Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-04 Planning Board Minutes Draft 8/4/09 PLANNING BOARD Minutes Tuesday, August 4, 2009 Town Hall, 120 Main Street Top floor conference room 7:00 PM 1 2Members present: John Simons, Chairman 3 Richard Rowan, regular member 4 Timothy Seibert, regular member 5 Michael Walsh, regular member 6 Courtney LaVolpicelo, regular member 7 Michael Colantoni, alternate member 8 9Staff present: Judy Tymon, Town Planner 10 Mary Ippolito, Recording Secretary 11 12Chair called the meeting to order at approximately 7:10 pm and announced the following 13postponements. 14 POSTPONEMENT:: 15 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING William Gillen, Kelsey Lane, 3-lot subdivision. 16Leaving existing house on existing lot, 17two new lots and new roadway within R-2 zoning district. Engineer submitted a request 18for a continuance. 19 POSTPONEMENT: 20 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Brooks School, 1160 Great Pond Road. 21Renovate existing natural grass soccer fields 22with synthetic turf, installation of sub-base drainage system, walkways, 200 bleacher 23seats and sports lighting on both fields within R-1 & R-2 zoning district. Site visit to be 24scheduled. 25 26 Chair called for the following:1 DISCUSSION: 27 Rolling Ridge Retreat Center, 660 Great Pond Road, 28revised proposal for site 29 improvements to reactivate original entrance, etc. 30 31 Judy: Rolling Ridge came before the PB in September’ 08 of last year. Tonight applicant 32presented a slightly different plan: restore pavement, better entrance way, and continue to 33 use the new driveway for emergencies as opposed to using the older driveway. Dan 34Koravois, DK Engineering: presented in September looking to abandon the original 35 driveway. Fire Chief wants 24 foot wide driveway. DEP won’t allow increasing 36pavement of impervious surface within that area. Existing drive there now is called drive 37 A, looking to the East as you pull out onto Great Pond Road the site distance was 38measured by topo, stopping and intersection site distance, required is 220 feet. He has August 4, 2009 Minutes Draft 8/4/09 39just about that amount. Intersection site distance required is 320 feet; they only have 250 40feet so that’s not very good. Existing drive is muddy causing vehicles to get stuck it’s in 41bad shape. Redirect existing run off to improve culvert runoff. He’s here for PB input to 42determine whether to pursue this now. 43 44TS: how do you plan to reactivate drive B? Mr. Koravos is just going to repave it, main 45access to the site is the lower driveway. 46 47RR: go with the new “red” proposed driveway to get to the house, from emergency point 48of view they could even drive over the land if need be. RR: why should Fire Dept. insist 49on 24 feet wide? Coventry Lane has 18 foot wide roadway. Judy: if cars are parked then 50emergency vehicles need room to get by. Driveway A is about 18 or 20 feet. RR: so 51why propose a larger-wider driveway than what currently exists. RR: recommended old 52driveway be re-instituted and abandon the other driveway. 53 54Judy: will you do some storm water management improvements? Mr. Koravos, yes. 55 56MW: how much is the site distance? Mr. Koravos: left side is 220’ to 230’ feet of site 57distance. Mr. Koravos checked the left side not the right side. Mr. Koravos: will submit a 58detailed plan showing site distance regarding entrance. MW: project has no sight to the 59right side now, vehicles are speeding, and existing trees are hiding curves and worse on 60drive B. 61 62Chair: demonstrate impact on the lake from the new drive is equal to or better than the 63old drive. Chair: Demonstrate to PB if the impact on the lake is better by abandoning the 64drive. 65 66RR: where is boundary between golf course and Rolling Ridge? Mr. Koravos: pointed to 67a stone wall as shown on an areal shot. 68 69Larry Peacock, Director, spoke about opening the lower road with Jim Simmons, and 70discussed Rolling Ridge joining historic properties. Chair: Rolling Ridge is a treasure of 71a resource. Margie Brown, Harvard University, pulled together research on this project, 72this is a great estate of North Andover, preserve the elements and the way it was working 73a century ago, this was original entrance then, it then had a service drive, great estates 74always had two entrances, important to preserve the integrity of the drive, is in favor of 75re-opening the original entrance drive. Chair; Mr. Koravos to do a site plan and bring 76Judy into the mix. 77 78 79 Chair called for the follow:2 DISCUSSION: 80 Erie Gralia, Boston Hill proposed CCRC, review support letter. 81 82Judy submitted a support letter on behalf of the PB. Mr. Gralia is not required to be here 83tonight. Chair: change word apartment to unit. Why is it addressed to BOS? Change it. August 4, 2009 Minutes Draft 8/4/09 nd 84Fix Simons title. Chair: 2 P minimum disturbance etc, say what this will do is diminish 85the impact on the topo and the slope, and also the height plays better against the slope. 86 87 Chair called for the following:3 DISCUSSION: 88 Brenda Faulkner, 45 Woodbury Lane, 89requesting a wavier from Watershed Special 90Permit in order to replace existing deck. 91Judy: applicant wants to replace a deck which will be further away from a wetland, 92working w/Con/Com to do restoration, putting in new patio and replacing a walkway. 93Mr. Faulkner presented: the watershed is on his neighbors property. He wants to 94reposition the deck behind the house so it’s further away from the watershed, has no 95issues with grading, will put in stone pavers with drainage, walkway is all stone. 96 nd 97Motion by MW to waive a Watershed SP for 45 Woodbury Lane, 2 by RR, vote was 98unanimous. Chair: Judy put in 45 Woodbury Lane file explaining project is way away 99from the lake its less impervious surface. 100 101 102 Chair called for the following: 4 DISCUSSION: 103 Wendy MacLennan, 326 Great Pond Road 104, request bond close out for $2K. Submitted 105letter from engineer and as-built– received written approval from DPW engineers. Judy: 106did a site visit; everything is as shown on the as-built. DPW has no issues. 107 nd 108Motion by RR to release and close out the bond for 326 Great Pond Road, 2 by MW, 109vote was unanimous. 110 111 Chair called for the following: 5 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 112 Omnipoint Communications, Inc. – 72 Elm Street, Trinitarian Congregational 113 Church, 114Site Plan Review SP to install, operate, & maintain a stealth wireless 115communication facility consisting of up to 4 wireless telecommunication antennas 116mounted within the existing spire, radio communication equipment cabinet to be located Mark Hutchins review submitted. 117within existing Church within R-4 zoning district. 118 Please note: Tim Seibert recused himself tonight. 119 120Judy: question on structural impact, installation is inside structure, no wind impact, not 121heavy equipment, should not have structural issue. VHB looked at their report and didn’t 122see any design calculations, could not comment on structural impact because there were 123no design calculations submitted. VHB suggested to mount on a different beam than 124being used by MetroPCS. 125 126Daniel Hamm, Engineer, Hudson Design, applicant will be mounting antennas behind 127existing windows and will be replaced with fiberglass material, mounted much higher 128than MetroPCS mounted in a different section of the steeple, verylight weight 129installation, comfortable impact of antennas will not be an issue. August 4, 2009 Minutes Draft 8/4/09 130 131Judy: submitted certificate to alter from Machine Shop Village, Safety Plan was 132submitted to BP tonight. Judy: did a site visit today and observed signage was there for 133MetroPCS and hatch door would be the door for both installations, hatch door will be 134locked. Omnipoint will have to put up signs similar to what MetroPCS did. 135 136MW: when renovations are being done in that area is it up to the landlord to have power 137shut off? George Chianis, representative for Omnipoint, look at exposure control section 138in the handout …landlord is the one to notify T. Mobile when there is any work being 139done at the church…he read more information from the handout. 140 141Drafted decision: edits: 142Judy: see findings of fact mentioned facility needed to close gap etc., and she included 143Mark Hutchins assertion that Omnipoint site would not be able to cover issue etc. 144 nd 145Motion by RR to close the public hearing, 2 by MW, vote was unanimous. 146 147WS: Section9 reference Mark Hutchins report: take finding of fact 9 and cross reference 148to eleven. Chair: Refer to condition 16 in finding of fact eleven below. Judy: see 15 149wetland waiver she can take one of those out…..MW: 5th reference is repetitive. 150MW: noise level requirements are they submitting to anybody? Judy, yes. MW: 5 A thru 151E is not clear, Judy: it is required under bylaw. And locations for testing is required? 152Judy: RF testing is required in bylaw, and noise is required. RR: Section 1 special 153conditions if they walk away and don’t disassemble then what? George Chianis: has 154language with landlord; he can bond for things on the outside if you want. RR: wants 155language to lock up equipment so nobody could use it. Item 4 under SP item C provide 156with FCC regs. Chair: just say it will be in violation and will be shut down. 157 158Motion by RR to approve a wireless Special Permit for Omnipoint Communications, Inc., nd 159for 70 Elm Street, as amended this evening, 2 by CL, vote was unanimous 4-0. 160Mr. Chianis thanked Judy for her cooperation. 161 162 163 164 Chair called for the following: 7 PUBLIC HEARING: 165 Eugene & Anne Saragnese, 105 Bonny Lane, 166requesting a Watershed Special Permit 167to raze existing residential dwelling and rebuild new residential dwelling with footprint 168enlarged by 1169 s.f., construct a deck, widening of existing driveway, minor site grading 169changes, installation of drainage structure within Non-Disturbance zone in R-1 zoning 170district. 171 172Judy: did a site visit. Project was reviewed by Lisa Eggleston. Judy: submitted project 173review and didn’t have issues w/plan, submit statement saying there are no wetlands on 174property. 175 August 4, 2009 Minutes Draft 8/4/09 176Ms Eggleston: wants net impact on impervious area, what is perk rate? Recommended 177that a new driveway should look different from a regular driveway, use porous pavers 178maybe. What type of vegetation is proposed to the rear lawn? 179 180Jack Sullivan, Engineer, this property is in tough shape. Property is connected to sewer, 181lot was created prior to 1994, house falls within 250 non-disturb zone, need Watershed 182SP to expand structure for more /less than 50 percent. Chair: is applicant requesting 2 183permits from PB? Judy: there is one application applied for. 184 185Mr. Sullivan: spoke to client to replace pavement with a different material and applicant 186didn’t want it. Mr. Sullivan will increase size of the dry well instead. Mr. Sullivan wants 187to go with low impact with driveway pavement. Judy: client doesn’t want to do porous 188paver? Mr. Sullivan, yes, it would look strange wants one consistent material.Judy: do 189standard impervious. Mr. Sullivan: he’ll pick up additional roof area. CL: agrees using 190porous pavement in private capacity you’ll run into problems if home is sold and problem 191with maintenance plowing and sanding, it’s not feasible for private home owners now. 192Mr. Sullivan: will pick up additional roof area instead. TS: see narrative for statement no rd 193additional requirements regarding water quality? see 3 paragraph. Chair: this is similar 194to Mr. Ercolini’s project approved by the PB, whole thing is within 250 feet of the lake, 195applicant has to demonstrate very clearly that post development impact will be better than 196it is today. Mr. Sullivan: 1100+ feet expanding at the back of the property and meet all 197buffer requirements. Chair: look at Treadwell’s site for an example, it’s Mr. Sullivan’s 198duty to demonstrate that he complies beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Sullivan should 199work with Judy to see what Treadwell’s did. 200 201MC: right side setback will change about 15 feet. Chair; how did Mr. Sullivan determine 202the amount of square footage? Mr. Sullivan: architect measured existing house and met 203w/Building Inspector for approval. Chair: wooded area from the lake is heavily wooded, 204if PB condition no cut is this a problem? Mr. Sullivan: no. Jennifer Hughes, 205Conservation did a site visit and didn’t see any visual signs of wetlands anywhere. Mr. 206Sullivan: to provide type of fertilizer. TS: any drainage issue at property? Judy: no 207erosion issues there. Mr. Sullivan : architect measured existing house himself to 208demonstrate statistical information. Continued until next meeting. 209 210 Chair called for the following: 8 PUBLIC HEARING: 211 212 MetroPCS, 5 Boston Hill, (Ben Farnum’s tower) 213requesting a Special Permit at 214existing WSF on Boston Hill to install 6 panel antennas on existing WSF and related BTS 215cabinets at Boston Hill within V-R zoning district. 216 217Judy: handed out her review to the PB and new revised plan of land reflecting corrected 218height to 131 feet. See page 7 of Mark Hutchins report, there is a gap in coverage and is 219potential gap on Rte. 114…may be an additional cell/site justified in the future. Judy: 220noise statement provided by engineer said estimated level is 32 decibels bylaw requires 221below 50, structure analysis provided also. Judy: didn’t have any application filing issues. August 4, 2009 Minutes Draft 8/4/09 222 223Bill McQuade, MetroPCS presented. Tower was claimed and inventoried, engineer 224discovered true height is 131 feet centerline…144feet from building to ground. He 225replaced the application and amended it with corrected information tonight (for the 226record). Mark Hutchins report reflects current elevation. Mr. McQuade: tower is a rd 227concrete building 50 years old, equipment going on 3 floor to replace AT&T equipment 228with MetroPCS antennas. Bldg. is 3 feet think in some places, tower is visible partially 229in one location. MW: can see tower from his kitchen window. Mr. McQuade: AT&T is 230no longer a tenant on tower. 231 232Franz Pierre, Engineer, location on Rte. 114 has a lack of coverage; MetroPCS wants to 233co-locate on existing structure to provide additional coverage along Rte. 114. Mr. Pierre: 234demonstrated a gap in coverage along Rte. 114 (see green color on coverage map). 235 236Chair: this location is a logical option for proposed alternative site. 237 238Dr. Donald Haes, Radiation Specialist: RF emissions submitted in report, Dept. of Public 239Health, Zoning Bylaw 8.9. See his report #3 potential for exposure is less than 1 percent. 240Obtained RF field measurements himself by going up the tower and the site complies 241w/FCC and Dept of Health for exposure limits. (Submitted report for the record). 242 243MW: by adding these antennas that the limit of exposure would increase by less than .1 244percent? Dr. Haes, yes. 245 246Judy: submitted new waiver list tonight providing wetland, landscape, equipment 247brochures, and waived requirement for map showing approved wireless facilities in N.A. 248one mile within its boundaries. 249 th 250Chair: keep this open until next meeting of Aug.18 and prepare a decision. 251 252Loretta Wentworth, Pleasant St., asked if previous application was approved? Chair: yes. 253Ms Wentworth: if 10 more companies came into Town and they were approved for 254installation then what happens to this exposure? Chair: if this is a general education 255question then it shouldn’t be done at a public hearing. Chair: we have public hearing 256process and rules are clear as to what they have to follow. Ms Wentworth: issue of law 257suit again; Town was sued, wireless companies are picking up the tab? Chair: appeals 258are commonly paid for by the applicant. Chair: would be glad to have a private 259conversation when tonight’s hearing is over. Dr. Haes would be glad to answer your 260question outside of the room. Ms Wentworth: questioned impact of RF rays if one stands 261X number of feet away? Chair: explained he wants to stay focused on tonight’s hearing. 262 Chair called for the following: 9 MINUTES OF THE MEETING: 263 July21, 2009 “Minutes” 264 nd 265Motion by MW to accept “Minutes” as written, 2 by TS, vote was unanimous. 266 267 August 4, 2009 Minutes Draft 8/4/09 nd 268Motion by RR to adjourn, 2 by MW, vote was unanimous, meeting adjourned at 269approximately 9:15 pm. 270 271By order of the Planning Board 272 273 ________________________________ 274 Approved 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 Please note: The Planning Board reserves the right to take items out of order and to discuss/or vote on items that are not listed on the 295 agenda. August 4, 2009 Minutes