Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Meeting Minutes 04.20.10 Edits 5/4/10 PLANNING BOARD Minutes of the Meeting Tuesday, April 20, 2010 Town Hall, 120 Main Street Top floor conference room 7:00 PM 1 2 Members present: John Simons, Chairman 3 Richard Rowen, regular member 4 Timothy Seibert, regular member 5 Michael Walsh, regular member 6 Courtney LaVolpicelo, regular member 7 Michael Colantoni, alternate member 8 9 Staff present: Judy Tymon, Town Planner 10 Mary Ippolito, Recording Secretary 11 12 13imately 7:05 pm. Chair called the meeting to order at approx 14 Chair announced POSTPONEMENT: 15 None 16 17 Chair called for PARTIAL BOND RELEASE: 18 th Carter Field Subdivision, Tom Zahoruiko, developer, is requesting his 5 partial bond release 19 for completed construction activities. Balance $21,600.00 requesting to release $8,400.00 20 leaving a remaining balance of $13,200.00. 21 Judy; Gene Willis, engineer, DPW - sent a letter stating that this release request is ok, but donÓt 22 release any more money, it will be needed for street acceptance. RR: do we need to make sure 23 everything gets done? Judy; based on Mr. WillisÓ review he would have mentioned if he needed 24 more money kept. Motion by RR to retain $13,200.00 in the bond account, 2nd by MW, vote 25 was unanimous. 26 27 Chair called for RELEASE OF INTEREST: 28 Hawk Ridge subdivision, Tom Zahoruiko, developer, requests to release the interest of 29 $896.55 for Hawk Ridge subdivision. Very old project where the principal was released but the 30 interest wasnÓt. 31 Tom Zahoruiko was present: this subdivision was completely approved; the interest is sitting in 32 the account as idle bonds, clear them from the books. Motion by RR to release all bond monies 33 nd regarding interest only for Hawk Ridge, 2 by MW, vote was unanimous. 34 35 Chair called for RELEASE OF INTEREST: 36 Carter Field project, Tom Zahoruiko, developer, requests the interest of $25.02 be released 37 for Carter Field project. Tom Zahoruiko was present: very old project where the principal was 38 released but the interest wasnÓt. (same issue), Motion by RR to release all bond monies regarding 39 nd interest only for Carter Fields, 2 by MW, vote was unanimous. 40 41 1 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 42 Chair called for REDGATE SUBDIVISON: 43 Dean Chongris, developer should be present tonight. Drainage issue. 44 Judy: at last meeting several abutters were present who brought evidence of erosion of water 45 coming onto the hill instead of following drainage swale that should have redirected the water 46 from the detention pond. The water is coming from top of hill and property lots located on 47 Redgate Subdivison onto abutters properties. Several site visits made by Con/Com and Planning 48 Dept. there is a need for a lot of stabilization of the hill, detention pond needs to be de-filtered, 49 swale needs to be rebuilt so that all systems in subdivision are working as designed. Ben Osgood 50 Jr. was present, he designed this as New England Services Company, in 2008 he closed that 51 business. As a favor to Dean Chongris last spring, he worked w/him to deal with these problems, 52 coached him, on his own time. Last spring there were 2 lots that were not stable, had some 53 th problems, but relatively stabled. He pumped down detention pond, and he stabilized the 4 lot. 54 Talked about a schedule to finish this up. Rain storm caused problems. Developer didnÓt have a 55 budget over the winter to pay Mr. Osgood for his services. He would have to work under Panoni 56 Associates so he could do a proper job. Mr. Chongris and associates have agreed to do this. Mr. 57 Osgood: they need to outline a plan and get it to Judy in a couple of days. The ground in 58 drying out and they can get in and correct swales, dig out the swales, get them installed properly, 59 put down jute matting to keep them from eroding. Road is designed for granite curb, it wonÓt be 60 fully stabilized until granite curb is in. Put in the granite curb in every location except for the lot 61 that isnÓt constructed yet. In next week put stone along side of road, problem is snow plow 62 plowed it away. Dig out detention pond this summer. 63 64 Chair; does this cover everything on our list? Judy: these problems have been noted to some 65 extent last year, became even more of a problem due to the rain. ItÓs been on-going problem, 66 whenever a site visit was made by Judy/Jennifer they noticed a problem they talked to a 67 developer, but a minimum amount of work was done. Mr. Osgood recommended these steps for 68 a year and a half. Problem is the developer has not performed as instructed, run into this 69 problem continually, no remedy has happened. 70 71 RR: was drainage system installed the way it was designed? Mr. Osgood; constructed swale 72 behind house built last summer, he worked with them it was put in the way it was supposed to be 73 put in, contractors planted trees and it destroyed the trees and flattened the swale in the water. 74 Swales need to be done properly the way they are supposed to be done. 75 76 RR: what kind of maintenance will be required after contractor on site is gone? Judy: there is a 77 lot of disturbance while doing construction. Mr. Osgood; didnÓt want to put in drainage until 78 granite curb is done etc., trying to save money in the long run. 79 80 CL: you will have a formal plan by the next PB meeting? Mr. Osgood; yes, he will 81 monitor the site, swale will be done by 15th to 20th of May. Clean pond wonÓt be done 82 until July. 83 84 RR: will you have a problem with every large rain storm? Mr. Osgood; pond has been working 85 ok. RR: once swales are approved then weÓll know the pond is working? RR: do some work on 86 2 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 the pond now. Mr. Osgood; will keep it pumped down now, it will be monitored; if a rain storm 87 comes up he can pump it down. 88 89 Chair; next PB meeting weÓll review the plan.Judy: have plan submitted to Planning 90 Dept. before the next meeting. Mr. Osgood: will get it to Judy by Friday if not by Monday. 91 92 RR: are problems with abutterÓs property surface water? Mr. Osgood; no. 93 94 MW: Mr. Osgood stopped going to the property by early winter, was disturbance of swale done 95 after that? Mr. Osgood; yes, planted trees along berm, then landscaped around it and didnÓt 96 know the purpose of the berm. MW: in long term what are assurances - when all 4 lots are 97 developed - that swales will work? MW: what are requirements of environmental monitor? 98 Will there be problems occurring? Judy: no specific language in decision that monitor is no 99 longer monitoring. MW: whatÓs the point, it canÓt be allowed to go that long again, see the 100 results now. 101 102 Mr. Levis, direct abutter, it will take more than fertilizer to stabilize this, wants to be involved 103 with the plan before it is finalized. Chair; we will have an engineer review this. 104 105 Mr. Levis, lot #3 and lot #4 sold, no activity there for 2 or 3 years, right side where majority of 106 water is flowing. He wants a full time person doing this job; get the Town engineer to overview 107 that process, as well as records of overseeing the job. 108 109 Chair; are you suggesting they wonÓt be addressed by the methods Mr. Osgood proposed? Mr. 110 Levis; concerned about rain in April, May and June. Swales are settled in now. Because no 111 construction - and still development going on - he canÓt speak for Mr. Cyr. 112 113 Chair: we hold the lot and will not release it at this point. We do hold bond money, if process 114 didnÓt get rectified seizing bond and holding the lot will be the recourse to go thru. You are 115 better off giving them one last try. It would take several months to pull the bond money. 116 117 Goran Bringert; 817 Salem St., the most focus was on pumping the pond tonight. Water comes 118 down hill and water goes to a lot of other places, be specific about doing the work. 119 120 RR: when subdivision was approved the entire drainage system was looked at it in its entirety, 121 consultant said if itÓs constructed according to its design it will work. Mr. Bringert; if system 122 design was flawed will it be built according to that design? RR; both engineers said the design 123 would work; conclusion right now is that itÓs not built according to the way itÓs designed. 124 125 Chair; have Gene Willis, DPW, look at original plans and look at what was built, see if other 126 defects such as swale and detention bond and a few other things mentioned tonight. Have them 127 come back to us every meeting until we get a positive result. Mr. Bringert should get copies of 128 the proposals. 129 130 Mr. Bringert; could we suggest what goes into the plan? Chair, yes. 131 132 3 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 RR: trick will be to solve your problem without causing harm to someone-else. ItÓs the 133 developer who has to solve the problem. 134 135 Stephen Tombarelli, abutter, 874 Salem Street; detention pond - when working correctly- water 136 goes into ground and not in sewer system? Mr. Osgood; it doesnÓt increase volume of water run 137 off in any storm. Mr. Tombarelli; if more volume going into ground water heÓll have continuous 138 problem. RR; requirement for developer is water leaving property canÓt leave property faster 139 than prior to development. With detention pond they are holding back the water longer. 140 141 Chair; Mr. Chongris - this stuff has to be fixed, come back in two weeks w/plan, Town engineer 142 has to look at it, and weÓll schedule a site visit. 143 144 145 146 Chair called for separate votes on each renewals. CONTINUED PUBLIC 147 HEARING: 148 T-Mobile Northeast, LLC (formerly Omnipoint Communications, LLC) 15 Commerce 149 Way, North Andover, MA is requesting renewal of the following Special Permits. 150 151 Renewal of Special Permit for 723 Osgood Street, StevenÓs Estate- Judy; problem w/fence, 152 she contacted owner of Tower, sent certified letter; need to have repairs made ASAP, she got 153 response saying it would be fixed fairly immediate, drafted language into decision. 154 155 Chair: asked if Mr. Tryder would like to speak and because previously there was a lengthy 156 discussion on this subject please be brief: If you have a quick question, otherwise weÓre going 157 to close the public hearing. 158 159 Mr. Tryder; neither at the last PB meeting nor this PB meeting were copies of the application 160 from applicant made available to the public at the meetings. No-one here has had a chance to see 161 them or look them over. 162 163 Judy: at the date of the last meeting the Town Manager sent out a request to all the Town Boards 164 thru our Community Development Director that a copy of the Board packets (the package of 165 information that the Board receives in the mail) that 2 copies of that packet be made available at 166 th the meeting, so at 3:30pm on April 6 she was told to make 2 copies of the packet Î which she 167 did. That packet did not contain that entire application. This applicant was first heard on March 168 nd 2, so most of the information was in the March 2 packet. Applications are on file at the 169 Planning office on the day the public hearing is posted in the newspaper. ItÓs posted 2 weeks 170 nd prior to the first hearing date which was March 2. All application data, entire file, is available 171 in the Planning Office for anyone to come and review it. 172 173 Mr. Tryder, he was aware of that and that was brought up at BOS meeting reason is that youÓre 174 located far away out of Town, no week-end hours, only open during business hours, people who 175 work during the day canÓt get down there to read those documents. Mr. Tryder; sent Judy an-E- 176 mail as a reminder. 177 178 4 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 Chair; you did not go down to the office to look at them? 179 180 Mr. Tryder: no - expected them to be at this meeting. 181 182 Chair; they are not here. 183 184 Mr. Tryder: make this for public record that they were not available at the meeting. 185 186 Chair; this is the procedure that we have always used. 187 188 Mr. Tryder: procedure has changed. 189 190 Mr. Tryder, he visited Stevens Estate, fence is fixed; gate is wide open anyone can walk in and 191 get electrocuted if they wanted to, nobody supervising that site, exposed wires coming up from 192 the ground. Make note of that. Is Town responsible for checking that site? Is SP granting 193 authority responsible for checking it or is the Tower owner responsible? He went to look at the 194 Johnson Street site, the same thing, where T. Mobile was located the gate was unlocked. 195 196 (Assume abutter was talking about the Johnson Street Tower Î for a renewal of SP 197 request). Chris Clifford, abutter, 11 Sky View Terrace: at the tail end of the last PB meeting, 198 there was some dialogue on what technology was on that cell tower? Question was asked of the 199 PB was T. Mobile required to reapply for a new SP if they were going to change the equipment 200 that was on the cell tower. He believes the answer was yes. Chair: yes. 201 202 Since 2000 when they originally applied and were granted a permit did they reapply for any 203 changes to the equipment? Judy: not as far as she knows. 204 205 Back in 2000 the technology was analog technology - might have been CD-ma, but weÓre talking 206 10 years ago. Today weÓre talking 3G technology. There have been several initiations of 207 technology which means that they have had to substantially change the equipment thatÓs on that 208 Tower to accommodate 3G technology. 209 210 In addition to not reapplying for permits that they were required to do by the Bylaw, in addition 211 to not testing every year, in addition to not paying the fines that the PB sent to them, we had one 212 of the representatives get up and chuckle saying weÓre not going to pay the fines, 213 214 Chair; ok stay with the substantive, because you are getting political for a second. 215 216 Mr. Clifford: in light of the fact that they have 3G technology on that tower now Î Chair: do you 217 know that for a fact? Mr. Clifford: he does because he printed out from the 3G website today a 218 picture of the 3G coverage and they have a big X right where that tower sits, presented the 219 picture for the record. 220 221 Chair; do you know for a fact that they changed out the antennas? Mr. Clifford: if they applied 222 for a permit in 2000 maybe he should change his phone coverage to T. Mobile because they must 223 be the smartest technology around they put 3G technology on a cell tower before it was invented 224 5 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 back in the year 2000. Mr. Clifford: they have 3G technology on that tower now per their web 225 site which means they had to change the technology. CanÓt go from Analog from the technology 226 that they have there today without changing the equipment. Which means they have gone and 227 done things to the Tower without applying for a permit from the PB, without telling anybody 228 what they are doing and itÓs just one more example of bad behavior and here we are ready to 229 grant them a renewal which is crazy. Hold them accountable and take a stand, deny their request 230 for an automatic renewal tell them to reapply and start over and them ask for a permit andletÓs 231 really see what they have on the tower and letÓs start the dialogue over again. 232 233 Pat Whyte, 68 Ridge Way, does town know what requirements are required conducting structural 234 assessments on a regular basis? 235 236 Judy; we have a structural analysis done when the applicant first installs the equipment. Fore all 237 of these applications weÓve had this applicant provide us with additional structural analysis. 238 239 Mr. Whyte, when you receive that structural analysis how do you know that itÓs complete? 240 241 Chair; Structural analysis is stamped by a professional engineer. 242 243 Mr. Whyte; the PIA anti-standard 222G within that standard there are pieces relating to what 244 should be checked on the tower structurally. Some of them based on visual inspection of tower 245 etc. Were additional checks done on tower due to heavy wind/ice storms? 246 247 RR: our Bylaw doesnÓt require that, on structural analysis is it suitable to meet intended purpose. 248 Our structural engineerÓs assessments were reviewed in that light. RR: discussion was not the 249 tower itself; TelCom Act is regarding the equipment. 250 251 Mr. Whyte; has anyone reviewed the assessment to determine whether the conditions of the 252 Federal standard are met? Mr. Whyte, Federal standards say itÓs something tower must meet. 253 Has anyone reviewed the assessment to determine if all the conditions of the Federal standard are 254 met? 255 256 Chair; no, you are proposing a standard that an applicant doesnÓt have to comply with either 257 under the TelCom Act or under our local Bylaw. You are putting on an additional requirement 258 that doesnÓt exist under either of those things. 259 260 Attorney Urbelis; Bylaw has a requirement of a fall down zone of 2 times the height of the 261 tower. Never had any push back from any of the cell tower companies of meeting that and itÓs 262 purely a physical safety issue. Unless there is information that itÓs not within the 2 times ÈÈ 263 264 Abutter interrupted: Tower is not 2 times the distance from the nearest property line nor form his 265 house, which is around 240 feet form Tower. 266 267 RR; Tower was pre-existing zoning. 268 269 6 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 Chair; that Tower preceded our Telecommunication Bylaw by many years, it was put up for a 270 totally different purpose. PB did not originally permit this tower when it was constructed. Part of 271 the things that you are trying to insist that PB do are not part of the process are not part of the 272 things that we can do. 273 274 Mr. Whyte; are they obligated to follow Federal standards and do we know that? 275 276 RR: if PB were discussing antennas going on a tower, if it would be a tower constructed 40 years 277 ago would you have the same question? Abutter, yes. Because itÓs right near his house. 278 279 Does it state that it has to be reviewed every year/every 6 months that it has to be reviewed 280 again? 281 282 Mr. Whyte; what is TownÓs intention regarding Tower operators, land owners, to conduct 283 assessments, at what period would assessments be conducted, what will the penalties be if that 284 doesnÓt happen? Wants to make sure as this goes on itÓs not something we forget about until 285 somebody forgets to ask for a permit and weÓre back here again. Does PB have a plan? 286 287 Chair; does the tower come under jurisdiction of this law that you sited? If it turns out it doesnÓt 288 nd then situation becomes moot. 2 point - hyperthicality, carriers/tower owners are required to do 289 that. What is the remedy who is able to assess a remedy? PB would be glad to take a look at it 290 but doesnÓt know the answer to the questions for either one. 291 292 Abutter: look at structural integrity and check emissions; check what is it on a regular basis done 293 to safeguard this. 294 295 Chair: PB ability to enforce manual review on them is limited and is not required under TelCom 296 Act. 297 298 Abutter: if there should have been regular checks Î then tower operator could have been in 299 violation of those checks, then T. Mobile should be held responsible. LetÓs not move forward on 300 approval. 301 302 Lori Chicoyne, 40 Ridge Way Î itÓs anti-approved from the American National Standard 303 Association. The document is the accepted industry minimal structural standard for design of 304 antennas and supporting structures. ItÓs supposed to be a Guide tower - needs to be assessed 305 every 3 years, she checked Planning documents and didnÓt see where it was assessed, and there 306 was no back-up. 307 308 Chair; if nothing ever happens if cell towers never existed - if those towers were here - that 309 problem would exist. You are attaching this review for structural engineers to a specific antenna 310 permit for cell towers and they are separate things. PB is not the authority that has jurisdiction 311 over that. PB will take a look at this. 312 313 Ms Chicoyne, wants permit denied. It doesnÓt say that a Town canÓt enforce these things. Chair: 314 Town has jurisdiction but itÓs related to sighting of locations. Town has only built one free- 315 7 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 standing Tower. PB; had Town Counsel and had Special Counsel look at this and had court 316 decisions at Superior Court, and it tells PB what were allowed to do we take this seriously. 317 318 TS: talk about taking a clean and fresh look what would that entail that we have not already 319 done? 320 321 Ms Chicoyne; no one is really aware of what is on the tower now? Citizens are finding out what 322 new technology is on there, they need more information submitted in the application. 323 324 Chair: we have shown RF information, we have shown gap in coverage, structural analysis, 325 what information do people want thatÓs not been provided? Anybody have any substantive 326 questions regarding RF data that has been submitted in terms of the level or initial analysis? 327 328 Mr. Whyte, missing a plan for insuring the devices on the tower operates safely over a period of 329 time. 330 331 TS; if permit gets renewed it has a requirement to submit every 3 years what you are asking for. 332 333 Chair; youÓre equating/putting things into the Bylaw that doesnÓt have anything to do with the 334 Bylaw. Chair: we approve subdivisions but we donÓt approve individual houses. We approve 335 Site Plan Review SP for commercial buildings, but Building Inspector permits the actual 336 building permit for that. Chair; the substantive process is to go over RF emissions and gap in 337 coverage, and those are primary things, any substantive questions regarding this? 338 339 Ms Chicoyne: structural statement was only a letter dated 2000, didnÓt find structural guidelines. 340 Thinks this renewal should be denied. 341 342 Chair: this section is different than anything-else in our Bylaw, this is under Fed TelCom Act. 343 Fed TelCom Act trumps the local Bylaw. Our Counsel has said that and State court has said that. 344 This is the only part of our Bylaw that requires permits to be renewed. Under Federal law 345 carriers are not required to renew SP. 346 347 Ms Chicoyne; has a unique tower located behind her, if itÓs not assessed on a regular basis it 348 could be dangerous. CL; this has to go back to the owner of the tower. 349 350 Chair; if PB denies a renewal we will lose. Abutter: find out what they are applying to put on 351 the Tower, he doesnÓt know whatÓs up there. Does Federal Law state that once they have a 352 permit and do anything that they want to that tower; are there no guidelines about added 353 equipment change? Chair; as long as they do it within FCC guidelines they are fine. 354 355 Chair; your problem is w/your Congressman not the PB. 356 357 Mr. Tryder, In TelCom Act there is specific section that says the preservation of local zoning 358 authority it details that the Town does have authority. Town can require things Î just because the 359 TelCom Act doesnÓt require things it doesnÓt mean that that the Town can- . all the Town can do 360 is prevent them from prohibiting them from doing service ÈÈit doesnÓt mean that they donÓt 361 8 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 have to comply with our laws. Questioned how many towers are located in this Town etc. etc. 362 Is PB charged to base their decision on anything-else other than Bylaw of the Town itself? 363 364 TS: judge told us we are compelled. Mr. Tryder: is PB supposed to make their decision based on 365 Bylaw or if they might get sued? Where does it say in our Bylaw that these 3 permits are 366 renewable? 367 368 Chair ; Judy: read theÈ..Mr. Tryder interruptedÈÈJudy read the documentÈÈas far asÈ..Fed 369 TelCom Act of 1996 compelled the PB to grant a SP in regard to the case of Fournier vs PB (Elm 370 St.) 371 372 Mr. Tryder, where in the Bylaw does it say go ahead and renew? ItÓs extrapolations from what 373 Atty. Urbelis has told you about Federal law. 374 375 Chair; thinks youÓre running a filibuster so if you have any further questions. Mr. Tryder; asking 376 you to answer that question. 377 378 RR: if our Bylaw in town said that murder is acceptable it still would not be right. 379 380 Mr. Tryder; great comparison Î give me a break. Mr. Tryder; you have obligation as SP granting 381 authority to monitor these things. What tells you in the Bylaw -regardless to what Atty. Urbelis 382 said -that you can grant a renewal based on our Bylaw? 383 384 Chair; Judy read aside from the Building Commissioner interpreting the zoning Bylaw correctly 385 it is clear under the undisputed facts of this case and the governing law that Federal TelCom Act 386 of 1996 compelled the North Andover Planning Board to grant a SP. - and this is in regard to 387 Fournier vs PB of North Andover. 388 389 Mr. Tryder; you didnÓtÓ answer his question etc. etc. 390 391 Chair; in addition to the Bylaw we have to take other relevant information including the Federal 392 Law. 393 394 Thea Fournier: Main St., for the past 10 years sheÓs been doing this and itÓs sad and it makes her 395 want to move out of the Town. SheÓs tried hard to support residents in the Town, found the other 396 Board in other TownÓs listen to the residents, support the Bylaws, have the balls to stand up in 397 Court Î itÓs disgusting etc. etc. SheÓs discussed; etc. abutters get the same lip service from Atty. 398 Urbelis, and the PB, if you were living 3 feet from that Tower, a risk of it falling over into your 399 childÓs bedroom how can you talk like this? Wants to have 2 screens ½ screen on Cable showing 400 PB and the other half of the screen showing the audience, people expect to be heard and they are 401 not heard. È. so sick of the same lip service. 402 403 Johnson Street decision - renewal 404 nd Motion to close public hearing by TS, 2 by CL, vote was unanimous. 405 Edited decision tonight. 406 Courtney Page 4 Î 11A. 407 9 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 Chair; page 7 conditions 1 about fence, problem that it not being locked put that comment in 408 there. Judy: applicant asked for 60 day for repair, should we keep it at 30 days? Chair; no itÓs 409 been fixed 30 days is fine. Chair; security fence is on Osgood St not Johnson St, but put a 410 provision in there that itÓs always locked for Johnson St. fence. RR; under 8 current reports have 411 been filedÈ..the rest of it is un-necessaryÈChair feels itÓs necessary. RR: under 10.add 412 reference waivers are granted are shown on the list. RR: On 11 itÓs a gap in coverage 413 Motion by RR: to approve SP for T Mobile installation at Johnson St, map and parcel for 414 nd renewal for a wireless installation according to the decision as amended, 2 by TS, vote 415 unanimous 5 PB members only, MW did not vote on this decision. 416 417 723 Osgood St. decision - renewal 418 nd Motion by TS, 2 by RR to close the public hearing tonight vote was unanimous. 419 Edited decision tonight. 420 Chair: put in 30 days and put in something about the lock. Reference list of waivers on page 3, 421 nd Motion by RR: to approve renewal as amended this evening, 2 by Courtney, vote was 422 unanimous. MW did not vote on this. 423 424 Mass Ave. decision - renewal 425 nd Motion by RR, to close public hearing, 2 by TS, vote unanimous. 426 Edited decision. RR: typo under eleven the gap in coverage. 427 nd Motion by TS, 2 by Courtney, to approve as amended this evening, vote was unanimous. 428 MW did not vote on this one. 429 430 Time now is 9: pm 431 432 Chair called for CONTINEUD PUBLIC HEARING: Clear Wireless LLC, is requesting 433 a Special Permit for the following premises. 434 300 Chestnut Street, Special Permit for installation of a wireless service facility consisting of 435 six antennas and one equipment cabinet. 436 437 203 Turnpike Street, Special Permit for installation of wireless service facility consisting of 438 four antennas and one equipment cabinet. 439 440 441 300 Chestnut St reet Judy: applicant is requesting to install equipment for 4G network. Applicant did visual analysis 442 of both sites showing existing and proposed conditions etc. Both applications were reviewed by 443 Mark Hutchings. Noted there is overlap he considers appropriate for seamless coverage. Have 444 demonstrated - due to a gap in coverage- a need to provide service in that area. Waiver for noise 445 for 300 Chestnut Street, at the boundary there measurements are to be made at boundary of 446 security fence, not to exceed 50 decibels, in this case they do exceed. In noise report did 447 measurement at property line, the measurement did not exceed the 50 decibels. 448 449 David Torres, Attorney, works for Goodwin networks, measurements taken at compound on N. 450 side is the only one that failed because of location of outdoor cabinet being 2 feet away from 451 fence. First responders use the internet in their cars now. Existing co-location in compliance 452 w/Bylaw request. Will mitigate issue w/noise - would enclose with a fence to comply with PB 453 10 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 requests. Gap in coverage is zero to whatever is produced; there is no coverage in Town of N.A. 454 for this product. Looking to cover the core of the Town. 455 456 RR: when Judy was reading emissions percentages, is that total emissions from location? Judy: 457 yes, itÓs everybody. 458 459 TS: itÓs the aggregate number at 30 feet. Atty. Torres; heÓs substantially far away from max 460 permitted exposure permitted under Federal guidelines. 461 462 Chair; is requirement for other technologies all the same. Mr. Torres: they fall under the same 463 cap for the maximum level. 300 Chestnut is a locked compound up on a hill and isolated. 464 Security at 203 Turnpike Street - itÓs an office condo from hours 6am to 8pm Monday thru 465 Friday and 4pm on Saturday. Warning signs are posted in compliance w/FCC and guidelines for 466 safety precautions for 203 Turnpike Street they are monitored for alarms or other things going 467 wrong, reports to alarm company and landlord has 24 alarm service. 468 469 Mr. Tryder: other carriers on this tower who are they? Mr. Torres: Sprint and AT&T. 470 471 Mr. Tryder: both those carriers had to get a variance before they got a building permit. Mr. 472 Tryder: ZBA denied the permit then it went to court. 473 474 Chair; interpretation of Bylaw by Build Inspector - today is that itÓs a pre-existing non- 475 conforming use. Based on past president you know what answer heÓs likely to come up with. 476 Chair; the Building InspectorÓs view of the Bylaw is that itÓs a pre-existing structure and doesnÓt 477 require a variance. PB will ask him the same questions related to this one? 478 479 Mr. Tryder: Atty. Urbelis never told ZBA they didnÓt need to bother they had to go to the ZBA. 480 Mr. Tryder: he has not found measurement for RF and noise from property line. 481 482 Chair; look at RF report? Mr. Tryder; hasnÓt had time to read it. Mr. Tryder: they go up there 483 they have to measure from boundary. Chair: is 500 feet from your property line a problem? 484 Chair; wants applicant to go with him and for Mr. Torres to show how they measured. Chair; 485 could you work w/Mr. Tryder to answer his question? Mr. Torres, sure. Mr. Tryder: what is 486 decibel level compared to Federal Bylaw and our Bylaw? Chair; if there are Federal 487 requirements they would have to comply with 488 those as well. 489 RR: if there are no noise requirements in the Federal law then Atty. Urbelis can set guidelines. 490 Town can not write a law that supercedes a Federal law. Atty. Urbelis: Town set a setback of 491 600 feet - even though there is no specific setback. 492 493 Mr. Tryder: noise level doesnÓt matter in this case. Does 4G antenna fall under Fed TelCom 494 Act. Mr. Torres: yes. 495 496 Mr. Tryder: can he locate this service at Boston Hill where there are no residential properties? 497 498 Chair; applicant picked these two sites to cover a significant amount of land within the Town, 499 problem if they picked Boston Hill site it would not cover the coverage they need. 500 11 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 501 Mr. Torres: design driven by where people are. This is phase one, Boston Hill was considered, 502 but based on what he wants to do and based on the whole map it will end up green, every 503 available site in N.A. is considered. Boston Hill remains in consideration. Two sites were 504 chosen because of phase 1 design. 505 506 MW: Mark Hutchings report stated Clear Wireless has no coverage in N.A. etc. 507 508 Mr. Torres: measurement was based on surveys and plans; measurement is taken 340 feet from 509 property barrier. 510 511 Thea Fournier: Main Street abutter, is 4G considered Wymax? Mr. Torres; yes. There are two 512 th different technologies that satisfy that would allow for 4 generation communications. 513 514 Ms Fournier: in Philadelphia, did Town have to vote if they wanted it or not? Mr. Torres: didnÓt 515 know. 516 517 Ms Fournier: is Wymax required to be licensed under TCA? Engineer for the applicant spoke: 518 yes, they pay millions of dollars for frequency, they can broadcast in that allocated frequency 519 band to provide services to a certain area. 520 521 Ms Fournier; where is it exactly sited? Atty. Urbelis: the word Wymax in not in there. 522 523 Ms Fournier: are we required under TCA to invite them into our Town? Atty. Urblelis: there 524 are a lot of technologies that are not specifically defined under TCA. 525 526 Mr. Torres: yes, it falls under umbrella of TCA. 527 528 Ms Fournier; give us a citing example for the PB. 529 530 MC; where does the frequency that youÓre operating at - where does it fall within current FCC 531 rules for wireless services? 532 533 Mr. Torres: yes, we do fall within guidelines of FCC requirements. 534 535 Ms Fournier: whoÓs checking accumulations of the other existing Towers? 536 537 Mr. Torres: thatÓs what they measure. 538 539 Judy: Mark Hutchings asked applicant for that actual data to ensure what they are saying in the 540 report is correct; he does it from a computer. 541 542 Judy: get noise mitigation at Chestnut Street and Building InspectorÓs interpretation whether a 543 variance is required. Chair; answer Mr. TryderÓs questions. PB can finish this off at the next PB 544 meeting. 545 546 12 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 PUBLIC HEARING: WARRANT ARTICLES 547 Article 15 (LL) Amend Capital Improvement Plan Appropriations from Prior Years. To 548 see if the Town will vote to amend prior Capital Improvement Plan Appropriation for prior 549 Fiscal Years as voted by: 550 A. Transfer unexpended bond proceeds from the FY2008 Capital Improvement Plan, May 14, 2007 Annual Town Meeting, Article 21, Line 23, "Waverly Road Relief Sewer Main", an amount not to exceed $495,000 to fund a new project "Sutton Street Sewer Improvements". B. Transfer unexpended bond proceeds or other funding sources from May 13, 2008 Annual Town Meeting, Article 22, "Preschool Facility" an amount not to exceed $164,000 to the "Appropriation of funds for Modular School Buildings Project", May 12, 2009 Annual Town Meeting, Article 24. Or to take any other action relative thereto. 551 552 nd PB tabled this. Motion to take favorable recommendation for 15 by MW, 2 by RR, vote 553 unanimous. 554 Bruce Thibodeau, DPW engineer, has money left over on sewer projects. Get $600,000 in 555 Chapter 90 funds not enough money to improve road, wants to supplement with local funds. 556 Hired consultant firm have people on staff and same person makes all our roads all at once, 557 which was done last year. 558 559 Board of Selectmen 560 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 561 562 563 Article 18 (JJ). Amend Section 16.2 of the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws. 564 To see if the Town will vote to amen d the Zoning Bylaws by inserting the following 565 language:ÐDrive Îthru restaurants shall be permitted within the CDD1 zone provided they are 566 located more than 250 feet from the R6 zoned district.Ñ 567 th PB Tabled this until PB meeting of April 20. 568 Judy: had several meetings w/Chair and PB looked at and walked thru CDD1 and CDD2 district, 569 get idea of wetlands etc, neighbors were at site walk. Meeting w/Chair and Mr. Hajjar and Mr. 570 Pancorbo and Mr. Annaloro and Mr. Holbrook and Mr. McGregor and Mr. Larkin. Talked about 571 what agreements and plans from developers. She didnÓt get specifics regarding development. Or 572 that there were developers proposing a specific type of facility with specific footprint. Closest 573 was w/Mr Larkin - somebody wanted to develop his property for retail business, but Con/Com 574 said too much intrusion on the 50 foot conservation zone. Had an applicant who purchased 575 smaller residential buildings - he came to PB to discuss his plans for that property and heÓs 576 planning to have his own building contactor business located at that property. 577 578 13 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 Chair; when BP talked to Mr. Annaloro and Mr. Holbrook they were not supportive of the 579 change, the market is pretty dead, and not the kind of use that has the most value there. All the 580 problems that PB had with these properties still exist, lots of small lots with potential for a lot of 581 curb cuts. All properties directly abut a residential neighborhood, less than 100 feet form the 582 street, or if they donÓtÓ have a house directly behind them they have a wetland behind them. 583 ThatÓs a significant problem if converted a property to a drive-thru - because wetland begun not 584 more than 100 feet form the road. 585 Judy: read a letter form Mr. Hajjar (letter for the record). 586 Chair; Boston Market isnÓt in N.A. Duncan Donuts is in Lawrence, and Burger King is a disaster 587 and itÓs prior to site plan review. 588 Hemlata Mishra; 36 Buckland Road abutter, he drives on Rte.114 coming home every day from 589 Danvers and takes Hillside Road into his neighborhood. Becomes one lane around Stop and 590 Shop area. ItÓs a frequent accident site. Building anything there with drive-thru is more trouble 591 coming. Neighborhood has a lot of cars cutting thru Chestnut Green all the time adds 592 bottlenecking - people will try to cut thru even more, effects small children playing in that area. 593 594 Spiram Krishnaswamy; 30 Buckland Road, abutter, traffic is main concern in that area, what 595 time will they open up retail business. Not in favor of drive-thru. Chair; property is currently 596 zoned for some type of commercial use but not for drive-thru restaurants. Traffic is main 597 concern. 598 Joan Salafia; 30 Peterson Road, abutter, how many drive-thru allowed in CDD1? Chair; one or 599 two. but is has to be 250 feet away from existing houses, it doesnÓt mitigate wetland problem. 600 Judy; met w/Charlie Salisbury - came to conclusion that there are 3 specific parcels within 601 CDD1 that are more than 250 feet and donÓt abut residential properties. 602 Abutter; where does spot zoning come into play? Chair; only possibly one or two individual 603 would get potential benefits from it. Abutter; will this come back to PB for approval? Chair; It 604 rd takes a 2/3 majority to pass. Abutter; near Stop and Shop where would there be room for a 3 605 lane, change the State road layout to provide a turn lane? Chair; thatÓs what the process would 606 be. 607 nd Motion by RR; to recommend unfavorable action on article 18, 2 by TS, 3 voted for 608 unfavorable recommendation, 2 voted in favor. Recommendation is for unfavorable 609 action. 610 Petition of Scott Hajjar and others 611 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 14 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 Article 28 (Q). Capital Improvement Plan Appropriation Fiscal Year 2011. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate, transfer from available funds, or borrow under the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 44, the sums of money necessary to fund the Town Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2011 as detailed below, provided that, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws and Chapter 59-5 C of the General Bylaws of the Town of North Andover, for any capital project in excess of $500,000 or any other appropriation, the Town may, by vote of the Town Meeting, have the following condition added to it: "provided that this appropriation and debt authorization be contingent upon passage of a Proposition 2 1/2 debt exclusion referendum under General Laws Chapter 59, Section 21C(k)": FY 11 Capital Improvement Plan Requested Line # Project Description Division Amount General Fund 1 Roadway Improvements Public Works $380,000 2 Sidewalk Reconstruction Public Works $50,000 3 Senior Center Roof Replacement Public Works $26,000 4 Facilities Master Plan Town Manager $150,000 5 Police Station Equipment Police $405,000 School Information Technology Network Information 6 Equipment Technology $1,148,000 Information 7 Revenue Billing Software Technology $90,000 8 Middle School Roof Replacement School $310,000 9 Body Armor Replacement Police $40,000 10 Fire Department Radio Equipment Fire $432,000 11 Dump Truck, 2 Ton with Plow Public Works $55,000 12 Fire Sprinkler System at Kittredge School School $450,000 Water Enterprise Fund Water Enterprise 13 Meter Replacement Fund $450,000 Or to take any other action relative thereto. PB tabled this. 624 625 nd Motion by RR to recommend favorable action, 2 by ? vote was unanimous. 626 . 627 15 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 B oard of Selectmen 628 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 629 630 631 Article 29 (S). Report of the Community Preservation Committee and Appropriation 632 From the Community Preservation Fund. To receive the report of the Community 633 Preservation Committee and to see if the Town will vote to raise, borrow and/or appropriate from 634 the Community Preservation Fund, in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General 635 Laws Chapter 44B, a sum of money to be spent under the direction of the Community 636 Preservation Committee; Or to take any other action relative thereto. 637 638 List of Appropriations Î Community Preservation Fund 639 640 641 Amount Category Description Town Common: Scenic $450,000 Historical Preservation restoration; underground utilities Ridgewood Cemetery: $70,150 Historical Preservation Restoration of gates, VeteranÓs lot, grave markers and landscapes (Phase II) Stevens Library: $50,000 Historical Preservation Restoration of main walkway Main Street Fire House: $22,500 Historical Preservation Refurbishment of building infrastructure (Phase II) Hay Scales Building (Town $7,695 Historical Preservation Common);Building Restoration (Phase II) Reserve for future $182,400 Affordable Housing expenditures Principal and Interest $650,000 Open Space Protection expenses: Windrush Farm Rolling Ridge: Purchase of $600,000 Open Space Protection conservation restriction, public trail access and 16 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 parking area Windrush Farm: Parking $15,000 Open Space Protection area Administrative Costs $30,000 Administrative and Operating Expenses Total Appropriations $2,077,745 642 Or to take any other action relative thereto. 643 644 PB Table until April 20. 645 nd Motion by MW to recommend favorable action, 2 by RR, vote was unanimous. 646 Community Preservation Committee 647 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 648 649 650 Please note: Gerry Brown, Building Inspector presented the zoning articles: 651 652 653 Article 31 (U-1.) Amend Zoning Bylaw-Section 6.3.21 Î Sign, Area of. To see if the Town 654 will vote to add a new definition in the Zoning Bylaw as follows: 655 656 6.3.21 Sign Size (Area) To delete the following definition of Sign Size (Area): 657 658 Sign Size (Area) 659-The surface area of any sign is the entire area within a single continuous 660perimeter enclosing the extreme limits of lettering, representation, emblems, or other figures, 661together with any material or color forming an integral part of the display or used to differentiate 662the sign from the background against which it is placed. Structural members bearing no sign 663copy shall not be included. 664 And replace it with: 665 (a). For a sign, either free-standing or attached, the area shall be considered to include all 666 lettering, wording and accompanying designs and symbols, together with the background, 667 whether open or enclosed, on which they are displayed but not including any supporting 668 framework and bracing which are incidental to the display itself. 669 (b). For a sign painted upon or applied to a building, the area shall be considered to include all 670 lettering, wording, and accompanying designs or symbols together with any backing of a 671 different color than the finish material of the building face. 672 (c). Where the sign consists of individual letters or symbols attached to or painted on a surface, 673 building, wall or window, the area shall be considered to be that of the smallest rectangle or 674 other convex shape which encompasses all of the letters and symbols. 675 Or to take any other action relative thereto. 676 PB Table until April 20. 677 nd Motion by TS to recommend favorable action 2 by MW, vote was unanimous. 678 17 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 Board of Selectmen 679 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 680 681 682 Article 32 (U.) Amend Zoning Bylaw Section 5.1.1-Earth Removal. To see if the -2 683 Town will vote to amend Section 5.1.1 of the Zoning Bylaw by deleting the stricken words and 684 adding the underlined words as follows: 685 5.1 General 686 1. Excavation, removal, stripping, or mining of any earth material except as hereinafter 687 permitted on any parcel of land, public or private, in North Andover, is prohibited, except 688 as allowed by Section 5.4 Permits for Earth Removal; Section 5.5 Earth Removal 689 Incidental to Development, Construction or Improvements: and Section 5.6 690 Miscellaneous Removal of Earth. 691 Or to take any other action relative thereto. 692 PB Table until April 20. 693 694 nd Motion by MW, to recommend favorable action, 2 by TS, vote was unanimous. 695 Board of Selectmen 696 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 697 698 Article 33 (U.) Amend Zoning Bylaw-Section 7.3 - Setbacks. To see if the Town will -3 699 vote to amend Section 7.3 of the Zoning Bylaw by adding the underlined words in the first 700 paragraph and adding Sections 7.31, 7.32 and 7.33 as follows: 701 702 7.3 Yards (Setbacks) 703 Minimum front, side and rear setbacks shall be as set forth in Table 2, except for eaves and 704 uncovered steps, and projections, as noted in sections 7.31, 7.32 and 7.33. Buildings on 705 corner lots shall have the required front setback from both streets, except in Residence 4 (R4) 706 District, where the setback from the side street shall be twenty (20) feet minimum. 707 708 £7.31 Î Projections into Front Yards 709 Uncovered porches, Balconies, open fire escapes, chimneys and flues all may project into 710 a required front yard not more than one-third of its width and not more than four feet in 711 any case. Belt courses, fins, columns, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels and ornamental 712 features may project not more than one foot, and cornices and gutters not more than two 713 feet, over a required front yard. 714 715 £7.32 Î Projections into Side Yards 716 Uncovered porches, Balconies, open fire escapes, chimneys and flues all may project into 717 a required side yard not more than one-third of its width and not more than four feet in 718 any case. Belt courses, fins, columns, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels and ornamental 719 features may project not more than one foot, and cornices and gutters not more than two 720 feet, over a required side yard. 721 722 £7.33 Î Projections into Rear Yards 723 18 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 Uncovered porches, Balconies, open fire escapes, chimneys and flues all may project into 724 a required rear yard not more than one-third of its width and not more than four feet in 725 any case. Belt courses, fins, columns, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels and ornamental 726 features may project not more than one foot, and cornices and gutters not more than two 727 feet, over a required rear yard. 728 Or to take any other action relative thereto. 729 PB Table until April 20. 730 nd Motion by TS to recommend favorable action, 2 by MW, vote was unanimous. 731 732 Board of Selectmen 733 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 734 735 736 Article 40. Amend General Bylaws -- Chapter 28 Housing Trust Fund, Section 5C Powers 737 of Trustees. To see if the Town will vote to remove Town Meeting approval as a requirement 738 for selling or leasing of real estate property by the Housing Trust Fund. 739 Chapter 28, Section 5C, is to be amended by removing the text shown as stricken. 740 CHAPTER 28 - HOUSING TRUST FUND 741 § 28-5. Powers of Trustees 742 743 The Board of Trustees shall have the following powers which shall be carried out in 744 Accordance with and in furtherance of the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 745 44, Section 55C: 746 747 C. With the approval of the Board of Selectmen and Town Meeting, to sell, lease, exchange, 748 transfer or convey any real property at public auction or by private contract for such 749 consideration and on such terms as to credit or otherwise, and to make such contracts and enter 750 into such undertakings relative to trust real property as the Trustees deem advisable 751 notwithstanding the length of any such lease or contract; 752 753 Or to take any other action relative thereto. 754 755 George Kohler presented tonight. Communities did have access for money thru affordable 756 housing. Town. has a fee when Edgewood was permitted, the developer agreed to pay so much 757 to the Town if they wanted to expand so much per fair foot about $800.00. Town Attorney 758 inserted powers that it be done with BOS approval and Town Meeting approval. Sell, buy, and 759 abandon property, asking this be changed so trust can buy and sell property only with BOS 760 approval (remove approval thru Town meeting). 761 nd Motion by TS to recommend favorable action, 2 by RR, vote was unanimous. 762 Board of Selectmen 763 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 764 765 APPROVE MINUTES OF THE MEETING: 766 19 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Edits 5/4/10 767 April 6, 2010 Minutes. 768 thnd Motion by MW to approve the April 6 Minutes, 2 by TS, vote was unanimous. 769 nd Motion to Adjourn by MW, 2 by TS, vote was unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 770 approximately 11:00pm. 771 772 By order of the Planning Board 773 774 __________________________ 775 approved 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 Plse. note: the Planning Board reserves the right to take items out of order and to discuss and/or 792 vote on items that are not listed on the agenda. 793 794 20 April 20, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board