Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-27June 27, 2~}00 planning Board Meeting P~el June 27, 2000 Departmegt of Public Works Planning Board Meeting Members Present: Staff Present: Alison Lescarbeau, Chairman Alberto Angles John Simons Richard Rowen Richard Nardella (8:15 p.m.) Heidi Griffin, Town Planner Jim Rand, Director of Engineering The Planning Board meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Discussion Bond Release - 263/265 Johnson Street Ms. CJriff'm stated that the applicant has submitted an as-built plan and the septic system was repaired in accordance with the approved plato The application was for a septic system repair in the watershed district. Ms. Griffin stated that she recommends a full release of all bond~. Mr. Simons moved, seconded by Mr. Rowen and VOTED 4-0: That the Planning Board vote to release all bond monies for 263/265 Johnson Street. MeadowoQd II Bond Releases Ms. Griffm stated that DPW is recommending a bond release of $4,200 for Meadowood II, leaving a balanceof$3,000.O0 for Meadowood II. Mr. Rowenmoved, seconded by Mr. Angles and VOTED 4-0: That the Planning Board vote to release $4,200 for the Meadowood II Subdivision, leaving a balance of $3,000.00. June 27, 2000 Planning Board Meeting Page 2 Meadowood III Bond Release Ms. Griff'm stated that DPW is recommending a bond release of $7,200.00 leaving a balance of $11,445.00 for the Meadowood III subdivision. In addition, the applicant has a $10,000 erosion control bond and a $5,000 model home bond. Ms. Griffin stated that she would recommend releasing $5,000 for the model home bond. Mr. Rowen moved, seconded by Mr. Simons and VOTED 4-0: That the Planning Board vote to release $7,200.00 for the roadway bond, $5,000 for the model home bond, releasing a total of $12,200.00 for Meadowood 1II. East Pasture Circle Ms. GritTm stated that DPW is recommending a bond release of $5,000 leaving a balance of $3,000 for the conveyance of the roadway. Mr. Angles moved, seconded by Mr. Simons and VOTED 4-0: That the Planning Board vote to release $5,000 leaving a balance of $3,000 for East Pasture Circle. Pinewood Estates Ms. Griffin stated that DPW has recommended a bond release of $9,700.00, leaving balance of $14,328 for the subdivision. Mr. Angles moved, seconded by Mr. Rowen and VOTED 4-0: That the Planning Board vote to release $9,700.00 for the roadway bond and retain an amount of $14,328.00 for the subdivision. Brookview Estates Ms. Griffin stated that DPW is recommending a final release of all bond monies for Brookview Estates. J_u~e 27, 2000 plannin_~ Board Meeling P~e3 Mr. Rowen moved, seconded by Mr. Simons and VOTED 4-0: That the Planning Board vote to release all remaining funds for Brookview Estates Subdivision. Lost Pond Lane Subdivision Ms. C~ift'm stated that DPW has recommended a release of $9,700.00 for Lost Pond Lane, leaving a balance of $13,600.00 for the subdivision for the sidewalks. In addition, the applicant has a separate bond placed in the mount of $13,000 for erosion control that she would recommend be released also. Mr. Angles moved, seconded by Mr. Simons and VOTED: That the Planning Board vote to release $9,700.00 for the roadway bond, leaving a balance of $13,600.00, and to also release $13,000.00 for the erosion control bond, releasing a total of $22,700.00. Brook Farm Subdivision - Status Update Mr. Gary Hager, stated that the developer has placed the final grading on the road. Mr. 'Hager stated that the shoulder is actually lower than the road itself, the mad is actually 4- 5 inches higher. Mr. Hager stated that the plan did not contain a spill berm and that he would like to have a spill berm even though it was not on the approved plan. Mr. I-lager stated that the actual grading done was not level or even. Mr. Hager stated it looked like it was patched. Mr. Hager stated that when the final grading was on the street ~ resulted in there being two seams on the driveway. Mr. Hager stated that Jim Rand suggested that the driveway be re-rolled. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that since her first Visit to the site, there have definitely been major improvements. Ms. Lescarebeau stated that she agreed that the transition from the old cul-de-sac to their lawns was poorly done. Ms. Lescarheau stated that the new loam is very rocky, it did not appear to be screened. Mr. Rand stated if the applicant requested a bond for final pavement, he would not recommend a release at all until this situation is resolved. Mr. Rowen stated that he drove by when it was pouring out. Mr. Rowen stated that after all the water collected in a low point in the street between catch basins then ran into Mr. Hager's front yard. June 2'/, 2000 planning Board Meetin~ Page 4 Mr. Rand stated that the water has to flow freely by the abutters' front yards and that he relayed this to the developer, Mr. Mangano. Mr. Rand stated that the proper grading has to be achi0ved to do accomplish this. Mr. Rowen instructed the Town Planner to send Mr. Mangano a letter instructing him to complete the work and to regrade and replace Mr. Hager's and Mr. Parker lawns to the same quality provided for his new homes. Mr. Hager asked if his lawn should appear like the pre-existing conditions. Mr. Rowen responded absolutely. Mr. Parker stated that sinkholes seem to be developing. Mr. Rand agreed with that statement, and that the sinkholes would need to be replaced. 492 Sutton Street - LWM Company - Endorsement of Plans The Planning Board endorsed the site plans for 492 Sutton Street, LWM Company. Forestview Estates - Establish Bond and Lot Releases Mark Johnson stated that the applicant has posted a bond and put together the bond agreement consistent with the Town's forms. Mr. Johnson stated that the lot release is asking for a release of some lots for conveyance. Mr. Johnson stated that they are asking for the release of sixteen lots for building permits. Mr. lohnson stated that the remainder of the lots they are requesting to be released are for conveyance purposes only, because Ptflte builders is purchasing the pmerty from Mesiti Development. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that the Planning Board would have to agree upon a cash mount that should be deposited in addition to the surety bond. Mr. Rowen stated that they do want a cash component to the bond in case there are problems in the first six months. Mr. Simons stated that they are relying on the applicant to comply with this condition and they will set a cash amount to be posted, in addition to the site opening bond already posted when the applicant returns for mom tot releases. The Board endorsed the Form J for the requested lot releases. Mr. Michael Rosati, Marehionda Engineering, stated that the Town Planner, Ms. Griffin requested the applicant receive clarification from the Board relative to a few items in the Forestview Decision that seemed to be misplaced. June 27, 2000 Planning Board Meeting Page 5 Mr. Rosati stated that the condition listed that sidewalks should be graded and staked before Form U, should have actually been inserted as prior to receipt of Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Rowen stated that the im~nt of the sidewalks is for potential buyers to see where they will be so that landscaping will not be placed in sidewalks. He agrees it should be placed in prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Rosati stated a similar situation has occurred relative to lighting. Mr. Rosati stated that the decision states that the lighting for the houses should be installed before receipt of a Form U application, however it should have been inserted prior to receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Rowen moved, seconded by Mr. Simons and VOTED 4-0: That the Board instruct Ms. Griffin, Town Planner to allow Form U applications for the Forestview Subdivision to be signed off by the Town Planner as the intent of the decision was for sidewalks and lighting to be placed under Certificate of Occupancy in the decision and that the misplacement must have been a typographical error in the decision. Mr. Rowen asked for a status update of development? Mr. Rosati stated that Phase I has begun rough grading of Amberville Road, and the entrance to Palomino Drive was roughed in when they were doing the purap station for the sewer. Mr. Rosati stated detention ponds on Amberville have been created and are acting for a sediment trap for any runoff from exposed areas. Mr. Rosati stated on the other side of Palomino Drive the berm on the low side of the pond has been created, also acting as a sediment trap. St. Michael's Parish- School and Parish Mr. Simons moved, seconded by Mr. Rowen and VOTED 4-0: That the planning Board vote to release all remaining funds for St. Michael's Parish. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Barker Farm- 1267 Osgood Street - AT&T Wireless Facility Mr. Steve Anderson stated he preferred to have five members at the public hearing and would like to wait until later in the evening to see if another member will show up. June 27, 2000 Planning Board Meeting Page 6 The Board agreed to pospone to later in the evening in case an additional Board member showed up. 300 Chestnut Street - Sprim Wireless Facility Ms. Lesearbeau stated that an abutter had an issue with the fence. Mr. Greg Cosimi replied that a new fence is being installed. Mr. Rowen moved, seconded by Mr. Angles and VOTED 4-0: That the Planning Board vote to close the public hearing. Mr. Rowen moved, seconded by Mr. Simons and VOTED 4-0: That the Planning Board vote to approve the special permit for 300 Chestnut Street, Lawrence Eagle Tribune- Site Plan Ms. Griff'm stated that the applicant has submitted a noise study bom an acoustical engineer certifying that the noise from the rooftop heating and cooling eqtfipment will be minimal or non-existent. Ms. G-riff'm stated that Mr. Simons had concerns at the previous meeting regarding buffering between the proposal and the abutting street, Acushnet Street. Mr. Simons stated he would amenable to issuing a decision tonight as long as the decision is modified on item 5A so as to state "Specifically after the detention pond is completed, the Town Planner will review the site and any screening as may be reasonably required by the Town Planner will be added at the applicant's expense." Mr. Rowen moved, secondedby Mr. Simons and VOTED 4-0: That the Planning Board vote to close the public hearing. Mr. Angles Moved, seconded by Mr. Rowen And VOTED 4-0: That the Planning Board vote to approve the special pemdt as amended this evening. June 27, 2000 Planning Board Meeting Page 7 Berrington Place - Subdivision Modification Plan Mike stated that they responded to the engineer's report. Mike stated that they intend to go private with the roadway instead of public with the roadway. The Planning Board agrees with this request. Mr. Simons asked Mike to go through VHB's cm-m~ents and their responses. Mike stated that there are things which haven't changed from the original plan. The concensus of the Board was that a stop sign not be placed on the new roadway. The Board instructed the Town Planner to relay to VHB that comments made in their report relative ~o the pre-existing subdivision plan need not be addressed by the applicant as there was an original subdivision plan already approved. Mr. Simons moved, seconded by Mr. Rowen and VOTED 4-0: That the Planning Board vote to cominue the public hearing until July 11, 2000 and instruct the Town Planner to draft a decision for that meeting. Barker Farm- 1267 Osgood Street - AT&T Wireless Facility Mr. Anderson, representing AT&T, stated that AT&T is requesting a special permit from the Planning Board to allow a 120' flagpole to be placed on the Barker Farm property. Mr. Anderson cominued, stating that a viewshed analysis of this proposal has been performed. Mr. Anderson stated that he has presented photographs of flagpoles located in the Towns of Lincoln and Southborough. Mr. Anderson stated that the two-carder flagpole would need to have a wider diameter than 2 feet. Mr. Anderson stated that there is a structural letter in the filing describing the structural characteristics and supporting evidence that if the structure were to fail it would collapse in on itself. Mr. Anderson stated they have provided the antenna specifications, the modular equipment shelter specifications, m-axial cable specifications, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health Report, which requires the tower will be on compliance with FCC regulations. Mr. Anderson stated after the original plans were filed, they received VHB's comments and responded a written response to their comments. Mr. Anderson stated that the lot in question fronts on Osgood Street at the intersection of Barker Road. All but one acre of that lot has been classified as agricultural. Mr. Anderson stated the flagpole is located in the non-classified portion of the property. June 27~ 2000 Planning Board Meetin~ Page 8 Mr. Anderson stated they have provided a noise analysis which concludes that the existing ambient noise level was measured at 53 dba closest to the proposed equipment shelter. The author of the noise analysis concluded that the proposed noise level would be below 15db. Mr. Anderson stated a letter from their FAA consultant was provided, stating he did not believe the project would require lighting due to its proximity to the airport. Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant has applied for 120' which is the optimum height, however the ~plicant can live with the height of 90' if they need to. Mr. Anderson stated that VHB has issued a letter dated May 25, 2000 which states that the applicant has satisified all of their concerns in this matter. Mr. Anderson supplied a summary to the Board. Mr. Anderson stated that one of the requirements of this bylaw is to minimize the visual and environmental impacts as well as any potential deleterious impact on property value ....... and to encourage appropriate land use, environmental protection, preservation of North Andover's rural character and the provision of adequate infrastructure development in North Andover...". Mr. Anderson stated that the flagpole was chosen to fit in with North Andover's rural character vs. proposing a new tower which would be a guyed tower or a lattice tower. Mr. Anderson stated that he believes the flagpole will he "camouflaged" as described in its definition on page 125 of the Zoning Bylaw. Mr. Nardella stated he agreed that the flagpole would not look like an antenna, it would look like a flagpole. Mr. Rowen asked what the difference was between approving a one carrier flagpole or a two-carder flagpole? Mr. Anderson stated that AT&T would he very happy if the Board approved a one carrier flagpole between 90-120'. Mr. Anderson stated they have placed before the Board both one carder and two carder flagpoles. Mr. Ro'wen asked if it were a two-carder installation, would all co-locators locate inside the flagpoles? Mr. Anderson stated yes, others could co-locate. Ms. Lescarheau asked what the dimension of an average flagpole is? Mr. Anderson stated it varies. Mr. Nardella asked what the duration of the lease would be? June 27, 2000 Planning Board Meeting P~e9 Mr. Ross McMillan stated it was five years, with three five year renewal terms. Mr. Nardella stated he would like to know exactly what the terms area. Mr. Ross McMillan stated it was five years, with three five year renewal terms. Mr. Simons stated that this was an attractive method to wireless services. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that Mr. Andersen failed to mention that the town bylaw states "this bylaw is intended to be used in conjunction with other regulations adopted by the town, and other zoning and general bylaws .... '. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that the Town Planner's memorandum points out that the applicant will require variances from the Board of Appeals in order to comply with the zoning bylaws of the town. Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant is before the Board of Appeals for several variance requests, all of which were outlined in the summary he just handed out this evening. Ms. Arviaar abutter, statedthe Forgettas sold 12-13 acres of land and are developing it. She stated she is not too impressed with them saving the farmland. Ms. Arviaar stated the she had grandparents who owned a farm that were very poor and she did not buy into the story of farmers being poor and the only way to make money is to place a wireless service facility on their land. Ms. Ar~a~r stated that she is worded about the flagpole devaluing her property. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that she was having a hard time understanding Ms. Arviaar's concerns because she had a neighbor who put up a flagpole next store and she ran to help her. Mr. Rowen asked how far the flagpole would be located from her property? Mr. Andersen stated that the flagpole would be located 336' from the edge of the Barker Street. Ms. Arviaar stated she would go on the record that she would like to have her own survey done to deterJnine the distance between her property and the proposed flagpole. Mr. Stan Sherman, SRS Engineering Incorporated handed out some literature to better explain the EMF frequencies, Mr. Shem~an stated the top figure of the handout is a calculation and a visual of the actual intenna inside the pole. Mr. Sherman then did a comour of how high the levels would be at 1%. This means you would have to be 80 feet to even reach the 1% level. The acceptable level determined by FCC and MDPH is 1,000 microwatts per eemimeters squared. Mr. Sherman stated if this design was maximum power, maximum height, etc. the EMF levels are 0.02% of the levels. Mr. Sherman stated this proposal is over 500X the safety limit allowed. June 27, 2000 planning Board Meeting Page 10 Dr. Cohen mated that it's easy to become concerned with new technologies. Dr. Cohen stated that there has been a lot of interest in the media concerning wireless facilities, starting with microwaves not too long ago. Dr. Cohen stated th. at a study was performed that concluded that hand-held phones do not pose a threat to public healttr Dr. Cohen stated it is important to distinguish a hand-held phone and the actual tower which will carry the signal to the hand-held phones. Dr. Cohen stated that the vast majority of the studies concerning facilities are negative. Dr. Cohen stated that negative mean.s that there was no negative concerns for health issues concluded as a result of these studies. Ms. Arviaar read a letter from Dr. George Carlo, which states we don't know what the long-term eff~s of the EMF levels would do. Mr. Simons asked Ms. Arviaar if she agreed that microwaves have a higher exposure level than a wireless tower would? Ms. Arviaar stated she did not place a microwave oven in her kitchen for a very long time. Ms. Arvi~aar th~n read a study carried out in the mid 1990's from the University of Bean which stated that the trarrqmitter had an effect off the people nearby. Mr. Wayans stated that the flagpoles placed in other towns were not in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Wayans suggested that the planning Board drive down to the other locations where the flagpoles are located and envision that the flagpole would he located a football's length from their home. Steven McManus, 87 Barker Street, presented a petition to the Planning Board. Mr. McManus stated that he does not feel the flagpole would look right. His property is right across from the driveway that spills across the Barkers' property onto Barker Street, and he thinks it would look out of place. Mr. Nardella asked if AT&T's application were to be denied, does AT&T have a secondary site akeady located? Mr. Andersen replied no. Mr. Andersen stated that the town water tower is too high on the hill and it would overshoot the coverage location. Mr. Andersen stated AT&T pursued the town to perform an RFP, however co-location on the tower would not provide enough coverage. Ms. Ellen Mclntyre, Board of Appeals member, stated that the Board of Appeals could not take into consideration the fighting issues with respect to the FAA. Ms. Mclntyre stated that the surrounding area seems to be lighted. Ms. Mclmyre stated she would also like the Board to consider the travel route of the airport. June 27, 2000 planning Board Meeting Page 11 The Planning Board continued until the public hearing for AT&T until the July 11, 2000 meeting. Boston Ski Hill - Site Plan Paul Marchionda, engineer for the proposal, stated he wanted to run through some of the issues from the last meeting. Mr. Marchionda stated there was a site walk a few weeks ago. Mr. Marchionda wanted to present the building elevations through virtue of an architectural rendering. Mr. Marchionda presented uphill and downhill rear elevations of the proposed buildings. Mr. Marchionda presented a detailed phasing plan. Phase 1 consists of Road C and the beginning portion of Road A. Phase 1 would be a six month project. Phase 2 includes construction of Road B, Road D and next section of Road A and would be approximately 12 months. Phase 3 would consist of the remainder of Road E, with Road A, Road Eand Road F with the remainder of Road A and would be approximately 18 months. Mr. Marchionda stated theY have chosen to reduce the density by 40% to be exempt by the growth management bylaw. Mr. Marehionda stated that they are exempt fi'om the phased development bylaw because it does not apply to multi-family housing. Mr. Marchionda stated the Zoning Board of Appeals waived the 10 acre requirement and an abutter appealed the decision of the Zoning Board. Mr. Nardella asked if their plan would change significantly if they were subject to the growth management bylaw? Mr. Marchionda replied that it would not. Mr. Marchionda stated that the Village Residential Zoning kicks them into PRD Zoning. Mr. Marchionda read the definition of open space in the PRD section of the Zoning Bylaw. Mr. lVlarchionda stated that the green area on the plan wOuld be the deeded open space parcel. The area of useable open space provided is 77.1% of the parcel with 2.5% area of the parcel being wetlands Mr. Simons asked what percent_8ge of the open space would be undisturbed? Mr. Marchionda estimated that would be approximately 7-9 acres. Mr. Marchionda stated he will provide some parking spaces for the trail committee per the Town Planner's request. June 27, 2000 planning Board Meeting Page 12 Mr. Marchionda stated that VHB has suggested additional sidewalls could be placed along the roadways. Mr. Marchionda stated that he did not have a problem providing additional sidewalks. Mr. Rowen asked where a bus would stop for children? Ms. GrilTm replied it would have to be at the bottom of the hill. Mr. Nardella stated perhaps they should have a bigger turnaround provided for the buses to wait. Mr. Marchionda stated he would like to discuss a second means of access to the site. Mr. Marchiomta stated that if an emergency access was provided it would result in a 16% grade. Mr. Marchionda stated this emergency access is feasible. Mr. Rowen stated that this exercise would be punitive. Ms. Grffi~ stated that the Fire Chief would like for this access drive to he the width of a subdivision roadway in~ead of an access drive. Mr. Rowen stated that the Board would like an alternate way to reach the site for fires. Ms. Lescarheau stated her preference would he a looped roadway. Mr. Angles stated that the applicant is adjusting the slopes so much that they should be able to make the looped roadway for a second means of access. Mr. Dick Peasey, Geotechnical Consultants, stated that the slopes are set at 2:1 locations and a retaining wall along Road A. Mr. Peasey stated that the material which exists is common, it is a silty glacial till material. When it doesn't have any protection it can easily erode and fall. Mr. Peasey stated there are fill sections and cut sections. Mr. Peasey stated that they ran a computer model on both slopes. Mr. Peasey stated that without back-up the slope would have a safety factor of 1 and it desired to have a safety factor of 4-5 instead. Mr. Peasey stated they were going to provide geo-grid and erosion control'matting to help achieve the desired safey factor. Mr. Peasey handed out samples ofthe geogdd and stated they are laid out in five foot sections. Mr. Peasey stated that as they fill the slope a geogrid is placed the whole length of the slope. Mr. Rowen asked if you had acm slope do you place stripes every five feet? Mr. Peasey stated every five feet of elevation there is a layer of geogrid the whole length of the slope. Mr. Peasey stated the length of the geogrid is nine feet long. Mr. Rowen asked if you have 20 feet of fill would you have four layers? June 27, 2000 planning Board Meetin? Page 13 Mr. Peasey replied yes. Mx. Simons asked how long geogrid has been used? Mr. Peasey replied 40 years in the United States. Mr. Marchionda stated the biggest fill is less than 20 feet. Mr. Simons asked typically how many feet is geogfid typicall used at? Mr. Peasey replied it could be used up to 100 feet. Mx. Nardella asked how this rotes compared to burlap and why is geogrid better? Mr. Peasey stated burlap is a surface material whereas the geogrid is a subsurface material. Mr. Marchionda stated kerlex blankets and hydro blankets will be provided in addition to the geogfid. Mr. Nardella asked how many feet is the fill on the project at maximum depth? MX. Peasey replied 20 feet. Ms. Lescarbeau asked who's qualified to install this? Mr. Peasey replied basically any one could do it. Mr. Nardella stated that in the Foxwood decision there were appropriate times to hydroseed, etc. MX. Rowen asked if as you were coming up into a 20 foot fill, if there anything you can place that would promote drainage so that the water will leave the site rather than gaining tons of weight for the hill? Mr. Peasey replied no there is really no effective way to drain it. Detmot Kelley stated that the Town Planner indicated a concrete island should be provided at Johnson Street. Mr. Kelley stated they have received the MA Highway Permit and are willing to give that. Mr. Nardella asked if the serrated concrete islands are the little bumpy things that you can drive aeross. June 27, 2000 plannin~ Board Meeting Page 14 Mr. Kelley replied yes. Mr. Kelley stated the downside of the raised concrete islands is that the signs tend to get knocked dow~ The Board instructed Mr. Kelley to meet with Jim Rand, Director of Engineering, to review this proposal and report back to the Board as to the results of the meeting prior to the July 11 Planning Board meetS. Ms. Griffin asked why the applicant was not proposing a traffic light at the intersection of jOhnson Stregt and Route 1147 Mr. Kelley replied that if a light was placed there it would also include the widening of 1000 feet of roadway on Route 114 to handle the current capacity of Route 114. There are substantial wetlands in that area~ Mr. Marchionda stated he would be willing to place a bus shelter in the mailbox area. Mr. Simons stated the open space should be a reasonable distance from the back of the houses. Mr. Marchionda stated that it is about 5 feet from the edge of the deck to get to the open space. Mr. Simons stated the open space should he further away from the houses. Mr. Marchionda stated that he does not need to provide a certain setback from the rear of the buildings to the proximity of the open space that he can see from the regulations, but he would he happy to provide a certain setback if the Board wishes him to. Mr. Nardella stated that he and Mr. Simons would tell Mr. Marchionda how much of a setback to provide if he could not come up with a plan that provided a more reasonable setback. Ms. Fink asked if their was a response to her request about subdividing? Ms. Griffin gave Ms. Fink a copy of the letter she received from Town Counsel that day. Ms. Fink did not agree with the opinion rendered and asked if she could contact Town Counsel directly? The Board indicated they did not have a problem with that, however MS. Lescarbean offered to contact Mr. Urbelis herself. Mr. Marchionda stated the first plan was done in 1987 for 8 years. A subsequent plan was refiled, to protect the zoning freeze. MS. Fink stated she feels that this does not seem right. June 27, 2000 pla~nnine Board Meeting Page 15 Mx. Willis asked t/affic questions regarding the left turning lane on Johnson Street. Mr. Kelley stated that once an intersection reaches a Level of Service F you cannot calculate the influx of traffic. That is the situation at Johnson Street. MX. Willis asked if Johnson Street could be made like Willow and Mill Street with widening and five lanes of traffic and a traffic light? Ms. Fink stated that this intersection very clearly deserves another lane. Mr. Willis stated he would like to go on record that if this got built people would die there. Ms. Fink asked if it was possible to ask someone ~om MA Highway to attend these meetings? Mr. Marehionda replied that MA Highway issued a permit so he would not imagine that anyone would attend. MX. Rowen moved, seconded by MX. Angles and VOTED 5-0: That the Board vote to eominue the public hearing until the July 11, 2000 Planning Board meeting. Chatham Crossing - Proposed Subdivision Mr. William MacLeod stated that they have combined the fxont lot, Parcel A, with lot 3 to create a larger lot. Mr. McLeod stated the detention structure is now located in an easement. Mx. McLeod stated he would be willing to eliminate the structure and they would come in with a modification if they needed to. Ms. Lescarheau stated they would have to hire an independem engineer to oversee the construction of the detention structure. Ms. Carol Proulx stated she is concerned about that a portion of the project could be wetlands and she has contacted the EPA with her concerns. Ms. Proulx stated that the Army Core of Engineers sero the developer a letter telling them if they need to apply for a permit. Ms. Proulx stated that the Army Corps of Engineers has a differem jurisdiction over and above the Town of North Andover. June 27, 2000 planning Board Meeting Page 16' Ms. Lescarbeau stated that the town's Conservation Commission has issued a negative determination of applicability on the land this project is to be located. Mr. McLeod stated that the developer has no intention of applying for a permit fi'om the Army Core of Engineers as they do not meet any of the criteria which would require them to file for a permit. Mr. Nardella stated that if the developer is subject to the Army Core of Engineers the developer would have to comply with what they in.qtructed. Mr. Nardella moved, seconded by Mr. Rowen and VOTED 5-0: That the Planning Board vote to close the public hearing. Mr. Rowen moved: That the Planning Board vote to approve the subdivision, Chatham CroSsing, as amended this evening. Form A Plan.-- Bradford Street/Discussion: Ren.qhaw Property, Bradford Street Chris Huntress stated this piece of property is on Bradford Street, is located in the watershed district, and is approximately 27 acres. Mr. Huntress stated that he was asked to evaluate different types of development on the property at his client, Mr. Zahoruiko's request. Mr. Huntress first presented a definitive subdivision plan with a looped roadway and nine lots. He then presented two alternative PRD plans with different size cul-de-sacs which had seven lots. Mr. Huntress stated that he would like the road to be private because of the amount of impervious area in the watershed. Ms. Lescarbean stated that they did not typically allow private roads for a plan that would serve this many homes. Mr. Nardella asked what size homes these would be? Mr. Zahomiko replied approximately 4,000 square feet. Mr. Rowen asked if this was the R- 1 dishict? Mr. Huntress replied yes.