Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-24The North Andover Planning Board held a regular meeting on March ~4, 1988, in the Town Hall Selectmen~s Meeting Room. The meeting was called to order at 8:09 p.m. by Paul Hedstrom Chairman. Also present were George Perna, Vice-Chairman; and John Simons, Clerk. Erich Nitzsche was absent. ~_t~provals Not Recl~_ired Form A~s Hillside Road - Chanqinq. Lot Line MOTION: By John Simons to approve subject to showing SECOND: George Perna VOTE: Unanimous of those present Bear Hill - Cha__o_~_Lot Line MOTION: By John Simons to approve the Form A. SECOND: George Perna VOTE: Unanimous of those present John Burke arrived at 8:19 p.m. Public Hearinq! Brookview - Definitive Subdivision Applicant deferred from this meeting. Extension has been granted until May 19th to provide the Board with additional information. Chestnut Street -Special Permit - Common Driveways Ben Osgood Jr. was present and spoke To the Board giving them information as to where the a~olications stand. He presented the Board with an alternative plan, featuring one access to eleven house lots. Applicant has looked at the plans for cluster development, however, there is not enough frontage to service eleven house lots on the roadway created. Mr Osgood stated that in Residential-3 there is no Zoning Bylaw which allows cluster developments. John Simons questioned a roadway cluster and why not just a cluster the tots. Paul Hedstrom stated that the applicant did not have adequate frontage. The Board was somewhat confused. Mr. Osgood stated that he could not determine the lot count using the new bylaw regulations that gets the eleven lots, applicant would not be allowed to use the Form A Lots that currently exist. Paul Hedstr~m felt that the applicant should consider an eight or nine lot count which would be more acceptable to the Board. Applicant wants to use the Form A tots, using the old bylaw. Frontage lots can be used under the old Bylaw using common driveways. Mr. Osgood stated that wetland bylaws have been met~ with 4 common driveways. John Simons said it is a subdivision as shown. Jack Linden, Conservation Commission, asked if there were pro¥~sions for private roads in the Town Bylaw. Paul Hedstrom stated that the closest provisions are scenic roads. Present law states 5 lots, aoplicant was to service eleven lots. Paul Hedstrom said that the aoplicant should come back with less than eleven lots, possibly eight lots. Mr Osgood said that he could probably have his engineer, ]-om Neve, design common driveways with four crossings and conform to the b¥!aws. Paul Hedstrom felt that the applicant could possibily get two crossings, not four crossings. MOTION: BY George Perna to conti¥~ue the public hearing until April 1988. SECOND: John Simons VOTE: Unanimous of those present. Abbott Villaq~- ~pecial Permit - Common Driveways Paul Hedstrom stated that the issues presented by this application cannot be discussed, due to a pending law suit. The common driveways exist on lots in a subdivision not approved because the applicant has appealed the Boards decision. MOTION: By George Perna to continue the public hearing until April 14, 1988. SECOND: John Simons VOXE: Unanimous of those present. Warrant Article - PRD & Common Drlvewa~ John Simons read the legal notices to open the public hearing. Scott Stocking, Town Planner, stated that the Board members were given a copy of the article as it was published, also citing the four changes in the PRD District. John Simons asked if John Connery had reviewed the article. Scott Stocking said that Mr. Connery had not reviewed the article. Paul Hedstrom asked why allow clusters in the R-3 ~oning District. Scott Stocking stated that the request was made by the Balanced Growth Committee to put it in the R-3 District as well as developer interest. Paul asked what density was allowed in R-3. John Burke said half acre. Ben Osgood spoke to the Board and felt that open space would be more valuable in the R-3 District. Scott cited the clarification in the proposed article in language, no changes in dimensional standard except in the R-3D~strict, standards to be 18,500 for single family. Single fam~!v PRD's would allow zero lot line developments. On the article for Common Driveways, Scott Stocking, Town Planner, clarified what was being done. The definition for a driveway is being changed and creating a definition ~or common driveways. Common driveways will be allowed by right if' the eleven conditions are met by the applicant. Scott Stocking also stated that the applicant must be crossing a wetland for a common driveway to be allowed. John Simons wanted common driveways by Special Permit. George Perna felt the same way. Paul Hedstrom stated that the concensus of the 8pard for common driveways shall be by special permit and shall be implified by the conditions or requirements that the Town Planner drafted. George Perna stated that i~ was that or not allow them at all. Paul Hedstrom asked if anyone present wanted to speak. Gerry Weimann stated that nobody likes them but you have to have them in certain situations. MOTI0N: By John Simons to close the public hearing on Common Driveways and take the matter under advisement. SECOND: John Burke VOTE: Unanimous of those present. Continuing the hearing on the PRD Article, Scott Stocking, Town Planner, highlighted the changes. Under 6c Development Standards, more organized, ?c dimensional regulations site plan. Under 7d its ~alled subdivision and standard for R-3 which is 12,500 minimum lot. Yard setback putting a ! which is a footnote allowing a house on a zero lot line giving more flexibility. Scott Stocking stated that the PRD was technically the same just made clearer. Under Section 4g Calculation of Allowable Density, Scott Stocking stated that in the language says residential density shall be determined by utilizing the existing zoning district lot area requirements as applied to the total area to the development, it a straight away calculation. John Simons said no because it increases the density allowed. Scott said that it eliminates the extra exercise of having the app)ication supply information not needed for the cluster application· George Perna wanted it more stringent. Gerry Weimann spoke from the developers oosition citing the problems of coming before the Board with a subdivision plan and then starting all over with preliminary plans for a PRD, cost is a major factor. George Perna stated the reason the Board had not seen too many PRD Plans was because some developers fall under the grandfather clause· Mr. Weimann disagreed. Scott Stocking stated that if the language he used to draft the reguirements of a buildable subdivision were not acceptable to the Board then some langauge would have be placed to determine it clearly. John Simons wanted Scott to talk to the Balanced Growth Committee. Paul Hedstrom stated that Scott should talk to John Connery & Associates rather than the Balanced Growth Committee. MOTION: By John Burke to take the matter under advisement and close the public hearing. SECOND: John Siomns VOTE: Unanimous of those present. Discussions Breckenridqe - SictDin__q Plans The Planning Board signeO the plans for Breckenridge Definitive Subdivision. Abbott Villaqe - Request for Modification Gerry Weimann of Osgood Associates spoke to the Board. Paul Hedstrom asked that he have his lawyer send a letter to the Board stating that the Board does not have to answer the complaint, Issues to be addressed in the appeal are: 2. 3. 4. 5. cul-de-sac lengths waterline to Woodberry Lane - no easement Abbott & Salem Streets easements gates valves sewer line - relocating Paul Hedstrom said drop the suit on the road for consideration of waterline to Woodberry Lane. Bill Hmurciak, Public Works Department~ spoke citing no issues relatitive to Abbott Village from DPW. Paul Hedstrom asked Mr. Weimann about the request for modification. Mr. Weimann to send letter to the Board citing the issues in writing. Lindenwood Pro~ect Deferred from this meeting, will be at the March Blst meeting. Paul Hedstrom askeO why they were coming before the Board. Scott Stocking said that the Board wanted to see the project. Paul Hedstrom wanted to know a little about the project. Scott Stocking stated that the area containe0 approximately 14 acres and proposing 98 units, most of the land is wet. Os_good Mill - PDD Ben Osgood, Jr. presented the Board with revised landscape plans. Mr. Osgood stated that the firm of Mazzaro did the plan for landscaping. The roadway has been pulled away from the building. Scott Stocking is to go over the plans. Mr. Osgood cited highlights of the revised plans: 3. 4. 5. granite post, landscaped mounds new entrance concept proposed large sign large entrance walls possibly plant trees at edge of the Town parking lot Plan are to be reviewed by the Town Planner. Lot A - Kenics Site Plan - On a Larqer Lot of Record Scott Stocking told the Board the reason for this discussion. The Site Plan was approved in August of 1989. The decision stated that any changes in the plans shall be reviewed by the Planning Board. The lot has changed, it is larger. Jim Bourgeois showed the Board the plans and gave some background on the location. Paul Hedstrom questioned the changes, Jim Bourgeois stated that the building was the same, lot enlarged by approximately 1/2 acre. The details of the grading have changed as well as the detention pond being redesigned. The enlargement is in the back of the building for possibly expansion and possibly roadway. MOTION: By John Burke to approve the modification as presented. No Second. John Simons had a problem with procedures on the modification. A letter is to be drafted and sent to Town Counsel for review on the procedure of approving the changes without a new puPlic hearing. MOTION: By George Perna to subsititue the plans in the decision. SECOND: John Simons VOTE: Unanimous of those present. Lot 12 Coventry Estates - 50' Buffer Joseph Cr~staldi spoke to the Board citing that in the decision in 1985, lots I thur 16 have a 50' buffer zone due to the Town Farm being the adjacent property, as on of the conditions. Everything in the 50' buffer would have to say in its natural state. On Lot 12 it is difficult to cite a house. Paul Hedstrom stated that a site visit was in order. Applicant to stake the parcel in question. Issues to be discussed on March 31st. Jeard II - Riqh~_.o~f~_W_a_¥. Reduction Robert Janusz stated the purpose of him being at the meeting. He is requesting a right-of-way reduction regarding a wetland crossing. The major wetland crossing is on Candlestick Road. When Mr. Neve prepared the plans he cited that 3,?95 square feet of vegetated wetlands would be disturbed and also q,6i? feet of bordering land subject to flooding would be effected. Applicant disagrees with the denial of Conservation on the bordering wetlands. Reducing the width of the crossing to 18 feet with a q foot shoulder they could connect with Seven Oaks and eventually to the Miller Property out to Forest Street. John Burke asked if the applicant had gone to Conservation. Mr Janusz stated that he had been to Conservation on the dispute of the amount of area that if effected. John Burke also asked if the applicant had gone to the Soard of Health. Mr. Janusz stated that he had not. Scott Stocking asked Mr. Janusz if he had appealed the decision of DEQE. Mr. Janusz said that he had appealed the decision. The reduction is from ~6 feet to 18 feet with guard rails. The Board wiil ~onsider and get back to Mr. Janusz in two weeks. Watershed District Stephen Madaus, Environmental Coordinator, spoke to the Board, citing the differences and the fact that there would be a legal issue in the interpertation. Karen Nelson, Director, PCD spoke to Town Counsel regarding Special Permit vs Variance. John Simons questioned why two separate articles on the Watershed were submitted? Karen Nelson stated that no use could be allowed without a variance. Special Permit says you can use by doing, this, this~ and this. Paul Hedstrom cited that it was an overlay district and wanted ro know what would would happen if someone wanted to build a house two miles away from the lake but in the Watershed District. Karen Nelson stated that setbacks from tributaries would have to be observed. Paul Hedstrom to review. Written comments by the Board for the April ?th meeting. Decisions Lonq Pasture - Definitive Suboivision An extension is needed. Erich Nitzsche was reviewing the plans. Mr. Christiansen spoke stating that he felt that all the matters were addressed. Mr. Christiansen also spoke regarding the length of the cul-de-sac, citing the 500 feet was not a magic number as far as safety was concerned. He cited the same length in the different zoning districts and the possibility of 30 families on a 500 foot cul-de-sac in areas were there are duplexes (R-4). The decision is due March 31st. Conditions on engineering to be added to the decision addressing the many concerns of the Board. MOTION: George Perna to take the matter under advisement and accepting a forty eight hour extension to file the decision on Friday April 1st. SECOND: John Burke VOTE: Unanimous of those present. MOTION: By John Burke to conditionally approve the site plan subject to the following conditions: Five handicapped spaces shall be clearly maked on the site plan and on the oavement. The applicant shall provide the Planning Board with letters from the Lawrence Airoo~ t Commission and the FAA that the project adheres to their rules and regulations prior to the issuance of a building permit. Note Placed on the plan that all process, storage and procedures in manufacturing ahere to all State and Federal Regulations. Changes made to the notes on the plan which adhere to the actual conditions found on-site. 5o Any changes in the site plan required by action under M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section qO, shall be resubmitted to the Planning Board for review. Applicant shall file a statement with the Board of Health that no new chemical processes or hazardous materials shall be stored in the facility as a result of the oroposed addition. Any changes made to the site plan afteB the~'~ve been fii'ed with the Registry of Deeds Office, shall be submitted to the Planning Board for review. The following plans shall be deeded approved by this decision: Plans entitled Borden Chemical, Resinite Department, prepared by Culter Associates, Inc., Drawing No. Sp-~l dated 1/26/88 and C-1 dated i1/9/8~. SECOND: John Simons VOTE: Unanimous of those oresent. NOTE: Decision is part of the minutes. Coventry Estates - Common Drivewa s - S~e~ial Permit MOTION: By John Burke to approve subject to conditions drafted by the Town Planner on 1/8/88 and giving John Simons the weekend to review for comments and George Perna to add any comments. SECOND: George Perna VOTE: Unanimous NOTE: Decision is part of the minutes. Philli_~s_ Farm - Preliminary Two days over the dead line, defacto appFoval. Conditions have been drafted and will be added. MOTION: By John Burke to adopt as our condition, the conditions sited in the draft decision and focwar-ded to the engineer for his consideration in designing the plans. SECOND:George Perna VOTE: Unanimous cf those present. MINIJTES MOTION: By John Burke to approve the minutes of February 85 and February 29, 1988. SECOND: John Simon~ VOTE: Unanimous ~f those present MOTION: By John Burke to adjourn the meeting. SECOND: John Simon~ VOTE: Unanimous of ~hose present. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Paul A. Hedstrom, Chairman /J~net L. Eaton, Secretary