HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-16 Planning Board Minutes Town of North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons,
Chairman • ' Eitan Goldberg
Peter Boynton 7��IG�� ', Aaron Preston ;
Christine Allen Associate
Jennifer Luz
Tuesday January.16, 2018A 7 p.m, 120 Main Street Town Hall North Andover,MA 01845 j
1
2 Present: J. Simons,P. Boynton, J. Luz,E. Goldberg, A. Preston, C.Allen
3 Absent:
4 Staff Present: S. Egan, J. Enright, M. Gregoire, B. Wolstromer
5
6 J. Simons Chairman: The Planning Board meeting for'Tuesday,January 16, 2018 was called to order at 7 pan.
7
8 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 122 roster Street,North Andover,Varsity Wireless,Brian Grossman:
9 Application for Wireless Facilities Special Permit. Applicant proposes to construct, operate and maintain a 130
10 foot rnonopole tower(135 feet to top of faux branches) with supporting equipment located in the Residential 1 (R-
I 1
R-11 1)Zone.
12 J. Enright: The applicant submitted supplemental material in response to several questions from the last meeting.
13 The Board's wireless consultant, David Maxson, is in attendance tonight. The applicant has filed a Continuance to
14 this meeting and an extension to January 25,2018 to file a decision.
15 Brian Grossman.Anderson Krieger for Varsity Wireless &Chris Swinia ski Verizon Wireless: Reaffirmed the
16 National Grid the property in question is not available for lease. Varsity Wireless,Verizon and AT&T are not
17 aware of any other potential development slated for the Winter St. area. Regarding reduction in height; 87ft., 97ft.
1.8 and 107ft. heights are to the antennae centerline,adding 8 ft. to each for the monopine taper. The application.
19 started at 135 It.; we've agreed to reduce the tower to 115 ft. 97 ft. for either carrier would be acceptable, 87 ft. or
20 below is not acceptable. Statistics have been provided for the effective reduction on coverage both from the
21 original height to the resulting heights. At 97 ft.,AT&T experiences a 35%reduction in the overall footprint and
22 about a 31% reduction in overall population.
23 J. Simons: Can you explain your methodology and the assumptions you make in doing that?
24 Martin Lavin, Engineer, C-Squared Systems: We take the coverage and overlay it on the U.S. census data;there is
25 no higher resolution of population data available.
26 P. Boynton: Why are you analyzing at 77 feet?
27 B. Grossman: Verizon ends up below AT&T; we've looked at 97 ft. and 77 ft. in the event you are pushing down
28 ultimately to an 87 ft. height.
29 P.Boynton: Why 20 ft. below at 77ft.; 20 ft. below the 97 ft.?Why 77ft, instead of 87ft.?I thought the arrays were
30 10 ft. apart;you're saying they're 20 ft. apart?
31 B.Grossman: They are 10 ft. apart;we have one for 97ft. and one for 77ft.; if you put AT&T at 87ft. Verizon
32 would be at 77ft; AT&T is slightly different,you have the 107ft. and 87ft. Based on the tree height survey,
33 predominant tree height in the area is 87-97 ft. which provides blocking; in terms of why at 87ft. putting it in the
34 trees won't provide the necessary coverage footprint for the carrier at 87 ft.
35 M. Lavin: The foliage hits us hard in terms of coverage, especially at the PCS frequencies. If you are at or very
36 close to the tree height almost your entire path will be through the trees; but to be slightly above them is best.
37 B. Grossman: Is there an impact given the location versus the proximity of the tree line?
38 M. Lavin: The closer you get to the tree height level the more the impact there is; as you come above it your path
39 becomes clear and you get better signal before you enter the trees.
40 B. Grossman: Provided a summary of the Johnson Street tower analysis: coverage comparisons, overlap,3
41 existing sites within close proximity,redundant coverage, 3 sectors would provide coverage v.the entire facility
42 that would at the Foster Street proposed location,redundant coverage results in noise and degradation of signal
43 and negative impact on existing coverage and reliability of users.
1
Town of'North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
.Tohn.Simons, Chairman E'itan Goldberg
Peter Boynton
Aaron Preston
Jennifer Luz Christine Allen,Associate
,
Tuesday January 16, 20'18(a) 7 p.m. 120 Main Street 'Town 11all North Andover,AM 01645
44 B. Grossman: Mr. Maxson's report states, "Using that site would fly in the face of good engineering practice
45 resulting in more detriment than benefit."It's not practical or something a carrier would do.
46 P. Boynton: Expressed that the bylaw notes every effort should be made to use existing infrastructure;you have
47 just told us existing sites cannot be modified; it's riot consistent with site development practices;you are not
48 willing to optimize existing infrastructure. Questioned whether it is possible to further optimize existing sites.
49 B. Grossman: Explained that you wouldn't decommission on an existing tower on one site and move it to another;
50 existing sites have been optimized.
51 P. Boynton: We are looking for how much of the Foster St. gap you suggested could be covered by the Johnson. St.
52 tower?You haven't answered that;we requested an analysis of a potential alternative.
53 B. Grossman: It would degrade the existing coverage and create a problem for three other sites in North Andover.
54 P. Boynton: To what decibel level would it degrade it to?
55 M. Lavin: I don't have an analysis.
56 B. Grossman,: Stated that the letter from Atty. Caffrey makes assertions that aren't true. The LBA approved
57 variances;the relief is set. They found necessary hardship for the location.
58 R Boynton: Did you do a traffic analysis'?We asked for a dropped call analysis and at the time you said that was
59 irrelevant.
60 13, (L Grossman: There was a road coverage analysis in the original report; it is irrelevant.
61 M. Lavin: Salem Street 9600 vehicles per day east of Appleton St.; 2900 vehicles per day as measured south of
62 Boxford St.; per MADOT.
63 D. Maxson, lsotrope: Described why the Johnson St. tower would not be effective.
64 P. Boynton: We had a lot of discussion about challenges of the tower at 77ft. or 87 ft. about"occlusion by
65 foliage". In its current proposed site, it looks like the tree heights are below 70ft.? What is the concern with foliage
66 blocking the signal at 77f-t. or 87 ft.?
67 D. Maxson: That is a disconnect. Suggested that perhaps the trees right around the tower are not as tall as noted in
68 the forestry report. They are not circling the top; they could be 75 ft.Even if they are a problem for coverage it
69 still means the 87 ft. height is free and clear.
70 P. Boynton: Do you know of any other tower under consideration, between.Foster St. and Boxford that could also
71 address some of this gap?
72 D. Maxson: I am not aware until they become applications.
73 R Boynton: Would the majority of the described gap be covered at the 87ft. or 9711. level?
74 D. Maxson: Explained that the described gap is much larger than the coverage proposed from the initial proposal.
75 The majority of the area the tower was intended to cover, will still be covered at both lesser heights; 87 and 97 ft.
76 P. Boynton:rton: Do you think that majority of coverage at 87ft. or 97 ft. is such that it is no longer a significant gap?
77 D. Maxson;: There is still service to a large degree on Salem St.,portions of Boxford St.,much of the interior
78 portion of Foster St., neighborhoods surrounding that general area,the soccer fields; there is still a substantial
79 gain. Regarding AT&T,the biggest jump appears to be going from 67ft. - 87ft, the jump to 107ft, is similar in
80 magnitude; at 127ft. there are fringes of improvernent.
81 P Benton: Why wasn't a hand count done? Which way does the error go census block versus hand count?
82 D. Maxson: I discounted the population counts as I prefer hand counts.
83 A. Preston: .f low would you define"adequate"and in your opinion is there a significant gap in this neighborhood?
84 D. Maxson: The courts decide for us whether or not a Board has failed to enable a provision of service within a
85 significant gap.
2
Town of`North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Cpairman Dtan Goldberg
Peter Boynton Aaron Preston
Jennifer Luz
"% F C"pristine Allen,Associate
Tuesday January 16, 2018(a,, 7&m. 120 Main Street 'fawn Mall Nortli Andover, MA 01845
86 Pain Rivet, 67 Faster Street: Provided an overview of a coverage analysis she performed to compare the number of
87 structures, (based on the town GPS map)within the colored areas. Homes were counted within each of the colored
88 areas. Conclusion: 238 homes are covered in the 57ft., 77ft. and 97 ft. areas, almost 80% of those homes actually
89 get optimal coverage at the 57ft. and 77ft. heights, 48 % get optimal coverage from the 57 ft. height, not that many
90 more homes get extra coverage at the 97 ft. (only 57 homes). Stated her home is in the gray area on that Verizon
91 map. Per that map,there needs to be an antenna at 57 ft. for me to get optimal service; yet I have great service.
92 Expressed that more than 80 people in our area signed the petition stating they don't need a tower. Comparing the
93 addresses on the petition to the town GPS map, mapping them to the color zones on the map. Conclusion: 87/0 of
94 the petitioners do not have good coverage per Verizon's map; however, everyone said they don't require improved
95 service? Something is flawed. Stated several hypotheses, 1.)This map only shows 700 MHz frequency band and
96 other maps show the 2100 MHz frequency band. Why weren't they overlaid onto one map?2.)Does this map
97 actually show the existing and proposed small cell coverage?It might not be represented on this map? 3.) Maybe
98 their--95dbm threshold is too high?4.)The method of generating maps from a computer model, sitting at one's
99 desk doesn't match what is happening in the field?Close to 80%would be served with a 77ft. antennae. Expressed
100 that the argument that the tower has to be at the taller height is nonsense; there's no significant gala.
1.01 M. Lavin: Described small cell coverage; 700 MHz v. 2100 MHz.
102 B. Grossman: Verizon Wireless has years of development with its wireless communications network and is
103 familiar with its needs for overall reliability customer user experience. They have determined that 95dbm is the
104 appropriate standard to ensure a consistent, reliable maser experience.
105 Marls Johnson,440 Foster: If weinstalled light poles in specific areas in these communities would they work?I'm
106 still not seeing absolute need?
107 D._Maxson: It would cover residences within the immediate area; it wouldn't provide general area coverage.
108 Lisa Roberts, 31 Bridges Lane: Stated that she has called Verizon regarding the quality of our cell signal and
109 coverage. According to customer service,The LT tower nearby delivers a strong signal. I contacted National Grid
110 and according to R. Parella(Varsity's contact)lie had not been contacted by Varsity Wireless since the letter was
111 drafted;the original contact was not reached out to. Only Parcels 28 &29 were referenced in that letter. Isotrope
11.2 pointed out Parcel 36 as a better alternative which was not mentioned. I inquired about Parcel 37, according to his
113 email access might be difficult. Stated she doesn't Varsity Wireless has done their due diligence.
114 Rob Jones 643 So. Bradford Street: Vehemently opposed,town land Parcel 37 needs to be explored. Town Farm
115 Hill needs to be explored. Encouraged Board to look at any data and to push the proposed site back into the
116 property.
117 D. Maxson: Town Farm Hill is a little too high and too far away to provide coverage to the general area.
118 Elaine Finbuly,_Abutter 160 Foster Street: Filed an application with the MA Historical Commission to consider j
119 this property for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. If determined to meet their standards a review
120 process will be required. Stated the proposal is not authentic and offensive.
121 Max Lindausr,Abutter 160 Foste_rStreet:,Grew up adjacent to the proposed site which inspired his lifelong
122 interest in agriculture. Expressed interest in building his home nearby; however, a cell tower is detrimental. He
123 spoke with the owner who expressed that he didn't care where the tower was located on his property. Requested
124 the Board consider moving the tower; suggested a full environmental analysis be done of the site with the risk of a
125 diesel generator adjacent to wetlands.
126 Andrew CaffrgyA_„ . rep. for E, FinbqM. Varsity Wireless is a commercial venture doing what is best for
127 themselves. The ZBA approved the site;this Board has a different set of criteria to meet; both approvals are
128 necessary in order to go forward. Under section 10.3.1 the Board has wide discretion; three conditions must be
3
Town of'North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman + ' Eitan Goldberg
Peter Boynton /,/l %%�1f'� Aaron.Preston
Jennifer LuzChristine Allen,Associate
Tuesday January 16, 2018(a7 7 p.m. 120 Main Street Totvn Hall North Andover, MA 01845
129 met: the specific site is an appropriate location for such a use, structure or condition,the use as developed must not
130 adversely affect the neighborhood and the special permit granting authority shall not grant any special permit
131 unless they make a specific finding that the use in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this bylaw. If
132 you look at the purpose clause of the bylaw, in addition to calling for respect for North Andover's rural character,
133 section 8.9 states"it is the express purpose of this bylaw to minimize the visual and environmental impacts as well
134 as any deleterious impact on property value". Requested the Board deny the application.
135 Susan Sabia Abutter, 92 Bridges Lane: Stated that given that Varsity Wireless is offering a solution to a problem
136 they invented there is no urgency to solve it. Expressed that the Board has a choice to make and there is nothing in
137 the Telecommunications.Act that says you have to do what they say, it doesn't pre-empt the Constitution, and that
138 residents have a voice as a community in what happens to their fiuture.
139 Richard Stanley,Abtutter, 65 Bridges_Lane: Requested that the Board members work with the residents on
1.40 alternatives. This will destroy our neighborhood and everyone in this room.
141 J. Simons: Reviewed alternatives for next steps.
142 J. Enright: The extension is until January 25`x'. In order to write a draft decision I will need a sense of the Board.
143 J. Simons: If we close the public hearing we risk not being able to pursue additional information in the discussion.
144 Preference would be to close the public hearing tonight and vote tonight.
145 P. Bovnton: The tree height analysis doesn't completely inform the ground elevation for those tree heights. The
146 conclusion of tree height is not around the tower and not adequately correlated to the ground elevation for those
147 tree heights.
148 B. Grossman: Asked the Board to approve the tower in the current location.
149 P. Boynton: Let's have a discussion without closing;then vote.
1.50 E. Goldberg: Reviewed several criteria stated in the bylaw. Appreciate that the application went from 135 ft. to
151 1.15 ft. and our consultant's simulations. We heard a lot about environmental protection; preservation of rural
152 character. They have to demonstrate the facility is necessary in order to provide adequate service and we need to
153 discuss and vote on whether that's been met. It's on the applicant to prove there are no feasible pre-existing
1.54 structures; if we met those,we have to decide on how many co-locations. Its close on adequate service;there is a
155 gap in service;I think it would be covered at 97 ft. They are not under any obligation to look at pole toppers; it's
156 not land they own or the person's property; we can't consider that.National Grid said"no" on existing sftuctures;
1.57 they've shown it's not feasible to occur on existing structures.Based on the data,minimize visual impacts,
158 encourage appropriate land use,I would be comfortable approving it at 97ft. +8 ft./105 ft.; they could potentially
159 go up another ten; if possible in the future; they could come back for 1 U7ft.
160 P.Boynton: The case of the gap is a close one,we are relying on what has been accepted in the past. I am not
161 willing to do a tower at the height they are proposing; a lower height tower is a possibility. Would the majority of
162 the gap be addressed at 97 ft. or 87 ft.?I believe our consultant said it would be addressed at both heights. I would
163 really like to see 87ft. and moving the tower to the rear of the property where it has less conflict with the town
164 bylaws. We are trying to address national standards and comply with our bylaws.
165 A. Preston: Tonight I heard there was opportunity for a compromise between the residents of the neighborhood
166 and Varsity Wireless. I don't remember the location ever being a topic of negotiation.
167 J. Luz: The question of this gap in coverage and the idea of how we define it;the"white part" noted on the maps
168 as having no coverage is still puzzling to me. I don't understand why the tower has to go specifically where it is
169 versus being located somewhere else and cover a different aspect of the gap; it comes down to the gap,the bylaws
170 and conditions for an approval of a special permit. I have concerns as to whether it is an appropriate location for
4
Town of Noah Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman Eitan Goldberg
Peter Boynton
��nl��li . Aaron Preston
�� ��m•
Christine Allen,A.vsociate
Jennifer Luz
i
Tuesday.Ianuary 16, 2018 a), 7 p.m. 120 Main Street Town Hall North Andover,MA 01845
171 such a use structure and condition. Our consultant's presentation was compelling that a different location on the
172 site reduces the visual impact.
173 E. Goldberg: I saw a marked difference in the actual photographs of the balloon test from 135ft. to 115ft. the
174 soccer field picture was ugly; but the other photos got a lot better; at 97ft. it's feasible;we have to listen to what
1.75 the residents say,this is the use of someone's personal property. We have to give deference to the applicant and.
176 owner as to where they want to put something on their property. We have a bylaw because we allow cell towers in
177 the town. The applicant has done a lot to meet the criteria of the bylaw and received variances from the 'LISA. Our
178 peer review said there are gaps in service based on the best available data. Ms. Rivet's presentation tonight was
179 helpful; I understand the residents don't want to see a cell tower; there are many people affected;they'll be
180provided better coverage at 97 ft.; it is the appropriate under the bylaw.
181 P. Boynton: How someone chooses to use their property is a powerful point. I also think this has boundaries;with
182 respect to-"do the uses impact others?"which is why we have a bylaw for cell towers;they do impact others; it's
183 not 97 ft. It is 97 ft. + 8ft. (105ft.)If we get beyond this question of the definition of the gap, it's a combination of
184 lower and a move for dual benefit;moving it back offers a lessened visual impact,As described it's no longer in
185 the line of site driving down Foster St.
186 E. Goldberg: They would say 97ft.only allows for one carrier.
187 A. Preston: The applicant is putting forth 10711. plus 8ft. (I 15ft.); 97ft.would be a reduction.
188 J. Simons: When you look at their data they had it at 77ft.,but at 77ft. you cover 75 % of what was perceived as
189 the full gap. Everyone stressed all along,we are trying to balance many different equities; we have the language of
190 the bylaw and what we are trying to protect,federal law and the interest of the property owners. It seems to me
191 that moving it back and lower the height accomplishes the goals of our bylaw and the Federal
192 Telecommunications Act.
193 E. Goldberg: Moving it back creates a taller tower. t
194 S.Kelleher: Described visual impact and how moving it affects more properties (Fuller,Bridges Lane,Blueberry
195 HillLn.)with regard to visibility; also there are wetlands to avoid. Questioned the accuracy of Mr. Maxson's
196 simulation,
197 D. Maxson: A balloon test would validate Mr. Kelleher's opinion; moving the tower and visibility is not
198 documented. Described distance based on mean sea level. I have done my share of photo simulations; it would
199 make a difference at the soccer fields.
200 L. Roberts,Br44es_Lane: This all hinges on a gap;we don't believe we have a gap.
201 E. Goldberg: We don't have accurate information; how would we logistically approve a different location?If we
202 don't specifically state the location we don't know if it is better, the same, or worse and if we can't designate a
203 general or specific area. I would say approve it where it is or disapprove it where it is. We don't know where it
204 will be;without a balloon test, images, etc.
205 J. Simons: You potentially could say deny the whole thing because they haven't done due diligence or we approve
206 it at the lower height;there are issues if you aren't being explicit.
207 P. Boynton: We had our discussion and our consultant said they were unwilling to move it. We have done our due
208 diligence. If there was a more clearly delineated option along with the reduced height I could consider it; but if we
209 are saying we can't entertain moving it unless we have more specifies,then we deny it. From what we have heard,
210 there is a viable alternative on the property that has not been sufficiently explored.
211 A. Preston: Is there truly a gap?Our consultant says there is a gap; a viable alternate location is on the applicant to
212 point out whether there is a significant gap.
5
Town of North Andover
PLANNING BOARD)
John Simons, Chairman Eitan Goldberg
Peter Boynton /%f/ '%'%/ ' Argon Preston
Jennifer Luz 4i ' ClrristineAllen,Associate
Tuesday January 16, 2018(a`� 7 L.rn. 120.Main Street Town Hall North Andover,NIA 01845
213 J. Simons: You can make the argument that at the height proposed it creates a real burden to the neighborhood and
214 they haven't looked at ways of reducing that.
215 E. Goldberg: I think we should approve it at 97 ft.,the applicant should have that opportunity; if there were 4
216 members that would approve it at another location at a specific height not comfortable with that to define an
217 alternate location.
218 P. Boynton: Unless the applicant wants to take more time to define the alternate location.
219 J. Simons: My understanding is the applicant is not willing to entertain alternate location or height?
220 B. Grossman:No.
221
222 MOTION: E. Goldberg made a motion to close the public hearing for a Wireless Special Permit for a cell tower at
223 122 Foster St:. North Andover,Varsity Wireless, Brian Grossman. A. Preston seconded the motion. The vote was
224 5-0, unanimous in favor.
225
226 A. Preston: What is the incremental benefit of the 105 ft. v. 115 ft.?Ten feet may not make a big difference,
227 Twenty feet is a greater difference in terms of balancing the appearance of the neighborhood; providing this
228 facility for the community.
229 P. Boynton: Moving the site is off the table. Our decision will be reviewed?
230 E, Goldberg: Correct; if it is appealed, we don't know. I think 97ft. -+- 8ft. meets the bylaw; I'd be willing to
231 compromise to 87 feet if there were four people who would vote for that.
232 P. Bovrltorl: I couldn't support that.
233 J. Luz: I keep looking at the conditions for approval of the special permit; our zoning bylaw and cell towers
234 specifically;the'Telecommunications Act;I keep conning back to all the alternative dismissed sites,the coverage
235 map and how big it was; I accept there is a gap in coverage, but I don't:accept that it is limited to the area they are
236 trying to define the problem to; by limiting it to that area they have cut off the alternative sites in order to solve the
237 problem. I'm not convinced that we are at a point that there is only this one potential location that can solve the
238 problem of the gap. Given the proposal right now,where the application is before us; I am concerned that I don't
239 think I could approve it as is; and I'm still concerned about it at a lower height; I don't think the applicant has fully
240 explored other locations that could potentially solve the gap in coverage,
241 P, Boynton: How do you define the gap, is it based on all the"white area"or isit based on the applicant saying
242 our proposed solution would fill this area and therefore that's the gap.
243 J. Luz: We have only discussed that one circle; I don't feel comfortable that more"circles"could have been drawn
244 on the map; I don't feel comfortable based on the record before us that there has been adequate consideration and
245 we don't have the ability to eliminate those other possibilities.
246 P. Boynton: I support that approach.
247 A, Preston: There is a gap in the area, it's needed, but my primary concern is maybe there is a place elsewhere on
248 the property. If there were not adequate enough votes to approve this application,what steps could be taken by the
249 applicant to reinvestigate this coverage gap beyond the whole appeal process; talk to the community more?
250 J. Simons: They could choose to do that or appeal the process.
251
252 MOTION: E. Goldberg made a motion to approve the Wireless Facilities Special Permit for a cell tower-at 122
253 Foster St.,North Andover,Varsity Wireless, Brian Grossman, at 87 ft. plus 8 ft. (95ft.)A. Preston seconded the
254 motion. The vote was 4 (opposed)- 1 in favor. (E. Goldberg voted in favor)
6
Town of North.Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman Eitan Goldberg
Peter Boyntonjf� ��,*. Aaron Freston
��f
Christine Allen,Associate
Jennifer Litz
' f
Trresda Januar .l6 2018 7 .m. 120 Main Street Town Hall North Andover 11TA 01845
255 MOTION: E. Goldberg made a motion to approve the Wireless Facilities Special Permit for a cell tower at 122
256 Foster St.,North Andover,Varsity Wireless,Brian Grossman, at 97 ft.plus 8 ft. (105ft.)(No members seconded
257 the motion.)The vote failed. f
258 MOTION: E. Goldberg made a motion to approve the Wireless Facilities Special Permit for a cell tower at 1.22
259 Faster St.,North Andover,Varsity Wireless, Brian Grossman, as proposed at(11.5 ft.)J. Luz seconded the motion.
260 The vote was 5-0, unanimous opposed.
261 J. Simons: Fails to carry by a 5-0 vote.
262 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 21 High Street(formerly known as 1 High Street)RCG North
263 Andover LLC:
264 Application for a Site Plan.Review Special Permit and a Planned Development District Special .Permit.Applicant
265 proposes to construct a 59,440 SF building containing 51 units of residential apartments, along with parking and
266 associated improvements. The property is located in the I-S Zoning District.
267 J. Enright: There have been several plan revisions since the last meeting which addressed the comments from the
268 NAFD, civil and stormwater review, and DPW. A draft Decision has been provided.
269 Phil Henry, Civil Design Group: `there were technical comments which ended in minor plan changes and
270 clarifications. The only substantial change proposed was a 20 ft. wide fire access drive to the back right corner of
271 the building in order to get a fire apparatus into a certain regulatory area closer to the building for 250 ft. access
272 around the building; a drive aisle was introduced to connect the lower parking lot to the upper parking lot; all other
273 changes were minor.
274 J Enright: Can you address the waiver request from the Conservation Commission; that is still being heard?
275 I'.Henry: The site generates 1,000 vehicle trips a day; it is considered land use of high pollutant load. The
276 stormwater system considers and manages that intensive use;the Conservation Commission has agreed with our
277 approach to managing that. The DEP standard states you cannot have an infiltration BMP within 50 ft. of a
278 resource area; noted 50 ft. wetland setback from the wetland flags. Our stormwater infiltration system; a
279 subsurface pipe trench, encroaches within that 50 ft. by about 8 feet and is significantly farther from the edge of
280 water. It is positioned downstream of its respective watershed;they agreed it was in a suitable location.
281 Tania Hartford RCG, ,North Andover Mills LLC. Iiartford: We met with Machine Shap Village in November;
282 they agreed with the massing,type and materials;they wanted more details. We will meet again on January 25 to
283 present trim,windows, colors, etc.
284 A. Preston: Residents commented on the traffic on High St.; truck deliveries, additional cars,etc. Have you had a.
285 chance to address those issues in the community?
286 J.Enright: I:reached out to the NAPD. They are installing a data boat for three weeks in the area of Clarendon,East
287 Water and High Streets. The concern is outside the scope of this application; however,they were willing to look at
288 those concerns as they relate to traffic/speed.
289 T'. Hartford: We did a traffic memo which TEC reviewed;traffic will not have a large impact with this project.
290 P.Bolton: Questioned the 100 and 500 year floodline.
291. P. Henry: We are outside of the 100 year flood line; we don't know if we are outside of the 500. There will be less
292 runoff than previous;there is flood protection in the BMP systems which goes into the pond and is controlled.
293 J. E,nri2ht: The Building Commissioner has confirmed the parking requirement has been met.
294 MOTION: P. Boynton made a motion to close the public hearing for 21 High Street(formerly known as 1 High
295 Street)RCG North Andover Mills,LLC.E. Goldberg seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0, unanimous in favor.
7
Town of North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman Eitan Goldberg
Peter Boynton
Aaron Preston
'���� '`°` Christine Allen,Associate
J"erznfer Luz •
,
Tuesday January 16, 211.187 p.m. 120 Main Street Town Hall North Andover,MA 01895
296 MOTION: P. Boynton made a motion to approve the Site,Plan Review Special Permit&Planned Development
297 District Special Permit&Parking Special Permit, as amended, for 21 High Street(formerly known as I High
298 Street)RCG North Andover Mills, LLC, A.Preston seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0, unanimous in favor.
299
300 NEW PUBLIC HEARING,Corner of Mill Road and Johnson Street(Map 107A,Lots 294,4G,293,28),
301 TIKZ LLC: Application for a Land Disturbance Permit.in connection with proposed construction of four detached
302 single-family homes with site grading, driveways, septic systems, and service utilities within the Residential 2 (8-
303 2) 'Zoning District.
304 M. Gregoire: The engineers are still reviewing civil and stormwater; we received BOH comments; they approved
305 the septic system in April; we have not heard from the DPW and the Building Commissioner; Conservation
306 reviewed the application in August and the applicant received an Order of Conditions for I..ots IA and 1B.
307 Tom Zahoreuko TILLC: These are four Form A lots. I am currently purchasing two lots from the property
308 owners. What we are doing has already been reviewed as part of the application.Nothing differs from this plan
309 and the original. We are going through the drainage analysis more formally. We have addressed TEC items.
310 J. Enright: The person who did the ANR in 2016 was informed at the time that this will require Land Disturbance
311 Permit.
312 J. Simons: Can you show us the entire picture; how the 4 lots break out;the ANR plan; the locus? We want to see
313 how all the lots relate, The only wetland is at the very back?You show the degree of clearing; extent of cutting
314 and filling?Drainage structures on the lots?
315 T. Z.,ahoruiko: They are contiguous lots. Currently, I'm only developing two lots which I submitted separately as
316 individual lots. The stormwater drawings have been prepared and can be reviewed.
317 Kelly Welch, 890 Johnson Street: There is a drainage issue on these sites. Currently the rainwater from Mill St.
318 drains onto my front yard.
319 J. Enriit: We have asked our town engineer to review stormwater and provide comments,
320 Fotios Kokkotos 100"fucker Farm Road: Over a year ago the owner was to clear a trash debris pile which still
321 remains on site; there are two ponds which affect drainage; there are water management issues; rare wildlife
322 species; I am glad you asked for additional details.
323 T. Zahoruiko; In the Order of Conditions there are very extensive conditions, specifically on Lot IA about
324 cleaning of debris and remediating invasive species; that is part of conditions with Conservation; that can't be
325 done until all permits are in hand.
326 Matt Fiore 9. delineation01 Johnson Street: My concern is with for 2All:,ot 4;the latest delineation reap showed more
327 wetlands more than just in the back of the site. I wanted to make you aware; I couldn't obtain a shed for my
328 property due to those wetlands.
329 Continued to February 6, 2018 Planning Board meeting]
330
331 NEW PUBLIC HEARING, 1210 OSGOOD STREET,Princeton Development LLC; Application for
332 Modification to the Site Plan Review, Multi-family Housing and Redaction in Parking Special Permit. Applicant
333 proposes to modify the Site Plan to lower the grade of the entire site to achieve the same flat grade for the
334 buildings and compliant grades for pedestrian corridors. In addition, applicant proposes modification to the
335 locations,number and equipment used for the stormwater management system.
336 1-Continued to January 23, 2018 Planning Board meeting]
337
8
Town of'North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John,Simons, Chairman � �' Eitan Goldberg
Peter Boynton �Y���ll�� ill°���0 Aaron Preston
Jennifer Luz Christine Allen,Associate
J
T uesda Januar 16 2018 7 .m. 124 Main Street Town Hall North Andover MA 01845
338 NEW PUBLIC HEARING, 1210 OsIzood Street,Forfletta Development LLC: Application for Modification to
339 the Site flan Review and Reduction in Parking Special Permit.Applicant proposes to modify the Site Plan to
340 lower the grade of the entire site to achieve the same flat grade for the buildings and compliant grades for
341 pedestrian corridors. In addition, applicant proposes modification to the locations,number and equipment used for
342 the stormwater management system.
343 J. Enright: This is application for a modification to the two proposed developments, residential and commercial,
344 which were permitted in December of 2016. Costs have risen significantly; they reviewed alternatives, identified a
345 new stormwater design, lowering the site resulted in less fill,truck trips, etc. A significant review was done by our
346 stormwater consultant,Eggleston Environmental. All her concerns were addressed. I have asked the applicant to
347 review the grading plan; slopes and elevations changed; our town engineer has reviewed the plan and has no
348 concerns at this time. He did caution he would not want to see a slope of greater than the proposed 8%.
349 J Peznola Hancock Associates Princeton&For rets t DevElapment: This was an exercise in reducing fill; we are
350 trying to import less fill. We have changed the grades between 2 and 4 feet. We originally had 13 stormwater
351 systems on site and reduced it to 8 systems;through discussions with Lisa Eggleston we added 4 more systems to
352 the site. We are not lowering the commercial buildings as much as we are lowering the residential. Building 3 is
353 lowered 3 ft. Building B is lowered 4 ft. which is in tuned with what the Board requested originally. Our site is all
354 ADA compliant. The main entrance increased in slope to 3%;the north entrance to 8%;nothing else has changed
355 only grades, retaining walls and the design of the drainage system.
356 J. Enright: Commercial Building 2 is dropping-3.5 ft. & 3-is dropping 3 ft.; Building B-is dropping 4.5 feet;the
357 residential buildings are dropping at least as much as the commercial across the front;the applicant is before
358 Conservation now;they've opened the hearing; all technical questions have been answered.
359 l`C"ontinucd to January 23, 2018 Planning Board meeting]
360
361 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL TOWN MEETING ZONING ARTICLES:
362 Article 2: CitizenPetition—Prohibition of Non-Medical Marijuana
363 Article 4: Amend the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw--To Replace Section 8.13-Temporary Moratorium
364 on Recreational Marijuana Establishments with Section 8.13-Marijuana Overlay District.
365 Article 5: Amend Zoning Map—Marijuana OverlayDistrict (MOD)
366 J. Enright: This is the continued public hearing for the special town meeting for the zoning articles. We have
367 placed the form online for public comments. A resident asked for a summary of the articles;I provided a memo to
368 the Board for Articles 4 and 5;you have a copy of the draft planning board report;there is a redline version with
369 suggested language for Article 4;there is an open discussion of the cultivation space and the R&D space and the
370 linkage of the two.
371 S.._Uan: After the last meeting, resident,Lynne Rudnicki (resident) suggested we have the Atty. General review
372 the bylaw; it was sent to the Municipal Bureau of'the Attorney General's office and was reviewed. There will be a.
373 special Town Counsel at this Special Town Meeting(IU Law). Board reviewed changes and made suggested edits
374 to the draft bylaw.
375 Wendy,Wakeman, 140 Academy Road: I am here to ask you to make a recommendation on whether we should
376 change this zoning at all. I'm still of the perspective that you are rushing this process. Has the applicant told you
377 whether that they qualify as a priority applicant under the current CCC draft regulations?If not;the chances their
378 application will even be heard before November or December are almost zero. The fact that this process was
379 rushed becomes even more suspect. Once we make this zoning change the applicant can flip the property the
380 following day and we'll be dealing with a new set of faces who are eligible to build a recreational or pot factory on
9
Lown of'North Andover
PLANNING.BOARD
John Simons, Chairman • ` Eitan Goldberg
Peter Boynton �� ������ ,� � Aaron Preston
Jennifer Lanz '�� Christine Allen,Associate
Tuesday Jannary 16, 2018(a 7 p.m. 120 Main Street 'Town Hall North Andover,MA 01845
381 that property. It's fair to point out that those people may not stand before us when it is time to grant the license. l
382 am also concerned about the lack of actual regulations from the state over how a facility like this will be run. 1
383 have read the CCC draft regulation;they need to clarify"priority applicants". There are two kinds: one is currently
384 medical marijuana distributors and economic empowerment applicants, apparently drawn from areas of"impact"
385 which could be heavy rain,the drug trade, etc.; it is ill defined. One of the ways you can qualify as an"economic
386 empowerment group" is if at least 51% of"employees or subcontractors have drug related CORI record information
387 and are otherwise legally employable in cannabis enterprises. What this means is that if your record is clean,you
388 go to the back of the line.Priority will be given to people who have drug offenses on their records, What are we
389 getting North Andover into; what kind of a trade will this be?With Sessions rescinding the Obatna memo, there is
390 a lot of question that this facility will have access to banking. If it doesn't, what you will have is a 1.1. million sq.
391 ft. marijuana grow facility doing all of its drug trade in cash; being run by people who are party to the drug trade
392 and convicted of drug offenses. I think that's too big of a risk to take. I ask you vote"no"when it's time to vote,
393 this is too rushed and there is not enough information that is going to be a net plus for North Andover,
394 E, Goldberg: Zoning doesn't affect ownership;whether this ownership group or a hypothetical third party would
395 have an even longer road to get a special permit from this Board.
396 M. Rosen,Atty. for prof orient: Our goal is to be a priority applicant; based upon having a registered marijuana.
397 dispensary, if we have an RN/UD under agreement by April 1 and a non-opposition letter from another city or town
398 allowing us to open. We have to have a property under control; be in a zone that allows it and have a non-
399 opposition letter; if we have those three things for any one retail site for a medical dispensary we qualify for a
400 PCR; we would then file that application with the Dept. of Public Health who would approve rrs as a PCR; move
401 us to the next stage of the application giving us our priority status,
402 W. Wakeman: Do you have any particular communities in mind for the non-opposition letter?
403 M. Rosen: Yes, we have.We are not looking to hire people with criminal records to work for us.
404 Charles Salisbury, 301 Johnson Street: I heard tonight from Town Counsel that your draft bylaws are being
405 reviewed by the Division of Community Development;years ago there was an effective attorney there who (lid
406 things collaboratively amongst Planning Boards across the Commonwealth to understand how other communities
407 are thinking. It seems to me the thinking of out-Planning Board in North Andover is different to that of Lexington,
408 Wakefield,Lynnfield,I.,awrence, Methuen and Andover; all of who whom are bringing forward to their
409 communities the fact that to maintain who they are,they ought to look at opting out; instead it's being done by
410 citizen petition which is a little strange.You are the hope of this town in terms of future planning. You are the
411 Planning Board; not the ZBA. You draft masterplans;you look five years into the future and talk about how we
412 get there;that's the only place that happens. I suspect if I go back and look at the last rnasterplan, I'm not going to
413 find the statement that we need to solve the difficulty of the scarcity of indoor growing facilities by the Planning
414 Board addressing that particular issue. What brought it to you was the well-funded consortium who are more
415 interested in a profit motive more than they are in the future of North Andover, I hope you are taking that thought
416 forward as the responsibility that you need to carry out. The other part of that, so you are sure you are not
417 engaging in spot zoning, or contract zoning, is to say if there is a scarcity of agricultural opportunities in North
41.8 Andover, we have diminishing farms but we still have some, why are we not talking to the Barkers, Farnums and
419 Smolaks, all of who have large land parcels and might benefit from agricultural opportunities; rather than focusing
420 on one parcel and one applicant that doesn't address the town's need at all.
421 Stephen Seide, 25.Great.Lake I.,ane: I admire the perseverance and level of detail. This town, founded in 1.640 has
422 been here for hundreds of years now. I attended a recent masterplan meeting. I attended Town Meeting in May.
423 When I learned about this subject I was absolutely baffled. We have done a tremendous amount of work in the
10
Town of North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman Eitan Goldberg
�,y� .
Peter Boynton Aaron Preston
� °�� ���'� �
„ Christine Allen,
Associate
Jennifer Luz
1
Tuesday Jan uarp 16, 2018(a 7 p.m. 120 Main Street Town Hall North An(Iover,MA 01845
424 town with the school district consolidation, new buildings, etc.; we've done a great job. I just learned about this on.
425 Friday. Why are we in such a rush because the proponent has a timeline?How many more people will we catch by
426 surprise?
427 P. Boynton: I share a sense of profound disappointment. After 7 months of work; clearly communicating to the
428 proponents with agreement among the Board,that it was of utmost importance for an issue of this scale and scope
429 to fully engage the town with a clear understanding,that in order to do that, we needed the full timeline to the
430 normal town meeting and an expectation that there was understanding of that. What appears to have been a
431 parliamentary procedure,to farce the hand,using rules that people are allowed to do; you submit so many
432 signatures and you can call a town meeting and the law requires us to act.It's not what I expected as a member of
433 the Board, it's not what I communicated, or was led to understand. We were crystal clear that one of the great risks
434 here to the town and the proponents,was the challenge of clearly communicating,to the town, for an issue of this
435 scale and scope; it seemed to be an agreement and all of a sudden we have a special town mecting called and sir,
436 we have been ruslied. That brings great risks and undermines all the due diligence that we have been able to carry
437 out on this Board.
438 M.Rosen: I want it clear that the proponent never agreed to wait until.Town.Meeting;we did not have any
439 agreement;we wanted to complete it in a more expeditious process. We had over 750 signatures and only needed.
440 200;those all go to the Clerk who certifies them; I guarantee you that 650 signatures have been qualified.
441 P. Bo ntQn When you advocated for a faster timeline;which is your right to do;the Board responded with a
442 detailed written answer, laying out the timeline week by week; that is a matter of record.
443 James LaFond, 329 Osgood Street: I'm not a stranger to town meeting or town politics;there is something
444 discomforting about this proposal to myself and a lot of people; information is not easy to come by;there is no
445 official proposal yet. After last year's Town Meeting there was an expectation there would be a few years before
446 we would have to revisit this; there's two complex issues-medical marijuana and recreational use. I attended an
447 open house at 1600 Osgood St. facility; there's no specific numbers or percentages being discussed; medical v.
448 recreational. I'm trying to bring myself up to speed; it's hard to get information; it's so new the potential
449 proponents don't have all the answers. I'm amazed at Trow the Planning Board reacted; you are our official
450 planning policy making Board in town; I didn't expect you to come forth with Articles that would basically permit
451 and set up the whole process to allow something to go on in our town that has never happened anywhere in the
452 world before. I may have expected an Article that said the zoning is there; do your research. A lot of people have
453 been ambushed. My two points are 1.)I've heard no mention of the opinion of our Police, Fire, BOH, School
454 Supt.,DARE Officer comments regarding the social impact some amount of"marijuana and cultivation and
455 wholesale distribution will entail. Maybe we aren't selling it. It's going to come back in the form of recreational
456 pot. I wonder why the lack of input to look after our welfare. We are in lockstep.
457 E. ColdberQ: We invited the BOH who spoke before the Board and discussed talking with the school department
458 and we couldn't come up with a question we wanted to ask in terms of our zoning bylaw.
459 J.La��ond: Each department head should have a position piece on the town website;we are proposing the world's
460 largest marijuana cultivation facility. We are going to say naively that we aren't going to sell marijuana here.
461. Quoted article on the cost of opioids--"The costs of the opioid epidemic extend far beyond the loss of life(I.
462 understand we are not talking about opioids)but the White House Counsel of Economic Advisors just raised the
463 annual cost from 78.5 billion to 504 billion a year."This is the cost of the social impact opioid addiction,which is
464 a legal drug. This is a problem of a different magnitude yet has a social impact that translates to dollars. Is it worth
465 $5 million in revenue if the impact is$7 million? We have all these resources bending over backwards for this
11
Town of`North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman � � Eitan Goldberg
Peter Baynton /�%��,� Aaron Preston
Jennifer Luz
%/ i• Christine Allen,Associate
Tuesdaay,Tanuary 16, 2018(a7 7 p.n2. 120 Main Street Town Hall North Andover,MA 01845
466 project without doing due diligence; it's disappointing. You are down in the reeds so far you just don't see the
467 bigger issues and I don't think we are looking at this properly.
468 MINUTES APPROVAL
469 MOTION: P. Boynton made a motion to approve the January 2 & 9,2018 minutes, as amended, A. Preston
470 seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0, unanimous in favor.
471
472 ADJOURNMENT
473 MOTION: A. Preston made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by J. Luz. The vote was
474 5-0, unanimous in favor.Meeting adjourned @ 1.2:10 p.m.
475
476 MEETING MATERIALS: Planning Board Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018,DRAFT January 2,2018 Meeting Minutes
477 rev], DRAFT January 9,2018 Meeting Minutes rev 1;
478
479 122 Foster St.: Resident Email Comment: 1801.05 resident email comment 1, 1.80105 Resident email comment 2, 1.70105
480 resident email comment 3, 170106 resident email comment 4, 180107 resident email comment 5, 180116 Mass Ilist.Comrn
481. Submittal, 180116 Resident Email Corr,To National Grid, 1801.16 Resident Handout-Address in Coverage Areas,Inotrope
482 Peer Review Comment:Varsity-North Andover-Height Coverage Statistics at Various Heights(AT&T and
483 VZW)(A0478698xBOBA5), Supplemental. AltJohnsonSt.._U1112018,BSFS PCS 10711 -
484 96dBm Existing&Proposed&HatchedA]ternate_revl(MA3540S)-Existing/Proposed/Alternate(Hatched)1900 MHz LTE
485 Coverage,BSFS PCS_-107ft 96d.Bnn Existing&HatchedProposed-rev I(MA3540S-Existing/Proposed(1-latched)/Alternate
486 1900 MHz LTE Coverage,BSFS_700 107ft -93dBm Existing&Proposed&HatchedAlternate revl(MA3540S)-
487 Existing/13roposed/Altcrnate(Hatched)700 MHz LTE Coverage,BSFS-700 107ft -93dBm Existing&HatchedProposed revl
488 (MA3540S)-Existing/Proposed(Hatched)/Alternate 700 MHz L'I'E Coverage,Binder MA3540_700 PCS HeightAnalysis
489 A-l 'I'minimum height(A047156OxBOBA5), 180116 Varsity Wireless Presentation, 180116 Caffrey& Caffrey
490 Correspondence, 180103 ZBA Decision, 180103 L.Roberts email correspondence;
491
492 21 High Street:Dept. Comment: 180106 DPW Comment, 171.228 School Dept. Comment,180109 Traffic Count Police,
493 180116 Building Dept. Comment, 171220 Applicant DPW Response to Comments; Civil Stormwater Review: TEC Cover
494 Letter,Re-Submission, SIS Storage Table, 180111 Applicant Response to Review 2 TEC, 1.80104 T0652.12 East Mill TEC
495 Peer Review 112, 171220 Applicant"TEC_Response to Comments; 180116 Final Plans and Documents: Stormwater
496 Narrative-01-12-18,Post Development_01-12-18,Permeable Paver Specification,1 _TEC_Response to Comments#2(l),
L.
497 .Supplement Waiver Information,East Mill Rear Bu:ilding_Site Plan Set revised 01-15-18, East Mill Parking Table
498 Updated, 180112 TEC Final Comment, 180106 DPW Final Comment; 180116 21 High Street-RCG-Dralt Decision North
499 Andover Mills LLC;
500
501 Mill Road and Johnson Street: Stormwater Review: 1801.10 Application Response Comments, 180102 T075&01 _Mill Road
502 Peer Review#I TEC;Revised Plan Set: Predevelopment_2B,Predevelopment 2A,Predevelopment_1B,
503 Predevelopment IA,Postdevelopment_2B,Postdevelopment_2A,Postdevelopment_ IB,Postdevelopment_1A,E&S
504 Plan 2B,E&S Plan_2A,E&S Plan 1B,E&S Plan_IA,Construction Detail Sheet;Ap ication: SWPP-Mill Road Johnson
5015 Street,NA, OOC 242-1714, 865 Johnson St.,Lot 2B_._Sheet 2,Lot 2B_Sheet 1,Lot 1B Sheet 2,Lot IB_Sheet 1,Lot
506 IA Sheet 2,Lot IA_.Sheet 1,Full Drainage Report; Cover I:aetter for Submittal, Construction Details, 171.215 Application
507 LDP
508
509 1210 Osgood Street,Princeton Development LLC: Stormwater Review: 180116 HSA-Review Response Letter 1-15-18,
510 1.80116 Eggleston Final Comment, 186115 Rev Stormwater Report, 180112 Eggleston.Princeton at North Andover Review
511 96, 180115 Plan Set: 180115 19770-stampPART2, 180115 1.9770-stampPART1-fixed SH18, 1.61206 Special Permits:,
512 161206_Osgood 1210-SitePlan&Parking_COMMER(.'IAL FINAL,, 161206-Osgood 1.210_Site Plan,
12
Town of".North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
John Simons, Chairman Eitan Goldberg
Peter Boyntonii ', Aaron.Preston
Jennifer Luz
Christine Allen,Associate
Tuesday January 16, 20.18() 7 p.m. 220 Main Street Tiiwn Hall North Andover, MA 01845 '
513 MtrltiFamily&Parking_RESIDENTIAI, FINAL2, 180116 DPW Comment, 171221 Princeton Application, 171.221 Forgetta
514 Application, 1210 Osgood.Street MEPA itr 3-1-17, 1210 Osgood Exhibit Prior Design, 1210 Osgood Elevation Change
515 Exhibit, 1210 Osgood Current Design Exhibit
516
517 1.210 Osgood Street,Forgetta Development LLC:Storrnwater Review:180116 HAS-Review Response Letter 1-
518 15-18, 180116 Eggleston Final Comment, 180115 Rev Stormwater Report, 180112 Eggleston Princeton at North
519 Andover Review 46, 1801.15 flan Set, 1801.15 19770-stampedPART2, 180115 1.9770-stampPART1-fixed SH 18,
520 161206S Pennits: 1612016 Osgood 1210 Site Plan&Parking_COMMERCIAI,_FINAI.,, 161.206 Osgood ]210 Site
521 Plan, Mu..ItiFamily&Parking_Rl�,SIDEN'I'IAL FINAL2, 180116 DPW Comment, 171221 Princeton Application, '171221
522 Forgetta Application, 1210 Osgood Street MEPA ltr 3-1-17, 12.10 Osgood Exhibit Prior Design, 1210 Osgood Elevation t
523 Change Exhibit.
524
525 Special.Town Meetin r� lonirlg Articles:Article 2 Citizen Petition Prohibition ofNon-MedicaI Mari'uana:Article 2 Citizen
526 Petition Prohibition of Noti-Medical,Article 4: Article 4 MOD Bylaw,Article 5 Zoning Map Amendment: Article.5 Zoning
527 Map Amendment, 171227 Stamped 5723_MOD(EXHIBIT)(12-27-17), 180116 Planning Board Report DRAFT rev 1,
528 18011.6 Article Summary, 1801.16 Article Input-Comment Response Form, 1.80111 Warrant Article with revisions 144, 180110
529 Warrant FINAL.
13