Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-01Planning Board Meeting Noveml~er 1, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. Members Present Joseph Mahoney, Vice Chairman, Richard Rowen, Clerk, and Alison Lescarbeau. Also present were Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner and George Perna, Acting Director of Planning and Community Development/Director of Public Works. Richard Nardella, Chairman, arrived at 7:15 p.m. John Simons arrived at 9:30 p.m. BOCD Plannina Board Ouestionnaire Ms. Colwell asked the Planning Board members to fill out the questionnaire and return it to her so that she can send it back to EOCD. Jerad Plaos III Request from the applicant that the plans be released without the $10,000 site opening bond and instead make the $10,000 payment a requirement prior to construction. The Planning Board members asked Staff to work out an appropriate arrangement with the applicant and the new owner of the subdivision. Mr. Thomas Amsler presented revised plan for the Art Gallery, adding an entrance area to the Art Gallery due to increased funding. No change in the use or to the traffic flow. Consensus that no modification to the Site Plan Review approval is required. Foxwood Applicant requests authorization to start Phase III as Phase II is 75% complete. Ms Colwell and Mr. Rowen expressed concerns about starting Phase III at this time of the year. Discussion that site has proceeded through Phase I and Phase II without any major erosion issues. An environmental monitor is on site and reports to the Planning Board on a weekly basis. All pavement completed on the switchback road and on the first half of the top circle. Mr. Thomas Laudani stated that 75% of Phase 2B requirements have been completed. Mr. Nardella stated that roadway utilities have been binder pavement has been installed but no houses constructed in Phase 2B. installed, have been Mr. Perna stated that the developer and his contractors have done an excellent job in constructing the road, problem areas have already been dealt with and stabilized. D.P.W. recommends that road be cut now and stabilized. Swale is already in place around the back side of the hill. December 15th isthe date when (paving) plants close, so the developer can work up until that date. Mr. Perna would rather see this road cut now than in the Spring. Mr. Nardella questioned what will be done in Phase III. Mr. Laudani stated that clearing the road would be done, but not the lots yet. He wants to run the utilities and pave the road first. Mr. Nardella stated that Mr. Laudani sold a house lot in Phase III and is requesting to swap one lot in Phase II for one lot in Phase III. The Planning Board will entertain this request but the developer should not sell homes in Phase III and expect the lots to be released in the future. Mr. Rowen questioned how many cut and fills were involved. Mr. Laudani stated there are some cuts for the road. Mr. Rowen stated that erosion will go into the road cut or into the grass swale and into the detention pond on Molly Towne Road. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Ms. Lescarbeau, the Board voted that Phase 2B is sufficiently complete and therefore authorize the developer to start Phase 3A, however, work is limited for the season to installation of roadway and utilities and grading to road only, no lots to be cut. Note as a minor modification to Phase Plan. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, the Planning Board voted to swap Lot 18 in Phase II for Lot 39 in Phase III. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, the Planning Board voted to set the roadway bond at $262,800, per D.P.W. recommendation. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, the Planning Board voted that the project is in compliance with erosion control plan and to release Phase II lots exoeDt Lot 18 and to release only Lot 39 from Phase III at this time. Mr. Thomas Laudani requested a reduction in the bond ~ount. Ms. Colwell read a letter from D.P.W. recommending that $5,000 be released upon the receipt of $5,000 for sewer infiltration mitigation. Discussion of why developer does not just do the mitigation work instead of paying. Mr. Perna stated that D.P.W. has a plan to use all of the funds pooled together to fix the infiltration problem. It will take $2 million to solve the problem. Approximately $1 million has been appropriated. Mr. Perna stated that drains into sewer system from homes are the major problems. The money will go into a mitigation fund. Mr. Nardella wants the spread sheets attached to all D.P.W. recommendations. At the present time the Board does not know what the money is for. Mr. Perna is concerned about spread sheets in that things come up that may not be reflected on spread sheets. Ms Lescarbeau concerned that the Planning Board does not know what work is being completed. Mr. Perna stated that $5,000 was held back for mitigation. On a motionbyMs. Lescarbeau, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Planning Board voted to release $5,000 previously set aside for mitigation, upon receipt of $5,000 for the actual mitigation. Cobblestone crossin~ Ix Mr. Rowen read a letter from D.P.W. recommending that $41,250 be released - $34,000 for Phase I and 7.250 for Phase II, contingent upon receipt of payment of $15,000 from the developer for sewer infiltration mitigation. Mr. Nardella stated that there was no spread sheet attached. There was a discussion of a stone wall behind the "99" Restaurant. Mr. Laudani stated that a vegetation barrier was created. A stockade fence was put up along veterinarian office property line. May want a stockade fence with landscaping along it. Mr. Perna does not believe a stone wall is sufficient. Mr. Nardella concerned that money be held for the wall. Mr. Rowen does not want to release the money without knowing what work has been completed. Mr. Mahoney is willing to go along with Mr. Hmurciak and D.P.W. but shares Mr. Rowen's concerns. Ms. Lescarbeau agrees with Mr. Rowen. Discussion of needing a set criteria for bonds and lot releases. Mr. Perna requests that this item be tabled until further information can be obtained. The Planning Board tabled the item until a spread sheet was obtained. Mr. Rowen read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Mr. Thomas Neve, Thomas E. Neve Associates, and Mr. David Kindred were present and gave the following information: existing horse farm property owned by the Love Family and Land Vest (114 Properties) conventional plan - 2 acre zoning showing 14 lots PRD Plan - 14 lots, one lot as the farm preservation of open space and an agricultural use 51 acres of land - 6 acres taken out of total 45 acres for the PRD 6 acre parcel taken out of site is all wetland and unbuildable Lot 14 - 12.54 acres to be preserved as a farm 13 new homes - approximately 1 acre in size on average Keep farm open and operating, not to be developed, agriculture easement on it some changes at intersection with Wintergreen Drive to create a "t" intersection cross brook where there is an existing culvert - new culvert will be put in 1,200 ft. road with island only 14 acres actually being disturbed all construction will be from Wintergreen Drive culvert designed to mitigate impacts - concrete box culvert sprinklers systems will be required Mr. Rowen spoke on Lots 14, 5 and 6 questioning access. The 50ft. buffer zone to be adjusted for 6 acre parcel being removed. Roadway is in the buffer zone. Mr. Neve stated that access to Lot 14 is through an existing easement out to Duncan Drive. A common driveway will be used for Lots 5 and 6 (300ft. for common part of driveway). Waiver from the Conservation Commission requested for cul-de-sac as it is close to the edge of the wetlands. Ms. Colwell stated that a letter was needed from the Board of Health. Mr. Mahoney concerned about access to Lots 5 and 6. Mr. Neve stated that you could access Lot 5 over Lot 4 and cross a wetland to get to the upland. Ms. Lescarbeau asked about the size of the homes. Mr. Neve replied that the homes would be approximately 1,800sq.ft. - colonial style, will build a house to fit the market. Spring of "95" project. Ms. Colwell wants to see sample house designs and an idea of which lots would have the sample designs. Mr. Nardella stated that LOt 14 cannot be subdivided. Discussion of where Foster Farm abuts property, significant to preserve open space adjacent to Foster Farm property. Open Space Plan highlights Foster Farm to be preserved. Ms. Colwell to check ownership of New England Power and Foster Farm. Mr. Nardella wants sidewalks and sloped granite curbing. He asked Mr. Neve to go over the conventional plan. Mr. Neve presented the conventional plan. Mr. Rowen questioned why was a PRD better than a conventional subdivision plan. Mr. Neve reply was as follows: preservation of open space preservation of working farm cluster of development into the center of property limits the amount of disturbance of the land Mr. Mahoney asked who operates the farm and will it continue. Mr. Neve stated that it was operated as a horse farm currently. Mr. Kindred stated that when the property goes on the market, it will go on the market as a farm/horse barn. Ms Colwell stated that all houses and septic systems must be outside the 50ft. buffer zone. Mr. Paul Healy, Wintergreen Drive had questions about why a PRD in 2 acre zoning. Mr. Nardella stated that the Planning Board likes PRD because there is greater control over the subdivision by the Planning Board. The Planning Board can require sprinkler systems, less disturbance of land and open space is preserved. Mr. Healy stated that there is a lot of wetland therefore people cannot clear out lot anyway. Mr. Neve stated that you can do a cluster in any area of town. Ms. Colwell stated that the Planning and Conservation St~ff walked the site and are convinced that all conventional lots are buildable. Mr. Rowen stated that a PRDallows developer to build a subdivision that works with the land instead of against the land. The look and feel of lots will be of larger lots because they are surrounded by open space. Mr. Healy expressed concern that the developer will have lower home prices. Mr. Michael Scanlon, Duncan Drive, stated that the conventional plan has access onto Duncan Drive, if road connected out to Duncan Drive it would drastically change the dynamics of Duncan Drive and that neighborhood. He is in support of the PRD. Mary Ann Limpert, 43 Stonecleave Road, expressed concern about an access road and the effect on Stonecleave Road. She wants to make sure there will not be a through access. Mr. Thomas Judka, 3 Wintergreen Drive, stated that the road abuts his driveway. The driveway is 2ft. from the property line. He expressed concern about safety. His driveway is higher than the road. Mr. Nardella asked Mr. Judka if he would want to access his garage from the new road. Mr. Neve stated that the stone wall will not be disturbed, will screen the property and would consider a fence. The road is 6ft. lower than the driveway, a retaining wall will be along the property line. Mr. Judka stated that the property could be accessed from Duncan Drive. Ms. Ann Barbagallo, 120 Duncan Drive, had questions about where the existing driveway to the Love property was located. [John Simons arrived at 9:30 p.m.] Mr. Neve outlined the driveway on the plan. Mr. David Sharp, 71 Wintergreen Drive, expressed concerns about traffic at the corner of Foster Street and Wintergreen Drive and traffic a Winter and Foster. Mr. Perna stated that those were all old streets, width runs from stone wall to stonewall. The Town has to "take" property in order to widen the road. The worst part of the road is the stretch between Winter Street and Wintergreen Drive on Foster Street. Mr. Edmond Albert, 46 Wintergreen Drive, had questions about the original covenants regarding Wintergreen Drive and no access roads. Mr. Neve stated that he was not accessing from Wintergreen Drive, therefore the covenants do not apply. -Mr. Healy asked if the economic impact from this development taken into consideration. Mr. Healy is concerned that these costs are less and therefore house cost is less. Mr. Simons stated that the value of land is based on the number of lots, not on the acreage, cluster subdivisions tend to have higher values. On a motion by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Simons, the Planning Board voted to continue the public hearing to November 15, 1994. A site visit is scheduled for Saturday, November 5, 1994 at 8:00 a.m. The Board will be meeting at the intersection of Wintergreen Drive and Foster Street. Forest IV Ms. Colwell stated that she received a request from the applicant for waivers on the length of the dead end streets and perc tests. Mr. Joseph Serwatka presented plan from Granville Lane with a common driveway to access Lots 4 and 5 with screening. Direct abutters from Granville Lane were in the audience to discuss the common driveway. Discussion of cluster development v. conventional subdivision and wetland crossings. Applicant has DEP approval for the second crossing. Mr. Rowen suggested that the applicant go before the Conservation Commission and get a sense from them regarding approval for those lots. Mr. Perna stated that the developer needs to sort out septic issues and get a sense from the Conservation Commission as to the second crossing. Ms. Colwell stated that the Planning Board needs to make a decision by the next meeting or have the applicant grant an extension of time in which the Planning Board has to render their decision. Mr. Simons would suggest that the applicant withdraw it ratherthan continue it. Mr. George Fart would rather go with a PRD and preserve the green space between the State Forest area. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, the Planning Board voted to continue the public hearing to November 15, 1994. Groat Pond Estates Ms. Colwell gave the Planning Board an overview of issues regarding endorsement of plans. The Planning Board endorsed the plans and the covenant. ~adine Lo~ ~elease Continued to November 15, 1994. Do not know what lot to release. Me&dowood IIX On a motion by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Ms. Lescarbeau, the Planning Board voted to release Lot 6 for the model for $5,000. North Andover Heiahts No Form J Lot Release submitted, no action taken. Leland Property The Planning Board authorized Staff to sign plan with stamp that it does not necessarily conform to zoning. Johnson Street Authorize and stamp not necessarily a buildable lot. O~ & ~ by Mr. Rowen, seconc]ed by Mr. Mah~ney, the Planning ~ ~ their meetir~ at 10:40 p.m. ~ane~ 'L,U~a'~, Secretary Richard A. Nardella, Chairman