subc ate h men t a.j•eas 5). G, 8. 1.3,and 14 xv,ere also not
comistent with otir calculations and.511OL11d he checked. S,,xtisfa.ctory.
7
34. ,,rhe CUrve number-tand are,, should be checked fOI•. Ub-catebinent aj. 13. Good IaN-vn
"'N 6.1. Note that the assumpt'D soil tvpe should have a k-- 11-ISed
'more conscrvati�r e des on.
-ther comment.
JVo fio
35 It IS Uncleat-if the exis-t-Inc-T house Ilocated in subcatchment fareca 14 eras included in the
ace is described as good. howevei-, a CN of 69 was used.
Aulations, The opensp
We believe thIS ShOLdd bc 61. N'ote that tho c-tSSLInIPfiO-fl LISCd-rCSLI]t,';in a mom
Callservalix, desian
xnTanenf,
hoftf rth e r
36. Wc Tecoini nerd.that an OLAICt structure w ith two openincys be used an pond 17 ver
-S L t
the two pipes over each other.
The 117let structure to the infiltration basili has been nzoel�fied to include only One pipe
M? recommen d thal the outlet ap ron be constr ucted qf r i p- rapfor
and af
erosion control.
The drainage basin model indic.ates an inflovi,-,(Y'15.88 CFS- It is (Inclear than the
.-an eiccommodefte this Mlv. Vie P' e ca((.,,rjIattonsfi)r t1te
proposed 15-'ich inletpipe c,
�P
100---vear stiortn consist of the saine dato.as the 10-years-torin. The 100-year sr tont
pipe calculations should be revised.
��''Pipe with et slope ofl.8%c.
77te 1 5" inl<))P')e has been changed to A21 Ae,
appeais to have,(ulequate capacity. The drain line profile oil vileet ) shoultibe
upelated to reflecr this chtnkge.
The plans have been revised, satisfactorily addressed
37. The sedimentation basin and check darn should be detailed.
Delaib,v have been proilidedfiw the check dam tind seditnentalioiz basin. No firri-dier
Comment.
38. Contour-s am incomplete at the top of the slope on Lot2.
Couiplete topography on I-t)r 21 has been indicared. However, the topogrqphy at the
izorth end of the site sits.uld be indicated.
Nofili-ther commenf.
New comments dated October 4, 1999:
1. The e.XtLCjjt of vegetation rem-ioval. Which iS M(jUil4ed fOl' adequate site. distance as per
the SUI)MItted study, should be in-dicated on the plans.
The Ihnit q1'cleafitig has been indicated on the plans. Nofitrther('0117,177eW,
8
24 Section 7.) .)4.)The ���•c�l?c.�sct�dc�LI��le catch basin :�h��tilcl he clearly indicated on the
p falls.
Div double catch �`?�r.�t���� have been i�t��ic.�{ir��(l on the plans. �c�.fiti�lr.c��t�r.-��rrr��r��rit.
3
e ` �: lCimate disci�ar e point t* r the pi-oposed footing di-gins; st�l��dra���s and c�.rtfl*
drains should be indicated and modeled. A treti;h drain 01,Sw"'Ife Should be
c o-n t-uct.ed at the top of the proposed slope, on.the so uthe m end of the site.
} The proposed curtcripr drefin s.fbof ing clt c:rirrs and sub-drains woulel disc:car re
, rvrtn elif,aler-and could result in erosion as tie-signed.
��f��r�x�c��r�x��r �Irc.�ix����c�l����if�t��r�'i7.r�s l.��y�r2 c�t�������c� .sI2c����_ �5'u�r.��tx�•���xi��.=r���ix���•4�#rl'.
4
The o�.re�-flc���� spil� •a-Y for Deten ion Basin M 'is indicated as a sharp crested weir and
modeled as a inroad crested well'.
} The rnoclel hav been nzo( fled to re resew.-the proposed cenid r`rt ns. �'�f�r.14riher
{
t
S. Based on input at public heari-n s the easterly abutter expressed concern relit'Ive to
g-oun.dwater influence on their basement. The house should be indieat on the plans.
} A curtain drain is indicated adjacent to this pro 3t t�t . The capacity of this drain d���n
1
storni events should he evaluated.
The cif rtwit d ain tit the ea sier n property line has been rr odele.d. however the
proposed lei filtration iltration area would include all bortotn area below the ouriel invent No
firther contm ent-
We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Planning Board on this project and hope that
this information is sufficient for your needs. We would he pleased to meet with the
Board o the design engineer to discuss this project at your convenience. If you have any
questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
COLER &COLAN TONTO,INC.
John C. Ghessm,P.E.
cc: Benjamin C. Osgood,Jr.,President
Devra Baden Esq.
9
Division of Public works Phone 978-685-0959
384 Osgood Street Fax 978-688-9573 �
'.1'r�.r � r�'`-i:,.:�_ ''.,�.'�:'�.f.S�.RS��._�"•� -
.i.- _ .Y... ..
::d•6: '`y=°:�•_r'"'• =az.': ..:.;a _.c�.` •:
�r:s::x' ��T;�'.•f�.��r •�'.'_.__'�=si,:::-.�� •gvr2-�:.
f �"�siir •�:s:.�•=.:���.��1`.>;'7•..kss:.Y.�; -�7 �- •i'__.._ ��4: a�-.-.,�w.�r�'S.^?r�•�r Us
NW-
North Andover MA 01845
tY
S
;xz•._3:3-r;<x',`f�_'.: '? "�-:f 3 '' -,- "z•'"a=y''.r?_=r.. T;�i. - ::` x�a�. '.r ` �;=?
�"..K'k: 'L S•6 Tim 7'• k-. _Ci`:.-r`-.. s- tt'v.''• j
�';�: *,r-,. =.�i;--yn- •i.a....-r�..b[:.Y.=•�•:_".i-•it _ rr-_a�-�.'rk r...���7.=.•z•3• � �icy.��•�f...:,,x:•�s.�T � �. a. .]F Tii,� '` � � 1,:_•
- ;-r•:s.k"-}i•:. �'.R_.:�,F, r :•e SY.. T c�.q � �'F�• >s' �.• .s �:r�+.es�..,F�_"-�.
IVIeni43
.:i'agti��':::ir�.r::a.._.;y�:'.i,�7_-^�=-�i: - '�,�-.r=�'��'��"-- •_�f�r..'y}';"�_ ..'k-.. �'ae.s-�'+ �'�.
rt��=-"7`�c,+�'r.t�.•r=,t.':::r��.�.-�y;:.3,d `.r.S[Y�;�'"�:�..zr.: •s:5�'`••'!�. �•.�:. _�_yc.. .���,...
•�E•� .+1`r-'....F?. Via:..�� _ ����
q^_r...��i�'r,.����= 1tv_�-r-.i S. ,.FI`.�,,-`+:;y-a9.. �`�}��,}-"s ��-:. �_�:•�-v`a_ '..r:�,�r=c-• r�.�-at�'
r
i
i
r
i
}
3
t
i
F } -
To: Heidi Griffin, Town Planner
t F From: James Rand, Jr., Director of Engineeri
CC: J. William Hmurciak, PE, Director D illett Staff Engineer
fro
f
Dale: June 4, 2001
Rio: Red Gate Pasture
i �
Plan reviewed "Definitive Plan RED GATE PASTURE located in North Andove
r,er, MASS
revised 2128101
The March 20, 2001 memo from Cofer & Colantonio on page 2, 5th paragraph references
the DPW on slope stabilization. The engineer has proposed what appears to be a
satisfactory solution to the slope stabilization and we have no additional comment.
1f the revised plan addresses the issues stated in my memo dated January 16, 1998, the
plan is satisfactory to us,
C:IMEMGS HEIDIG 20011REDGATE 6- -01
Page I
3
I
Planning Board MeetingAPPROVED ` /10/ 1
June 5, 2001
.Members Present: Alison Lescarbeau, Chairman
John Simons, Vice Chairman
Alberto Angles, Clerk
{ E
Richard Nardella
Richard Rowen
s .
Staff present; Heidi Griffin, Planning Director
s
Planning�
The g Board Meeting of June S, 2001 was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
}
Discussions:
Stevens Estate wireless Facility-Develo Inent Plan
Richard Nardella, Alison Lescarbeau,Alberto Angles
Steven Anderson is here this evening to have a pre-application informal discussion with
the board. Sprint and AT&T are virtuallytied on the bid. '
They are here tonight to
present a variety of proposals and have a review of what the would like to present.
y p
Mr. Anderson stated they have proposed two different options at the site. Each option is
on the hill, near the mansion, and is pretty well shielded from the mansion itself.
The two proposals are as follows: Because the site is near the airport, height is an
important issue, under the zoning bylaw and the FAA,height is the key issue to make
sure it's high enough to work.
The first idea would have a sign equipment corn compoundjust off the `gp existing telephone
lines. There's a clearing in the woods and will follow that in and have a 40 x 40-fence
compound, one pole in the middle and two sets of equipment on the ground.
Traditionally, Sprint uses an earth-tone cabinet. If the board prefers they could combine
it into one budding.
There would be a fence around the outside of the building and they are ro osin a S'
p p g
stockade fence and could propose a higher fence if necessary.
I
f
u For the two carriers on the one pole, the antennas would be inside the pole, without a
p
flag. To accommodate two carriers, they propose 100'. The trees are alreadyin
excess
of 80' tall.
The second alternative would allow there to bring down the p
height of the ale with more
g
f
ground space at the height of the property. Each pole would be 90' tall, with internal
antennas inside the pole. The same driveway would be used coming in, with a y at the
end and separate equipment areas for AT&T and Sprint.
P
S
A few issues with this proposal: the second compound is within 300' of the garage of the
Stevens estate property.
t
Briefly, some of the issues the would like uidance from the board .
Y 9 an.
First of all, they are concerned with what the 1V HC and the FAA would do and the
would like to put both proposals through the zoning process. This is because if the FAA
says they can't have 100' pole, they will have the backup option. They would like to
put both through the process.
{
Ms. Lescarbeau ask what are the FAA regs relative to these proposals?
Mr. Anderson stated it's only applicable if it's on the glide path on the runway. Their
informal analysis would be 47' or 87' as the maximum height of the pole. Mr.
Anderson stated he thinks that if the airport would give their support of the proposal, it
will benefit them.
Mr. Nardella asked when they would give their proposal?
Mr. Anderson stated they have spoken with the airport consultant, and he is unsure if they
will support them or not.
Mr. Andersen stated if they can build one single pole, then that's what they will do?
Mr. Nardella asked if there would be much excavation for the one pole option?
Mr. Andersen responded there is half as much clearing for option A then for option B (Z
poles).
Mr. Nardella asked what the height of equipment is?
Mr. Andersen responded 1 a' and S'.
Mr. Nardella stated that the 6' stockade fence would not cover the 1 0' equipment.
Mr. Nardella stated that on previous occasions, the applicant has provided coverage
areas. Mr. Nardella asked if that analysis would be done?
2
t
Mr. Andersen responded that higher than 100' would be preferable. The folic e of trees
g
has a tremendous affect on the coverage. They will provide that information at the
public hearing.
4 Mr. Nardella requested a picture of the tower, and if lights will be flashing?
g g
s
3
Mr. Andersen stated that red lights would be on at night.
Mr. Nardella asked if the proposal will require any variances?
Mr. Andersen stated the closest call is on the height, and that there would be no more
variances required-.-
Mr. Keith Mitchell, chair of telecommunications subcommittee stated that the
subcommittee is recommending to the Board of Selectmen that pursued,
o tion A be and
p
option A fails, option B be pursued.
Mr. Mitchell asked that the PlanningBoard appoint pp another Planning Board member to
the subcommittee in light of the fact that the alternate 1a
g planning board member resigned
from the Planning Board and was the liaison to the subcommittee.
Mr. Andersen stated the cables that run from the equipment shelter to the pole, which
P
would be above ground. Mr. Andersen stated they would be asking for a waiver from
the requirement for identification of the trees on the property.
E
Mr. Andersen stated the bylaw required a variance if the proposal was 300' to a habitable
building, and that the garage was located within 300' of the proposal. The Board
replied they did not believe a variance was required as the garage was not a"habitable"
building.
Commercial Development--Route 1 25--Informal Discussion
Mr. Steven Webster stated they have located the industrial line.
Mr. Webster stated the first phase would be the 50,000 SF building in the front.
Mr. Webster stated the back buildings would total approximately 145,000 SF. Mr.
Webster stated they have moved the front building back, and separated the automobile
traffic from the truck traffic.
Mr. Webster stated they planned on returning in approximately one month with a formal
submission.
Mr. Nardella asked if their parking complied with the zoning bylaw?
3
6:
`i
i
,y Mr. Webster.replied yes.
Mr. Simons asked if the buildings would be a brick facade like the adjacent credit union?
Mr. Webster replied it would be a brick facade, with glass.
401 Andover Street-yerizon wireless--Informal Discussion
3
31I.1s. Janet Stearns was before the Planning Board tonight representing verszon. Ms.
Stearns stated she was proposing some roof-mounted antennas on top of the building.
f .g
A discussion ensued relative to whether or not the application would require a variance
relative to the setbacks of boo'.
r
The Planning Board directed Ms. Stearns to meet with the Town Planner and the
Building Commissioner to iron out the issue of the interpretation of the setbacks. The
Planning Board stated they believed that the application would require a variance and that
must be obtained prior to applying for the Planning Board special permit.
Public Hearings:
f
Red ate Pasture-Definitive Subdivision--Court Remand
f
Mr. Howard Speicher stated that they are here tonight on a new public hearing stemming
from an old denial. Mr. Speicher stated that the Planning Board denied an earlier
version of the plan in 1998. The developer filed an appeal to the Land Court, and
decided it was more productive to address the board's concerns as expressed in its denial
and by the town engineer than to litigate the case.
Mr. Speicher stated the town and the town's outside consultant, Cofer& Colantonio, have
reviewed several revised plans. Mr. Speicher stated that they had a slope stabilization
issue, which has been approved by the DPW and concludes its review by the town and
the plan meets the town's regulations.
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated that the layout of the project has stayed the same, along with the
house locations. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated that most of the work changed was on the
drainage system.. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated the drainage system was originally too small,
and DPW had a real aversion to maintaining an underground drainage system.
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated they have redesigned the drainage system so there is an open
infiltration pond, all drainage comes into the pond, and the pond has an outlet that's
above the water of the pond, which will infiltrate into the ground.
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated it produces a reduction in both volume and rate of runoff for all
storms. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated they've gone with the open pond concept because Jim
Rand preferred the open infiltration pond to the underground system.
4
^1
1
I
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated that all other minor changes have been made.
Ms. Lescarbeau asked if it is the sane number of lots and length of road?
{ Mr. Osgood Jr. replied yes.
3 f
S
Ms. Lescarbeau asked if the detention pond is right on Salem Street?
1 Mr. Osgood Jr. replied it is back off of Salem Street approximately 100' 'i g p pp y and Zo from the
{
neW roadway..
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated that if the pond overflows it would go into a weir with a level
spreader.
f
Mr. Nardella asked where that location of the overflowing would be?
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated it would overflow into the same location it was flows in now.
g �
F Mr. Osgood Jr. stated the existing drainage system does back u and cannot g g g � p, handle a
1 o0-gear rainstorm.
Mr.. Osgood Jr. stated that the new proposal entails a zero increase in volume.
g p p
Mr. Nardella asked how deep is the detention pond?
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated the bottoms is 144, and the top of the berm.is 148, with the street
level being 146.
Mr. Nardella asked ghat it would look like from Salem Street?
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated the top of the berm is about 3 V2 feet above Salem Street.
Mr. Nardella stated he does not like the look of detention ponds and the Board has been
encouraging underground detention structures.
Mr. Simons asked if the detention pond could be disguised?
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated that it would be loamed and seeded, and planted with some
plantings around the entryway.
Mr. Speicher stated if there's a concern about the detention pond, the plans could be
revised for landscaping.
Ms. Lescarbeau stated she thinks it's a very difficult site to develop.
5
ti
--i
i
y w Mr. Simons asked why you have to go so far back on the slopes?
}
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated they're :l slopes, and they're needed to obtain the lot frontage.
Mr. Simon stated that could be a problem.
t
Mr. Simons stated the board's experience is that eve time the build on a hill there are
� y
problems.
s
Mr. Simons asked if they could talk a little bit more about the disturbance of the slope.
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated the proposed grade is 174 existing grade i`
s 188.
� f
Mr. Simons asked how many feet of the hill would be taken out?
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated from the road it might be 60 feet to 80 feet.
Mr. Simons asked if that could be pulled back?
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated that because of the lot configuration rules it causes g g s es them to go into
the slopes and disturb them.
i
Mr. Simons stated he would like the applicant to come back and investigate the
diminishing of the cutting on the slopes.
Mr. Simons asked about the strip of land on Lot 4?
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated the strip of land is n 'g p of Included on the lot area of lot 4 and is
adjacent to the neighboring property. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated the strip is due to the radius
of the roadway alignment.
Mr. Nardella asked how wide it is?
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated 20' and the strip would be part of Lot 4.
Mr. Simons asked if the applicant would consider building the road as a driveway,
instead of a road, how would it make the proposal different and would the applicant
revise their plans?
Mr. Speicher stated that with less roadway, it would be a smaller detention system.
Mr. Rowen stated from what he remembered from the old public hearings, the site was
sensitive relative to the timing of the release of the water in a storm. Mr. Rowen stated
the applicant could not demonstrate to their engineer the timing of the drainage was
correct. Mr. Rowen asked if it was possible to have an adjustment in the field if
necessary if the water overflowed?
6
I
3
i
1
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated there would be 2.5 feet of water storage in the pond, which is equal
to the increase of runoff in a 100-year storm. In a smaller storm, the and will still hold
d
the volumes with much less runoff. Mr. Osgood stated test its indicate that the sand i� 5
glacial and water will percolate into the ground.
i
Mr. Rowen stated that the Mosquito Brook flood lain is subterranean at that point,p p , and
the water will dump almost directly into the brook. Mr. Rowen stated he's unsure if
with the water is draining into the ground will the Ceirs property still have drama e
p p Y g
issues?
3
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated that the water would go down below the Ceirs ro ert .
p p Y
Ms. Osgood Jr. stated the slopes would be stabilized as follows. The main roblern is
p
the water bleeding down on top of the slopes. They have proposed drainage swa les to
x channel any surface water flow away from the slope. All water on the site is routed then
to catch basins and sub-drains to perforated pipe with stones. The detention pond is
designed to handle the groundwater inflow.
Mr. Nardella asked if they would reforest or replant those cuts?
Mr. Jr. stated they will be seeded with a slope mix, and the will eventually reforest if no
Y Y
one else goes out and cuts those slopes.
F
Mr. Rowen asked if the soil was sandy on the slopes?
Mr. Jr. replied it was a till s oil.
Mr. Rowen stated that all the slopes the board has had problems with in the past were
comprised of a till soil.
Mr. Nardella pointed out that right next door is the Foxwood subdivision, and those
slopes have had serious problems and he would like to make sure this was avoided for
this application.
Mr. Angles echoed Mr. Nardella's concerns and would like to see a more aggressive
slope stabilization plan, as well as the swales.
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated they could rip-rap the whole slope.
Mr. Angles suggested they look at geo-grid or a similar material.
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated these issues could be addressed during the construction phase.
7
Mr. Nardella stated the applicant is hearing --� pp ng universally from the Planning Board a�d that the
slope stabilization issues be addressed, and be addressed now, not during the construction
phase.
Ms. Lescarbeau agreed, stating that the applicant needs to address the issue during the
design phase, not during the construction phase.
i
Jinn Corbit, weyland Circle of Boxwood subdivision, stated he abuts the on the
proposal
side in the back. Mr. Corbit stated he is concerned about the slope stabilization also,, as
it appears the slope failures could end up in his yard.
Mr. Nardella stated the contours in the slopes in the back don't appear to be too different
from the natural contours of the land. In other words, the cutting in the back of the
slopes is more or less keeping with the topography of the land.
Mr. Rowen suggested the applicant revise their plans to a 9 road grade to eliminate any
y
is
sues ssues at the cul-de-sac area.
Mr. Osgood Jr. replied this would mitigate some cutting.
Mr. Steve Tombarelli, abutter, Salem Street, stated his concern is that there are serious
water problems here and the water is being pushed into one spot. He is concerned his
cellar will get flooded.
S
Mr. Osgood stated with this type of soil it wouldn't increase the groundwater.
Mr. Nardella explained that is why the outside consultant reviews the just lans to ensure
P
that all drainage issues are resolved. Mr. Nardella also stated the Planning Board holds
bond monies, which can be seized to correct a problem if a developer does not address
the problem.
Bob Niekel, 871 Salem Street, stated that,when Foxwood Subdivision went in, he had
more water in his cellar, and he is very concerned this proposal would add to the water in
his basement.
Mr. Nardella stated the applicant was denied and asked to return when there would be no
more water coming off the site than what exists presently and this has been concluded by
the town's outside consulting engineer.
Mr. Steven Ceir, 895 Salem Street, abutter stated that he does not feel comfortable with
the subdivision. Mr. Ceir stated he was disappointed that the plans still have four
houses.
Mr. Ceir stated that on March 2, 2001 a major rainstorm occurred. Mr. Ceir presented
pictures of the storm and the affect it had on his home. Mr. Ceir stated the water comes
F
i
from.the Redgate Pasture land and presented pictutes, which he states demonstrates the
affect of the storm and the water runoff.
Mr. Speicher stated that they would examine the slope stabilization as an issue for the
next meeting.
Mr. Lescarbeau suggested they pursue the geogrid as a solution.
j Mr. Nardella motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing far Red Cate Past
g Pasture-
1 Subdivision--Court Remand until June 19, 2001, 2nd b Mr. Simons voted d 5-D
in favor of the motion.
Delucia wa --Definitive Subdivision
{
Mr. Phil Christiansen stated this is a small parcel of lan
d nd off Waverly Road. There is an
existing house on Lots 6 and Lots 2. They are proposing a roadway approximately a roximatel 560'
long, with sidewalk on one side, town sewer and water, and detention ponds on lots 4 and
5.
Mr. Chritiansen stated the Shawsheen River is the rear of the property and the wetlands
have been flagged and approved by the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Christiansen stated Lot 6 was included in the subdivision to obtain 14 feet for the
roadwayradius. Mr. Christiansen stated all lots are conforming to '
g the zoning bylaw,
all with proper frontage.
Mr. Christiansen stated they have responded to comments from the consultant. Mr.
Christiansen stated the subdivision regulations require an environmental analysis for six
lots; however, four of the lots are new.
Mr. Simons pointed out that the plan refers to the Lots as Numbered Lots 1 through Lots
6 and depict six lots.
Mr. Rowen asked where the Greene Street property is located?
Mr. Christiansen responded right next door to the proposal. All of the runoff drains to
the back to the Shawsheen River.
Mr. Nardella asked the applicant respond to the Building Commissioner's memorandums.
Mr. Christiansen stated the parking spaces have been depicted on the plans. There are
nineteen parking spaces on Lot 2.
Mr. Simons requested that the apartment building may not be in compliance with zoning
and asked if the use would be conforming to these new plans. Mr. Simons stated this
plight create a more non-conforming use.
9
1
i
i y
Mr. Simons requested that the Town Planner check with the Building '
q g Commissioner
relative to this issue.
{
Mr. Ch�•istiansen stated he could re--orient the house on Lot 1 so that it fronts Waverly
y
Road instead of the new road.
Mr. Simons motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearin for Delucia wa -
. . . . . g y
Definitive Subdivision until June 19, 2001 2nd b Mr. Nardella voted 5-0 y in favor of the
motion.
1070 Osgood Street-Chao Pra a Restaurant
Mr. Neve stated this is a restaurant use. Mr. Neve stated they have received approvals
from the zoning Board of Appeals and the Conservation Commission. Mr. Nev
e stated
they received variances to reduce the travel width around the site from 25' to 20' and
they withdrew their request for compact parking spaces.
� i
Mr. Neve stated the entire curb cut was already installed and it is complete, the traffic
light will change.
I
i
r
Mr. Rowen asked if there's a basement for the site?
Mr. Neve replied yes, and it can only be utilized for storage.
Mr. Neve stated that the basement is not an occupiable space.
Mr. R.owen motioned to CLOSE the Public Bearing for 1070 Osgood Street, Site
Plan and instruct the Town Planner to draft a decision for the June 19, 2001 meeting, 2nd
by Mr. Simons voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
Lot P Flagship Drive
Mr. Huntress presented the plans, stating they are proposing a medical office building
Mr. Huntress stated there is an existing retaining wall on the abutter's property.
Mr. Karl Dubay, MBF Design stated the existing conditions are that the drainage flows
onto the adjacent property. The new plan will redirect the drainage onto our own site.
Ml-. Dubay stated they are planting additional landscaping behind the wall adjacent to the
residential property.
Mr. Huntress stated that the building steps into the grade of the land. Mr. Huntress
stated that the building serves as a retaining gall.
10
f
S
5'
i•3
Mr. Dubay stated the back wall is only 6' high.
Mr. Simons asked if the residents of Marion Drive would see the new bull ding,
Mr. Huntress replied in the winter you might see portions of the building throug
h the
trees as they would not be fully blossomed during the winter season.
Mr. Simons asked for a sight line or orientation for visualization u oses of th
p � enew
building?
.Mr. Dubay stated he would provide a cross--section for the board at the next hearin
g.
Mr. Nardella questioned the applicant relative to the u •
q pp use of the building and the parking?
€ f
I
E
Mr. Huntress replied that the applicant would have to justifyto the Buildin g
Commissioner that the use met the parking for the building.
Mr. Nardella stated he believes the parking is not ample 'p g peas of this time.
F Mr. Nardella stated that if the applicant wants to change to a medical office the '
g e parking
will also change and they will be required to come back to the Planning Board.
Mr. Simons stated that the abutters are an important issue relative to this project.p � Mr.
Simmons stated the applicant has maximized on the floor area ratio.
Mr. Huntress explained that was based upon a definition from the Building
' Commissioner, and that was based upon the utilization of the basement,nt, which the
Commissioner included as floor area ratio.
Ms. Lescarbeau read aloud a letter from.the Mottolas, abutters from Marion Drive, who
are concerned about extensive excavation and future groundwater in their basement.
Ms. Mottola stated she was primarily concerned with water and would like to ensure that
there will not be water in their basement.
Ms. Lescarbeau pointed out that the Mottolas homes are higher than the top of the
proposed building and its land.
Mr. Dubay stated the abutters are uphill from the site and that area will be cut slightly.
. y
Mr. Dubay stated they would excavate approximately 130' away. Mr. Dubay stated
they would be providing underdrains.
.Ms. Griffin noted that there are approximately 20 catch basins around the site in addition
to the underdrains.
7I
's
—ti
f
Mr. Ed Condon, 89 Marion Drive, stated that even though he's hearing g water does flow
downhill, there are 3 houses on the to of Marion Drive that were dramatic
ally�cally affected
when the previous building on the site were built. Mr. Condon stated that there are
springs up in the area and if the springs are blocked the water backs up.
P
4
S
Mr. Dubay stated the retaining wall in that area also acts as an inter ce t p or.
Ms. Mottola stated she does not feel anything should be built on the lot.
Y g
1
Ms. Marie Amaresco of Stets and Company,fLC presented pictures of when there were
serious erosion problems when the last building was built on this site. Ms.Am.aresco
4
stated that this puddling has caused holes, which have eroded her driveway.
Y
Mr. Nardella asked if the Town Planner could provide the Planning Bo
P g and With the
previous decision on the site.
Ms. Marie Amaresco requested site lines be presented for the building to her property for
� � P Y
aesthetic purposes.
Mr. Nardella replied this is not necessaryas the use is allowed on the site e and her site Was
allowed to be utilized in the same way.
Ms. Marie Amaresco stated her concern was that her tenants will be viewingthe parking
P g
s garage of the building. Ms. Amaresco stated that her building will be cast in shadows
and ghat could she do about that?
Mr. Rowen re-emphasized Mr. Nardella's comments that the applicant i pp s proposing a
permitted use in the proper zone and have not requested any variances, and as such, their
proposal is in conformance with the zoning Bylaw. Mr. Rowen stated the only way to
prevent the building from being built in the manner it is proposed to be would be to
purchase the land to protect it from being built upon.
Ms. Amaresco stated that her last comment was in 1997 they came as willingabutters for
the buildout of a one-story building. Ms. Amaresco stated that this didn't work out well
back then.
Ms. Griffin stated that there are letters in the file for Intellisense, the previous proposal,
. p p
which Indicate the site was brought into compliance and had addressed the erosion
problems, from both the prior Town Planner and the prior Conservation Administrator.
Mr. Nardella stated he made it clear to the applicant that the parking will need to be
addressed if the uses change.
Mr. Nardella motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Lot F Flagship
d g P
Drive--Site Plan Special Permit until June 19, 20011 2 nby Mr. Simons, voted 5-0 in favor,
of the emotion.
12
257 Bridle Path
Mr. Osgood Jr. stated all outstandingissues have been addressed.
ssed,
Mr. Simons motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearin
g for 257 Bridle Path-
ecial Permit 2nd
Watershed S b Mr. Rowe .p s y . n, voted 4-0�n favor of the motion.
f
Mr. Simons motioned to APPROVE the watershed Special ec' •
nd p Permit for 257 Bridle
Path, 2 by Mr. Rowen, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion.
3 Greene Street/Riverbend Orossin -PDD Sipecial Permit
i
f
Mr. LaGrasse stated that all outstandin engineering issues have g g g been addressed and
there is a memorandum from VHB identifying this.
f
Mark Johnson, attorney for applicant, stated that the way the 55 year and older housing
sing
will work is that an over 55 community does discriminate
. y .. The Fair Housing Act allows
for this. In order to comply for this exemption, to discriminate, three requirements
q is must
be met.
1. Mousing intended to operate 55 years age of older
2. 80% units be utilized for 55 or older;
3. Community comply with IUD regs for verification of occupancy
p y
The Master Deed would track compliance of these regulations. Under HOPA e
, people
who are under 55 can use the remaining 20%.
Mr. Johnson stated they are investigating putting in a clause in the Master Deed limiting•
the amount of time children can live with the 55-year and older residents.
Mr. �Nardella stated previously they had looked at provisions for
r renters.
Mr. Johnson stated this deed can be prepared in the near future and he can su l
pp y the
Planning Board with a sample.
Mr. Nardella's question is whether the definition of"elderly"housin constitutes older.
y g 55 or
Mr. Rowen did not believe they were in non-compliance with the zoningbylaw.
Ken Kramm, Vanasse and Associates, stated he prepared a traffic stud and
y sent a copy
to VHB.- He received a fax back with about six general comments on the study.y They
agreed the proposal would not have a significant impact on the Mr. Ira
proposal. mrn
13
f ~'
stated he has addressed most of the comments an
d will send the revised traffic stud to
VHB. y
Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearin for� •
g reeve S treetlRiverbend
Crossing and instruct the Town Planner to draft a decision �h n�
for the June 1 Meeting, 2
by Mr. Simons, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
740 Turn-Pike Street-Car Wash-Site Plan Special Permit
i
Mr. Thomas Laudani,representing Lae Realty Trust owner of the property, stated that
at this point in time in the approval process h •
pp p. e has had dYscussions with various town
departments and he believes all remaining issues have been addres
sed.
P
.Mr. Laudani stated one issue was the status
of the sewer flogs and he has .had two
meetings with Bill Hrnurciak and that DPW is nor satisfied with their submi'
ttal.
Mr. Laudani stated there was an outstanding issue with the traffic study and that has been
approved.
Mr. Laudani stated there was an issue relative to the issue of •the chemicals being used,
and they are all biodegradable and DPW's requirements have been met.
Mr. Laudani provided the Board with some samples of the architectural '
p tural renderings of the
building.
Mr. Laudani stated that this parcel is zoned Village Commercial,, McGregor s parcel is
zoned B2. Directly adjacent to this are three parcels zoned Village '
L p g Commercial. Mr.
Laudani stated he has the frontage over to Saville Lane. Mr. Laudani
ani has entered Into a
purchase and sales agreement with the McGregor parcel so he can g P rezone his property to
Village Commercial and will also have frontage on Route 114.
Mr. Simons stated he feels uncomfortable that there is 3 parcels c
beingde p contiguous to each other
developed piece meal.
Mr. Laudani stated the other 3 parcels would be sold to
McGregor, so there will only be
the car wash site and the proposal for the McGreg ors.
Mr. Laudani provided the Board with samples of the shingling and '
the building.
g g architectural walls of
14
--4
i
Mr. Nardella motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearin for 740
g Turnpike Street-
Site Plan Special Permit and instructed the Town Planner to draft a decision
for the June
19h meeting, 2nd b Mr. Rowen, voted 5-0 in favor of the 'y motion.
Mr. Nardella requested that a clause be placed in the decision relative to sewer mitigation
' 'on
fees.
{
Brooks School
Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearin for Brooks s School
Headmaster/A.dmissions-Site Plan Special Permit, 2nd by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-M0 in favor
of the motion.
s Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the Site Plan Special Pe 'p rnut for.Brooks
` School Headmaster/Ad 'ssion with the addition of sewer ' ' '
nd mitigation fees being added to
the decision if applicable, 2 by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
i
Bond Establishments/Releases:
7
Forestview-Palonrnino Drive
Mr. Rowen motioned to ESTABLISH a Performance Guarantee by Surety
Company for Forest View Subdivision in the amount of$152,400-00, 2nd b
y Mr.
Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
Forest View-Lot Releases
Mr. Rowen motioned to RELEASE lots from Forest view Estates 2n1
by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
Lot 24B &Lot 23B Rocky Brook
.Mr. Rowen motioned to RELEASE all remaining bond money held for lots 23B
n
&24B Rocky Brook Road, 2 d by.Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
Wallace Street Subdivision Endorsements
Mr. Rowen motioned.to ESTABLISH a$5,000 bond for Wallace Street
Subdivision for the completion of the roadway, 2nd by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor
of
the motion.
249 Marblerid e Road-Bond Release
15
i
{
Mr. Rowen motioned to RELEASE all remainingbond
na money from 249
�Marbler•�dge Road, by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
Mr. Rowen motioned to AFFOIIT Mr. N ardella to the Fi nd
nancial Task Force, 2
by Mr. Simons, voted 5--0 in favor of the motion.
Mr. Rowen motioned to APPOINT Ms. Lescarbeau as the Telec om munlcat'
ions
Subcommittee Liaison, 2nd b Mr. Nardella voted - `
y S 0�n favor of the motion.
The Planning Board endorsed the Covenant and Conveyance of Easements and
d
Utilities for Wallace Street Subdivision.
f
The Planning Board endorsed the Form J Lot Release for Wallace Street
Subdivision to be held until the $5,000 bond is posted.
Decisions:
{ Frontage Exception-Lot 1 Bradford Street
Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the Frontage Exception for Lot 1 Bradford
Street, 2nd by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
i
E
Fronta e Exce tion-Lot 2 Bradford Street
Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the Frontage Exception for Lot 2 Bradford
S treet, 2nd by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
ANR Plan-Bradford Street Mgp 62 Lot 138
The ANR Plan divides the lot into 5 lots with Lots 1 &2 requiring g p a Frontage Exception
Special Permit.
Mr. Nardella motioned to APPROVE the ANR.Plan for Bradford Street Ma 62
Lot 138, 2nd by .Mr Rowen, P
voted 5�-0�n favor of the motion.
w
Board Reorgan,Zation
Mr. Rowen motioned to ELECT Mr. Simons as the Chairman of the Planning
Board, 2nd by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
Mr. Rowen motioned to ELECT Mr. Angles as the Nice Chairman of the
Planning Board, 2nd by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
16
s
Mr. Rowen motioned to ELECT Mr. N�ard ll
t e a as the Clerk of the Planning Board,
Z"I by Mr. Simons, voted S-o in favor of.
1
Mr. Rowen motioned to ADJOURN the Planning Board meeti
na oar ng of June 5, Zool,
I
Z bar Mr. N�ardella, voted Swo in favor of the motion.
i
Ji
1
f
3
1
I
j
3
I
jr
ii
i
}
17