HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-02 Planning Board Minutes Town of North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman •. David Kellogg
Lynne Rudnicki ' ' Lora McSherry
Michael Colantoni Peter Boynton
1 Tuesday June 2, 2015 @ 7 p.m. Town Hall, 120 Main Street, North Andover,MA 01845
2
3 Present: J. Simons, L.Rudnicki,L.McSheriy,D. Kellogg,Peter Boynton
4 Absent: M. Colantoni
5 Staff Present: Jean Enright,Kristine Cheetham,Bonnie Wolstromer
6
7 J. Simons, Chairman: The Planning Board meeting for Tuesday,June 2, 2015. was called to order at 7 p.m.
8 J. Simons thanked Jean Enright for all her help as interim planner and for her presentation at Town Meeting. J.
9 Simons also welcomed the new Town Planner, Kristine Cheetham.
10
11 LOT RELEASE:
12 A.75 Great Pond Road-The Glades,Tom Zahoruiko: Requests the release of lots 1-5 and to establish a bond for
13 the roadway construction.
14 K. Cheetham: Presented the DPW recommended bond in the amount of$33,000. The Notice of Decision has a
15 couple of items conditioned you may want to consider; section 17, asking you to finalize the Decision regarding
16 the cul-de-sac requiring an island or not and the stormwater management operations. Tom is willing to speak to
17 those comments.
18 J. Simons: Are you okay with the bond amount?
19 K. Cheetham: Yes,the bond establishment is correct,however payment has not been made.
20 T Zahoruiko: We originally posted a$5K Site Opening bond and we've completed 80% of the wank. Can we
21 credit that$5K bond amount toward the DPW bond amount so that we don't have dual bonds?
22 J. Simons: Is the roadway open?
23 T.Zahoruiko: It's a Site Opening bond. The road has been paved and there are no additional cuts to be made in the
24 street or disturbances to be made in the existing streets.The special condition related to stormwater management
25 maintenance was discussed during the hearing process. It needs to be worked out through the various town depts.
26 We agreed to define that maintenance plan prior to the first occupancy permit. It isn't a condition that's subject to,
27 or precedent to,any particular item. It was also discussed during the hearing process that it wasn't practical to cut
28 out a cul-de-sac island during construction(80 foot cul-de-sac vehicles,trucks,various deliveries, coming and
29 going). We've paved that as we would normally, and I think we should look at that at some point in time.
30 J. Simons: I certainly don't have a problem that you did that for now, but the issue is still open that we'll have the
31 island, eventually.
32 J. Simons: How do we feel about rolling the bonds together or keeping them separate?
33 L.Rudnicki: When they go for a release,they're going to go for a release on the DPW items. I think we should
34 keep it separate and clean.The DPW wrote"0"for roadway,"0"for roadway excavation,etc. They didn't carry
35 those numbers for the work you've already done. They've credited you for those already. We have the cul-de-sac
36 and the stormwater maintenance condition that are separate from the DPW roadway bond.
37 T.Zahoruiko: That work is already done. We don't bond at the outset.
38 L. Rudnicki: But they wrote"zero"and that's what balances, so they've credited you those already.
39 T.Zahoruiko: Correct.That's one of the reasons we don't bond at the outset in order to get lots released. We do
40 as much work as possible so we don't need the bond.
41 L.Rudnicki: So,they've already lessened the bond by the work that's already been done. We've got the cul-de-sac
42 and the stormwater water maintenance condition.
Page 1 of 10 June 2, 2015
Town of North An(lover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman ,'. David Kellogg
Lynne Rudnicki ""y Lora McSherry
Michael Colantoni Peter Boynton
I
I
43 J. Simons: I think we should keep the two bonds.
44 MOTION: L.Rudnicki made a motion to release the lots 1-5 and to establish a cash roadway bond in proper form
45 subject to review by the Town Planner in the amount of$33,250.00. D.Kellogg seconded the motion. The vote
46 was 5-0, unanimous in favor.
47
48 BOND RELEASE:
49 B.Red Gate Lane: Rick Dallaire requests final release of bond finds for slope stabilization.
50 J. Simons: I will presume there are no issues there, correct?
51 K. Cheetham: Correct.Read the bond release condition in the Notice of Decision,"These monies, or the balance
52 thereof, ($15K has been released and there's $5K remaining)will not be released until three years from the date of
53 completion of slope construction or acceptance of the subdivision roadway by Town Meeting,whichever comes
54 first." Town Meeting accepted the roadway in May of 2013. You released the $15K in 2012. I recommend the
55 release of the remaining bond.
56 MOTION: D.Kellogg made a motion to release the remaining bond for Redgate Lane in the amount of$5K. L.
57 Rudnicki seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0,unanimous in favor.
58
59 PUBLIC MEETING:
60 C.CONTINUED 602 Boxford Street(Map 105C Lot 22):Messina Development Corp. proposes a 7-lot
61 Preliminary Subdivision Plan for a Planned Residential Development on an 18 acre+/-parcel of land in the R-1
62 zoning district.
63 P. Christiansen: The subdivision location is on Boxford Street between Duncan Drive and Brookview Drive. We
64 did a Proof plan showing 7 lots. We are proposing a 7-lot cluster subdivision. Out of the 18 acres, 12 acres will be
65 left as Open Space. Lots are a minimum of 25,000 square feet as required by zoning, some are bigger.The
66 subdivision will be country drainage with LID type design. There's one issue that we don't meet the requirements
67 of the PRD and that's the 50' Buffer Zone which is shown as abutting Brookview's Open Space. We are asking
68 for a waiver to build two septic systems there. Water will be brought from Brookview Drive along Boxford Street
69 to the lots. The water line will be brought up this summer.
70 J. Simons: Will you do the Definitive?
71 P Christiansen: Yes,I wanted to wait to see if there were any drastic changes as a result of this meeting.
72 L.Rudnicki: What is the waiver for street length?
73 P. Christiansen: The plan shows 700 feet.
74 J. Simons: We set the Planning Board rules and regulations at 500 ft. but we do grant waivers, in this case it's
75 shorter than it would be if it were Conventional.The problem is you can't connect to the next property line. I
76 don't see it as a big issue.If we were going out 2-2,500 ft. we might say that's not possible.
77 K. Cheetham: I placed a draft Decision in your packets.You may want to add as a Condition that the revised plans
78 for the Definitive Subdivision incorporate comments from the two letters from engineering(dated April 13 & 16
79 of this year).
80 J. Simons: Ten to fifteen years ago,when we had quite a few subdivisions in town,we had a lot of Preliminary's.
81 Sometimes they were done to get a zoning window,and now they're primarily done for the purpose they were
82 intended to,which is for you to get some feedback without incurring a lot of costs. We may have to go one step
83 deeper in terms of working with the BOH on approval of the septic systems and that it's okay. We need a letter
84 from them in our files,and assurance from them that the septic plans will work.
85 L.Rudnicki: Were there any trails that would connect with the other adjoining Open Space property?
Page 2 of 10 June 2, 2015
Toivn of North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman ,'. David Kellogg
Lynne Rudnicki � �� Lora McSherfy
Michael Colantoni Peter Boynton
86 P. Christiansen: I don't know that there are any trails. There's a lot of wetland.There will be access from Boxford
87 Street.
88 J. Simons: You might want to show this to Conservation and talk with Jennifer. This is something we will address
89 more deeply during the Definitive Plan review. What type of form do you want the Open Space to be?
90 P. Christiansen: We prefer to donate it to the Town rather than keep it.Another reason for the Preliminary,was
91 that it used to be the filing fees were less for the Definitive, if you filed the Preliminary?
92 J. Simons:It's actually not a bad idea. We haven't adjusted the Planning Board rules and regulations in a number
93 of years and we should consult on that.
94 Draft Decision was reviewed.
95 J. Simons: I do like the binding nature in this paragraph even though the Preliminary indicates our direction,there
96 may be things in the Definitive Plan that cause us to go in a different direction.
97 J. Simons: Can you add to the Findings of Fact—a few items we discussed, i.e. alternative layouts and designs,
98 mention they shared a Proof plan,justifying 7 lots and perhaps the path for the Open Space,document things in a
99 little more detail.
100 L.Rudnicki: Phil,have you changed the name on the plans from Autumn Woods?
101 P. Christiansen: Yes. The plan title changed to Wellington Woods.
102 L.Rudnicki: We can then reference the new date on the plan and the new name.
103 MOTION: D.Kellogg made a motion to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan and Decision as amended. L.
104 Rudnicki seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0, unanimous in favor.
105
106 D. 1665 Great Pond Road(Map 62 Lots 12& 19): Request for Waiver of Watershed Special Permit(Lot 19)
107 Technical Training Foundation. Request for Extension of Watershed Special Permit(Lot 12)by Suzanne Wright
108 & Steve Feldman
109 Glen Saba: of Century Builders,I am the authorized representative to the owners of the property at 1665 Great
110 Pond Road (also what we believe to be, 1661 GPR) also referred to as Lots 19 & 12. This property was
1.11 subdivided and the lots were created in 1966. It has been family owned and continues to be, although the property
112 was transferred into a foundation the Technical Training Foundation Trust. The family wishes to develop the
113 property so that the owners can put the proceeds into the trust.
114 J. Simons: Where is this location again?There's one house there now?
115 J.Enright: It has been brought down to the wood frame. The abutting lot is a Form A lot that received a Watershed
116 Special Permit(WSP)to construct a single family house.
117 G. Saba: They received a WSP for the vacant lot(B).
118 J. Simons: (B) is the vacant lot and it's a one acre lot because it's an old lot. It's not a two acre lot. Refresh me,
119 Jean,was there something dicey from an engineering perspective, as I recall?
120 J.Enright: The vacant lot was originally permitted for a single family home. The Watershed Special Permit was
121 received two years ago and I believe they are here to ask for an extension for that vacant lot that has not been
122 constructed. The associated bond has been filed with the Planning Department,however,construction has not
123 started. The existing house was not part of this WSP. A demo permit was issued by the Building Department for
124 the existing home. The contractor is now requesting a WSP waiver to demo the entire home down to the
125 foundation.
126 J. Simons: The fact that this is in a trust is irrelevant and not our business.You want an extension for the permit
127 for the one lot and for us to grant a waiver for the WSP permit on the existing structure.
Page 3 of 10 June 2, 2015
Torvn of North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman I �U'. David Kellogg
Lynne Rnllnicki Lora McSheriy
Michael Colantoni Peter Boynton
128 G. Saba: Yes. There was a permit to raze granted on this property that I'm seeking a Waiver for. I was hired to do
129 the work in July of 2014. We brought it down to the studs and then it sat because the structure isn't sound. We
130 just want to bring it to the foundation. We aren't altering anything other than finishing the demo. We want to
131 bring it to the foundation,finish the demo and finish it as our drawings show(Referenced Town Bylaws Section
132 4.136). The structure exists, we are not expanding the existing footprint,we aren't disturbing existing topography
133 or doing any grading,
134 J. Simons: You're not going to do any grading to do this? Is the square footage exactly the same? You've got to
135 bring trucks in,deal with erosion control,etc.There's no way you can do this without doing any grading,you've
136 got erosion control,you've got to go to Conservation,too?You aren't showing us anything here,there's no
137 information here.
138 K. Cheetham: The demo permit was issued on May 5,2014. It was for demolition of the house, and the
139 landscaping and included a new landscape plan it was signed off on by Conservation as being outside of their
140 jurisdiction. It was not signed off by Planning at the time. This building permit for demolition was signed off on a
141 year ago. The foundation remains and he wants to build on the foundation.
142 P. Boynton: The house structure is still there, it's been gutted, it is not just a foundation. There's studs,walls, a
143 roof and all window openings are open to the environment.
144 G. Saba: We want to get rid of all that old rotted, exposed wood, finish the demo process which is a fourth of the
145 work that's already been done and bring the entire structure up to code to finish it. This is all we are looking to do.
146 L.Rudnicki:Unfortunately,you'll have to bring it up to date to meet the current Watershed Special Permit
147 requirements. You are rebuilding a new house. You may have stormwater management issues to deal with because
148 you are not grandfathered anymore-you're razing the structure. If someone builds a deck they have to go for a
149 Watershed Special Permit.
150 P. Boynton: I thought that this also included that it was no expansion in size,except for the addition of deck?
151 G. Saba: The permit was pulled sir and you are absolutely correct. When the permit was pulled,perhaps because
152 of the shuffling of planners,the Planner never signed off on it for some reason and the Building Inspector, Gerry
153 Brown caught this- I was trying to pull a building permit. The permit to raze is already in place. I understand your
154 concern, but this has already been discussed. I disagree with you,this is an existing structure. There's a provision
155 under your Bylaw and you're saying it doesn't apply?
156 J. Simons: It has not been discussed here. This is our jurisdiction.
157 G. Saba: I understand,but I beg to differ. This is an existing structure. We're not increasing the size of it.
158 J. Simons: As Lynn said,what if you change the slope of the roofline,where's the drainage going to go,what type
159 of drywells are you going to have?Remember,this is our worst spot,right on the lake. This is serious business.
160 All you have is a picture of something.
161 G. Saba: I understand the sensitivity of it. When we did the demolition,there's erosion control in place. I would
162 need to meet with Kristine on site to review further erosion control.
163 L.Rudnicki:That's not her expertise,that's out of her control. That's why we have our outside consultants review
164 the engineering. It's considered a new home.
165 G. Saba: May I ask the Board,if we left that structure the way it is, are we all set with that?
166 J. Simons: You are caught in a little bit of a dilemma. We'll work quickly,but we think you'll have to come in for
167 a Special Permit,
168 G. Saba: No matter what,at this point?It's unfortunate,that only delays that project even further. This has been
169 signed off and we're in the middle of the project.
170 J. Simons: How is that our problem?
Page 4 of 10 June 2, 2015
Town of North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman David Ifellogg
Lynne Rudnicki 4 Lora McSherry
Michael Colantoni Peter-Boynton
171 L.Rudnicki: You were to raze it,but not to rebuild it,correct?
172 G. Saba: No, it was ongoing,there was a checklist there,you can't have a permit to build until you finish the
173 procedure to raze?
174 L.McSherry: This never came before us,we've never seen it.
175 J. Simons: Let's break this into two pieces. We can extend the Watershed Special Permit for the other lot for
176 another year. It's still the same proposal
177 P.Boynton: I'm not clear, for that location,where are the No Disturb zones,relative to this?
178 K. Cheetham: The plans before you (Lot 12)the vacant lot with the Watershed Permit in place that's due to expire,
179 there are some No Disturb markers shown on that plan.
180 P.Boynton: So, it's inside the 250',but it's an existing lot.
181 J. Simons: I'm okay with our original approval. If you did work a year ago, or nine months ago it would be fine.
182 The slope wasn't as bad as some of the other ones.They are in the Non-Discharge zone, but they've stayed away
183 from the 250' from the structure.
184 L. McSherry: How are the two properties going to interrelate?Is it family ownership?Are they separate lots or
185 merged?
186 G. Saba: They have been separate lots since 1966.They are owned by the same person. There was a variance
187 created and granted in 1966 to create the two lots, it's not grandfathered.
188 K. Cheetham: The assessor's map has them as Lot 12 (vacant)and Lot 19(foundation on it),they're two different
189 taxable lots.
190 Michael Rosen, Attorney: This went before the Zoning Board of Appeals. The lot line and the variance that were
191 created,predated the adoption of the zoning and in 1966 the way that the law read,"Once created,that's not
192 revoked",they were created as a subdivision. They were split,their plan was approved and recorded,the vote was
193 approved so,the fact that it was done,then the laws actually changed in the 1970's. If this had occurred after the
194 1970's, it would have remerged,but because this occurred in 1966, before 1974, it was allowed to stay. As an
195 abundance of caution, I appeared with Bill McLeod who was the engineer who did this work as well,we took it to
196 Zoning and Zoning actually confirmed it.
197 L.McSherry: There was a subdivision in court?
198 J. Simons: It's an okay lot—we approved it. The question is whether we want to extend it for a year.
199 P.Boynton: My understanding of the geography is that the existing house is the house closer to Great Pond Road
200 and the vacant lot is set further in back of the existing lot. What's the access to Great Pond Road and where is that
201 driveway?It goes to the east of the existing house.That must be fairly close to the reconstruction of Rea's Pond
202 Pumping Station.That clearance has been determined as adequate?
203 K. Cheetham: It was in your packets from your previous Decision.
204 P.Boynton:How does this access driveway relate to the Pumping Station?
205 J. Simons: It's got to be at least 100' away?
206 L.Rudnicki: I thought that pea stone check dams were supposed to be 20' on center and these plans show 40'on
207 center.I thought we had changed that to twenty feet. Can you check the minutes?
208 J. Simons: I think we should look at the Decision that we made to see if it's still applicable given the current
209 circumstances and that the current plan reflects what we approved. We should make a site visit and physically take
210 a look at the site.
211 L.McSherry: The Pumping Station parking lot is right there. I think we need to look at this plan to see if we need
212 to revisit it.
213 P.Boynton: Do we have a photo of the existing structure?
Page 5 of 10 June 2, 2015
Town of North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman � David Kellogg
Lynne Rudnicki �` Lora McSherry
Michael Colantoni Peter Boynton
214 G. Saba: Yes, I have one.
215 J. Simons: The sentiment is that the request for the extension of the Special Permit will hold over until the next
216 meeting. We will take a look at the Decision in order to extend the permit for the vacant lot and visit the site to
217 see if there's anything we need to change. We have time based upon the original Decision which expires on July
218 2°d 2015.
219 L.McSherry: I would like to confirm the two lots that were supposedly subdivided in 1966 and I would like to
220 determine that it isn't in fact one merged lot. I think this is important and it needs verification. I'm Just very
221 curious.
222
223 MOTION: L. Rudnicki made a motion to continue(Lot 12)until next meeting in order to visit the site and revisit
224 the Decision in order to determine if the changes we noted are adopted and there's no new conditions and.L.
225 McSherry seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor.
226 MOTION: L. Rudnicki made a motion to deny the waiver of a WSP for(Lot 19)at 1665/1661 Great Pond Road.
227 L.McSherry seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 unanimous in favor.
228
229 PUBLIC HEARING:
230 E.CONTINUED- 1600 Osgood Street(Map 34 Lot ID: Application for OSGOD Special Permit. Applicant
231 OSGOOD Solar LLC seeks to construct rooftop and parking canopy-mounted solar photovoltaic system,6MW.
232 Applicant proposes 5,500 rooftop mounted solar modules and approximately 14,000 carport canopy mounted solar
233 modules on approximately 21 rows of structures that are approximately 150'—630' long and 39' wide. The
234 project is within the Industrial 2 Zone(12)and in the OSGOD Smart Growth Overlay District.
235 K. Cheetham: The applicant has filed an appeal of the Building Inspector's decision. That is scheduled to appear
236 before the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 23,'2015. You have received correspondence from your Town
237 Attorney about this project and the fact that it's going through an appeal and that it's before you. I believe that
238 correspondence recommended that if he withdrew without prejudice that would be okay.
239 J. Simons: I need to talk to him again, because I don't think he had the full context when the question was asked of
240 him.
241 K. Cheetham: Procedurally, if the Zoning Board decides that the application is okay, if they withdraw without
242 prejudice they can resubmit the application the way they submitted it.If the Zoning Board gives them advice to
243 apply some other way they can still apply that way if they've withdrawn without prejudice.If their withdrawal is
244 denied due to repetitive petition they cannot come back before your Board for this kind of permit for two years.
245 So, it is to the benefit of the client to withdraw and leave their options open and for your Zoning Board to examine
246 their Bylaws to determine if there is a way to permit this in the community. That is my recommendation and that is
247 what I saw in the language from your Town Council.
248 J. Simons: I think maybe we need to talk about the merits of this first and what people think of this,presuming it's
249 before us in our jurisdiction because it's a special permit it's not an as of right use. The Board needs to make a
250 decision as to what we are going to do by the next Planning Board meeting. I suggest we carry this over to the
251 next Planning Board meeting in order to allow us to consult with Town Council for clarification.
252 M.Rosen:Honestly,I think the issue of withdrawal is probably more pertinent before we open a hearing and
253 actually start discussing the merits of the case. The withdrawal has been requested and I think one of the reasons
254 for the withdrawal is the fact was that this was noticed as a Special Permit and in fact it is not a Special Permit
255 application,it is a Plan Approval application.
Page 6 of 10 June 2, 2015
Town of North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman y �a'. David Kellogg
Lynne Rndiiicki t"�.i ��` Lora McSherry
Michael Colantoni Peter Boynton
256 J. Simons: You just introduced another variable which we'll have to check. The consensus of the Board with little
257 exception is that we're not big fans on the merits of the project and we'd like to go back to Town Council and get
258 clarification of his recommendation.
259 M. Rosen: If that is your preference then my suggestion is we continue tonight's hearing to give you that
260 opportunity. That would be acceptable. When will that next hearing be?
261 K. Cheetham: This Planning Board will meet on June 16, 2015. This is prior to the next Zoning Board of Appeals
262 meeting.
263 J. Simons: We as a Board are going to make a decision at our next meeting, June 16,2015.
264 M. Rosen: As you go to Town Council and request the withdrawal,I would point out one thing,when you ask his
265 opinion about whether he thinks it's appropriate to allow the withdrawal or not,under MA law a withdrawal
266 before public notice is absolutely allowed and the consent of the Board is not required. A withdrawal after public
267 notice requires the consent of the Board.
268 J. Simons: Why?
269 M.Rosen: The hearing.
270 L.McSherry: We have that.
271 M. Rosen:No,you do not. You have a notice of a public hearing for a Special Permit application. We do not have
272 a Special Permit application. We have an application for a Plan Approval which is one of the reasons we
273 specifically asked to withdraw,because the notice is defective.Technically,the notice for this hearing has not
274 been posted and therefore one of our concerns is that we believe we have the right to withdraw without prejudice
275 and without approval. We asked for plan approval, we didn't get plan approval and one concern we legitimately
276 have is, if you gave us our approval,but it was posted incorrectly,then our approval would be defective because
277 it wasn't posted as a Public Hearing for a Plan Approval. With everything else aside,that was the impetus for
278 asking for the withdrawal because we're still going to have to come back to you whether it's allowed as a use
279 under Zoning or not allowed,for Plan Approval. We'll present to you,you'll have jurisdiction over our
280 application,no matter what the ZBA says or anyone else says,we'll have to show you what we are building and
281 you as a Board will have the full and fair opportunity to render your opinion on whether or not we've designed
282 something that is appropriate for this district.
283 J. Simons: We'll carry this over to the next meeting.
284
285 DISCUSSION& STAFF BRIEFING:
286 F. 1211 Osgood Street,Harry Kanellos: Proposed Pizza/Sub business
287 K. Cheetham: 1211 Osgood Street is formerly the location of McLay's Florist. Harry Kanellos is here to speak on
288 his own behalf.
289 H.Kanellos: I'm the owner of 1211 Osgood Street.The bakery has gone out of business and I'm interested in
290 operating a roast beef and pizza take-out business only,with limited seating. The Thai food restaurant is going
291 forward with their fit-up and they're not complete yet.
292 J. Simons: What is the parking requirement?We went through all sorts of parking issues with the last project.
293 K. Cheetham: Unit 1,Bakery and Retail gross floor area is 2,036 sq. ft.,parking spaces required=10. Parking is
294 provided on site. People arrive,make their purchase and they leave and the use is the same as the bakery. It's the
295 same kind of operation and it has the same usage and parking requirements.
296 L.Rudnicki: How many seats are you going to have in the restaurant?
297 H. Kanellos: I'm not asking for more than twenty.
298 L.Rudnicki: Okay, so it's not the same type of operation as the bakery then.
Page 7 of 10 June 2, 2015
Towit of North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman �,, •0 David Kellogg
Lynne Rudnicki ' Lora McSherry
Michael Colantoni Peter Boynton
299 K. Cheetham: No.A restaurant is a place where people sit down for a half hour to forty five minutes and their car
300 stays parked.
301 H.Kanellos:The previous owner had four tables inside(at least three chairs per table)and two to three tables
302 outside. I'm not looking to add any extra seating and would ask for the same parking-ten parking spaces. I'll
303 have four to five employees, more employees during the day, fewer at night, I'm guessing I'll have a better lunch
304 business than dinner, hours of operation would be 10-9 (Bakery was open 10-5).
305 L.Rudnicki: That was one of the time periods that the bakery was closed. That was the number they used in their
306 ratio saying they will not have business after 5 p.m. at the bakery, so we gave the waiver to the Thai restaurant.
307 J. Simons: Part of the problem with these sorts of things is you never know until you actually do it and if there's a
308 problem you figure out how to mitigate it.Hypothetically, if it creates a problem-what would you do?
309 H.Kanellos: I would like to see if I could purchase a piece of property from the Barker estate. The previous
310 owner told me there is a small strip in front of the Barker Farm that Mr. Barker has the first right of refusal to, 12
311 or 15K sq. ft. that the state owns. I might try to acquire that or reduce my overall table count to 15.
312 J. Simons: Can you park your employees someplace else?
313 H.Kanellos: There is some parking out back.
314 L.Rudnicki: We had a fair amount of neighbors at the last meeting because there were concerns over trash. They
315 were keeping trash back there and trash was piling up behind the property. Were the under plantings ever done
316 along the whole back side?Isn't the property owner responsible?
317 H.Kanellos:That was on the Thai end of the restaurant.That was in their Decision with you.
318 L.McSherry: You bought the whole strip mail?I think that the plantings were supposed to be done by the
319 previous owner of the strip mall.
320 L.Rudnicki:The Decision follows the property ownership. It's between owner and the tenant not the Planning
321 Board and the owner of the property.
322 H.Kanellos:The backside is filled with pine trees with low branches. I don't understand. Flowers wouldn't serve
323 as a buffer?
324 P.Boynton: I'm not clear on the interaction between this and the action we tools earlier. Particularly,the
325 difference in the hours 5-9 p.m. that was part of the basis we made the earlier Decision on.
326 J.Enright: Follow-up parking studies were conditioned in the earlier Decision. The proposed Thai restaurant has
327 not yet opened. The first parking study was due in April. That will have to be re-scheduled once the restaurant
328 opens.
329 J. Simons: Parking studies probably should be done after occupancy.
330 L.McSherry: I think they need to come before us for further review.
331 H.Kanellos:The previous owner served sandwiches, she had dinners,she served pizza, she did catering,the only
332 difference is that I'm asking for four more hours of business.
333 L.McSherry: With all due respect,there weren't a lot of tables in the bakery, it was primarily bakery eases. There
334 wasn't hardly any room for tables. It is different. I'm not against opening a business. The parking is a huge issue
335 seating, etc. and I think the neighbors need to have their say primarily with regard to parking and traffic. There
336 were a lot of neighbors that showed.
337 H.Kanellos: There were two tables in front of the counter and two tables in front of the windows, and two tables
338 outside.
339 L.Rudnicki: Can we do a modification of the existing Special Permit?
340 J. Simons: I want to be fair. I think perhaps we can consider a modification of a Special Permit and notice the
341 neighbors. We aren't trying to be difficult. What information do we need that we don't have?
Page 8 of 10 June 2, 2015
Town of North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman ,;a'. Davit/Kellogg
Lynne Rudnicki Lora McSheriy
Michael Colantoni Peter Boynton
342 H.Kanellos: The full liquor license at the other restaurant probably raised concern.
343 J. Simons: We want to work with you but we will modify the existing Special Permit.
344 D.Kellogg: Didn't we do a modification of a Special Permit already? Didn't the first Special Permit say you
345 cannot have a restaurant in the strip mall at all?
346 J. Enright: That was a modification of the original Special Permit. The Thai restaurant was a second
347 modification and this would be a third.
348 J. Simons: It'll be better for you long term because the people that live in the neighborhood will see the work up
349 front. Work with Kristine and she'll tell you what you need to do.
350
351
352
353 G.Planning Board Membership & Signature Page for Re ig stiy
354 Kristine: An authorization memo will be prepared for the first meeting in July. By then any resignation,
355 appointment, and re-appointments of Board members should be complete. Meanwhile,Jean will continue to sign
356 anything we need signed because that is on record with the Registry.
357
358 H. 1116 Great Pond Road:
359 K. Cheetham: This was an outstanding Watershed violation which received an enforcement order from
360 Conservation and they are working toward a resolution with regard to suspicious clearing. They have submitted a
361 landscape plan listing a lot of native vegetation,
362 P.Boynton: I'm not sure what our role is with respect to that plan?
363 J. Simons: Technically,I view Conservation as our agent in this case because we really do have the primacy
364 jurisdiction,but they can help us with the mechanics of this.
365 P. Boynton:n: The clear cutting there involved 11-18 mature trees. If the plantings are native bushes it's not the
366 equivalent. How does that address the large trees if the plan replaces them with shrubbery?
367 J. Simons: Is the best thing for the lake putting more trees up or something else?What is a reasonable remediation
368 plan?I think this was a microburst storm that uprooted the original trees.
369 P. Boynton: We should know what is best?My concern is what is best for the watershed and the lake. What if one
370 owner sees someone clear cut and there is no consequence.I see it happening on the lake and I have since passed
371 this information on to Conservation.
372 K. Cheetham: Replanting is usually a two to one ratio value.
373
374
375
376
377 MINUTES APPROVAL
378 MOTION: L.Rudnicki made a motion to approve the May 5, 2015 and May 19,2015 meeting minutes.D.
379 Kellogg seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 unanimous in favor.
380
381
382 ADJOURNMENT
383 MOTION: P. Boynton made a motion to adjourn the meeting,L. Rudnicki seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0,
384 unanimous in favor.Meeting adjourned @ 8:30 p.m.
Page 9 of 10 June 2, 2015
Town of North An(lover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman David Kellogg
Lynne Rurinicki r Lora McShervy
Michael Colantoni Peter Boynton
385
386
387
388
389 MEETING MATERIALS:
390 Meeting Agenda 6.2.2015;DRAFT Meeting Minutes 5.19.2015 (Town Meeting);DRAFT Meeting Minutes
391 5.5.2015; 1600 Osgood Street OSGOD SOLAR,LLC: 1600 Osgood Solar LLC: 1600 Osgood (2)Applicant
392 Request for Withdrawal without Prejudice, 1600 Osgood 150324 G. Brown determination letter, 1600 Osgood
393 Applicant Request for Withdrawal without Prejudice, 1600 Osgood Application for Appeal, 1600 Osgood email
394 Request for I2 Zoning, 1600 Osgood G.Brown response email RE Request for 12 Zoning Determination for
395 Osgood Solar, 1600 Osgood Legal Ad Osgood Solar Project, 1600 Osgood Letter to Building Commissioner for 12
396 Filing, 1600 Osgood OSGOD Application, 1600 Osgood Continuance Request; 602 Boxford St. Wellington
397 Woods PRD:Autumn Woods G. Willis Comments,Autumn Woods Locus,Autumn Woods Preliminary
398 Conventional Subdivision Plan,Autumn Woods Preliminary Plan Decision,Autumn Woods T. Willett Comments,
399 PRD 1,PRD 2,PRD 3,PRD 4, PRD 5, PRD 6; 1116 Great Pond Road: 11.16 GPR Locus, 1116 GPR Photo 2
400 disturbed area, 1116 GPR Photo 3; 1665 Great Pond Road: 1665 Suzanne Authorization, WSP Decision Map 62
401 Lot 12 7.2.13,WSP Waiver Map 62 Lot 19, Great Pond House Plan; The Glade: The Glade Definitive
402 Subdivision Decision DRAFT,Lot Release Form J,DPW Bond Amount;
403 1211 Osgood Street: Site Plan 1211 Osgood, SPR Modification for Restaurant
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
Page 10 of 10 June 2, 2015