Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-01-04 Planning Board Meeting Minutes PLANNINGBOARD MeetingMinutes Tuesday,January4,2011 TownHall,120MainStreet 7.00PM 1 Present:J.Simons,M.Colantoni,R.Glover,C.LaVolpicelo,T.Seibert(arrivedat7:12) 2 Absent:R.Rowen 3 StaffPresent:J.Tymon,J.Enright 4 Meetingbeganat7:04 5 POSTPONEMENTS: 6 CONTINUEDPUBLICHEARING:1679OSGOODST.DefinitiveSubdivisionfor8singlefamilyresidentiallotswithin 7 theR3District,submittedbyGMZRealty. 8 CONTINUEDPUBLICHEARING:1003OSGOODST.WatershedSpecialPermitandSitePlanReviewSpecialPermit 9 forconstructionofanew21,000sq.ft.restaurant/office/retailbuildingandrelocationofanhistoricbarn. 10 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS 12 NEW PUBLIC HEARING :Dale Street Athletic Fields, The Town of North Andover is requesting a Watershed 13 Special Permit to construct an athletic field and parking area outside of 100’ buffer to BVW. 14 J. Tymon: This proposal has been submitted by the Fields Committee. The project has already been approved by 15 the Conservation Commission. It includes a drainage system that they are proposing and a large part of it is within 16 the 150’ buffer zone to the wetlands. The proposal includes a pervious gravel surface for parking area and a swale 17 along two sides of the field directing stormwater to a detention pond. They also have a level spreader. This project 18 has not been sent to an outside review consultant. The only questions I have is should we have Ben Osgood, Jr. 19 since they don’t have the best soils for infiltration, give more information on the soil types that were found, were 20 test pits done, and did he size the detention pond specifically for the soil types found. 21 T. Zahoruiko, member of the Fields Committee: This is a town project. This proposal was presented to the Board, 22 in concept, to build a ball field some years ago. We have tried to keep it as simple as possible and to take care of the 23 anticipated parking needs.There are 50 parking spaces planned and conceptually it will be like Carter Field with a 24 pervious surface, not paved. The proposal has been designed to stay out of the 100’ buffer zone. Although there 25 wasn’t a full drainage analysis done when B. Osgood delineated the wetland he also did borings and designed with 26 that in mind. 27 J. Simons: Is the field area mostly scrub, not mature trees? 28 T. Zahoruiko: There are no mature trees. It used to be a field and it has recent growth. The terrain is relatively 29 gentle with a slope from left to right. 30 R. Glover: Asked for explanation of what was done to address the runoff issues. 31 T. Zahoruiko: The drainage elements are to keep all the areas pervious in some way, the grading that runs toward 32 the wetland is intercepted by swales that take runoff to the detention area, there are single and double catch basins. 33 M. Colantoni: Any lighting being added? 34 T. Zahoruiko: No. Nothing intended. 35 C. LaVolpicelo: Any drainage analysis done? 36 T. Zahoruiko: No. It is a community project and we are trying to keep the costs under control. I suggested the 37 committee not undertake it until it was requested or directed. We wanted to see how far we would have to take the 38 technical analysis first. 39 J. Simons: asked if Gene Willis has reviewed the project. 40 J. Tymon: No. 41 J. Simons: How big will the detention pond be? It looks very close to the end of the field. 42 T. Zahoruiko: about 120’across and 8’ to the overflow. The field is a multi-use field (not just soccer) and will have 43 a fence all the way around to intercept balls as well as people. 44 J. Simons: Expressed concerned about children risk of standing water in the pond. It is a pretty substantial size and 45 there will be masses of people coming for a municipal use. Just want you to think through whether you are creating 46 any potential safety issue. 1 Jan42011meetingminutes PLANNINGBOARD MeetingMinutes Tuesday,January4,2011 TownHall,120MainStreet 7.00PM 47 T. Zahoruiko: I will have to get an answer from B. Osgood on that. If there is a chance of standing water we could 48 enclose it with a fence. We will look at the design. 49 J. Simons: asked if there is anything else other than comments from G. Willis we are waiting for. 50 J. Tymon: Maybe some comments on the drainage from the design engineer. 51 J. Simons: Asked T. Zahoruiko to submit those comments and we can finish next time. 52 53 NEW PUBLIC HEARING :58 Country Club Circle, Donald Stanley is requesting a Modification to a Watershed 54 Special Permit in order to finish the interior of a detached garage and to connect the garage to water and sewer 55 through existing connections between the garage and the house. 56 J. Tymon: Donald Stanley, owner of the property is here. He previously received a Watershed Special Permit 57 within the non-disturb zone for a detached garage in 2006. I did a site visit. There were BMPs installed, gutters are 58 connected to underground storage, water and sewerage has been connected to the property. Porous pavers were on 59 the plans but were not put in yet. Mr. Stanley explained that they were not put in due to weather conditions at the 60 time. A condition of the Special Permit was that they not build-out the upstairs of the garage. 61 D. Stanley, property owner: The primary focus at the time of the original application was to build the garage. I 62 didn’t have any intent to use the additional space above at the time but I did say that I would come back once I 63 decided what I wanted to do with it. Up until know it has only been used for storage. I would like to use it as a 64 bonus room. It would include a half bath. 65 M. Colantoni: Is it just connecting the bath to the sewerage? Is anything changing on the roof line? 66 D. Stanley: No. There are no changes. It is just connecting to the existing lines. 67 J. Simons: The only thing different is that there will be a little bit more use and a half bath. We will just vote it next 68 time as a modification to the existing conditions. 69 70 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING : Amend the Planning Board Regulations, including applications and filing 71 fees to accompany the Town of North Andover’s Stormwater Bylaw, Chapter 160 of the town’s Bylaw. 72 J. Tymon: Reviewed the items listed in an email sent by L. Eggleston that answer the question asked at the last 73 meeting of where the proposed regulations go above and beyond the stormwater standards. A copy of the email was 74 included in the Planning Board information package. 75 76 Public Comment 77 Phillip Christiansen: Distributed and reviewed his comments regarding the proposed regulations. The jurisdictional 78 reach of this proposal will be a burden on homeowners and the Planning Department. Other concerns discussed: 79 definitions-TSS, applicability section 3, 6.5 Entry –too open ended, 6.7 Public Hearings---should be limited to larger 80 projects and smaller projects handled administratively without public hearings, 7.2 Design and Performance 81 Criteria—A. Low Impact Development--controlling stormwater is not directly related to conserving potable water, 82 B. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Criteria—calculations for the 1, 2, 10 and 100 year storms should by the same for 83 Conservation Commission and Planning Dept., C. Recharge—the need for ground water recharge and its 84 relationship to Curve Runoff Numbers used in the TR-20 model are often misunderstood. 85 J. Simons: asked J. Tymon to have L. Eggleston review the comments submitted. Asked the Board to also take 86 another look at the material and we should have another meeting to discuss the issue. 87 J. Smolak: Has taken a closer look at the regulations and the bylaw and submitted technical comments. Does not 88 think the regulations are necessary. The EPA permit will be reissued in May and we don’t know yet what will be 89 required. He would like to hold off on the regulations until that permit is issued. The regulations are adding a ton of 90 costs to small projects and large developments. 91 J. Tymon: We do have a draft of the permit that will be issued in May. 92 T. Zahoruiko: Only recently found out about the proposed regulations. Are these an overlay or beyond the 93 stormwater that we deal with Conservation and the Subdivision approval process? It seems like it is another step or 94 process that would affect even individual Form A lots? 95 J. Tymon: Any project that is not covered by a current bylaw or regulation by the Conservation Commission. If 96 your project is under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission it would not require a Land Disturbance 97 Permit. If your project is in the jurisdiction of the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review, Subdivision, or 2 Jan42011meetingminutes PLANNINGBOARD MeetingMinutes Tuesday,January4,2011 TownHall,120MainStreet 7.00PM 98 Watershed it would not require a Land Disturbance Permit. A Form A lot would not require a Land Disturbance 99 Permit unless the developer was disturbing an acre or more or causes a change in drainage pattern of an acre or 100 more. 101 T. Zahoruiko: Concerned about the process and costs and would like the opportunity to review the material. 102 J. Simons: We will hold it over until the next meeting. 103 104 BONDRELEASE 105 0 Stiles Street: Gene Willis requested a bond release of one thousand dollars for a Definitive Subdivision. An as- 106 built plan has been submitted. 107 J.Tymon:IhavearequestfromGeneWillis.Ihavereceivedanasbuiltandvisitedthesite.Ididnotseeany 108 issues.Theyhadtoputadrivewayin.Itisapaveddrivewayaccordingtotheplan. 109 MOTION 110 AmotionwasmadebyR.Glovertoreleaseallremainingfundsfor0StilesStreetdefinitivesubdivision.The 111 motionwassecondedbyT.Seibert.J.Simons,M.Colantoni,R.GloverandT.Seibertvotedinfavor.C.LaVolpicelo 112 hadlefttheroom. 113 114 MOTION 115 AmotionwasmadebyT.SeiberttoapprovethemeetingminutesforPlanningBoardmeetingsheldon 116 12/14/2010and12/21/2010.ThemotionwassecondedbyM.Colantoni.J.Simons,M.Colantoni,R.GloverandT. 117 Seibertvotedinfavor.C.LaVolpicelohadlefttheroom. 118 119 MOTION 120 AmotionwasmadebyM.Colantonitoadjournthemeeting.ThemotionwassecondedbyR.Glover.J.Simons, 121 M.Colantoni,R.GloverandT.Seibertvotedinfavor.C.LaVolpicelohadlefttheroom. 122 123 Themeetingadjournedat8:27PM. 124 125 MeetingMaterials:Jan4,2011agenda,meetingminutesfor10/16/08pertainingto58CountryClubCircle,copyof 126 applicationforWSPfor58CountryClubCirclefromNov.2006,proposedsiteplanfor58CountryClubCircle, 127 NoticeofDecisionfor58CountryClubCircledate2/27/2006,NorthAndoverproposedstormwatermanagement 128 anderosioncontrolregulations,followupletterfromL.Egglestonregardingproposedstormwatermanagement 129 anderosioncontrolregulations,WatershedSpecialPermitapplicationsubmittedbyT.Zahoruikoforthetownof 130 NAforaproposedathleticfieldandparkingoutsideofЊЉЉ͸buffertoBVW,websoilsurveyforproposedathletic 131 fieldlocation,proposedsiteplanforathleticfieldtobelocatedatTownFarm,DaleSt,NA.,meetingminutes 132 12/14/2010,meetingminutes12/21/2010,commentsconcerningNAStormwaterManagementandErosion 133 ControlRegulationssubmittedbyChristiansen&Sergi,Inc.,commentsconcerningNAStormwaterManagement 134 andErosionControlRegulationssubmittedbyJohnT.Smolak,Esq. 3 Jan42011meetingminutes