Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-14Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2000 Members Present: Alison Lescarbeau John Simons (7:25) Richard Rowen Richard Nardelta (7:45) Alberto Angles William Cunningham RECEIVE~ APPROVED 12/5/2000 dO YC£ BRAOSHAIII TOWN CLERK NORTH ANDOvER Others Present: Heidi Griffin, Town Planner Jacki Byerley, Planning Assistant The Planning Board meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Discussions: Lot 51 A Bear 14illg~ad-W_a. terghed Waiver Ms. Griffin stated that the homeowners Mr. & Mrs. Royal were not going to be changing the footprint of the house. The homeowners were requesting a waiver to be able to put a 3- season porch in place ofthe existing deck. Mr. Rowen questioned whether the homeowners had a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Griffin stated yes and that no new utilities would be going in. Ms. Lesoarbeau suggested some erosion control could be regulated within the waiver approval. Mr. Angles motioned to APPROVE the waiver with erosion control measures, 2nd byMr. Cunninghanz Voted 3-0-1 in favor of. The Sanctuary-Bond Establishment DPW recommended a $93,100.00 bond establishment for the remaining four lots. Mr. Rowen motioned to establish the bond for $93,100.00 for The Sanctuary, 2~ by Mr, Cunningham. Voted 4-0 in favor of. 25 Orchard Hill Road-Bond Release Ms. oriffin stated that she had been on site and the work had been completed. Mr. Angles motioned to release the full mount of $5000.00 plus interest from the 25 Orchard Hill Road bond, 2na by Mr. Rowen. Voted 4-0 in favor of. Broolcfarm Estates-Bond Release DPW recommeladedapart~al release of $42,250.00. Ms. Griffin stated that the Planning Board shouldn't release money from the island because of some past drainage issues. The Planning Board recommended that the cul-de-sac island amount be kept at $5000.00 and that the maintenance amount be kept at $9500.00. Mr. Rowen motioned to release $31,750.00 leaving a remainder of $68,275.00 from Brookfarm Estates, 2na by Mr~ Angles. Voted 4,0 in favor of. WiBdki.qt Farms-Partial Bond Re!e_a.qe DPW recommended a partial release of $50,000.00. The Planning Board voted to keep 10% of the original bond for maintenance and recommended a partial release of $45,300.00. Mr. Rowen motioned to release $45,300.00 leaving a remainder of $50,000.00 from W'mdkist Farms, 2~ by Mr. Angles. Voted 4-0 in favor of. 0 Booth Street Don Boreustein representing Mr, And Mrs. Juba had come before the Planning Board on August 15, 2000 asking direction on whether the Mr. & Mrs. Juha could apply for a Form A or a Definitive Subdivision~ Mr. Borenstein had spoken with the Town Clerk Joyce Bradshaw and found that Wallace Street is a paper street. Mr. Borenstein stated that with the regulations of today what Mr. & Mrs. Juba want to do is not defined and wished for advice as to how to go about doing it. Ms. Griffin stated that the Planning Board could not place conditions on an ANR plan and to protect the Town a Definitive Subdivision would be best. Ms. Griffin went on to say the Planning Board could place waivers to put in the 50-foot roadway. Mr. Rowen suggested that the applicants build the roadway to look more like a driveway. The Planning Board does not agree that the application meets the requirements of an ANR lot because the proposed lot has no frontage on a public way. The applicant should proceed with a subdivision plan. Ms. Griffin statedthat the package received from Mr. Borenstein to the Building Inspector would be acceptable for the planning Board. Ms. Griffin informed Mr. Borenstein that he should get a letter fxom the Building Commissioner stating that the lot is grand fathered. Mr. Rowen infomled Mr. Borenstein to look into easements to the property. Berry Street-Proposed Site Plan Mr. Peter Higorani is looking for the planning Board's support to build a retail/office building on Berry Street/Route 114. According to today's requiremems he would need to have 222 parking spaces and only has 167 parking spaces. The reason he needs the variance is that he needs four stories for his building or else he would have to place three single family homes along the Berry Street portion of the property~ Mr. Hingorani stated he has been working with the neighbors and they would prefer to see the 4-story building vs.~' the3 story building and the three single family homes. Mr. Hingorani is going to be going for a variance from the Zoning Board. Mr. Nardella wanted to know if there was the possibility of having the 55 parking spaces if the need should ever come up. Mr. Higorani stated yes but he would have to clear some area to do it. Ms. Lescarbeau instructed Ms. Griffin to draft a letter in support of the addition to the Zoning Board. Public Hearings: 1292 Osgood Street-Forgetta Flowers-Site Plan Review Chris Huntress representing the applicants stated that the Flower Shop would like to relocate up Route 125. Mr. Huntress stated that the Building Commissioner stated that the applicant was in compliance with Zoning. Ms. Griffin requested th~at the applicant get the information from the Building Commissioner to keep within the file. Mr. Huntress went onto state that the proposed building would be 1800 sfper floor, close to the roadway. The proposed site would have 19 parking spaces and 2 access points. Currently the applicant is working with Mass Highway with the curb cuts. The shop design would be a wood Same, asphalt shingle barn style with a farmer's porch. The elevation would drop in back. The lighting would be on the building and the proposed sign would be wood with up cast lighting. Mr. Anthony Donato of Merrimack Engineering was working on the drainage with the applicants. Mr. Donato stated that the drainage would to going down west and that they were anticipating the same amount of runoff. The Septic is currently under review with the Health Department. Mr. Donato is working with VI-lB and would be sending out the revised plans. Mr. Donato questioned VHB's comments requesting more than one handicapped ramp, stating that only one ramp was required. Ms. Lescarbeau questioned whether there would be a traffic increase due to the larger size of the proposed shop. Mr. Forgetta the owner stated that he didn't anticipate an increase in traffic because the Flower Shop would be taking the place of the farm stand traffic. Mr. Rowen motioned to CONTINUE the public bearing on 1292 Osgood Street until December 5, 2000, 2na by Mr. Angles. Voted 5-0 in favor of. Citizens Petition-Section 8.9 of Zoning Bylaw Mr. Alberto Angles read the Citizens Petition into record (attached). Ms. Lynn Arvikar of 125 Barker Street North Andover presented the petition to the Planning Board. Ms. Arvikar then handed the Planning Board a copy of an article t~om the North Andover Citizen (attached). Ms. Arvikar stated that she had gotten 225 signatures fxom the residents of the Towninone day. By getting so many signatures in a day Ms. Arvikar claimed that this showed the fear residents have about the Health issues of cell towers. Ms. Arvikar then passed out a handout "Health Effects of Cell Phones and Cell Phone Antennae" (attached). MS. Arvikar then stated that there is a perceived health issue in regards to cell tgwers and that some people will not want to live near them. This would decrease property value and tarnish the character of the Town. Mr. Ctmnlngham wanted to know why 900 Feet t~om a lot line? Ms. Arvikar stated that the length was approved in the Town of Weyland and by the Attorney General. Ms. Arvikar went on to say that through the Telecommunication Committee it was found that 900 feet was the most they could feasibly do, it was stated that if they could have done more they woulcLhave~ Mr. Simons questioned who was on the Telecommunications Committee and why none of the Planning Board members where informed of the meetings? Ms. Arvu~ar stated that William Scott had come to the meetings. Ms. Griffin stated that she had been present at one meeting and had requested with the Town Manager's Secretary that Mr. Ctmningham be informed of upcoming meetings. Mr. Nardella stated that the second handout contained more information regarding the use of cell phones rather than cell towers. Ms. Arvikar commented that the research on cell towers had been limited and done more by the cell companies. Ms. Arvikar stated that the committee was trying to he reasonable and ~ill have some coverage. Ms. Lescarbeau commented that the planning Board could not recommend something that would open the Town for lawsuits. Ms. Griffin requested that the Ms. Pawikar come back to the Planning Board on December 5 with some maps showing the 900 foot set back to show the Planning Board that the cell towers w~ have places to go. MS. Arvikar stated that she could give a general area with the set back but did not want to give the cell companies exact location. Mr. Simons stated that the phrasing of the petition now makes it that the cell companies would not be able to co-locate which is what the Zoning Bylaw now encourages. Ms. Lescarbeau wanted m know if the Citizen Petition took into consideration the idea that the property owner's dwelling mi__ght be closer than the 900 feet the petition allows. Ms. Lescarbeau asked Ms. Arvikar if she knew could find out Weyland's reasoning with 900 feet, what would make that amount safer? Mr. Cunningbam stated that more research needs to be done by the Telecommunications Committee before the Planning Board could recommend the petition. Mr. Steve Anderson representing AT&T handed the Planning Board member a GIS map ofthe Town of Concord, MA showing a 1000-foot set back. Mr. Anderson then showed through the maps how the 1000 feet makes it restrictive for cell companies to come into Concord and provide suitable coverage. Mr. Anderson would like the Town of North Andover to make GIS maps of the area. Mr. Anderson went on to say that the regulations cannot be changed because of Health Effects and that M~ AtMkar was only using that as the base for the 900-foot set back. Mr. Randy Jones representing Omnlpoint demonstrated a dry test of the Town of North Andover, which .qhowed areas that had acceptable level of coverage. Mr. Jones went on to say that cell comes were under an obligation to the Government that when cell towers are placed that they had to provide 25% of coverage areas and the 900 foot set back may make this cliff;cult for the companies to do. Ms. Lescarbean stated that the Planning Board wo~lld like more time to review the petition and more information to give an informed decision from the Planning Board to Town Meeting. Mr. Rowen motioned to CONTINUE the public hearing on the Citizens Petition until December 5, 2000, 2~a by Mr. Angles. Voted 6-0 in favor of. 1267 Osgood Street-Barker Farm AT&T Wireless-Site Plan Special Pexmit Mr. Steve Anderson repr~enting AT&T stated that the application had been continued for months now and would like the Planning Board to make a decision on the Special Permit tonight. Mr. Anderson stated that AT&T had been looking into alternative sites but because of the Citizen Petition a decision needed to be made to grandfather the location. Mr. ~nwent through the last few months' process stating that the Zoning Board of Appeals had denied the variance for 120' and that the Planning Board had approved the Repetitive Petition request for 80' flagpole. Mr. Anderson stated that the flagpole antennae meet dflnensional requirements except for height. The decision made tonight would have a conditional approval. Mr. Rowen requested that Mr. A~derson give the Planning Board a run down of the set back fxom abutters and the land owner. Mr. Anderson stated that the closest abutter was more than 300 fi~et from the flagpole and that the landowners would he around 150 feet. Mr. Anderson went on to say that these set back meet the requirements to everyone but the landowners and that'the Planning Board would have to grant a waiver for the 150'. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that it was poss~le that the Planning Board may not have to grant a waiver becaus~ the 150' was ~om the landowners~ Ms. Lynn Arvikar of 125 Barker Street stated that if the Planning Board approved the Special Permit four families would loss their homes. Ms. Lescarbeau questioned how the families would loss their homes? Ms. Arvikar stated that the families would want to sell and move. Mr. Nardella commented that the decision should read the waiver is for the landowner. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that "additional" should be taken out on 18c. Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the public hearing for 1267 Osgood Street-Site Plan Special Permit~ 2"a by Mr. Cunningham. Voted 6-0 in favor of. Mr. Simons motioned to APPROVE the Site Plan Special Perirdt for 1267 Osgood Street as amended, 2~ byMr. CanMngham. Voted 6-0 in favor of. Endicott PlaTa-O _sgood Street, Site Plan Review Mr. Chris Huntress representing Forgetta Development stated that they had submitted revised plans and have given more information. Mr. Giles Harem of Vaness & Associates talked about the traffic study. Mr. Hamm stated that the proposed roadway had the capacity to handle 280 vehicles in an hour. Mr. Harem stated that they used the Mass Highway standard fram to come W the eqnation. Ms. Griffin questioned the number of cars using the proposed pharmacy drive thru. Mr. Harem stated about 7-10 cars. Ms. Griffin also commented that VHB had requested information about past studies of drive thrus, Mr. Hamm agreed to get the information to VHB. Ms. Lescarbeau wanted to know how the pedestrian crossing and drive thru differed? Mr. Huntress explained that the pedestrian crossing would be using d~fferent material so that drivers could see the difference. Mr. Nardellaquestioned whether the applicant Mr. Barrett would he willing to put sidewalks in along Route 125. Mr. Barrett stated that he was all for sidewalks but with Route 125 being a state highway there were issues and a liability for having a dead end sidewalk. Mr. Barrett had spoken with his lawyer and was told that the sidewalks were not a good idea. Mr. Barrett also commented that to get the sidewalks done the State would need to be behind the project~ Mr. Simons wanted to know whether hedging or a picket fence would be used along Route 1257 Mr. Huntress stated that they would i'~ke to use a variety of material and have the shrubs brought closer to the parking area. Mr. Huntress commented by having the shrubs closer to the parking it would help mask the cars. Mr. Huntress aim stated that by placing a picket fence it would enable drivers along Rome 125 to look over into the parking area. Mr. Huntress stated that there was a possibility of placing a stone wall between the shrubs to make it denmr. Mr. Huntress stated that the construction would be scheduled to s~art in spring and that it would he a phased construction. Mr. Huntress also explained to the Planning Board that some of the co~panies interested in the hotel may want to purehasc the land and explained that t~his may poss~le a Form A later with a Frontage Exception. Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the public hearing for Endicott Plaza-Osgood Street-Site Plan Review, 2aa by Mr. Angles. Voted 6-0 in favor o£ The Planning Board instructed Ms. Griffin to draft a decision for the December 5, 2000 meeting. Hawk l~jdge-PRD, Definitive Subdivision, Watershed Special Permit-Decision Mr. Tom Zahoruiko of Tara Leigh Development requested that the bond amounts be reduced. The Planning Board reduced the PRD bond to $5000.00, the Subdivision bond to $5000.00 and the W~aershed Special Permit Bond to $10,000.00. Ms. Lescarheau suggested that when buyers come for the lots that they are informed of sidewalks going in. Mr. Zahoruiko stated that a sign for the subdivision would be in place bm would be taken down was the subdivision was complete. Mr. Simons requested that the final as built be subm'med on dial Mr. Simons motioned to APPROVE the Definitive Subdivision for Hawk Ridge as amended, 2~a by Mr. Angles. Voted 6-0 in favor. Mr. Simons motioned to APPROVE the PRD for Hawk Ridge as amended, 2nd by Mr. Angles. Voted 6-0 in favor of. Mr. Simons motioned to APPROVE the Watershed Special Permit as mended, 2~ by Mr, Angles. Voted 6-Oin favo~ of. Minutes: Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the Planning Board minutes of October 3, 2000, 2nd by Mr, Simons. Voted 6-0 in favor of. Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the Planning Board minutes of October 17, 2000, 2~l by Mr. Simons. Voted 6-0 in favor of. Decisions: Boston l-lill-Pmlimin~_ Subdivision Mr. Ken GrandstaffofMesiti Development requested a decision on a 75-1ot subdivision. Each lot would be 1 acre and a 50-foot road. Mr. Grandstatf stated that the submissiOn was to be able tO grandfather the subdivision before the new regulations were accepted in. Mr. Simons requested that Ms. Griff~n amend the decision to read the question of zoning and write "no drainage caloulations' Mr. Angles motioned to DENY the Preliminary Subdivision plan for Boston Hill as amended, 2~by Mr. Rowen. Voted 6-0 in favor of. Informal Discussions: Boston Hill-Preliminary Discussions-Site Plan Review Mr. Ken Grandstaffof Mesiti Development requested an info~mal discussion on what the Planning Board would like to see built at the Boston Hill Site. Mr. Grandstaff commented that if there were an issue with the traffic the entrance could be moved 600 feet toward Middleton Street. Mr. Grandstaffwanted to know whether the Planning Board would like to see fewer units in and whether they would like an emergency access only or be able to use the road for complete access. Mr. Rowen stated that Mr. Cnandsta~s engineer Mr. Marchionda was unwilling to work with the Planning Board. Mr. Rowen commented that on numerous occasions Mr. Marchionda was asked about the phasing of the development and to show the Planning Board the time line with dates and on each occasion would not give a direct answer. Mr. Simons asked that Mr. G-randstaffwork with the hill and minilni?e the cutting and amount of units. Mr. Angles wanted to see a looped roadway instead of a long dead end road. Ms, Lescarbeau would like to see an underground detemion structure instead of a detention pond, Ms. Lescarbean suggested that researching the structure utilized in the Chatham Crossing subdivision may be helpful. Mr. Rowen wanted Mr. Grandstaffto work with the hill and possibly have a 9% roadway so as not to require so many cuts in the hill. Mr. Nardella stated that Mr. Grandstatf should take all the ideas into consideration and possibly come up with some more creative ideas on how to get the project completed to everyone's satisth~tion. Mr. Nardella stated that a good engineer would come up feasible ideas to keep the integrity of the hill intact and still get the project completed. Mr. Rowen suggested looking into other Town roadways with the same grade and see what worked for them and what did not work for them. Mr. Rowen motioned to ADJOURN the Planning Board meeting of November 14, 2000, 2~a by Mr. Angles. Voted 6-0 in favor of. HEALTH EFFECTS OF CELL PHONES AND CELL PHONE ANTENNAE by~ Kathleen F. Thurmond, M.D. This presentation will sn_mmsrize the current status of research which analyzes the health effects of cell phones and cell phone ant~n~e, the telecomm,mlcation indusi~y's response to the studies which demonstrate worrisome health effects, and the international call for further ~esearch to bette~ understimd the in?act of these facilkies on our co~mn~;t/es. Increases in cancer (Repacholi, M et al.," Lymphomas id E -Pim 1 Trsnqgenic M/ce ExposedPulsed 900MHZ Electronic Fields'; Radiat, Res,, 631-640), increases in DNA double strand breaks--which when cumulative can lead to cancer, Parkinson's diseases Huntington's disease and Alzheimer's disease --(Lai, .IL and Siv~.~ N. "Sin/t~- and Double- Strand DNA Br~k, in Rat Brain Cell s. tier Acute Exposure to Low-Level Radiofi~u~noy tr~elds In Vitro'; Int. J. Radiation Biol. 39,4, 513-521, 1996), (Vijaylaxml..M, et aL," Frequ~-y of Mieronuelel in the P~heral Blood and Bone Marrow of Cancer-Prone Mice Chronieal~ · Exposed to 2450 MltZ",RadiofrequenayRadiat. Res. 147, 495400, 1997 and Vijaylax~ M, et al. "Correction of an Error in Calculation in the Axticle Frequtmcy of Micronuclel in the Peripheral Blood and Bone ra~rrow of Cancer-Prone Mice Chronically Exposed to 2450 MItZ Radioll~lUmCy Radiation'; Radial Res. 149, $08-312, 1998), reproductive probleims (Quellet-Hellstrom, 1Land Stewart, W.," Etrmcaxxiages ~mong Female Physical Therapists Who R6'pon Using Radio- and Microwave-frequency Electromagnetic Raffaffu~', J~J.. of Eptdemiology, 130,10,1993), memory _dji~iculties, 0.a[, H. et aL, 'IVlicrowave Irradiation Affects Redial-Arm Maze performance in the Rat; Bioelectrottulgnetics, 15, 95-104,1994), headaches (Hocldmgs, B.," prellmlnnry Report: Syml~om.q Associated with Mobile Phone Use'; Occup. Med., 48, 357-380, 1998 ), insomnia (3/~rnn~ K.," Effects of Pulsed t~agh Frequency Electro_m~gnefic Fields on N, rmnn Sleep'; IVeuropsyc~b~o~, 33, 4147,1996) corneal eye lesions (lines, I-L et aL, "Increased 8enalilvity of the Non-H~_;,-~ Primate to lVlicrowave Radiation Following Optb~lmlc Drug Pretrea*mmt'; Bioelctromagngtics, 13,379~393, 1992) (Kues, I-L, Effects of 2.45 GhZ Microwaves on Primate Corneal Eplt. hel~m~ Bioelectromagneties, 6,177-188,1985) have been observed at the electro,,,,gnetic radiation ("EMB.") exposure im~, nltie, s to wlaich ~ cell phones sro exposed (near fidd exposure) Paldifionally increases in DNA breaks (Phflllps, $. et aL," DNA Dsm,ge in Mold-4 Lymphoblastoid Cells Exposed to Cellttlar Telephone Radio~equency Fields In Vitro", BioelectrochemisO'y and Bioenergetics ,45, 103-110, 1998), behavioral changes.in eating and drinldng ('Ray and Behari, "Physiological changes in. Rats ater Exposure to Low Levels of Microwaves", Radar. Res. 123, 199-202, 1990), changes in calcium which is an important chemical that regulates cell functions (Durra, $., et al."~Radiofrequeaey radiation-induced Calcium ][on Effiux Enhancement from Human and other Neuroblastoma Cells in Culture'; Bioelectromagnetics 10, 197-202), reproductive difficulties (Magentas and Xenos, "P-~ selectmen, town managers, pJ~n?ing boards, churches and business to convince them that cell phone technology is safe. The two industry consultants who spoke at the Cape Cod Commission Forum on the Effects of Radlofreqcncy Emiss/ons from Wireless Corrrrmm~cations Facilkies held on Sunuary 13, 1999 did not provide the audience with the info~-~ation ~nerate~ by the studies show~ng worrisome effects of cell phones a~d antenna EMF radistio~. They inaccurately dhcussed certain concepts, and did not make clear tlmt exposure conditions and biological responses must take into account not only intensity, but amount of energy absorbed, which would be d~t~,.~;..ed by the fi-equenCy of exposure, length of exposure, numbers o£sources of:exposures, and distance fi'om the source of exposure. They also did not aifferentiate between BMF radiation f~om v~_,~'hle light (such as sun ~ or light from a light bulb), which is absorbed only superficislly just into the st-~, and F_,MF radiation f~om a cell phone, wMch is absorbed quite deeply into fat.and The in~_~,~ry consultants often compare cell phone usage with the apparently hamaless emissions from s baby monitor, a remote entry key for a car, or a remote control for a child's motor can' These comparisons are not accurate, because the signals used for these household devices are of a much smaller intensity since they tr~.~nlt at much shorter distances than a cell phone, which must tra, t~,,~h hundreds Io thousands of feet back to the cell phone antenna. Another co~.~arison often _made by the hdustry consultants is to a microwave ovcm A~in. the comparis~m is not accurate, becau.s~ great care is taken by the oven man~factttrers to encase the oven in a protective metal shield. Cell phones are not encased in a protective ~Meld. There is ~n, ch mo~ to be learned about the health effects of ceil phones and cell phone antennae. In 1996, the World Health Org~i~tion launched the International ElVIF Project, a five-ycar research project responding to the growin§ public health concerns over exposur~ to over-lncreasln_gnumhcrs and diversity of EMF sources. In 1998, Dr. Joseph Brain, Ch~--" 'man of the Environmental Depa~i,,,eat of the Harvard School. of Public H~alth, has ~equestcd the National Aca,~.my of Science to launch a study of microwave radiation because ofthe rapid proliferation of cell phone wwers, and the Acade~ay is preparhag to do so. We must Ieara from our country's sad experience with the health effects of~obacco and environmental conta~-,;,~tion, and take a more pro-active stance toward !m~erstandin~ the health l ucafions ofcen phone technology ~nd EMF radiation emissions..AS enuachted by public health professionals, when buma~ health is at stake, precautionary measures should be take~ even if all cause and effect ralafion~h~s are not fully established scientifically. ! "i':?.:' ~g(noteasYtomvem~iyourOpin- ;~'~"!i' ion.~Pt)bliceYe and the reyerend'and to being : good to its parishionem and its neigh- ' ~alm and ,~b°~;i T~e mo~ thing tO d°:is ~ forg~t ~-. it. It $ ' :?:. much. as ne olames me town s om- .