Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-11-21KAREN H.P. NELSON Dimctor BUILDING CONSERVATION PLANNING Town of NORTH ANDOVER DIVISION OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 120 Main Street, 01845 (508) 682-6483 Discussions Planning Board Agenda November 21, 1991 7:30 p.m. Comments Brk;kstone Properties Coventry Estates Bradford Street - Fo~x- A Plan ADoroval Not Rcouircd Form A Plans Halifax Street - Creating 2 Lots 10 Lacy Street - Special Permit - Common Driveway Phillips Common - Special Permit PRD C PhRlips Common - Definitive Subdivision ..~1 )x~ / -/q- t~ Dee. Decision , At/~3 ~E'C/OT ~, Phillips Co--on - S~i~ Pe~it - PRD '-- Phillisp Co~on - Definitive SuMivision The North Andover Planning Board held a regular meeting on Thursday evening, January 23, 1992, in the Town Building, Selectmen's Meeting Room. The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson, George Perua at 7:40 p.m. Also present were John Draper, Joseph Mahoney and Richard Nardella. John Simons and Richard Rowen were absent. Karen Nelson, Director of Planning and Commlmity Development was present. Dir~n~ssions Philli_t~ Common - Clarification of Condition 8 & Covenant Richard Nardella read a letter from Levy & Halperin, attorneys for Phillips Common. The letter referenced Condition 8 and the following: "Prior to the Planning Board's Endorsement of the record plans: do Copies of the final Preservation and Conservation restrictions for Lot Y and the surrounding open space which is located within the Historic District shall be recorded with the North Essex Registry of Deeds. go Restrictive covenants shall be recorded to insure that the architectural style of the proposed structures shall be uniform in design" "Notwithstanding the above language of Paragraph 8, at the request of phillips Common Realty Trust, the Planning Board has agreed to endorse the record plans before the recording of the Preservation Restriction, Conservation Restriction and Restrictive covenants. The plans have akeady been endorsed and will be held. by the Planning Board and released to Phillips Common Realty trust upon execution of the Preservation Restriction, Conservation Restriction and Restrictive covenants. The plans, restrictions and covenants will then be recorded together. We also wish to clarify that only "lot Y" will have a Preservation Restriction and that there will be no Conservation Restriction on "lot Y". The Conservation Restriction afro:ts only the so called "open space", Finally, we would appreciate it if you would arrange for a copy of this letter to be signed by the Planning Board and placed in the fde in order to conform the modification and clarification of the Special Pmmit." George Perna asked if that was what the Planning Board had agreed to in their decision, but was not worded properly. Christian Huntress stated that was correct. A motion was made by Joseph Mahoney and seconded by Richard Nardella to accept the letter and agree to sign. The vote of the Board was unanimous. Wa_~on WheeLs Estates- Covenant Thc applicant had not signed thc covenant. A motion was made by 3oscph Mahoncy to table the issue. The motion was seconded by Richard Nardella and voted unanimously by those present. Coventr~ Estates - Reduction Bond Thc Division of Public Works has a disagreement in the figures. They are reviewing and will respond by February 13, 1992. Richard Nardclla expressed his concern with the way thc lift station was concealed, by putting small trees and a chain link fence. Re-iterating what the Board had requested, shrubs should be placed all around thc station. A motion was made by $oseph Mahoncy to table the issue until February 13, 1992. The motion was seconded by Richard Naxdclla and voted unanimously by those present. R6 District - Rep_oR 3oscph Mahoncy, member of the R6 District Committee, read the following from the committee's report: "As a group, we support the proposal brought forward for the reduced lot size if thc following items arc properly addressed: 1. State approval for increased access to Route 125 through the paper street entitled Willow Street, or another alternative approved by thc North Andover planning Board and MDPW. 2. Proper delineation of the wetland line located on the property. 3. No septic designs should be allowed for lots of this size. Alternatives for tying into the Town sewer should, bc properly addressed. All property owners in the R-6 area should be approached. This zone originally developed with cooperation of 19 property owners and I would not encourage rezoning or alteration of the dimensional requirements without contact to all interested parties. The Planning Board may want to consider using the Special Permit Process as a vehicle for this kind of development. A Planned Residential Development (PRD) could be adapted to provide an excellent land use control for this area. Either a rezoning or a modification to the existing requirements of the R-6 zone would have to be submitted as an article for approval by Town Meeting. A Definitive Subdivision plan be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Board. Joseph Mahoney stated that the committee supports the concept and suggests that Mr. Von Kummer submits a warrant article on the dimensional requirements of the R6 District. Mr. Perna suggested that the Planning Board spearhead the warrant article. All property owners should be informed and agree to the concept before the warrant article is prepared. Mr. Peraa asked that the committee stay together through the process. Mr. Von Kummer stated that Christian Huntress would help with the wording of the warrant article and that he would go around to the different owners explaining the concept and try to get all the necessary signatures for submitting a warrant article. Christian Huntress stated that the State is very clear on not allowing access onto Route 125. He further stated that he has spoken to the State on moving the barrier from the Route 114 side and dosing the Route 125 access. A motion was made by Joseph Mahoney to accept the report from the R6 District Committee. The motion was seconded by Richard Nardella and voted unanimously by those present. Mr. Perna encouraged Mr. Von Kummer to pursue the concept. ~li_ma Agreeanent for Transfer of Fnnda - Robert lanuaz At the December 19, 1991 Planning Board meeting the Board voted to authorize the transfer of funds from the Bank of Boston to an account to be held with the Town for Robert Janusz. The following signatures were needed: John Simons, as clerk, Richard Nardella and John Draper. Richard Nardella signed the agreement. John Draper and John Simons were not present to sign. John Draper arrived at ~. Rule & Rcnvlations - Fire Sprinklers Richard Nardella read the legal notice to open the public hearing. George Perna stated that there was a question whether the Planning Board has jurisdiction in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations to adopt such a measure. Two letters were received on this matter, one from Karen Nelson, Director of Planning & Community Development, and one from the Executive Office of Communities and Development. Mr. Perna further stated that the more appropriate place for adopting such a measure was through a Special Permit for a common driveway or PRD, or through the Board of Selectmen under M.G.L. Chapter 143, Section 98. Mr. Perna further stated that this would be a discussion on fire sprinklers, not subdivisions or special peiwlits. Scott Follansbee asked the Board if they were aware that they do not have the authority to require sprinkler systems. Mr. Perna stated that the Board just found that out. Mr. Follansbee further stated that he did not believe that sprinklers could be required under a special permit and asked if the Board had an opinion from Town Counsel on the matter. Mr. Perna stated that response was verbal from Town Counsel. Chief William Dolan and Lt. Andrew Melnikas were present. Chief Dolan went through his presentation. Several articles were reviewed on the lose of lives due to inadequate fire protection. A film was shown on a home fire that were equipped with smoke detectors only and within five minutes the devastation the fire created. Chief Dolan stated that in one year there are approximately 26 to 30 home fires per year. He further stated that the concern was not with the property, but was with lives that could be saved. Studies have been done on a third station, but with the economy such as it is, it's unlikely that a third fire station will be built in the near future. John Willis commented on the cost of sprinklers. ChiefDolan stated that he has been working on a committee to try to be the requirement in the Building Code. Benjamin Osgood asked if Town Counsel was reviewing the issue of requiring fire sprinklers in a special permit. Karen Nelson, Director of Planning & Community Development, was asked to comment on Town Counsel response. Ms. Nelson stated that Town Counsel told her that a regulation could be provided for in the special permit, but did not elaborate since the discussion was on the Rules & Regulations. George Perna stated that if he Town was in favor of putting in the requirement of fire sprinklers, the only place it would be appropriate, would be through the Board of Selectmen, not the Planning Board. Mr. Osgood stated that the requirement should come at the building code level. Mr. Willis stated that it should be the buyer who decides whether or not fire sprinklers should be installed, given all the information available. Chief Dolan stated that he man power of the Fire Department is the same as in 1976. The equipment is more sophisticated. John Willis asked how the fire sprinklers would work, as most of the new construction is out in the country and the homes are on wells. Chief Dolan stated that there was a system with a 350 gallons water tank with a gas cylinder that last about ten minutes, sufficient to put out a Lt. Melnikas stated that usually hydrants are required in and near a development, so that water supply would not be thc problem. Richard Nardella asked if the Selectmen could empower the PI~ n niag Board to have thc ability to request the installation of sprinklers. Town Counsel will be requested to look into the situation further. Amotion wasmade by John Draper to continue the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Richard Nardella and voted unanknously by those present. The public hearing will be continued to February 13, 1992. Campb~H Forest - Definitive Subdivision Richard Nardella read the legal notice to open the public hearing. A memo from Richard Doucette, Conservation Administrator, to Christian Huntress, Town Planner was also read. Christian Huntress, Town Planner, stated that the Technical Review Committee has met to reviewed Campbell Forest. The main issue was has a PRD been reviewed for this parcel. David Jordan, Engineer for Andover Consultants, stated that the site has 72 acres. The subdivision was approved in the "70's". The plan before the Board adheres to the regulations in effect today. Access to the site is off Campbell Road. There are 32 single family lots on the site. There will be two roadways. There are substantial wetlands on the site. Mr. Jordan went over some difficulty when a PRD was reviewed. A 50 fi. buffer would be required around thc property. The location of septic systems. Tests were conducted and the soil types vary. Mr. Jordan further stated that you could not physically fit 32 lots on what was left of the site. Scott Ara, abutter, asked if the additional traffic impact was reviewed. The Board suggested the applicant look at additional property on Salem Street for a possible alternative to access the site. Special Permits will be needed for the common driveways that are proposed. Mr. Ara asked about the delineation of the wetlands. Christian Huntress stated that the applicant flagged the wetlands and are under review with the Conservation Commission. The open space issue was brought up. Mr. Jordan stated that the open space would link up to the Harold Parker State Forest. Richard Nardella asked if that was what the Town wanted. Karen Nelson, Director, Planning & Community Development, stated that it was something that would be beneficial to link up to existing open space. She went on to say that there was a committee that was recently formed, a Trails Committee, to identify Town owned space. Richard Nardella asked about a tax base loss. Ms. Nelson stated that information on any tax loss could be received from the Assessors Office. George Pema asked how far the sewer went up Salem Street. Ms. Nelson stated that it went as far as English Circle. Mark Butcha, 111 Campbell Road, asked about a previously proposed plans showing two accesses. He also expressed concerns with additional traffic. George Perna told him that the present applicant is not proposing two accesses. Ms. Nelson stated that maybe at this time it would not be feasible to have two accesses but to leave that option open. An abutter was approached by the applicant for the purpose of purchasing some land for access from Salem Street. The applicant was not able to procure any land at this time. Joseph Mahoney asked what the impasse was, as the applicant presented a subdivision and the Board/staffwanted a PRD. Ms. Nelson stated that given the information with regards to septic systems, wetlands, the roadway and the setbacks this site is not appropriate for such a PRD. George Perna requested more information on the size of the lots based on a PRD application. GeorgePerna asked that the applicant explore roadways to abut other properties and roadways to access Salem Street. He also asked that the applicant furnish the names of abutters that were approached on the matter. Mr. Perna asked the applicant to look at other alternatives to the parcel, even if variances were needed. A site walk will be scheduled. Karen Nelson will fred out when the Conservation Commission has scheduled their site walk and will notify the Board members. Waivers will be needed on the shoulders of the roadway. A motion was made by Richard Nardella to continue the public hearing to February 13, 1992. The motion was seconded by Joseph Mahoney and voted unanimously by those present. Lot 1 Villas Way - Special Pa,,,,it - Watcmhenl District The Board went over a copy of the draft decision. Karen Nelson, Director of Planning & Community Development, stated that Condition 10 under the first paragraph should read: a, b,c,d, not B,C,D, & E. Ms. Nelson went on to Condition 17 regarding the bond. Conservation was requiring a $3,000 bond. Normally, the Planning Board requires a $5,000 bond, but because of the lot and. the bond requirement from the Consexvation Condition 17 states $2,000 for a total of $5,000. This figure is to be checked. The money will be in the same account. George Perna questioned if the driveway was going to be paved, as discussed at the last meeting. A condition will be added stating that the driveway shall be paved with a berm, or pitch the driveway into the catch basin and drain to leach pit. Condition 1 S to be worded: "All roof and driveway runoff shall be directed by a pipe system into a leach pit. The leach pit shall be a minimum of 500 gallon concrete pit with 24" depth of 1.5" stone around and beneath." The applicant questioned condition 4, contacting Dig Safe. A motion was made by John Draper to approve the Messina Development, Lot 1 Village Way as drafted and amended. Karen Nelson was asked to check with Christian Huntress on the :amount in Condition 17, the wording for Condition 18 on paving the driveway, adding roof and driveway runoff to Condition 15 and checking on the depth as it relates to the water table in Condition 15. The Board voted unanimously to approve. D~nkin Donuts - gite Plan Review There was no one present from Dunkin Donuts. George Pcrna expreSsed his feelings of being upset with the answer he received from a representative from Dunlcin Donuts who stated that wooden signs were not used, only in hi.~toric areas. John Draper works within walking distance from a Dunkin Donuts that has a wooden sign and is not in a historic area. The feeling of the Board was that they were not pleased with the way they were misled with the discussions about the sign between repreSentative of Dunkin Donuts and themselves. A motion was made by Joseph Mahoney to approve the decision as drafted. The motion was seconded by John Draper and voted unaoimously by those present. A motion was made by John Draper to approve the minuteS of January 9, 1992 as written. The motion was seconded by Richard Nardella and voted Unanimously by those preset. A motion was made by John Draper and seconded by Richard Nardella to adjourn the meeting. The vote was unanimous. The meeting adjourn at 10:50 p.m.