Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Meeting Minutes 04.06.10 Draft 4/20/2010 Needs more editing PLANNING BOARD Minutes of the Meeting Tuesday, April 6 2010 Town Hall, 120 Main Street Top floor conference room 7:00 PM 1 2 Members 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 9 10 Staff present: Judy Tymon, Town Planner 11 Mary Ippolito, Recording Secretary 12 13 Chair called the meeting to order at approximately 7:15 pm; announced that he will follow the 14 order of the agenda for the most part. 15 16 Chair: Clear Wireless requested to be heard in two weeks instead of tonight, however, PB will 17 open the public hearing on this one. 18 19 Judy: weÓll hold over Article JJ #6 drive-thru restaurants because Mr. Hajjar will not be hear 20 th tonight, Chair stated keep it open until the 20. 21 22 Chair: Article Q #9 Capital Improvement Plan will be hold over until the next Planning Board 23 meeting. 24 25 Chair: Article U-1 #11, Article U-2 #12, Article U-3, #13 Article U-4 #14 will be held over until 26 the next Planning Board Meeting. 27 28 29 POSTPONEMENT: 30 None 31 32 33 Chair called for CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 34 Elm Development Services, 1275 Turnpike Street, Site Plan Special Permit and Continuing Care 35 Retirement Center Special Permit to construct a 125-unit apartment CCRC within the V-R 36 zoning district. Drafted decision. PB closed public hearing at the last meeting. 37 38 Edits: Judy moved some language into the finding of fact section. See page 8 under #8 prior to 39 issuance of Bldg. Permit language that refers to theÈ it goes to a non-profit entity, (language 40 1 April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Draft 4/20/2010 Needs more editing suggested by Atty. Urbelis). Bond slope stabilization $100,000 and $40K for all as-built. 1 Applicant is present tonight. 2 MW: page #4 item #4 - 27 parking spaces has that been determined? Judy; that is supposed to 3 be number 3 on page #4 number should be 29. MW: page #6 for slope stabilization the bold area 4 correct typo about slope stabilization. MW #7 prior to start of construction; is environmental 5 monitor and construction monitor to be at the meeting? Judy: yes, probably Conservation will be 6 at the meeting too. 7 8 JS: take #8 and put it earlier in that section, look at what 8 is combined with #4 youÓve said 9 applicant is in process of getting final etc. explain how the original Conservation restriction 10 aroseÈprovide more acres of open space etc. Put specific condition in that we get the CR at 11 some point. JS: in waivers make a further stipulation like benefits etc. JS: They only gave us 12 conceptual design, Judy see it page 11 title connectional renderings, JS: page 9È 10A any 13 screeningÈ and additional landscaping as may be reasonably required. JS: do you have every 14 possible condition in there to manage this issue regarding water? Judy water. See page 7 see the 15 State required plan there. 16 17 RR: finding of fact #4, we are protecting the hill itself most more than the other proposed 18 developments. Page 8 #24 you mean #23 instead. 19 20 Motion by RR to approve a Site Plan Review SP and CCRC for 1275 Turnpike Street per 21 nd the decision amended this evening, 2 by TS, vote was unanimous. 22 23 24 Chair called for CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 25 T-Mobile Northeast, LLC (formerly Omnipoint Communications, LLC) 15 Commerce 26 Way, North Andover, MA is requesting renewal of the following Special Permits. 27 Renewal of Special Permit for First Calvary Baptist 28 Renewal of Special Permit for 723 Osgood Street 29 Renewal of Special Permit for Johnson Street 30 31 Judy: question regarding RF measurements mentioned in RF report. Could there be additional 32 measurements at 20 feet because residents concerned about exposure at that height. Judy: spoke 33 to Mark Hutchings regarding doing measurements at a different height of 20 feet: Judy: read the 34 letter from Mark Hutchings, his measurements were taken at ground level etc. (memo for the 35 record). 36 37 Applicant has provided all coverage maps for all 3 locations. Applicant provided structural 38 analysis in PB packets. Gin Vilante, of Wellman Associates, was present. Atty. Brian Grossman 39 representing T-Mobile was present. Ms VilanteÓs company (Wellman Associates) stands by the 40 statement submitted by the civil engineer. Some modifications to Stevens Estate which is 41 included in his statement. 42 43 Steve Tryder: 386 Chestnut St., wants each renewal looked at separately. When was the last 44 testing report done at the church for annual report and 90 day reports? Judy: applicant provided 45 report for all 3 applications. Mr. Tryder: what is the date for the testing for the church? She has 46 2 April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Draft 4/20/2010 Needs more editing Dr. HaesÓ report for Mass Ave. dated 12/29/2009, what they provide in these reports are results 1 of RF measurement itÓs a chart w/locations, at those 10 locations they measure what the current 2 total percent of maximum permissible exposure (MPE) ranges from highest of a percent down to 3 lowest. Judy: First column includes all RF emissions including their contribution, on last 4 column they subtract out their contributions. 5 6 Mr.Tryder: their permit was issued on 2006 do you have a 90 day report? 7 8 Chair: do you dispute the knowledge of that report? Mr. Tryder: doesnÓt know. 9 Chair: your argument is procedural? Mr. Tryder: they havenÓt submitted anything in 3 years. 10 Mr. Tryder: they owe us money, violated bylaw, permit expired in July of 2009 this isnÓt a 11 renewal. Chair: YouÓre not making a substantive argument? Mr. Tryder: if permit expired they 12 should go for new SP. Mr. Tryder: prove there is gap in coverage, needs to be done in process of 13 a new SP not a renewal. Chair: argument is a procedural thing? Mr. Tryder: the PB didnÓt 14 follow the law in terms of our Bylaw. 15 16 Pat White, 60 Ridge Way, asking that PB enforce the bylaw as they apply to Johnson Street and 17 other facilities. T Mobile SP expired in 2003 then T Mobile must file for a new SP. 600 foot 18 setback rule must apply to new permits, Johnson St. tower is less then 300 feet from existing 19 home. Fine $300.00 for each offense, several hundred dollars of fines should be enforced. Want 20 to live in their homes - enforce these bylaws. Chair: appreciated your respectful tone. PB 21 doesnÓt like to be put in a position that says something opposite to what our neighbors want them 22 to do, itÓs not that simple, remember that in the case of wireless facilities the jurisdiction of the 23 Town is not absolute, the FCA of 1996 limits what the Town can do. Realize that the most 24 recent court decision where a judge ruled and said it doesnÓt matter what N.A. bylaw says 25 regarding a 600 foot setback, it says the PB was under obligation to approve that permit. PB has 26 to follow the law. Abutter: not asking the tower to be taken down, just asking that the devices 27 on the tower be taken down. CanÓt find in any regulations that certain feet are allowed (see 28 judgment regarding Fournier against Elm St. church). 29 30 TS: the bylaw was written in 1999 since then judges have interpreted the law. If you were on the 31 Board and approached these firms and asked for fines to be done what happens next? 32 33 Ms Chicoyne, 40 Ridge Way, abutter, so people can put towers anywhere they want, in your 34 th back yard? Chair: no. Chair: emissions are 1 1,000 of permissible/allowable rate. They are 35 required under FCC law to have emissions under a certain level, every time they do it its well 36 under the legal limits. If you think we can get fines out of them itÓs not going to happen. We 37 have one free standing tower, additional installations of 3 or 4 existing towers - Johnson St. is a 38 microwave tower. WeÓve had a public hearing on every single one; if they meet the criteria under 39 Federal law then PB is relatively limited as to what they can do. If PB took them to court and 40 tried to get the money how much would you be willing to spend with the likely-hood that we 41 would lose? 42 43 44 MW: when these applications came to us he was outraged - they let a SP expire, he lit into 45 counsel for applicant in these cases, and weÓve required most of the important data that is 46 3 April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Draft 4/20/2010 Needs more editing required as if they were going for a new SP. WeÓve sent this data out to consultant for review 1 which applicant has to pay for to prove there is a gap in serviceÈweÓve put them thru the 2 process for a public hearing. MW: weÓre not operating in secret! Material is available in files at 3 Planning office; weÓre not trying to hide. Notion of transparency is untrue. 4 5 Abutter asked PB to do something about making court judgments available. If Town doesnÓt 6 have resources to fight large organizations how does a person try to do that to fight the cell 7 towers? TS: depends on what you are fighting. Abutter: noise and radiation levels - if levels 8 exceed the required State levels? Chair: PB approves all commercial buildings thru a Site Plan 9 SP. We make sure that noise levels etc. is minimized as much as possible. If there is a problem 10 if itÓs noisy please tell use. If they decide to add additional equipment to antennas to same tower 11 they come back to us to demonstrate a gap in coverage, structural task has to be demonstrated, 12 legal noticing to abutters is done. Abutter: restrictions as to how close to abuttersÓ property? If 13 Johnson St. tower fell it would take out his house. Chair; a structural report would be done to 14 prevent this. Abutter: are there other carriers allowed on a tower? PB yes, rarely is the tower 15 owned by the wireless carrier. Abutter: does Comcast own the land? For Johnson St.? Gin 16 Vilante: assessorÓs office has the owner of record. Judy: see each application for name of 17 owner and lease agreement. Chair: we can provide the owner/leaser in our PD file. Have we 18 ever sent letters requesting the testing information: Judy: In 2007, 2008, sent these memos at 19 that time. Chair, the Building Inspector is the person who implements the fines; it becomes a 20 criminal matter etc. Abutter: most people who are being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, 21 they should pay up. Chair: if you think they would pay the fine without a squawk. MC: we do 22 notify these companies. 23 24 Tom Urbelis is Town attorney: we are not a fine issuing authority. Atty. Urbelis: talked about 25 fines in December and January. This is a criminal fine itÓs not within the purview of the PB to 26 issue a fine. The way it is written itÓs a criminal fine. Within the State the PB can fine up to 27 $300.00. Atty. Urbelis: itÓs not the PB thatÓs the enforcement agent, itÓs the Building Inspector. 28 Atty. Urbelis: under section 8.9 it has to be instituted as a criminal complaint. Atty. Urbelis: this 29 issue came up 3years ago and Town Manager wrote and said if your attorney has any case 30 anywhere in the country where a fine has been upheld please provide it to him. Atty. Urbelis 31 found a case where issuing a fine is a violation of TelCom Act. 32 33 Thea Fournier, 247 Main St., 40 people are here tonight asking to be heard by the PB. Chair; 34 PB: is here for that. This should not be considered a renewal? Chair: collected all substantive 35 information and will review the information. 36 37 Ms Fournier: her issue is procedural. Chair: What are your substantive questions? Ms Fournier: 38 what happened at the church was unfair, sheÓs fighting it in Superior court, and judgeÓs response 39 didnÓt have anything to do with her appeal. SheÓs now in Appellate court which is a higher 40 court. RR: itÓs wrong for Ms Fournier to give impression that in your opinion decisions of 41 Appellate court are wrong because you donÓt agree with them, thatÓs your opinion only. RR: 42 Decision rendered in Superior court doesnÓt have merit? MW: If decision rendered in Appellate 43 court would you agree with their rendering? Ms Fournier: no, she wants to take it to Supreme 44 Court. 45 46 4 April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Draft 4/20/2010 Needs more editing Abutter, 5 Skyview Terrace, why is T Mobile coming now for a SP? Gin Vilante: we would like 1 to renew and got a few notices recently, there have been no changes to the initial installation. 2 Abutter: there seems to be a rubber stamp. Chair: we listen; we have certain limitations on 3 what we can do. We canÓt say sorry, permit expired, and take down the tower. ItÓs more 4 complex than this and weÓre bound by law. We ask cell tower applicant to come here, they do 5 give us that information, with emissions analysis, given structural analysis, have existing 6 coverage analysis of why they need it. So far, there has been no testimony given that is a 7 problem. Abutter: have we gone to additional counsel for a second opinion? Chair: We have 8 Town counsel. ZBA spent $5K to confirm the same view. Abutter: have you ever denied a cell 9 tower permit? Chair: no. - Members of PB have been sued personally to seek our personal assets 10 as well. Abutter: if you deny these renewals are there consequences to the Town? Chair: the 11 next morning the cell tower companies are in court. 12 13 Abutter: 21 Skyview Terrace: in those notices were there requests to pay their fines? No. 14 Abutter, 21 Skyview Terrace: will T Mobile tonight fulfill their obligation and pay these fines 15 due to N.A. as presented tonight? 16 17 Attorney Brian Grossman: there is a process for fines - that process has not been followed; 18 regulations are inappropriate and may violate the TelCom Act and disagrees in regard to the fine, 19 on behalf of T. Mobile, he will not pay the fine. Abutter, the Building Inspector is the only one 20 who can go after that. Can we talk to the Building Inspector to levy these fines. Chair: youÓre 21 free to talk to BOS, talk to Atty. Urbelis etc. Abutter: weÓve learned that T Mobile will not 22 fulfill their obligations. 23 24 Mr. Tryder: information isnÓt always in the file. PB is SP granting authority, Johnson Street 25 people live next to Johnson St. tower. No-one has done their duty. Chair: recent report - have 26 you read this? Mr. Tryder: PB sees no reason to È.. TS: March 2010 Johnson St. tower, stress 27 ratio, information submitted. MW: read report in its entirety and stamped by professional 28 engineer. RR: Mr. Tryder take some structural analysis classes. Chair: weÓre ending this 29 conversation now. Chair: in 1972 Town didnÓt have a Site Plan Review process all that was 30 needed was a building permit. MW: Mr. Tryder do you have something - for 3 months you have 31 had an opportunity to find information in terms of substance, gap in coverage, RF reports, is 32 there something there that youÓre got issue with? Mr. Tryder: they havenÓt proven that thatÓs the 33 only site they can useÈlike Boston Hill - why does it have to go in their neighborhood? PB will 34 provide Mr.Tryder the information for him to look at. Mr. Tryder: in 1970 tower went up as 35 Continental Cable. Town should find all documents from time tower went up to now. Plse. 36 note: 37 MW left the room at this time. 38 RR: do a warrant article asking for appropriation of money for a law suit to pursue in court and 39 have the Town pay for it. Abutter: can we ask for funds to test the sites on a regular basis and 40 get funds from the Town to do this? Ms Fournier: you can ask carriers to fund it and test whatÓs 41 happening for RF emissions. Chair: weÓll continue this until the next meeting. Chair: Judy to 42 prepare 3 separate decisions. Atty. Urbelis: Atty. Grossman is it ok with this continuance? Mr. 43 Tryder wanted to know why you asked permission. Atty. Urbelis: there are provisions for 44 various time frames for decisions to be rendered. FCC has done time frames to render decisions; 45 time frames can be extended with agreement from applicant. Regulation was passed last 46 5 April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Draft 4/20/2010 Needs more editing November. Mr. Tryder: What is Attorney Urbelis specialty? Atty. Urbelis handled case 1 regarding Ms Fournier vs. Town. Chair: do you have a question or are you just filibustering us? 2 Mr. Tryder: if this is denied as a renewal what is the next step? Chair: it would be up to them. 3 4 Chair: thanked the audience and patience this is difficult for us, we would prefer our decision to 5 be easier, they are tough issues, and weÓre limited in our flexibility. Thank you for your 6 comments, if questions outside of meetings call Judy at Planning office for documents. Abutter, 7 check to see what has been replaced are there permits done for the Johnson St. tower? Mr. 8 Tryder: wants same information for Boston Hill. 9 10 11 Chair announced applicant postponed the following PUBLIC HEARING: Clear Wireless 12 LLC, is requesting a Special Permit for the following premises. 13 300 Chestnut Street, Special Permit for installation of a wireless service facility consisting of 14 six antennas and one equipment cabinet. /Applicant submitted a request to be continued until the 15 next PB meeting. 16 17 203 Turnpike Street, Special Permit for installation of wireless service facility consisting of 18 four antennas and one equipment cabinet. Applicant will not be heard at this meeting; however, 19 th a representative will be present to request to be continued until April 20. 20 21 22 Lee Marvin, was present on behalf of his colleague for Clear Wireless. Chair: cautioned to make sure you 23 provide annual renewals. Mr. Dwyer: (his property is located near Burger King, Turnpike Street) there is 24 more than one method to get them approved. Chair: said he misspoke, if you doubt his integrity come 25 out and say it. Mr. Dwyer: would like to be included in the wireless zone overlay district. HeÓll check 26 w/Judy. 27 28 Approve Minutes of the Meeting for March 16, 2010. nd 29 Motion by TS to approve the ÐMinutesÑ, 2 by RR, vote was unanimous. 30 31 PUBLIC HEARING: WARRANT ARTICLES 32 1 Article V. Amend North Andover Zoning Bylaw Î Section 4.121 Residence 1, 2 33 and 3. To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw, 34 Section 4.121 in order to allow professional offices in an existing structure on municipally 35 owned property within the R-2 District containing a minimum of 50 acres. 36 37 Amend Section 4.121 by adding the underlined language to read as follows: 38 4.121 Residence 1 District 39 Residence 2 District 40 Residence 3 District 41 42 21.Professional offices in an existing structure located on municipally owned property 43 within the R-2 District containing a minimum of fifty (50) acres. 44 45 6 April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Draft 4/20/2010 Needs more editing Or to take any other action relative thereto. 1 Curt Bellavance spoke: Town wants to lease out the gate house for a professional office use. 2 Curt drafted language to allow this to happen. This is categorized as pre-existing non-conforming 3 use. There is a 90 day appeal process. Motion by RR to make favorable recommendation, 4 nd 2 by TS, vote was unanimous. 5 Board of Selectmen 6 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 7 8 2 rticle Z. Amend North Andover Zoning Bylaw Î Section 4.133 Industrial 2 A 9 District. To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw, 10 Section 4.133 in order to allow alternative energy uses as-of-right. 11 12 4.133Industrial 2 District 13 14 11. Light manufacturing, including manufacturing, fabrication, processing, finishing, assembly, 15 packing or treatment of articles or merchandise provided such uses are conducted solely 16 within a building and further provided that such uses are not offensive, noxious, detrimental, 17 or dangerous to surrounding areas or the town by reason of dust, smoke, fumes, odor, noise, 18 vibration, light or other adverse environmental effect. 19 20 Amend Section 4.133 by adding the underlined language to read as follows: 21 4.133Industrial 2 District 22 11. a. Light manufacturing, including manufacturing, fabrication, processing, finishing, 23 assembly, packing or treatment of articles or merchandise provided such uses are conducted 24 solely within a building and further provided that such uses are not offensive, noxious, 25 detrimental, or dangerous to surrounding areas or the town by reason of dust, smoke, fumes, 26 odor, noise, vibration, light or other adverse environmental effect. 27 b. Renewable or alternative energy research and development facilities, renewable or 28 alternative energy manufacturing such as wind, solar, biomass, and tidal on any lot with a 29 minimum of twenty-five (25) acres; less than twenty-five (25) acres but a minimum of ten 30 (10) acres by Special Permit. 31 Or to take any other action relative thereto. 32 33 Curt Bellavance: the Town applied last year to receive technical assistance funding as consultant 34 hired by the State to assist community, got approval and got ICF International. Five criteria to 35 become a green community. Town met the criteria; specifically R&D - you can do renewable- 36 nd added that kind of language. Motion by RR to make favorable recommendation, 2 by TS, 37 vote was unanimous. 38 Board of Selectmen 39 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 40 41 42 43 7 April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Draft 4/20/2010 Needs more editing 3 Article AA. Amend North Andover Zoning Bylaw Î Section 4.137 Floodplain 1 District. To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw, 2 Section 4.137 Floodplain District in order to make minor adjustments so that the Bylaw 3 accurately reflects the correct flood maps and Building Code reference. 4 5 Amend Section 4.137 by adding the underlined language and deleting the 6 \[bolded/bracketed\] language to read as follows: 7 8 4.137 Floodplain District 9 10 2.FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND BASE FLOOD EVALUATION 11 AND FLOODWAY DATA 12 The Floodplain District is herein established as an overlay district. The underlying 13 permitted uses are allowed provided that they meet the Massachusetts State Building 14 Code, 780 CMR 120.G \[Section 3107\] "Flood Resistant Construction" and any other 15 applicable local, state or federal requirements. The District includes all special flood 16 hazard areas designated on the North Andover Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued 17 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the administration of the 18 NEIP dated June 2, 1993 as Zone A, AE, AH, AO, A99, \[and the FEMA Flood 19 Boundary & Floodway Map dated June 2, 1993, both maps\] which indicate the 100 20 year regulatory floodplain. The exact boundaries of the District may be defined by the 21 100-year base flood evaluations shown on the FIRM and further defined by the Flood 22 . Insurance study booklet dated June 2, 1993The FIRM \[, Floodway Maps\] and Flood 23 Insurance Study booklet are incorporated herein by reference and are on file with the 24 Town Clerk, Planning Board, Building 25 and Conservation Commission. 26 27 5.REFERENCE TO EXISTING REGULATIONS 28 The Floodplain District is established as an overlay district to all other districts. All 29 development in the district, including structural and non-structural activities, whether 30 permitted by right or by special permit must be in compliance with Chapter 131, Section 31 40 of the Massachusetts General Laws and with the following: 32 a.Section of the Massachusetts State Building Code which addresses Floodplain and 33 coastal high hazard areas (currently 780 CMR 120.G \[3107.0\] ÐFlood Resistant 34 ConstructionÑ); 35 36 Or to take any other action relative thereto. 37 Curt Bellavance: we qualify for residents to get flood insurance weÓre changing to 780cmn 38 nd 120.GR. Motion by RR to make favorable recommendation, 2 by TS, vote was 39 unanimous. Henry Fink: are they surveying the land to find out where the flood plans are? In 40 1982 they came up with flood plan maps, used students from college to do it. Curt: thatÓs a 41 function of the State, how the process is he canÓt answer. 42 Michael Walsh rejoined the meeting now. 43 Board of Selectmen 44 8 April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Draft 4/20/2010 Needs more editing RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 1 2 3 4 Article Y. Amend Zoning Bylaw Î Section 8.9 Wireless Service Facilities. 4 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw, Section 8.9 5 Wireless Service Facilities in order to create a revised wireless service facility ordinance as 6 shown below 7 Or to take any other action relative thereto: 8 9 Atty. Urbelis: over last 9 months he discussed w/PB and BOS to submit revisions for new 10 wireless bylaw warrant article. BOS inserted into warrant an article which deleted the 11 current bylaw to create an overlay district. BOS voted to insert a modified warrant article 12 last night. Major provisions changed under current bylaw there is a 600 foot setback from 13 properties that are currently zoned for educational use. Change from this new version is that 14 there is a setback and is 600 feet from facility to residential building. Fed TelCom Act Ò96 and 15 there is a tier step down from that requirement. If applicant can prove 3 elements gap, FCC 16 regulations, RF emissions, then it steps down to 400 foot setback. If they prove that 3 things 17 then step down is 200 feet. We are putting this in the bylaw relative to the Fed TelCom Act 18 controls. On first page of bylaw it says bylaw is in compliance w/Fed TelComÈÈBOS voted to 19 insert this new bylaw into the Warrant. 20 nd Motion by MW to make favorable recommendation, 2 by CL, vote was unanimous. 21 22 Abutter: 4 pieces of property on Rte. 114 and Rte. 133. There is a strip mall there he objected 23 because they should be included in the overlay district. Atty. Urbelis: since August at every 24 meeting weÓve asked people to let us know if they have any input. The Warrant has been 25 signed for this year - itÓs too late to put another property in there. If you want a particular 26 parcel identified in there - if this passes at Town Mtg. - if we have another Town Meeting in 27 the fall - you can file an amendment to include your/the parcels description into the overlay 28 district. Send a letter to Judy with a particular description of the parcel and the address well 29 ahead of the 2011 Town Meeting. 30 31 Board of Selectmen 32 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 33 34 35 36 5 Article HH. Amend Zoning Bylaw Î Section 3.1, Establishment of Districts. 37 To see if the Town will vote to add to the Zoning Bylaw, Section 3.1, Establishment of Districts, 38 the following: 39 ÐWireless Telecommunications Overlay DistrictÑ 40 Or to take any other action relative thereto. 41 nd Motion by MW to make favorable recommendation, 2 by RR, vote was unanimous. 42 Board of Selectmen 43 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 44 45 9 April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Draft 4/20/2010 Needs more editing 1 2 6 Article JJ. Amend Section 16.2 of the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws. 3 To see if the Town will vote to amen d the Zoning Bylaws by inserting the following 4 language: 5 ÐDrive Îthru restaurants shall be permitted within the CDD1 zone provided they are located 6 more than 250 feet from the R6 zoned district.Ñ 7 th PB Tabled this until PB meeting of April 20. 8 Petition of Scott Hajjar and others 9 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 10 11 12 13 14 7 Article D. Authorization to Accept Grants of Easements. To see if the Town will 15 vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen and the School Committee to accept grants of 16 easements for access, water, drainage, sewer, roadway and utility purposes on terms and 17 conditions the Board and Committee deem in the best interest of the Town; 18 19 Or to take any other action relative thereto. 20 21 nd Motion by RR: to make favorable recommendation, 2 by TS, vote was unanimous. 22 Board of Selectmen 23 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 24 25 26 8 Article L. Amend Capital Improvement Plan Appropriations from Prior Years. 27 To see if the Town will vote to amend prior Capital Improvement Plan Appropriation for prior 28 Fiscal Years as voted by: 29 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. 30 31 PB tabled this. 32 Board of Selectmen 33 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 34 35 10 April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Draft 4/20/2010 Needs more editing 1 9 Article 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. . 2 B oard of Selectmen 3 11 April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Draft 4/20/2010 Needs more editing RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 1 2 3 10 Article S. Report of the Community Preservation Committee and Appropriation 4 From the Community Preservation Fund. To receive the report of the Community 5 Preservation Committee and to see if the Town will vote to raise, borrow and/or appropriate from 6 the Community Preservation Fund, in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General 7 Laws Chapter 44B, a sum of money to be spent under the direction of the Community 8 Preservation Committee; Or to take any other action relative thereto. 9 10 Community Preservation Committee 11 12 PB Table until April 20. 13 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 14 15 16 17 11 Article U -1. Amend Zoning Bylaw-Section 2.63.1 Î Sign, Area of. To see if the 18 Town will vote to add a new definition in the Zoning Bylaw as follows: 19 20 2.63.1 Sign, Area of 21 22 (a). For a sign, either free-standing or attached, the area shall be considered to include all 23 lettering, wording and accompanying designs and symbols, together with the background, 24 whether open or enclosed, on which they are displayed but not including any supporting 25 framework and bracing which are incidental to the display itself. 26 (b). For a sign painted upon or applied to a building, the area shall be considered to include all 27 lettering, wording, and accompanying designs or symbols together with any backing of a 28 different color than the finish material of the building face. 29 (c). Where the sign consists of individual letters or symbols attached to or painted on a surface, 30 building, wall or window, the area shall be considered to be that of the smallest rectangle or 31 other convex shape which encompasses all of the letters and symbols; 32 33 Or to take any other action relative thereto. 34 PB Table until April 20. 35 Board of Selectmen 36 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 37 38 39 12 Article U. Amend Zoning Bylaw Section 5.1.1-Earth Removal.To see -2 40 if the Town will vote to amend Section 5.1.1 of the Zoning Bylaw by deleting the stricken words 41 and adding the underlined words as follows: 42 5.1 General 43 12 April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Draft 4/20/2010 Needs more editing 1. Excavation, removal, stripping, or mining of any earth material except as hereinafter 1 permitted on any parcel of land, public or private, in North Andover, is prohibited, except 2 as allowed by Section 5.4 Permits for Earth Removal; Section 5.5 Earth Removal 3 Incidental to Development, Construction or Improvements: and Section 5.6 4 Miscellaneous Removal of Earth. 5 6 Or to take any other action relative thereto. 7 PB Table until April 20. 8 9 Board of Selectmen 10 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 11 12 13 Article U. Amend Zoning Bylaw-Section 7.3 - Setbacks. To see if the Town will -3 13 vote to amend Section 7.3 of the Zoning Bylaw by adding the underlined words in the first 14 paragraph and adding Sections 7.31, 7.32 and 7.33 as follows: 15 16 7.3 Yards (Setbacks) 17 Minimum front, side and rear setbacks shall be as set forth in Table 2, except for eaves and 18 uncovered steps, and projections, as noted in sections 7.31, 7.32 and 7.33. Buildings on 19 corner lots shall have the required front setback from both streets, except in Residence 4 (R4) 20 District, where the setback from the side street shall be twenty (20) feet minimum. 21 22 £7.31 Î Projections into Front Yards 23 Uncovered porches, Balconies, open fire escapes, chimneys and flues all may project into 24 a required side yard not more than one-third of its width and not more than four feet in 25 any case. Belt courses, fins, columns, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels and ornamental 26 features may project not more than one foot, and cornices and gutters not more than two 27 feet, over a required front yard. 28 29 £7.32 Î Projections into Side Yards 30 Uncovered porches, Balconies, open fire escapes, chimneys and flues all may project into 31 a required side yard not more than one-third of its width and not more than four feet in 32 any case. Belt courses, fins, columns, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels and ornamental 33 features may project not more than one foot, and cornices and gutters not more than two 34 feet, over a required side yard. 35 36 £7.33 Î Projections into Rear Yards 37 Uncovered porches, Balconies, open fire escapes, chimneys and flues all may project into 38 a required side yard not more than one-third of its width and not more than four feet in 39 any case. Belt courses, fins, columns, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels and ornamental 40 features may project not more than one foot, and cornices and gutters not more than two 41 feet, over a required rear yard. 42 Or to take any other action relative thereto. 43 PB Table until April 20. 44 Board of Selectmen 45 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 46 13 April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Draft 4/20/2010 Needs more editing 1 14 Article U. Amend Zoning Bylaw-Section 9.3- Pre-Existing Non-conforming -4 2 Single Family Residential Structures and Uses in the Residential 1, Residential 2, 3 Residential 3, Residential 4 and Residential 6 Districts. To see if the Town will vote to 4 amend Section 9.3.a of the Zoning Bylaw by adding Ðand two familyÑ as follows: 5 6 9.3 Pre-Existing Non-conforming Single Family Residential Structures and Uses 7 in the Residential 1, Residential 2, Residential 3, Residential 4 and Residential 6 8 Districts: 9 a. Pre-existing Non-conforming Single Family Structures: Pre-existing non-conforming 10 single family and two family residential structures in the R1, R2, R3, R4 and R6 11 Districts, may be changed, extended or altered, provided that there is a finding by the 12 Zoning Enforcement Officer (Building Commissioner) that such change, extension, or 13 alteration shall not render the structure more nonconforming than the existing structure. 14 15 Or to take any other action relative thereto. 16 th PB Table until April 20. 17 18 19 Board of Selectmen 20 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 21 22 23 15 Article MM. Election of Planning Board Members. To see if the Town will 24 vote to amend Chapter 6 of the Town Charter, more specifically Section 1 of the General 25 provisions of that chapter, (6-1-1)so as to include the Planning Board to the list of officers and 26 boards to be elected by vote of the town. 27 Petition of Alan Swahn and others 28 Judy: did not hear back from Mr. Swahn. 29 nd Motion by TS to make unfavorable action, 2 by MW for unfavorable action, vote was 30 unanimous. 31 RECOMMENDATION: Favorable Unfavorable 32 33 34 35 36 37 Chair called for the following DISCUSSION: 38 Redgate subdivision Î Dean Chongris, developer. 39 40 th Judy: Conservation visited Redgate March 15, letter written to Dean Chongris and Rick 41 Dellaire, sent by Judy and Jennifer Hughes noting erosion on both sides of the hill, stabilization 42 needs to be reinforced, silt fence, no further work until items have been completed. Judy: 43 thth submitted photos of March 15 event. Developer told to install hay bales. March 30 visited site 44 14 April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Draft 4/20/2010 Needs more editing w/Heidi Gaffney and Judy, problems w/placement of hay bales to divert the water but still 1 causing drainage problems. Subdivision not in compliance with decision of 2001, have not sent 2 monthly reports on a regular basis. Judy: asked if representative came to the PB meeting. Dean 3 Chongris was present earlier tonight but left the meeting. Bonds - PD has a site opening bond 4 for $10K and slope stabilization bond for $20K. Judy: pointed out on the plan, swale running 5 behind lot 2, turns corner and runs toward house on lot 1. Water coming directly the stone swale 6 onto his property coming thru swale it was supposed to direct the water in the opposite direction. 7 Judy: there is ongoing construction and have not finished construction of drainage swale and 8 design of detention basin. The last lot has not been built yet. No-one is watching this site or 9 filing reports w/PD. 10 11 Mr. Levis 835 Salem Street, was present: and abutter from 817 Salem St. and abutter from 855 12 Salem Street were present. Voiced concerns in this area since this development was built. 13 Caused damages to Mr. Levis property and the other abutterÓs property to their landscaping, 14 fencing, and basement. If something isnÓt done soon then it will escalate the damages. He met 15 w/site engineer and the end result is that the problem is coming from the Redgate development. 16 Asking PB to solve problems to prevent future damage to property. Make changes prior to any 17 bond monies being released. Go to U-tube to see issue. 18 19 RR: asked to tell him earlier in the year - did problem pre-exist the latest flooding? Goran 20 Bringert: in 2006 he sent letters to PD and appeared at PB meeting but issue got diminished at 21 that time. Ducks swimming in his front lawn (he sent pictures in 2006) this last storm was a 22 continuation. He pumps his basement now but only gets puddles, his neighbors got 3 to 4 feet of 23 water. He met w/Gene Willis and Lincoln Daley and was told you have water because of 24 Woodchuck Hill. But when trees were taken down it caused more water damage. 25 26 RR: Ben Osgood Jr. had the development at the time and PB denied the application because they 27 never came up with a drainage system that could work. It was a balancing act - by getting rid of 28 the water too quickly - or waiting too long. RR: system isnÓt working the way it was designed to 29 work. Judy: drain should be coming toward the road, and there were adjustments made to it. It 30 could be a design problem/issue. Side closer to Mr. CyrÓs property was where Judy addressed 31 her letter to. No written plan was presented by developer to Judy for tonight. RR: get applicant 32 to provide this information or PB will pull his bond money. RR: there may be a deep ditch that 33 needs to be cleaned out and take another look at this situation. Judy: should the developer 34 respond in writing in time for the next PB meeting? Chair: absolutely. And give developer only 35 a week, hold a hearing and revoke the bond ASAP. Chair: Judy - get who-ever the engineer was 36 at the time to look and see if it was installed the way it was supposed to be. Did the developer 37 (Dean Chongris) have a permit to take down trees and demolish the stone wall the way he did? 38 RR: have town consultant contact these guys and get historical perspective on it then we need to 39 seize the bond to make this work, or talk w/Dean - are you ready to pick up this tab or weÓre 40 going to seize the bond? MW: got weekly reports over 6 months ago (put this in a written letter 41 also). 42 43 Courtney: if this site isnÓt complete yet what if he comes back and says IÓm not finished you 44 canÓt hold me to design until I have to provide as-built. What leverage do we have? RR: we 45 15 April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board Draft 4/20/2010 Needs more editing have bond money; we donÓt have to issue a building permit on the very last lot. Abutter: lost 30 1 feet of his backyard because of this. 2 3 Chair: Judy send letter stating what we want them to do, if Dean says heÓll pay out of his pocket 4 then weÓll hire outside engineer to fix this problem. Judy: read erosion controls measure from 5 the 2001 decision for Redgate. Chair: There needs to be stabilization of the hill done such as 6 plantings etc. 7 8 Steven Cyr: when talked about a bond it was discussed for $150,000 now itÓs down to $30K so 9 all abutters will be fighting over the $30K. Is it possible to ask them to file an additional bond? 10 PB gets estimate from town engineer or outside consultant for bond $ amount. PB still can hold 11 off on releasing the last lot. Surety bond has about $50K remaining w/PD. RR: PB can establish 12 a new bond requirement if Dean ever wants the last lot released. 13 14 Mr. Cyr: his father handpicked this land, took precautions for drainage etc. HeÓs being flooded 15 out of his own property. He submitted pictures tonight showing Redgate development into 16 Fuller Farm. Gene Willis says Town doesnÓt have to fix it even if itÓs on Town property. His 17 lawn has become the detention pond see the pictures. This has become a nightmare. Neighbors 18 across the street from him have issues, beside the three abutters who are present tonight. What 19 happens 10 years down the road if this happens again? RR: issue was make the drainage pipes 20 bigger across the streetÈthere is a ditch where the water runs toward BoxfordÈas long as weÓre 21 not going to export the problem to someone-else down the street. 22 23 Courtney; were there upgrades done to the storm drains? Mr. Cyr: doesnÓt know. Need to 24 control the flow of water so the water coming from the detention pond doesnÓt create a bigger 25 problem. Chair: give these specific items to Judy so she can give them to the engineer. WeÓll 26 talk about the progress being made at each PB meeting. Chair: weÓll put this on our meetings for 27 discussion until the issue is solved. 28 29 30 nd Motion by RR to adjourn, 2 by TS, vote was unanimous, adjourned at approximately 31 11PM. 32 33 34 By order of the Planning Board 35 36 37 _____________________________ 38 Approved 39 40 41 42 43 Plse. note: the Planning Board reserves the right to take items out of order and to discuss 44 and/or vote on items that are not listed on the agenda. 45 46 47 48 16 April 6, 2010 Minutes – Planning Board