HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-04 Planning Board Minutes Planning Board Meeting r Pl44 VED 9/1,8/2001
September 4, 2001
i
Members Present: John Simons, Chairman
Alberto Angles, Vice Chairman
Richard Nardella, Clerk
Richard Rowen
Felipe Schwarz, Associate Member
Staff'Present: Heidi Griffin, Planning Director
Jacki Byerley, Planning Assistant
The Planning Board Meeting of September 4, 2001 was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Discussions:
Foxwood
Ms. Griffin presented a summary of the proposed drainage improvements to the Foxwood
Subdivision. Ms. Griffin stated that town officials, the developer's engineer and the
residents had met regarding the issues at Foxwood Subdivision. Through the discussions
it was determined that any proposed drainage improvements within the right-of-way are
field changes; any other eventual improvements made to the subdivision that entail going
on private property will require the applicant to file for a subdivision modification.
Mr. O'Neill, engineer for the developer, wanted to provide the Board with a run through
of VHB's comments. VHB's first comment in regards to Mr. Cordoza's memo that the
underdrain should be extended to station 10+00,VHB agreed with this. Mr. O'Neill
believed there was a problem with the swale at the upland part of the hill. Mr. O'Neill
believed that the existing hill would undermine the existing Swale. He:felt that it might
be able to be extend an additional 10 or 1.5 feet but would like to meet VHB on the site to
come to an agreement. Mr. Devlin a resident of Foxwood stated that water was breaking
out at the proposed extension.
VHB's memorandum stated that they recommend constructing the under drain at Station
19 as proposed by Mr. O'Neill by using a small swale there. Mr. Devlin stated that there
was no apparent water there. The Planning Board agreed that the under drain should be
kept as part of the plan.
VHB recommended that the swale should be extended to Lot No. 7. Mr. O'Neill did not 1
agree with this recommendation because it would extend the swale to the catch basin in
front of lot 7, which has a landscaped wall. The landscaped wall would make it difficult
to construct the Swale. Mr. Cordoza stated that he did not recommend extending the
swale to Lot 7 but to extend to the manhole. Mr. O'Neill believed that he would be able
1
�P
to create the Swale that grades back to the manhole with the extension of 15 feet. Mr.
O'Neill suggested that he meet with VHB on site and possible extend the Swale an
additional 15 feet from the proposal.
VHB could not make a recommendation with regards to the icing and neither could Mr.
O'Neill whereas Mr. O'Neill had visited the site during spring and summer. Mr. Devlin
verified that icing does occur. Mr. Simons questioned Mr. O'Neill on what adjustments
could be made for icing? Mr. O'Neill was not aware of the concerns mentioned with the
icing and the draining at the center of Weyland Circle. Mr. Simons understood that an
answer could not be obtained today but would like a suggestion made to the Planning
Board at the next meeting the applicant attends. Mr. Devlin suggested drainage with cuts
inside going to the back of the lots. Mr. Simons questioned whether the icing occurred
from surface water? Mr. Devlin answered yes. Mr. O'Neill stated that the back of the
lots are landscaped and any possible changes to the residents property would require
easements. Mr. O'Neill was going to look into a resolution to the problem.
Mr. Simons questioned Mr. O'Neill on when the work could be started to resolve the
agreed upon issues? Mr. O'Neill answered that he could start immediately following the
meeting with VHB. Mr. O'Neill stated that everything he proposed on the Drainage
Remediation Plan dated August 16, 2001 could be done immediately with the approval of
the Planning Board and VHB.
Mr. Simons stated that Mr. O'Neill meet with on site with VHB and the Town Planner
and once an agreement is made between them that he starts the work.
Mr. Rowen motioned to have the Foxwood developer start the work once an agreement is
made on site with Ms. Griffin and VHB, 2"d by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the
motion.
Public Hearings:
Boston Hill Condominiums-Site Plan Special Permit
Mr. Chris Huntress representative for Mesiti Development gave the Planning Board a
brief description of the proposed project. Mr. Huntress stated that the proposal consisted
of 108 units that would be senior age restricted(55 and older). The entrance way has
been moved away from Johnson Street by about 600 feet. Mr. Huntress stated that a 70%
reduction of site work had been accomplished with this proposal. The units have a
smaller footprint. Mr. Huntress believed the applicant was exempt from the Growth
Management Bylaw and Phased Development due to the zoning freeze and the age
restriction. Mr. Simons stated that the Planning Board would look into whether the
applicant was exempt.
Mr. Sileski the architect for the applicant stated that through his designs they have
developed the rear of the dwellings and decreased the footprint to achieve a more natural
2
/o
appearance. The uphill buildings look taller from the road and smaller in the back. The
downhill buildings have a garage on the main living level with the face of the building
more prominent. The backs have dormers, possible sunrooms and more architectural
detail. The uphill dwellings have more detail in the front. The floor plans of the
downhill dwellings are spread more to the back with two bedrooms and optional rooms
for various buyers. The uphill buildings show the garage at the lower basement and three
bedrooms.
Mr. Rowen question how large the dwelling would be? Mr. Sileski stated that the living
space for the uphill is approximately 2400 A, the downhill has about 2200 sf with the
option of an additional 400 sf if the occupants finish the basement.
Mr. Nardella questioned the outside finishes? Mr. Sileski stated at the moment they do
not know if they will use wood or vinyl but it would have a clapboard look. Mr. Sileski
stated that he would provide that information at the next meeting.
Mr. Nardella asked if the dwellings have chimneys? Mr. Sileski stated that they are
equipped with a gas fireplace with horizontal ventilation.
Mr. Simons questioned whether Mr. Sileski had done any previous work similar to this?
Mr. Sileski stated that he had worked on Fuller Pond in Middleton.
Mr. Schwarz questioned how much of the building could be seen from the street? Mr.
Huntress stated that there were limited glimpses.
Mr. Nardella wanted to know what the open space plan showed, whether the land outside
the dwellings was to be considered open space. Mr. Huntress stated that they had thought
of placing a covenant on the property limiting the uses, also there was the possibility of
making the 30 feet off the buildings private open space.
Mr. Nardella stated his concern was the "definition" of the open space and its delineation.
For example, if the owner of one unit wanted to have a barbecue down by the mailboxes,
it would appear from this plan that could occur, as there is no reference to the open space
on the plan. Mr. Nardella stated he would like a clear delineation of the open space
parcels on the plan and what its uses would be as it relates to how it would affect the
owners of the dwellings.
Mr. Rowen stated that the applicant would have to develop a schedule that would protect
the foundations throughout the winter months if they planned on started the proposal this
year.
3
Mr. Dermot Kelly, traffic engineer, stated that they are proposing 54 feet of driveway that
is 25 feet wide. Mr. Kelly stated that this is similar to what is happening at the
Forestview Subdivision. Mr. Kelly stated that VHB had commented that the Saturday
traffic should be documented along with Mr. Kelly's stamp be placed on the final study.
Mr. Simons questioned what the site distance was? Mr. Kelly stated that at 55 mph there
is about 550 feet of site and the posting on Route 114 is 45 mph.
s
Mr. Simons questioned what the level of service was for left turns? Mr. Kelly stated that
the exiting was at level C and entering a level B. Mr. Kelly stated the trips in and out in
the morning are at 29 and in the evening are 27.
Ms. Griffin stated that she still had concerns for housing "55 years of age and older"
because with this type of housing you cannot restrict the residents from having children.
Ms. Griffin stated that would leave a concern for school bus pick-up as the School
Department has provided a memorandum that indicates they could not provide school bus
service at this site due to the slopes of the road and no where for the children to be picked
up at the site. Ms. Griffin recommended the applicant draft and provides a covenant to
the Planning Board that would clearly restrict school bus pick-up at this site. Mr. Brian
Levy, attorney for the applicant, stated that the applicant would be willing to include
within such a draft covenant that they(the applicant) would utilize the maximum
restrictions for 55 years of age and older housing that are allowed by law. Mr. Nardella
stated that they done a similar project at Green Street and suggested the applicant obtain a
copy of that restriction and use that when drafting their covenant. Ms. Griffin suggested
that the applicant provide the Planning Board with the covenant containing this restriction
and she will have Town Counsel review them. Mr. Nardella stated that until these
restrictions are provided the applicant may still have school bus issues. Mr. Grandstaff
stated that he would make provisions for the turn.
Mr. Rowen questioned the size and location of the detention pond? Mr. Huntress stated
the detention pond would be used like a revegetated use of wild life resource with upper
story ornamentals.
Mr. Nardella questioned how wide the road was? Mr. Kelly stated that is was 25 feet.
Mr. Rowen questioned whether there was a common meeting center proposed on site for
the residents? Mr. Huntress stated no.
Mr. Schwarz asked whether there was a trail proposed? Mr. Huntress stated that a trail is
proposed leading to trustee land.
Mr. Nardella wanted to know what the max slope of the roadway is and the location of it?
Mr. Rosati stated that the first 500 feet is at an 8% grade with the remainder being a b%
grade.
4
(07
Ms. Bernice Fink of 1250 Turnpike Street questioned what laws allow a restriction of 55
and older? Mr. Simons stated that the issue of restriction would be discussed at the
September 18 Planning Board meeting. Ms. Fink didn't feel that the Village Residential
for density was frozen in. Ms. Fink presented a handout to the Planning Board. Ms. Fink
commented that the storm of March 2001 cause flooding of the hill, Ms. Fink would like
this to be taken into consideration by the Board.
Mr. Simons questioned whether the open space suit was still in front of the courts?
Attorney Levy stated that the suit in regards to the Building Inspectors interpretation has
been dismissed while the suit Mr. Farnum filed is still in the courts.
Ms. Fink questioned whether blasting would be performed on the hill? Mr. Rosati stated
that there could be some but they would stay in compliance with the town. Mr. Rosati
stated that he would give more information at the September 18 meeting.
Ms. Fink stated that the placement of the detention basin would prevent the widening of
Route 114.
Mr. Keith Neich of 1084 Johnson Street questioned the placement of the underground
detention areas? Mr. Rosati stated that the placement of the detention basin was to
hopefully help reduce the risk of flooding. Mr. Neich question how far away the Brooks
Street intersection was from their proposed opening? Mr. Kelly stated that the range
looked to be about 500 feet but he would look into it for the September 18 meeting.
Mr. Rob Ray of 85 Boston Street stated that he didn't believe that the trip study took into
account the hazards in the area. Mr. Kelly stated that the State mandates whether a traffic
signal is required presently with the estimates the State would not allow a traffic light to
reduce the hazards.
Ms. Griffin stated that she would like the applicant to respond to the following issues at
the next Planning Board Meeting:
1. Proposal for an aboveground detention pond vs. an underground detention
structure—What are the reasons why an aboveground detention pond is being
proposed when the Planning Board has made it clear on the past application
they would prefer an underground detention structure?
2. Why is an casement not proposed for the future widening of Route 114? If
one is not being proposed the applicant should demonstrate to the Planning
Board, in writing, that there is ample space for the State to widen Route 114
within the State Right-of-Way.
3. Where would the snow storage be on site? This needs to be placed on the
plans.
4. It appears that on the site plans a height variance may be needed from the
Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed height of the buildings? If they
believe one is not needed, written documentation should be explained as to
5
lvf
why one is not needed. Mr. Huntress stated that they would prove to the
Planning Board at the next meeting that a height variance is not.needed.
5. Ms. Griffin commented that the memo from the Police Department dated
8/21/01 requests that the proposed roadway be reduced to a suggested speed
limit of 20 mph. Ms. Griffin noted that VHB's memorandum supports this
suggested speed also. Ms. Griffin further noted that VHB's memorandum
states that many of the proposed vertical curves do not meet 30mph design
criteria with respect to stopping sight distance. Ms. Griffin recommended
that the 20 mph speed be implemented as requested by the Police Department
and VHB, along with rectifying the appropriate vertical curves and stopping
sight distances with this new speed within the roadway.
6. Ms. Griffin stated the applicant should also include in the draft covenant to be
provided to the Planning Board that the detention pond and drainage systems
will be the responsibility of the owner to maintain and repair these structures
and that the owners of the dwellings may NEVER petition Town Meeting for
the DPW repair and maintain these structures. Additionally, the covenant
should clearly state the owners may NEVER petition Town Meeting for the
DPW to provide trash/refuse service to the development. And, as mentioned
earlier in the evening, the covenant should clearly state the owners may
NEVER petition Town Meeting or the School Committee for public
transportation and/or school bus service for any children within the
development.
Ms. Griffin stated she would like answers to the above questions responded to in writing
and/or delineated on the plans (as appropriate)prior to the next public hearing.
Mr. Schwarz questioned whether the applicant had gone before the Conservation
Commission? Mr. Huntress stated they were scheduled for September 5, 2001.
Mr. Rowen motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Boston Hill
Condominiums Site Plan Special Permit until September 18, 2001, 2nd by Mr. Nardella,
voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
Salem Turnpike Street-Seven Hills Foundation-Site Plan Special Permit
Mr. Karl Dubeau of MHF Designs, filling in for Mark Gross the engineer for the project,
stated that the site is 2 acres. Currently the site has a pump station located on it. The
applicant, Seven Hills Foundation, is proposing a 5600 sf professional building. The
proposal consists of a colonial style within the Village Commercial Zoning District.
There are 18 parking spaces proposed.
Mr. Rick Martell, construction manager for Seven Hills Foundation, stated that the
offices were to be utilized for the Seven Hills Staff. Presently they have offices located
6
in Wakefield and Lowell. This is a proposal for a single tenant office building with 10-
12 people working in the office.
Mr. Dubeau stated that an NOI had been submitted with the Conservation Department.
Mr. Dubeau stated that the dumpster was located at the fi-ont which will be screened.
Mr. Nardella questioned why the building was placed so far away from the road? Mr.
Nardella went on to say that the VC District was created to allow the building to be closer
to the roadway with the parking hidden in the rear. Mr. Dubeau stated that they had tried
to keep with the natural design of the site. Presently the site narrowed in the back, which
would make it difficult to fit parking in. Mr. Simons requested that the applicant show
profiles of the proposal.
Mr. Nardella questioned the maximum height of the building? Mr. Dubeau stated that is
was about 30 feet.
Mr. Simons questioned whether they were a non-profit organization? Mr. Martell
answered yes.
Mr. Dubeau went on to say that the dormers were for aesthetics;the building would be
fully sprinklered and alarmed. Also the applicant was placing a fire hydrant.
Mr. Angles questioned whether they were within the 100' buffer zone? Mr. Dubeau
stated yes they are.
Mr. Nardella questioned how many parking spaces were required? Ms. Griffin stated 19
parking spaces. Mr. Dubeau is proposing 18;he stated that what is showing within the
bylaw the calculation shows the spaces to be 18.3. Mr. Dubeau had thought that showing
18 would be sufficient. Mr. Nardella stated that the applicant should show 19 parking
spaces on the plan.
Mr. Schwarz questioned whether handicapped parking was proposed? Mr. Dubeau stated
that one handicapped parking spaces is proposed which follows the guidelines of the
zoning bylaw.
Mr. Dubeau stated that the landscaping was going to be placed to fill in any gaps and
along the existing pumping station. Sod was proposed instead of seeding and looming.
Mr. Simons wanted to know about the entryway, how it was going to be lit. Mr. Dubeau
stated that one light is proposed as you enter and three along the parking lot. The lights
are to be downcast.
Mr. Rowen questioned when they planned to start the construction? Mr. Martell stated
that they hoped to break ground about 90 days after approvals.
Mr. Simons questioned what the sign would look like? Mr. Martell stated that it would a
hand carved all wood with upward lighting.
7
rro
Mr. Simons requested that the applicant bring in pictures of the existing modular
buildings to the next meeting.
Mr. Dubeau stated that the stonewall along the side property was to be built to be able to R
use as a seat also. Timber guardrails are proposed. k
Mr. Angles questioned the elevation difference? Mr. Dubeau stated is about 2 feet.
Ms. Bernice Fink an abutter to the project questioned why a 4-inch water line was
proposed? Mr. Dubeau stated that the size is within code and that they will place
whatever size the DPW recommends.
Ms. Fink wanted to know what type of heating fuel is proposed? Mr. Dubeau stated they
would be using oil that will be stored in the basement.
Ms. Fink commented that there may be a problem with digging the foundation, when she
had built on her property she had dig deeper than normal to be able to stabilize the site.
Mr. Dubeau stated that with the applicant going before the Conservation Commission a
requested to be placed on the October 2 agenda.
Mr. Rowen motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Salem Turnpike
Street-Seven Hills Foundation-Site Plan Review until October 2, 2001, 2"d by Mr.
Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
65 Flagft Drive-Site Plan Special Permit
Mr. Karl Dubeau, engineer for the applicant, explained to the Planning Board that the
proposal was for a 9000 square foot addition to an existing building. Mr. Dubeau stated
that they have supporting parking for an office/manufacturing company. An underground
detention/retention basin is proposed with a recharge system. This is proposed to capture
existing water flow and send it to be recharged.
Mr. Nardella questioned the width of the driveway? Mr. Dubeau stated is 25 feet.
Mr. Dubeau stated that the applicant had submitted an NOI with the Conservation
Commission.
Mr. Simons requested that the applicant provide pictures for the September 18, 2001
meeting.
Mr. Nardella asked whether a new tenant was expected? Mr. Dubeau stated that they
didn't know at the moment.
8
1�1
Mr. Simons questioned the height of the roof? Mr. Dubeau stated that the floor elevation
was to stay the same but he would check the height for the September 18, 2001 meeting.
Mr. Simons wanted to know whether HVAC units were proposed on the flat roof? Mr.
Dubeau believed that they were. Mr. Simons requested that the applicant show the
Planning Board what sound deadening procedures would be implemented at the
September 18 meeting.
Mr. Nardella questioned what lighting is proposed? Mr. Dubeau stated that there are
three existing lights and would have more information for the September 18 meeting.
Mr. Dubeau stated that there was residential area in the back of the property and
screening is proposed.
Mr. Nardella instructed Ms. Griffin to look into the existing Special Permit for the
property to see if there are restrictions regarding the proposal.
Mr. Nardella motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for 65 Flagship Drive-
Site Plan Special Permit until September 18, 2001, 2"d by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor
of the motion.
Continued Public Hearings:
Turn ike Street Lot 4N-Merrimack Buildin -Site Plan Special Permit
Ms. Griffin informed the Planning Board that the applicant had addressed most of the
issues that were brought up at the July 24, 2001 Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Pat Garner, engineer for the applicant, stated that the sewer line had been added
along with a fire hydrant that the Fire Department had requested.
Mr. Dermot Kelly informed the Planning Board that a 30-foot radius is showing; a 15:1
taper is showing. Massachusetts Highway standard opening is 25 feet.
Mr. Doug Shedel, the noise engineer, stated that there is a 60-tan rooftop capacity
towards the highway there is a one decibel level, a three decibel level towards Ash&
Berry Street. Mr. Shedel believed that the decibels would increase.
Mr. Nardella read the draft Restrictive Covenant and suggested that the applicant delete
the words "for retail or other use". Mr. Hingorani stated that he would change it.
Mr. Simons wanted the applicant to show the sign in more detail. Mr. Nardella informed
the applicant the Building Inspector still needed to approve the sign. Mr. Nardella
suggested to Ms. Griffin to have all proposals for signs reviewed by the Building
9
112,
Inspector and to inform all applicants that they still require a building permit even after
the Planning Board approves the special permit.
Mr. Nardella requested that Ms. Griffin place within the decision that the 3 acres on
Berry Street are to be deeded over to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Simons
requested that the applicant show a picture of the sign at the September 18 meeting.
Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing for Turnpike Street Lot 4N
Site Plan Special Permit and instructed Ms. Griffin to draft a decision for September 18,
2001, 2 nd by Mr. Nardella, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion.
Mr. Nardella motioned to convene into Executive Session to discuss pending
litigation, 2"d by Mr. Rowen, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
Remaining Discussion Items:
Delucia Way-Endorsement of Plans
The Planning Board endorsed Delucia Way Definitive Subdivision Plans.
777 Great Pond Road-Lots 23,4 Watershed Special Permit &Lots 3 and 4 Common.
Driveway Special Permit-Extensions
Mr. Scully informed the Planning Board that they are presently working on the site;they
haven't done substantial work as of yet so they are requesting a one-year extension of the
special permits.
Mr. Nardella motioned to EXTEND all special permits granted for 777 Great
Pond Road for one year, 2"d by Mr. Rowen, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
Heritage Estates-Partial Bond Release
Mr. Rowen commented that he had been by the site recently and had questions for the
developer David Kindred. Mr. Rowen instructed Ms. Griffin to have Mr. Kindred come
to the Planning Board meeting of September 18.
Mr. Rowen motioned to NOT RELEASE any bond money from Heritage Estates
Subdivision, 2nd by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
10
113
Sterling Lane-Salem Forest IV-Partial Bond Release
Ms. Griffin informed the Planning board.that DPW recommended a release of$16,500.
This amount accounts for the release for the binder coat, topcoat, sidewalks, bounds,
street trees, bituminous, loam and seeding, detention area, erosion control, and retaining
wall. Ms. Griffin also informed the Planning Board that the developer would be coming
for street acceptance at the next Town Meeting.
Mr. Nardella motioned to RELEASE $16,500.00 leaving a remainder of
$14,200.00 from Sterling Lane-Salem Forest IV Subdivision, 2"d by Mr. Rowen, voted 5-
0 in favor of the motion.
Mr. Nardella motioned to APPROVE the August 7, 2001 Planning Board
minutes, 2°d by Mr. Angles, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion.
Mr. Nardella motioned to ADJOURN the Planning Board meeting of September
"
4, 2001 at 11:30 p.m., 2by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
11