Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-05-28Planning Board Meeting Senior Center May 28, 1996 Members Pre~ent: Joseph V. Mahoney, Chairman, Alberto Angles, Associate Member. Alison Lescarbeau, Clerk, arrived at 7:15 p.m. Richard Nardella arrived at 7:20 p.m. Richard Rowen, Vice Chairman, arrived at 8:10 p.m. and John Simons arrived at 8:15 p.m. Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner, was present. The meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m. Lot A & B Boston Street (Windkist Farm) Robert Messina was present and stated that several weeks ago he presented a preliminary plan and now he is back with this Form A. The house and barn are to he kept as is. As there is sufficient frontage on a public way, staff.directed Ms. Colwell to endorse the plan. Public Hearings: Continued: 701 Salem Street - Site Plan Review This public hearing is continued from May 21, 1996. Steve Stapinski was present along with Bob Daly from Merrimack Engineering. Mr. Stapinski stated that the plans call for the demolition of the present retail stmcture and home. The proposed development is a 7600 sq fl retail strip facility with multiple uses proposed: a bank, a convenience store...a two drive up ATM. It will be a rural type colonial structure that will fit in with the neighborhood. The building is orientated towards Abbott Street, not Salem Street. Parking will he in front of the building with the landscaping in front kept purposely low for visual reasons. There will be a 15' planting strip between the residential area and the parking lot, with multiple plantings along Salem and Abbott Streets. There will be wall pack lighting on the property, there is gas and Town water present. The applicant wouldn't begin building until sewerage is installed in the area. There are no wetlands on site and drainage is designed for 0% runoff.for 100 year storm. The drainage calculations have been sent to the outside consultant by Merrimack Engineering. Mr. Stapinski stated that there are 42 parking spaces available, but they only need 38. It was mentioned that at the TRC meeting the Police Department stated they want 2 accesses on Salem Street, not one. Also to come out of the TRC meeting was the question of why the structure is facing Abbott Street instead of Salem Street. With lots more traffic on Salem Street it seems logical to place the building fronting onto Salem Street. Mr. Stapinski stated that under the Town's bylaw the applicant essentially has 15' of unusable land, and given the setbacks it would reduce the footprint by 50% and the parking would have to be behind the building. Ms. Colwell stated that the Police Department wants a traffic study done due to the fact that the Sargent School creates even more traffic in that area. Mr. Nardella stated that fi-om a retail point of view facing the structure on Abbott Street seems like a death wish. He suggested an "L" shaped or curved structure even if the applicant has to apply for waivers. Ms. Colwell stated that she talked to the architect regarding the rear of the property. Ms. Colwell expressed concern about possible conflicts between cars and deliveries and loading docks. The architect will provide a rendering of the rear of the building and will make it blend in with the front and sides. John Crisostamo, 695 Salem Street, is very concerned about the appearance and upkeep of the proposed structure. He lives very close by and stated that rubbish is not contained properly, therefore, the wind carries it everywhere. Also, he has been speaking with the owner of the property who is willing to install a fence. Mr. Crisostamo stated that he feds the proposed structure will be a great improvement when complete, but he does not want to live near a strip mall. The plans show red maple trees are to be planted, but he is not happy with that. He was assured by the Planning Board that shrubs, a fence and dense trees that do not shed there leaves will be planted. Also, Mr. Cfisostamo claims that the property line between him and the proposed structure is not dearly defined and he would like that done so there will be no chance of anyone encroaching onto his property. Ms. Colwell stated that the applicant will be required to mark the property line with yellow caution tape prior to cutting any trees. Peter North, 285 Rea Street, is concerned about traffic also, it is a difficult intersection already and there is a constant mess on the property. Tim O'Brien, 710 Salem Street, stated that the building and property are a mess now and he is concerned that the new building will be kept clean and debris picked up. Kevin Spdcer, an abutter, is concerned about the hours of operation. He was told by the Planning Board that would be addressed. The Board suggested to Mr. Stapinski that he relocate the building facing onto Salem Street, place an entrance and egress on Salem Street, and have a traffic study done. A site walk is scheduled for June 1, 1996 at 8:00 a.m. Continued until June 18, 1996 meeting. 200 Chickefing Road (Rennies) - Site Plan Review Joseph V. Mahoney, Chairman, stepped down as chairman due to a possible conflict of interest. Richard Rowea, Vice Chairman, became acting chairman. Steve Stapinski, engineer, Joe Scott, developer and Rainer Koch architect, were all present. Mr. Stapinski s~ted that the proposal is for a 16,000 sq ff retail facility to replace the present Rennies Florist. The existing Rennies is parallel to Route 125 with 2 curb cuts; the plan is to eliminate one curb cut and rebuild the one furthest away from Farrwood Avenue. The site would have thru circulation oftrsffic, one driveway at Farrwood Avenue and the other near the condo development. There is Town water and sewer which they will connect up to. ?, architect, stated that there will be colonial type windows and an overhang for protection from the elements. Also, it will be a Mansard designed pitched roof to help hide the HVAC equipment. The lighting will be relatively low, a 12' pole with shielded bulbs, there will be a deliberate effect to keep the lighting low. The signage will be within the limits of the bylaw with a main entry sign and handicapped signs. Mr. Rowen told the applicant they will need to provide a traffic study and a statement on the impact of the property to the community and neighborhood. He also stated that Fan'wood Avenue is not a public road. Mr. Stapinski pointed out that years ago the Rennies conveyed Farrwood Avenue over to the condo developers and no covenants have been filed with the Registry of Deeds to restrict access onto Fan-wood Avenue. The Rennies never objected to a definitive subdivision plan and no paper work has been found to take the rights-of-way away. Mr. Rowen stated that if it is a street created by a subdivision you may have that right; if not, you don't. Mr. Stapinski was told by Mr. Rowen that the onus was on the applicant to find proof that they have a right to use the road. Mr. Stapinski will submit plans showing that the road was created due to a subdivision. Mr. Simons stated that the plan is sketchy, more information is needed on the front and side of the structure. Rainer Koch, architect, stated that as far as landscaping goes, 95% of the vegetation will be ieR in place. The comer will be cleared out and low growing landscaping planted for visibility to traffic. Mr. Simons suggested to the landscaper that he visit Crossroads and Osco Drug to view their landscaping and get ideas on what the Planning Board is looking for. Mr. Stapinski stated that the drainage is designed so that there is 0% runoff and there are catch basins on site. Mr. Nardella asked what businesses would become the tenants and what their hours of operation will be. Mr. Stapinski replied a restaurant, hairdresser, dry cleaner, community convenience store and a greenhouse. Mr. Angles asked how many tenants in all and Mr. Stapinski replied 10 in all. Ms. Colwell clarified to the Board and people in attendance that she checked with the Town's attorney and notification of the public hearing was given properly. The legal notice concerning the proposed residential development was not done properly and a new application will have to be The Board discussed making the zoning line the property line to clarify setback issues. The hours of operation must be clarified. A sidewalk will be added to Farrwood Avenue if the applicant has rights to use it. The adjacent buildings must be added to the plan. Elvira Curcio, from The Heritage Green Condos was present and stated that she is not happy with the lack of notification of the public hearing or the continuance of the public hearing. She also stated that site plan review is not appropriate for a residential area! It was explained to her that the Board wasn't discussing the residential area tonight, that would be for another meeting. Mrs. Curcio was very upset. A resident of 88 Farrwood Avenue was present and stated that her 14 year old daughter walks to school on Farrwood Avenue and she is afraid more traffic could create accidents. At the very least the resident would like to see sidewalks installed. Jim McCarthy, an abutter, was also protesting the notification of the meeting. He also stated that the plans call for utilizing 300' of Farrwood Avenue, but he would like to see improvements made on the entire length of Farrwood Avenue. Ruth DiPippo stated that she is concerned about a buildup of traffic and a pathway from the 99. Mr. Stapinski stated that he would be happy to meet with the Condo Association regarding all their concerns. Mr. Nardella suggested to Mr. Stapinski that their lawyer send a letter to Ms. Colwell outlining the reasons why they think they have access to Fan-wood Avenue. Ms. Colwell will then check with Town Counsel for their opinion. Continued until June 4, 1996 providing an solution regarding Fan'wood Avenue can he found. Woodlea Village - SubdivisionfPRD Continuation of the public hearing. Steve Stapinski and Tom Laudani were present. Mr. Stapinski presented the Board with three potential locations of the detention pond and their advantages and disadvantages: .4_ Onlotsg, 10, 11 B. On lot 6 C. On lots 3, 4, 5 Assuming equal rating of each advantage versus disadvantage, location A (lots 9, 10, 11) was reconunended. There was a brief'discussion among the Board members and the consensus was that lots 9, 10, 11 was acceptable for the detention pond provided screening was provided. A landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect must be submitted to the Planning stall'for review.