Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-06Planning Board Meeting February 6, 2001 Members Present: Alison Lescarbeau, Chairman John Simons, Vice Chairman (7:22) Alberto Angles, Clerk (7:25) Richard Nardella (7:20) Staff Present: Heidi Griffin, Town Planner Jacki Byerley, Planning Assistant RECEIVED JOYCEBRADSHAW TOWN CLERK NORTH ANDOVER ZOO1 APR -q P 2:314 The Planning Board meeting of February 6, 2001 was called to order at 7:22 p.m. Discussions: Mass. Refuse Tech-Update Mr. Nardella informed the Planning Board that Ms. Start, Director of Health, Ms. Griffin, Mr. Scott, Director of Community Development, Scott Emerson Representative for Mass Refuse Tech and himself had met to discuss compliance with the Planning Board decision. Mr. Nardella stated that the decision referenced a compliance date in Section 5(f) which referred to the approval date from the State not the completion date of the emissions control project. Mr. Scott Emerson stated that there was a conflict between the decision's language of trucks must use Haverhill By-Pass and the Department of Transportation. Mr. Emerson stated that the Health Department had sent draft copies of the truck route. Mr. Nardella informed Mr. Emerson that the Planning Board would hold to their decision of the truck route. Mr. Nardella stated that the $50,000 bond wouldn't be established until the approval comes from the State some time in June 2001. Mr. Emerson stated that with the language placed in the decision they were having a hard time getting a surety bond. Mr. Nardella stated that whether with cash or surety a bond does have to be established with the Town to fulfill the decision. Mr. Emerson stated that a computer would be set up at the library that can access the MRI web site. Mr. Emerson stated that it was requested of MRI to bring in a computer that was compatible to the existing equipment and that they would be able to do that. Ms. Griffin info,Tried Mr. Emerson that the decision stated that the computer must access the MRI web site but that MRI was not responsible for the maintenance of the equipment. Ms. Griffin stated that upon completion of the conditions MRI could request a letter stating compliance with the condition. Mr. Nardella questioned the condition 5(c) requesting $25,000 payments being made that the Town. Mr. Emerson stated that he had delivered copies of the 3 payments made to the Planning Department. Mr. Emerson stated that the condition didn't state were the money was to be delivered to so they had been given it to the Town Manager. Mr. Nardella requested that MRI now send a copy of the payments to the Planning Board and Board of Health to show compliance with the condition. The Planning Board requested that MRI come back with further updates. Metricom-Informal Discussion-Co-location 5 Boston Hill Mr. Phil Posner from Wheatstone Group stated that his client Metricom was interested in co-locating on the existing tower at 5 Boston Hill. Mr. Posner was looking for direction from the Planning Board on what application would need to be filed. Mr. Posner believed they would need to file for a site plan review for co-location according to Section 8.9.3(a) of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw. Mr. Simons informed Mr. Posner that the co-location would have to be incompliance with the new' setback of 600-feet. Mr. Posner stated that waivers for camouflage, lighting, and site line requirements, noise requirements and technical information beyond Radio Specs. Ms. Griffin stated that Metricom would have to show what the RFE's are now and what they would be with the placement of another antennae. Mr. Posner informed the Planning Board that there would be at least 5 feet of separation between antennas and about 108' up from ground level. Ms. Bernice Fink presented the Planning Board with a handout from the FCC. Mr. Simons informed Mr. Posner that the FCC would have to approve the kinds of antennae used. The Planning Board informed Mr. Posner to present a mock up picture with placement of the antennae, show pre mad post RFE's and proceed with the site plan review as long as the existing tower complied with the 600' setback. Endicott Plaza-3 Form A's Mr. Chris Huntress representative for Endicott Plaza explained to the Planning Board that the first ANR Plan would subdivide off the hotel lot which would create lot C1 and C2 with frontage. The second ANR Plan enables Mr. and Mrs. Forgetta to stay in their existing house but changes the lot lines and gives them frontage. The third ANR Plan tums B1 into B2 which will be a residential lot and B3 for the Forgetta's house. Mr. Huntress informed the Planning Board that an Access Across Street Frontage Special Permit had been applied for and was scheduled for the March 20, 2001 Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board informed Mr. Huntress that two Special Permits should be applied for. The Planning Board endorsed the ANR Plan for Endicott Plaza that would subdivide off the hotel lot. The Planning Board endorsed the ANR Plan for Endicott Plaza that give frontage to the Forgetta's lot. The Planning Board endorsed the ANR Plan for Endicott Plaza that tums lot B 1 into B2. Public Hearings (8:00): Wallace Street-One Lot Definitive Subdivision Mr. Donald Borenstein representative for Mr. Juba gave the Planning Board a brief history on the lot. Mr. Borenstein stated that the applicant had been in front of the Planning Board for an ANR plan and that the Planning Board had instructed him to proceed with a definitive subdivision instead. Mr. Borenstein stated that he believed the lot to be grandfathered and had requested a determination from the Building Commissioner as to the status of the lot. Ms. Griffin stated that the Building Cormnissioner agreed that the lot was grandfathered pending access. Mr. Borenstein stated that with approval from the Planning Board there would be 50 feet of frontage on Wallace Street but the Fire Department wants the applicant to use the address of Booth Street for recognition if a call is placed. Ms. Lescarbeau questioned what was behind the house across the street. Mr. Borenstein stated that the homeowner at 32 Booth Street was believed to own the one lot that extended to Saville Street. Ms. Mary Jo Cieslewski the abutter at 32 Booth Street stated that she was not sure of the complete ownership. Currently 32 Booth Street is using a 12' wide pavement to access their lot but the owner was not aware of the permitting received or required for access. Mr. Ken Ahem stated that he owned property behind the applicant and would like to see the applicant build the road up 50' with a Town required width. Mr. Ahem was hoping at a later date to subdivide his property and would use Booth Street as access to his lot. Mr. Ahem claimed that Saville Street was too difficult of a site with the topography to use for access so he would like to see the applicant bare some of the cost of improvements to the Booth Street roadway instead of the person who would like to develop the area. The Planning Board determined that they would do individual site visits and the applicant would place stakes were the driveway would be and the 50-foot mark. The Planning Board also instructed Ms. Griffin to research the decision made for 32 Booth Street and check on any easements. Mr. Angles motioned to CONTINUE the public hearing for Wallace Street Definitive Subdivision to February 20, 2001, 2nd by Mr. Nardella. Voted 4-0 in favor of. 1160 Great Pond Road-Brooks School Athletic Facility- Site Plan Review Mr. John Scott representative for Brooks School gave a brief description of the project. Mr. Scott stated that the proposal is a two-story building with 51,000 SF on the ground floor and 102,000 SF in total. A waiver is being requested from performing a boundary survey, as the parcel is so large and from performing a traffic study. No variances are required. The building will be compatible with the architectural style of the connecting hockey rink. No parking is proposed, the applicant intends for patrons to utilize the hockey rink parking lot and the parking lot on the main road. Two retaining walls are proposed and details need to be provided to VHB for review. A recreational lA mile track and three basketball courts would be provided. Mr. Scott informed the Planning Board that they were currently in front of the Conservation Commission for a Notice of Intent and that they were working with VHB and Coler & Colantonio with the drainage review. A landscaping plan has been provided totaling over 100 plantings including red maples, weeping willows, Norway spruces, flowering crabapples and green wave yews. Mr. Nardella questioned whether there would be a change of water flow? Mr. Scott commented that the roof runoff would go to an under ground filtrates. Ms. Lescarbeau questioned the placement of the dumpster? Mr. Scott stated that the dumpsters would be placed inside. The Planning Board instructed the applicant to respond to VHB's comments by February 9, 2001 to be placed on the February 20, 2001 meeting. Mr. Nardella motioned to CONTINUE the public hearing for 1160 Great Pond Road Site Plan Review, 2nd by Mr. AngLes. Voted 4-0 in favor of. Bond Releases: Woodlea Village-Partial Bond Release Mr. Nardella motioned to a PARTIAL RELEASE of $36,316.00 leaving a remainder of $59,500.00 from Woodlea Village, 2nd by Mr. Angles. Voted 4-0 in favor of. Orchard Hill-Partial Bond Release Mr. Nardella motioned to a PARTIAL RELEASE of $14,150.00 leaving a remainder of $21,100.00 from Orchard Hill, 2na by Mr. Angles. Voted 4-0 in favor of. Brookfarm Estates-Partial Bond Release Mr. Simons motioned to DENY the recommended release of $28,060.00 from Brookfarm Estates until a resolution to Tim Willett of DPW's memo had been · na Mr detem~ned, 2 by . Nardella. Voted 4-0 in favor of. Warrant Articles: Growth Management By-law, Section 8.7 Ms. Griffin stated that the Growth Management By-law was due to expire on June 30, 2001. Mr. Nardella mentioned that Mr. Zahomiko had contacted him and that they would be working on amending the By-law. Section 4.2 - Phased Development By-law Ms. Griffin stated that the Phased Development By-law does not currently apply to multi- family dwellings. Ms. Griffin would like to amend the by-law to include multi-family dwellings. The Planning Board instructed Ms. Griffin to draft a revision to the Phased Development By-law. Slope By-law Ms. Griffin questioned whether the Planning Board was interested in pursuing the adoption of a slope by-law into the Zoning By-law? The Planning Board instructed Ms. Griffin to inquire from abutting Towns whether they had a Slope By-law in affect Mr. Simons motioned to ADJOURN the Planning Board meeting of February 6, 2001 at 9:55 p.m., 2na by Mr. Angles. Voted 4-0 in favor of.