Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-26 Planning Board Minutes Planning Board Meeting APPROVED 10/17/2000 September 26, 2000 Members Present: John Simons Richard Nardella Alberto Angles Others Present: Heidi Griffin, Town Planner Jacki Byerley, Planning Assistant The Planning Board meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. Discussions: Sidewalks along Route 125 Mr. Stephen Sakakeeny residing at Hickory Hill Road spoke to the Planning Board about his petition to the Mass Highway Department to construct sidewalks along Route 125. Mr. Sakakeeny then handed the Planning Board Members a booklet illustrating his petition to the Mass Highway Department. Mr. Sakakeeny then pointed out that in the booklet were three hundred signatures from residents in support of the proposed petition. Mr. Sakakeeny then went on to say that with the upcoming Public Hearing for Endicott Plaza Development that he was hoping the Planning Board could intervene and see that with such a large development that they should require other access ftom business to business. Mr. Sakakeeny went on to say that he lives quite close to the Butcher Boy Plaza but with the set up of today he was unable to walk to the shopping plaza. Mr. Simons asked that Mr. Sakakeeny work with the Planning Board to make the sidewalk access happen for the community. Mr. Sakakeeny stated that he would help when lie could and would like to be kept informed of what was happening with his petition. Mr. Nardella informed Mr. Sakakeeny that they would speak with the developer of Endicott Plaza about possible sidewalks in the area. Mr. Simons went on to state that the Planning Board was sympathetic to Mr. Sakakeeny and the communities needs. Teligent-Preliminary Discussions Maura Sullivan a representative of Teligent informed the Planning Board that they would possible like to co located at 300 Chestnut Street. Ms. Sullivan went onto say that the Planning Board had recently approved a Special Permit for Sprint, from that decision she wasn't sure if she should apply as a modification or as a new special permit application. Ms. Sullivan then stated that the Zoning By law references wireless services and that there set up is considered to be a common local exchange. Ms. Sullivan explained that Teligent's antennae are point to point service they don't transmit like a wireless service that blankets an area. Ms. Sullivan also stated that they would be putting the receivers on 790 and 800 Turnpike Street and questioned who the permitting authority would be. Mr. Simons directed Ms. Sullivan to speak with Ms. Griffin for direction. Ms. Griffin stated that she would need to look at the approved decision for 300 Chestnut Street to be able to further assist Ms. Sullivan. Mr. Simons suggests that Ms. Sullivan make an appointment with Ms. Griffin to clear up any confusion on what to apply for. Forestview-Placement of Fencing Mr. Pat Cone the developer of Forestview has come before the Planning Board to stated that he had gone to the Building Department requesting to place a fence along his approved subdivision. Mr. Cone went on to state that he didn't need the Planning Board approval because the fencing was going to be placed on the homeowners' property, he was just here as a courtesy. Mr. Cone went on to say that the fencing would run the course of Route 114. The placement of fencing was to prevent children from running into the road. Homeowners were requesting the fencing and would be responsible for the maintenance of it. 3 Mr.Nardella didn't like the idea that the maintenance would be up to the individual homeowner in case that the individual didn't wish to keep the fencing then it would be visible from Route 114 and to have a break in it wouldn't look pleasing. i Mr. Cone explained that he had looked into other placement of the fencing but with the no cut zone and the set backs if it were to be moved then the homeowners would have no lawn. Mr. Nardella suggested that with the Homeowners' Association something be added in, to state that the fence would need to be maintained by the Association. Mr. Cone agreed to look it to adding a provision into the Homeowners' Association. Mr. Simons asked that Ms. Griffin write a letter to Mr. Cone to deposit $2000.00 into a security account to insure that the fence would be up kept. 3 Form A-Thistle Road 1 Ben Osgood has applied for a Form A plan to an approved subdivision. The Form A plan consists of 4 new lots created along Thistle Road and 4 lot line changes. Thistle Road in not a bonded road yet, Mr. Simons asked that Ms. Griffin check with Town Counsel on whether the Planning Board can approve an ANR plan without the road being bonded. Mr. Osgood suggested that a covenant be put on the 4 new lots being created so that they can't be sold or released until he got a Bond Release, he could add this to his existing covenant. Ms. Griffin stated that a Form A could not be conditioned. Mr. Angles wanted to know whether it would be considered to be a Modification to a Definitive Subdivision or an ANR plan. Mr.Nardella agreed with the possibility of it being a modification. Mr. Osgood disagreed with it being a modification because the roadway was already created and wouldn't be changing. Mr. Simons wanted Ms. Griffin to go out on a site visit and speak with Town Counsel and have the Form A brought back in front of the Planning Board before an approval j could be made. i i i Public Hearings: e I Revision of Subdivision Rules &Re Mations: Heidi Griffin, Town Planner opened the Public Hearing explaining the chronology and revision made to the Subdivisions. Over the past year the Planning Board conducted workshops. Within the past few weeks she had met with Town Counsel and other Departments to get their input on the revisions. Sections 1-4 Ms. Griffin had drafted, the second half of the construction specs Ms. Griffin had worked with Jim Rand of the DPW and Ben Kruser of VHB. Ms. Griffin went on to say that Tow Counsel had made a few comments about the continuance of new streets and some towns are now requiring that two cul de sacs be j separate to aid the Police and Fere Departments. Also Town Counsel suggested that the language be adjusted in the Section regarding Form A for Lot requirements referenced on Page 14. Ms. Griffin went on to say that Mr. Jim Rand of DPW had some comments about the detention basins and retention basins. Ms. Griffin suggested having the retention basins maintained by a Homeowners Association and add that to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Also being added to the Sub Regs was when revision are made to the 3 proposed plans that a chart be added to any revised plans showing who requested the revision, what they were, and the date made. I ' Mr. Nardella spoke about the 26 foot pavement width and keep that as a constant in the Sub Regs but the Planning Board will always have the right to come down on the width. Mr. Simons agreed that in some instances a 26 foot roadway would be too much and that the Planning Board should have the right to come down. Mr. Kruser of V14B commented that with a 22 foot roadway it would prevent people from parking on the sides of the street because it would not be wide enough. Ms. Griffin was going to be speak with Town Counsel on the section on Slopes to see what was allowed by law to put in the Sub Regs. Mr. Jack Devlin question why there was no angle of slopes mentioned. Mr. Kruser stated that angles weren't in the section Mr. Devlin was reading but the angles were mentioned. Mr. Devlin went on to say that other Town Departments such as the School Department should start receiving copies of plans so they could comment on the busing. Ms. Griffin informed Mr. Devlin that on page 14 Section 4.4 requests that the applicant get a sign off from other departments stating that they had received the plans. Mr. Ben Osgood a developer stated that Section 4.4 goes against the statute that states only the Town Clerk needs to receive a copy of the application. Mr. Osgood went on to say that the Planning Board cannot require the applicant to deliver plans to other departments. Mr. Osgood wanted the wording changed so that it did not read that the Planning Department would not accept the application without other departments signatures. Mr. Osgood went on to say that some times it was too hard to get in touch with the department head and didn't want to be held responsible for making sure the plans were reviewed by them. Ms. Griffin informed him that the intent was to deliver the plans to the department and get a signature from a representative of the department whether it be the department head or secretary. Ms. Griffin went on to say that the applicant didn't have to make sure the department reviewed the plans but that they had received a copy of them. Ms. Griffm stated that stale law requires applicants to file a copy of the plans with the Town Clerk, but that doesn't mean the Town can't require through their regulations that the applicant file a copy of their plans with other departments. 8 Mr. Kruser moved the discussion over to the traffic study Section 6.7.2. Mr.Nardella wanted to know if the Section reads whether the traffic study was discretionary or if the R Planning Board had the ability to change if they disagreed with what the traffic study said. Ms. Griffin was going to look into a change to the Section. Mr. Kruser stated that he had consolidated different streets into three types now. Mr. Kruser also spoke about the granite edging and vertical granite curbing stating that that had been placed in at the request of DPW. W. Kruser stated that the vertical curbing would be over 6% at the street corners. 4 3 Mr. Kruser went on about the Appendices and had added some figures. Also the utility location had change so that the whole street wouldn't have to be dug up for repairs. Mr. Devlin wanted the Appendices to have something stating the requirements of Fire Sprinklers. Mr. Kruser informed Mr. Devlin that Fire Sprinklers were a building requirement not a subdivision requirement. Mr. Tom Zahoruiko a developer stated that it was a large document and would like more time to review the changes and the financial impact it would have on the developers and the homeowners. Mr. Zahoruiko pointed out a few of the changes stating that the way it was written now 86%more asphalt per foot would be added by increasing the road thickness to 5 1/2 inches. Mr. Kruser informed Mr. Zahoruiko by increasing the roadway and the binder coat to 2 in. this would enable the construction vehicles to travel on the road and would last throughout the construction course. Mr. Zahoruiko then pointed out the granite curbing and suggested that by making it all granite it would make the area look more like a city instead of rural setting that he pictures North Andover to look like. Also Mr. Zahoruiko commented that with granite vertical curbing this would increase the expense. Mr. Kruser informed Mr. Zahoruiko that veritcal curbing wasn't throughout and there was transition edging to the curb not the driveways and this would help the snow plows. I i Mr. Zahoruiko complained that the price of developing an area would increase substantially. Ms. Griffin questioned the reasoning behind the increase stating that the I developer would turn the price over to the home owners and the increase from the average home of$330,000.00 to $350,000.00 would benefit the home owner by making g the roads last longer. Mr. Osgood pointed out that in the narrative it states gravel back fill and the cross section states something different. Mr. Osgood informed the Planning Board that putting the requirements into the Subdivision Rules and Regulations that the Town would have to I' adhere to the same standards. i. " Mr. Nardella went on to say that the requirements are changing to make the Town last with as little repairs as possible. Mr. Nardella explained to the developers that the problems are with the specs not with the developers and the adjustment had to be made to them to make the Town better. Mr. Devlin agreed that the he wanted the Town to last for his children and that the Planning Board was acting on behalf of the future and existing residents. Mr. Zahoruiko also agreed that he would like the Town to last but was hoping there could be a middle ground to please all involved. Mr. Osgood commented that with the revised regs it give all the power to an outside consultant and not the Planning Board. Ms. Griffin informed Mr. Osgood that the outside consultant was there to advise not to enforce. 5 �� Ms. Griffin suggested that with the time already spent at the Public Hearing that another meeting be set up that would be more productive with representatives from the Planning Board,Developers, Residents, DPW and Town Counsel get together to speak in more detail about certain points. The Planning Board wanted the meeting to happen as quickly as possible because the Subdivision Rules and Regulations had been through numerous workshops within the past few years and that they wanted to adopted them in at one of the upcoming meetings. A meeting date was set for October 4 at 10:00 a.m. at the DPW conference room. Mx. Zahoruiko and Mr. Osgood agreed to represent the developers. Mr.Nardella and Ms. Lescarbeau would be there for the Planning Board along with Town Counsel, the Town Planner and Assistant and Ben Kruser from VHB. Mr. Devlin would represent the residents and Jim Rand for DPW. Mr. Angles motioned to CONTINUED the Public Hearing on Revision of Subdivision Rules and Regulations until October 17, 2"d by Mr.Nardella. Voted in favor of 3-0. i Bond Releases Mr.Nardella motioned to RELEASE all remaining funds from Lost Pond Lane totaling 13,600.00,2"d by Mr. Angles. Voted in favor of 3-0. Mr. Nardella motioned to RELEASE all remaining funds from East Pasture Circle totaling $3000.00, 2' by Mr. Angles. Voted in favor of 3-0. Mr. Nardella suggested holding over the release of partial funds from Woodland Estates. Mr.Nardella wanted Ms. Griffm to speak with Tim Willett of DPW to find out why such high amount were going to be released. Mr. Nardella motioned to ADJOURN the Planning Board meeting, 2"d by Mr. Angles. Voted in favor of 3-0. Respectfully submitted: r Alberto Angles, Cierk 6