HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-09-04 Planning Board Minutes %40RTN
DRAFT
0
NOT APPROVED
A411
3
AraC U
4
5 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
6 PLANNING BOARD
7 Minutes
8 September 4,2007
9 Senior Center, 120R Main Street
10 7:00 PM
11
12
13 Members present: Richard Nardella, Chairman
14 John Simons, Vice Chairman
15 Alberto Angles, Clerk
16 Richard Rowen, regular member
17 Jennifer Kusak,regular member
18 Timothy Seibert, alternate member
19
20 Staff present: Lincoln Daley, Town Planner
21 Mary Ippolito, Recording Secretary
22
23
�4 Chairman Nardella called the meeting to order at approximately 7:1 Opm and introduced the
,25 panel to the assembly. Chair read into the record that Jennifer Kusak signed a certification
26 noting that she has read the Minutes of 8/21/07 concerning the Edgewood Retirement
27 Comm-unity. Timothy Seibert submitted a signed certification for 6/26/07 concerning the
28 Edgewood Retirement petition. Chair announced that the PB would wait for John Simons to
29 arrive before they comment about the site walk visit at Edgewood.
30
31 Chair stated that he was in receipt of a list of the telecommunication applications and their
32 renewal dates. The PB has heard back from Attorney Urbelis on what we can or cannot do
33 regarding his recommendations while at the Executive Session. This issue will be discussed by
34 the PB when the Wireless inspector is available.
35
36 Chair announced that Edgewood Retirement Community petition is postponed. Chair stated that
37 the PB would talk about the site walk after John Simons arrives.
38
39 POSTPONEMENTS:
40
41 Edgewood Retirement Community, Inc., 575 Osgood Street, Map 36, Parcels 3, 17, 18, and
42 19. Site Plan Review Special Pen-nit and a Modification Special Permit to construct 27 new
43 cottages & greenhouse and new 20 foot wide roadway with individual driveways to access
44 cottages with the R-2 zoning district. Received VHB review 8/17/07.
45
46
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
Sept.4,2007
Page I
DRAFT
NOT APPROVED
1 Chair called for the following bond reduction:
3 1.Steve Webster,Business Park Realty Trust,400 Willow Street. Request for a partial bond
4 release in the amount of$10,000.00 to be partially reduced to $5,000.00 for a Site Opening
5 Bond.
6 Lincoln stated a representative was present to address any issue the PB may have regarding this
7 request for a partial bond release from $10,000.00 to $5,000.00. Chair stated he was in receipt of
8 e-mail from Gene Willis stating that he had no issues with the bond release. Chair stated he was
9 in receipt of e-mail from Tim Willett stating he had no issues with the bond release. Chair stated
10 that when the PB went in and started to review older decisions they have to hunt and peck thru
11 those decisions to note whether there was a sidewalk, or a dumpster and whatever. Asked
12 Lincoln to take a stab at creating some sort of significant checklist notating that these issues have
13 been addressed.
14
15 Lincoln said he thinks that we're on the same page in speaking with Town Counsel and also Curt
16 Bellevance he agrees that we will make up a checklist.
17
18 Chair said there were times that he was not comfortable when releasing bond money. Gene says
19 yes I think I have everything, then the PB finds out they didn't build a sidewalk. It's incumbent
20 upon us to make sure that when we are releasing bond money that everything is done. Let's start
21 that process from this point forward when we are releasing bond money it may take a little bit of
22 work until we get caught up,but go thru the decisions and make sure that everything is on our
23 check list, as-built, sidewalks have been built on time, all of our new sidewalks call for our
'4 decisions to be built before we even give occupancy permits.
25
26 Lincoln asked if there was a specific subdivision that comes to mind?
27
28 RR stated that Winkist Farm subdivision was approved but they didn't put in sidewalks.
29
30 Mr. Foster asked to speak.
31
32 Chair stated that the as built was not acceptable, it was not stamped by an engineer.
33
34 Mr. Foster, Dutton and Garfield, was representing Mr. Webster. There is additional final work
35 that has to be added to the as-built to conform to Town standards, as he understands that Mr.
36 Willis has reviewed the project and finds no issues with the project, and he doesn't know of any
37 other major outstanding issues of construction of the sidewalk these issues are all in place.
38
39 Chair stated it's real simple, we get the as-builts then we'll talk about the bond reduction. Tell
40 Mr. Webster that we'd love to reduce his bond money as soon as we get the as builts. Chair
41 asked if the PB was ok with this.
42
43 RR stated he doesn't want to review something twice, if you give something like this to Gene
44 Willis to review but it's not complete then we have to give it to him the second time forcing
45 them to do it twice.
46
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
Sept.4,2007
Page 2
DRAFT
NOT APPROVED
1 Chair told Town Planner don't even bring it in front of us because we're not going to approve it.
2 Too often we've done things out of order then we have to chase people for as-builts, we're not
3 going to do it. Who has the final say of the as-builts, is it your department or is it Gene Willis?
4
5 Lincoln stated it's actually both,he takes first crack at it and then the final engineering is
6 approved by the DPW. Does anybody make a site walk to make sure that the as-builts are
7 correct?
8
9 Lincoln stated yes we do.
10
11 Chair stated that I'm sure you do but if it doesn't have an Engineers stamp on it then it's not
12 worth it. Chair asked if there was some other issues that we're supposed to be aware of?
13
14 Recording Secretary stated that it's a financial hardship, applicant didn't have the Engineer
15 stamp anything because they didn't have the money to pay the Engineer, that's why they wanted
16 to ask for a bond reduction by$5,000.00 in order to pay the engineer to stamp the final as-built.
17
18 Chair stated tell them to have the Engineer give him a call. MHF Design Consultants is the
19 Engineer maybe there is something we could arrange a manner or a process for getting a release
20 of their bond money.
21
22
23 Chair called for the following continued hearing;
24
25 2.Thompson Brothers Industries,Inc. 210 Holt Road, Map 34 & 77 Parcels 27,38, 40, &
26 14. Site Plan Review Special Permit to construct a recycling facility and solid waste transfer
27 station of approximately 39,000 s.f. within I-2 zoning district.
28
29 Lincoln stated that tonight's discussion would involve four major items: #1 brief overview of
30 the status of the application and general discussion of revisions of the plan set. #2. the Site Plan
31 Review Special Permit application in compliance with the site compliance decision. At the last
32 PB meeting the PB assigned him to look into the site assignment decision and make sure that we
33 fully understand it and discuss the conditions. Lincoln summarizes at the very end what the
34 conditions are. #3 discussion of the conditions of the site assignment. #4. The filing of an ANR
35 form plan to combine lots 1 thru 3 and there is legal representation present to discuss this issue
36 with the PB. Lincoln stated that VHB is still reviewing their responses submitted last week for a
37 review; therefore, will proceed with the engineering responses at the next hearing.
38
39 Plse note that John Simons arrived at 7:19 pm.
40
41 Phil Jagoda, Engineer, and Atty. Magnohie, were present.
42
43 Lincoln stated that at the last PB meeting the discussion of the PB inquired about the applicant
44 submitting and ANR plan combining lots 3, 2, 1 into one large lot. Attorney Magnohie
45 submitted a letter stating that the PB should not require an ANR plan for the reasons that it's one
46 owner, and the definition is that if the lots are contiguous and owned by one owner and recorded
Planning Board
minutes of the Meeting
Sept.4,2007
Page 3
DRAFT
NOT APPROVED
1 at the Registry of Deeds then the PB may consider allowing this project to exist on more than
2 one property line?
3
4 Chair would like to ask the Attorney if the word may is in there.
5
6 Atty. Magnohie stated that the plan covers 4 lots and the lots are interdependent and so the
7 permit would be issued for the 4 lots to be together and they meet the zoning requirements the
8 lots will never be separate it would be a violation of a Special Permit if the lots were to be
9 thought of in any other way then as a consolidated lot.
10
11 Chair asked for what significant reason would you not want to combine the lots to come up with
12 one acreage? Do we have proof submitted by somebody showing us copies that they are in
13 common ownership? He doesn't mean a Trust that can't be traced back to individual people.
14
15 Atty. stated all of them are owned by 210 Holt Road, LLP by one single entity, and the fourth lot
16 will be acquired. Then plan is to develop all four of them together.
17
18 JS stated he doesn't ever recall a situation where the PB didn't combine the lots is there a
19 compelling reason to keep the lots separate?
20
21 Atty. stated that three of the lots are site assignments and the fourth lot will be used for parking
22 but it won't have the site assignment and the site assignment is very important because it tells
23 you what you can do on the lot.
?4
25 Chair asked if the 4th lot was part of the project then why wouldn't it have been part of the site
26 assignment?
27
28 Atty. stated that the 4t1'lot was not owned by Holt Road at the time of site assignment . BOH
29 issued the site assignments. The only thing that has changed is we moved some things around on
30 the site to optimize the features of the way the facility will work and that included the acquiring
31 of the 4th lot for purposes of parking which frees up some space on the site assignment lots for
32 site assignment purposes.
33
34 JS asked why wouldn't you take the other 3 lots and make then one lot?
35
36 Atty. stated you could do that but there is an existing business operating on one of those lots. JS
37 stated if you have an existing building that cuts across two lots then you haven't met the setback
38 requirements on either one of those lots. Chair stated that maybe a lot of thought was given to
39 working w/the BOH and other Boards and there is a reason why things were or were not done.
40
41 JS stated that he thinks that applicant should consider what PB has to say,because 1 think you
42 have a problem,we should contact Town Counsel about why you're not combing all 4 lots.
43
44 Lincoln stated that this raises the issue of the impact of site assignment and the PB does require
45 an ANR plan to combine the lots, however, this would change the acreage allowed for the site
46 assignments from 5+ acres to 7+acres.
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
Sept.4,2007
Page 4
DRAFT
NOT APPROVED
1
2 JS stated that he does not care about the 0'lot, he cares about the 3 lots.
3
4 RR stated that the PB cannot grant a permit in violation of the zoning bylaw so if you choose not
5 to for whatever reason you cannot combine the lots then you are violating the zoning bylaw
6 which would require you to get a variance for the PB to approve it in the first place. RR stated
7 the zoning bylaw said you must have setbacks, side, front and rear on the lot lines, and you must
8 meet these setback requirements relative to these lots. PB cannot waive the setbacks because the
9 PB does not have the authority to do that.
10
11 Chair stated that the 5.8 acres comprises of lots 1,2 & 3and they are all under common
12 ownership? Then submit an ANR plan and make it one lot to be in compliance.
13
14 Mr. Thompson stated that by combining lots 1,2 & 3you are still going to put us right back to the
15 beginning because we're not going to meet the setbacks, now we have the issue of enlarging the
16 lots.
17
18 JS stated that just because you combine the 4 lots for an ANR that doesn't mean that you violate
19 the site assignment these aren't even related. If you don't do it then you have a zoning violation.
20
21 RR stated that the last thing you would want is approval from this Board and be in a position to
22 have this decision challenged and you are setting yourself up to be in a position of a zoning
23 violation even if we did approve it,
24
25 Chair sited a previous common driveway SP that was filed with the PB, and two different owners
26 of the property abutted each other and owners are sharing a common driveway,these lots could
27 still be sold individually. In this case you have real zoning issues because you have not
28 combined these lots.
29
30 RR stated that the adult entertainment is an overlay district and it's defined by existing lot lines
31 in the future it would not be, it would just be a lot assuming the line on the ground would be
32 staying the same.
33
34 Chair stated that for purposes of your application here you should combine the lots.
35
36 Atty. Asked if this is considered a perimeter plan?
37
38 Chair stated if you want to do things the right way there's a way to move forward.
39
40 #2 depth of ground water: BOH imposed a condition that requires TBI to ascertain the
41 maximum high ground water level and submit a revised design demonstrating that there are
42 requirements. Lincoln stated that this would be hashed out by VHB we will put in conditions
43 that pertain to the site assignments into the Special Permit.
44
45 #3 traffic and access to the site: Lincoln stated that as a condition of the site assignment
46 applicant is required to construct a set of traffic lights at Hold Rd, and Rte. 125. State said that
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
Sept.4,2007
Page 5
DRAFT
NOT APPROVED
1 not at this present time a stop light is not required at that intersection, put the money in escrow
2 for possibly future needs.
3
4 Chair asked did someone mandate this thing for the lights? DEP issued the site assignment, &
5 BOH. Applicant is requesting a waiver of the traffic impact study.
6
7 RR is not in favor of waiving this traffic study. It appears that if a Traffic Study was submitted,
8 then it would be a matter of reviewing that study, and updating it if necessary. It is not in the
9 applicant's best interest to request a waiver of an important part of the site plan review
10 requirements.
11
12 Chair stated applicant should do update traffic study and consider the new AT&T facility and
13 zones and what additional impact should be.
14
15 RR doesn't know when TBI traffic study was done. RR stated submit a report that TBI has and
16 if PB finds after reviewing it PB will let him know. VHB should take a look at the traffic study
17 situation.
18
19 Chair stated PB should go thru the site assignment and what effect does it have on the PB
20 process? Continue this until Sept. 18th PB meeting. Chair asked the PB to read the site
21 assignments. Lincoln stated the goal is to resolve all engineering issues thru VHB.
22
23
?4 Chair called for the following Public Hearing:
25
26 3.The Parsonage dwelling at Rolling Ridge, 660 Great Pond Road, Map 63, Lot 11,
27 Watershed Special Permit to begin construction of a portion of the new paved access roadway to
28 the Rolling Ridge facility and driveway to the existing residential dwelling and associated
29 grading work and drainage/storm water management improvements within the R-1 zoning
30 district.
31
32 Lincoln stated this is a Watershed SP to begin phase one of multi phase project for the facility.
33
34 Dan Corvious, Engineer is present to speak. Mr. Corvious stated the property is listed as# 660
35 Great Pond Road on Town records, but parsonage house is listed as#640 Great Pond Road.
36 Chair wants the house numbers to be corrected and to be consistent.
37
38 The grading around the building is concentrating water up against the building. Lower the grade
39 around the building and slope it away to eliminate any ponding there. Push down the driveway
40 then bring the unpaved driveway up and around. Move driveway far away from the existing
41 wetland. Engineer wants to build a 4' high berm to hide the parsonage house to reduce the noise
42 etc.
43
44 Chair wants the area containing the loom reduced and don't stock pike materials there. Let PB
45 know when you will start this project. PB doesn't want a dust issue across the street from a
46 beautiful home.
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
Sept.4,2007
Page 6
DRAFT
NOT APPROVED
1
2 AA stated it's such a large area there must be other places to stockpile loom.
3
4 Chair asked what are you doing to mitigate drainage on driveway issue as it looks to be a
5 drainage problem?
6 j 7 Mr. Corvious stated that the current driveway is a mess and that's why he wants to create another
8 driveway. The wetland also runs thru the current driveway. The land on either side of the
9 driveway goes up a bit,put catch basins in and might put in drywell?
10
11 Chair wants Engineer to do more engineering in order not to create water runoff onto Great Pond
12 Rd.
13
14 AA asked about the hill located South of the house? It's an old golf"T".
15
16 Chair asked why a post and rail fence? Mr. Corvious stated maybe he will continue a stonewall
17 instead of post and rail fence.
18
19 Lincoln stated that DPW would review this application instead of sending it to VHB.
20
21 Chair doesn't like the way the water is running off onto Great Pond Rd. Applicant will come
22 back in on Sept 18th. Mr. Corvious to check w/Con/Com regarding additional wetland issues.
23
4
25 Chair called for the following Public Hearin:
26
27 4.Sprint Spectrum L.P., 300 Chestnut Street, Map 98C,Lot 1. Renewal of a Special Permit
28 application for the operation of an existing wireless communication facility.
29 Atty. Rick Sousa was present tonight. He was here a few weeks ago to discuss a modification to
30 accommodate Sprint and Nextel network as well. Sprint is operating on existing tower, which
31 was permitted in April 2000, which permitted Sprint to install up to 9 antennas together with an
32 equipment cabinet located at the base. Sprint has currently installed only 6 of these antennas.
33 Atty. Sousa learned that the existing SP decision had expired and had not been renewed. Since
34 then they filed an application and requested a renewal of the original SP decision to allow up to 9
35 panel antennas. They put the modification application at bay subject to having this hearing first.
36 He has submitted a number of materials to bring the application into compliance with our zoning
37 bylaw. First is a field study(Atty. Sousa gave a handout to the PB). .
38
39 Chair asked do you perform these calibrations as a matter of course the date is 2/26 did you
40 know back if February that you needed to recalibrate?
41
42 Atty. Sousa stated that calibrations were made in Aug. 2007. Because there is a large amount of
43 information to digest he recommends that you turn to the conclusions located on page 44—47
44 see independent field survey(last paragraph) and the installation fully complies with FCC
45 standards with respect to FCC emissions. The OEC bulletin is the standard by which the
46 installations are measured.
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
Sept.4,2007
Page 7
DRAFT
NOT APPROVED
1
2 Chair asked when was this updated? Atty. Sousa stated within the last 5 years. Chair asked how
3 would the PB verify that the measurements were made in accordance with the latest publication?
4
5 Lincoln stated that the PB could send this to VHB to have them verify if things are up to current
6 standards. Modifications requirements have been currently at 1997 and that is the standard
7 bulletin.
8
9 Atty. Sousa stated the 2nd document submitted is Hitachi Associates noise study,which was
10 performed in anticipation of the modification. The outdoor equipment cabinets that are currently
11 on the property would comply with the requirements in the zoning bylaw, however,the proposed
12 outdoor shelter is a much larger unit and has a condenser attached to it. Atty. Sousa submitted an
13 updated insurance certificate verifying that Sprint has insurance until 2008 totaling $2M dollars.
14 He's informing the PB that George Litty can put this application on a tickler so that the PD will
15 get their annual certificate of insurance.
16
17 Lincoln stated that section 8.94F2 structural integrity specifications from a structural engineer
18 stating that a wireless facility and lattice structure is structurally sound Atty. Sousa should
19 submit this information. Atty. Sousa proceeded to submit this information as a handout to the
20 PB tonight.
21
22 Atty. Sousa stated the tower is 150' tall and centerline is about 130, look on page 4 this gives a
23 snap shot of the tower and various carries and what is on the tower.
24
25 Chair asked if WBZ always existed on this tower? Were they always on the tower pre-existing?
26
27 Atty. Sousa stated that he didn't know and apologies, he assumes it serves its radio capabilities in
28 that area and he's not familiar with that type of a situation.
29
30 Atty. Sousa stated that he's not asking to increase the SP in any way,not asking to extend the
31 height etc. he's not asking to put more antennas on there in any way, not asking to extend the
32 compound, he's only wishing to renew the original SP.
33
34 Chair asked were the tower foundations reinforced per the engineering modifications? That is
35 something you need to follow-up on. Atty. Sousa stated he didn't know. Chair stated things
36 such as coax lines need to be installed in a particular way so you will need to provide
37 information that talks about the reinforced foundation etc.
38
39 AA asked what is the requirement in bylaw that pertains to a structural tower?
40
41 Lincoln read section 8.9.12 bylaw.
42
43 AA asked what is the requirement of a SP regarding the structural integrity of it?
44
45 Lincoln read section 8.94F2 relative to structural.
46
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
Sept.4,2007
Page 8
DRAFT
NOT APPROVED
1 AA asked if what was submitted this evening meets that requirement? AA stated that this
2 engineering analysis is based on a theoretical capacity of the structure (see page 7),
3
4 Chair stated look at page 3 it reads the tower meets the requirements of such and such standards.
5
6 Lincoln asked if the PB wants this reviewed for consistency to assure that it's structurally
7 correct?
8
9 AA stated because the applicant is going to come forward with a modification given what Rick
10 said is the proper route, take care of things that need to be done today as part of the preparation
11 for the modification.
12
13 Atty. Sousa stated that he's willing to submit a letter from Sprint stating these things will be
14 taken care of
15
16 Chair wants to put a time constraint on Atty. Sousa to get Sprint to do their upgrades. Sprint
17 needs to send a letter from the same person regarding the upgrade for a modification SP and
18 renewal SP.
19
20 Discussed waivers tonight. Atty. Sousa to work w/Lincoln and come up with a list of waivers,
21 make note if they were previously provided.
22
23 AA stated to have the SP granted in 2000 on hand as well. These decisions were submitted in
24 the PB packets already.
25
26 Chair asked Lincoln to explain item#14 to the PB. Lincoln stated that this was an amendment
27 that the Town had tried to pass. The Mass Dept. of Health no longer requires that the Dept. of
28 Health produce a letter to be submitted to applicants for a PB review. It's an outdated
29 requirement as far as our zoning regulations.
30
31 Atty. Sousa will work w/Lincoln and come back in on the Sept. 13th PB meeting.
32
33 Chair asked if there are any comments from the audience.
34
35 Steve Tryder, Chestnut St,how is this considered a renewal? How come we aren't looking at
36 this as an entire application?
37
38 Lincoln stated that we are looking at this as an entire application in its entirety.
39
40 Mr. Tryder asked on what basis?
41
42 Chair said that he is not at liberty to discuss items that were discussed at an Executive Session.
43 The PB has taken the course of action that this is a renewal and as such it encompasses all of the
44 aspects of a regular application because the conditions now are the same as if they came in with a
45 full application. So if you look at what's required here there is virtually no difference except that
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
Sept.4,2007
Page 9
DRAFT
NOT APPROVED
1 we might waive setbacks. If the initial application waived that part of the bylaw then it would be
2 expected that any renewal of additional existing application would re renewed.
3
4 Mr. Tryder: The tower is 150 feet does anyone know actually how tall it is?
5
6 Chair asked Atty. Sousa to explain what the 130' and the 75' meant?
7
8 Atty. stated that 130' relates to panel antenna and 75' is GPS antenna less than 1 foot tall.
9
10 Chair stated in application make note of how tall the tower actually is.
11
12 Lincoln stated that it's noted in the application that it's 152'.
13
14 Mr. Tryder stated that it's stamped on the cover 152'. This is all based on numbers that have
15 been supplied by the tower it's theoretical and it's not based on actuality.
16
17 RR stated that foundations have been put in, you have compression strength of the concrete, the
18 people who now analyze this are going on the basis that the design was correct and that it was
19 installed correctly, they don't have the data from 20 or 30 years ago when the foundation was
20 constructed.
21
22 Mr. Tryder stated they don't know what it looks like today these things do detoriate all
23 companies loaded their equipment on the tower and he's surprised about WBZ and other ones,
24 and the Town doesn't have a record of this? He asked why isn't this a ZBA matter?
25
26 Chair stated that we're only here to adjudicate on the wireless facility. Chair too wonders how
27 the WBZ thing was on there,but it must have been done way before this PB came to fruition.
28 That tower has been there for quite a long time.
29
30 Mr. Tryder asked why the last company(Cingular)had to go thru the ZBA.
31
32 Chair stated that the PB is the Special Permit granting authority.
33
34 Mr. Tryder asked then why didn't you do it for Cingular?
35
36 Chair stated that he's only commenting on this one
37
38 Mr, Tryder stated there's no consistency.
39
40 Chair stated for the record that Mr. Tryder's comments are his comments there are not
41 considered by this Board to be factual or whatever when he says there is no consistency. We are
42 only dealing with the application in front of us. Give us a little bit of respect.
43
44 Mr. Tryder, oh,here we go again with respect!!! What is the footage of the nearest property
45 owner of the antenna, how close is it?
46
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
Sept.4,2007
Page 10
DRAFT
NOT APPROVED
1 Lincoln stated it's indicated 255'.
2
3 Mr. Tryder, according to a map from Cingular site it is 204' close to the nearest house. So where
4 are we getting these numbers if we don't have accurate information?
5
6 Chair will ask Atty. Sousa that a reading is done by an accepted engineering plan.
7
8 Atty. Sousa stated that he has as-builts that show the distance from the Tower to the surrounding
9 property.
10
11 Chair asked that Atty. Sousa obtain the specific answer, as Mr. Tryder is an abutter he has that
12 right.
13
14 Mr. Tryder stated that in the bylaw is the conditions that were suggested by the PB at the last
15 Town Meeting& it was left in there that the tower would need to be twice the height of the
16 antenna. So if you're looking at that it would need to be 152x2 then it lands up in someone's
17 back yard the way it is now (he wants this on the record.)
18
19 Chair stated that we didn't get that bylaw passed.
20
21 Mr. Tryder stated that's the way it is now but you thought that it was something else. You
22 thought that the 600' was twice the height of the tower and we have various heights of the tower;
23 we don't know exactly how high it is, we're at a point that we have a lot of things that aren't in
24 compliance with what the Bylaw and we have the opportunity to make it in compliance.
25
26 Lincoln asked Mr. Tryder to clarify what is not in compliance. What other issues other than the
27 expiration of the Special Permit are not in compliance?
28
29 Mr. Tryder stated the bylaw relative to setbacks.
30
31 Lincoln stated that's not true. Lincoln stated it is actually Section 8.93cv2 setbacks: .The lattice
32 structure is a pre-existing structure. Would you agree?
33
34 Mr. Tryder stated yes
35
36 Lincoln stated with that understanding, it appears that the existing structure does not comply
37 with the minimum setback of 600', correct so far?
38
39 Mr. Tryder, stated yes.
40
41 Lincoln stated that as measured from the nearest adjacent property according to you it's 204',
42 however, in the event that a pre-existing structure is proposed as a mount for a wireless facility
43 setback provisions of the zoning district shall apply, therefore, as long as the structure meets the
44 minimum setback requirements of the property in a residential zoning of a pre-zoning district. Is
45 that correct?
46
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
Sept.4,2007
Page 11
DRAFT
NOT AP11.R.OVED
1 Mr. Tryder what are the requirements in a residential zoning district?
2
3 Lincoln stated 30'.
4
5 Mr. Tryder stated 30' is that it?
6
7 Chair stated it's pre-exiting, that tower has been there way before the bylaws were.
8
9 Mr. Tryder stated but the antennas were not there.
10
11 TS stated the antennas are mounted on the pre-existing tower.
12
13 Chair stated unfortunately that's the way it is.
14
15 Mr. Tryder stated that unfortunately you can't discuss publicly why it was decided that no
16 penalty is being fined as defined in the bylaw?
17
18 Chair stated no comment.
19
20 Mr. Tryder stated it's public information?
21
22 Chair stated no comment.
23
?4 Mr. Tryder stated that's what I'm saying; it's not public information.
25
26 Chair asked if Mr. Tryder had any other comments and thanked him for coming tonight.
27
28 Atty. Sousa will be back on September 181'.
29
30
31 Chair called for the following public hearing:
32
33 6.Sprint Spectrum L.P., 723 Osgood Street,Map 35, Lot 23. Renewal of a Special Permit
34 application to allow for the operation of a 100' tall wireless communications facility&
35 associated equipment.
36
37 Lincoln stated that this is a monopole located on the flagpole at Stevens Estate.
38
39 Atty. Ed Pare was present tonight; he also represents Cingular as well as Sprint. Cingular is a
40 co-locator on the Sprint tower located at the Stevens Estate. It's a monopole with an antenna
41 located inside of a 100-foot pole. Previously the SP expired and was permitted around 1994.
42
43 Chair asked when did it expire, Lincoln stated in 2001.
44
45 Atty. Pare provided reports to the PB (and listed the kind of reports for the record). Sound study,
46 fortunately for Sprint they actually filed a voice study and a radio frequency report.
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
Sept.4,2007
Page 12
DRAFT
NOT APPROVED
1
2 Lincoln prepared a similar report and submitted it to the Chair and to Attorney Pare.
3
4 Chair stated this is the same kind of issue as the previous Sprint SP renewal, you need to go
5 thru this and look at the items and work with Lincoln and supply the information and you
6 know what we need and you need to come back in with waivers. Does the Board want to
7 laboriously want to go thru this thing again? Is there anything in here that might be radically
8 different that we need to think about?
9
10 Lincoln stated no actually they responded with information regarding structural engineering
11 and they do meet the 600' setback.
12
13 AA stated that this is a brand new tower and we're more confident about the structural
14 integrity
15
16 Lincoln asked if the insurance submittal was on file and renewed with the Town?
17
18 Atty. Pare stated that yes, he provided the PB with an insurance certificate from Sprint and
19 between the time that we communicated and this hearing we realized that it had expired.
20
21 Chair asked Atty. Pare not as an attorney for Sprint Spectrum,but as a lawyer working for
22 Brown Rudnick, in your considered opinion why is it that the cellular companies are missing
23 these renewals? Are they getting lost in the shuffle?
24
25 Atty. Pare stated that the companies are massive and spread out all of the State from Mass to
26 Rhode Island,New Jersey, New York, etc. therefore, to trace each and every SP even if they
27 tried to do it would be massive and too much money out of pocket, specifically if they don't
28 get a notice from the Town they are not going to do it. Your Town bylaw has a 3-year time
29 limit compared to other municipalities who may have a 5-year time limit,you standards are
30 more stringent.
31
32 Chair asked are you aware of any penalties or fines levied because of non-renewal
33 application compliance?
34
35 Attorney Pare stated usually the applicant tries to come to the Board and try to make amends,
36 submit the information to the Town that the bylaw requires,however, he's never seen any
37 fines or penalties done. Atty. Pare is to come back in on 9118 with his information in hand.
38
39
40 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES:
41
42 7.Approval of"Minutes" for the August 7, 2007 &August 23, 2007 Planning Board
43 meetings. Chair stated that he would like PB to read the minutes and send the edits to Mary. a
44 The PB did not vote on approval of the Minutes this evening.
45
46 DISCUSSION:
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
Sept.4,2007
Page 13
DRAFT
NOT APPROVED
1 8.Chair stated that Richard Rowen and he went to the Edgewood site on Monday.
2
3 RR stated that his biggest concern was the view from Osgood Street, having the stakes and
4 plan and proposed landscaping he's convinced that the cottages #1 although they may be a
5 significant square footage at ground floor they still are relatively short in elevation compared
6 to a 2500 s.£ two story building. Top elevation is about 27' and it's a typical New England
7 architecture style. Looking from Osgood St.,they are partially obscured by horse barn, the
8 fact is making the buildings a little bit smaller is not going to change anything, it may be an
9 asset rather than a liability,
10
11 TS agrees, looking at the sight from the hill and looking at the same thing that we just
12 discussed between the height and after seeing detailed drawings of what these dwellings are
13 going to look like when compared to the dwellings that are already there the marginal
14 increase isn't that offensive. He's glad he went out to make the site visit and has a better idea
15 and he's not too critical
16
17 AA stated that he did not attend a site visit.
18
19 JK doesn't have any issues, and reviewed the drawings she likes that they are not just doing
20 one massive thing, the lay out is fine.
21
22 RR stated they are putting 10 of 19 additional acres in Conservation Trust, he's ecstatic they
23 are going to redo the barn and make it a horse barn, two small buildings are coming down.
24 He asked the applicant to think about some canopy type trees,put a couple of tress in a
25 certain area so when you drive by you can see the trees to cover up a few of the buildings.
26
27 JS said he went out a couple of times and he's not the hugest fan of this, they put a lot of
28 thought into this,there are constraints with wetlands that complicate this.
29
30 He is looking that they do adjustment around edges; a couple of mature trees could be slided
31 to left or right to work this out. Near the "G"building roadway there are a couple of
32 enormous mature trees that should be preserved because of the country nature of the
33 property. It does have country charm the thing you don't want is to put too much pavement
34 and make it too wide so you won't lose some of the charm. The rest of the thing does have
35 much charm. It's much like a family co-op; how you handle the tress makes a big difference.
36 The development team did think thru a lot of these things. They need to be careful and
37 implement this well or else they will lose a lot of things that are special to this project.
38
39 Chair stated look at the entryway, what do you think of the idea of putting a couple of trees
40 there? JS stated this might be something that they may want to do. JS asked where the other
41 buildings were going to go? The Wetland in G section, should be pulled back from the
42 property line, Lincoln to recheck this.
43
44 Lincoln stated that ZBA would have their meeting this Tuesday. Con/Com is waiting for
45 ZBA to make their ruling first.
46
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
Sept.4,2007
Page 14
DRAFT
NOT APPROVED
1 Chair asked Lincoln to go out to the site more frequently than usual and talk to them about a
2 final planting plan.
3
4 Lincoln wants to see if the ZBA renders a decision., and revisit this on Sept. 18th.
5
6 Link stated that a draft decision of Mr. Hingorami's project on Rte. #114 is in your packets.
7 Chair urges the applicant to consider the marketplace; he's concerned that we end up with
8 something that Mr. Hingorami didn't plan to put out there. Lincoln stated that given that the
9 design is questionable and given that they are proposing to place dwellings about 6 feet away
10 from#114 you should be aware of this.
11
12 JS stated this isn't probably a good idea.
13
14 Chair stated PB might have concerns over the viability of the project.
15
16
17 UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS:
18
19 September 18, 2007
20 October 2, 2007
21 October 16, 2007
22
23 Motion by John Simons, 2nd by Richard Rowen to adjourn at approximately 9:30 pm,
24
25
26
27 By order of the Planning Board
28
29
30 Approved
31
32
33
34
35
t
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
Sept.4,2007
Page 15