HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-02 Planning Board Minutes unapproved F NoRtk
10/17/07 3? �E,,,�. �, "6 O�
2ATEpa4N CO[NICX\WtiK
3 �RssAcuuS���y
4
5 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
6 PLANNING BOARD
7 Minutes of the Meeting
8 October 2,2007
9 Town Hall, 120 Main Street
10 7:00 PM
11
12
13 Members present: Richard Nardella, Chairman
14 John Simons, Vice Chairman
15 Jennifer Kusek,regular member
16 Timothy Seibert, alternate member
17
18 Members absent: Alberto Angles, regular member
19 Richard Rowen, regular member
20
21 Staff present: Lincoln Daley, Town Planner
22 Mary Ippolito, Recording Secretary
23
24 Chairman Nardella called the meeting to order at approximately 7:10 pm and introduced
25 the panel to the assembly,
26
27 Chair announced that Edgewood Retirement Community, 575 Osgood Street petition
28 and Sprint 300 Chestnut St. cell tower petition would be postponed until the October 16,
29 2007 PB meeting.
30
31 POSTPONEMENT (S):
32
33 I.Edgewood Retirement Community,Inc.,575 Osgood Street,Map 36,Parcels 3, 17, 18,
34 and 19. Site Plan Review Special Permit and a Modification Special Permit to construct 27
35 new cottages &greenhouse and new 20-foot wide roadway with individual driveways to access
36 cottages with the R-2 zoning district. (Postponed until October 16th PB meeting.)
37
38 2.Sprint Spectrum L.P.,300 Chestnut Street,Map 98C,Lot I.Renewal of a Special Permit
39 for the operation of an existing wireless communication facility within the R-3 zoning district.
40 (Postponed until October 16 PB meeting.)
41
42 CHAIR ASKED FOR UPDATE OF CELL TOWER COMMITTEE:
43
44 TS stated that the Cell Tower Committee has met twice. They are trying to take survey of other
45 recent Towns regarding their efforts with regard to setbacks, and if these issues have been
46 challenged. They are coming up with a short list of what it is in the bylaw they want to address
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
October 2,2007
Page 1
unapproved
10/17/07
1 and what conclusions will be ready for the May Town Meeting. They are meeting every 2
2 weeks, and moving forward,but has not gotten into nitty-gritty of specific details.
3
4 Chair announced that he was in receipt of a letter from Atty. Urbelis(for the record)regarding
5 details/comments from Town of Acton and their attempt to put a moratorium in place. Chair j
6 stated that Tim Seibert should share this letter with the Cell Tower Committee, specifically
7 referencing where there is a moratorium, (and we're talking about something that is 10 or 11
8 years after the telecommunication act was implemented.) It also talks about where a
9 moratorium conflicts w/the cell tower act.
10
11 Chair feels it's important that the Cell Tower Committee has a copy. Chair has no other
12 comments. When these towers were sited PB took expert testimony and looked at coverage
13 area and made sure the cell tower communicators would show us where a need for a tower
14 could be provided.
15
16 If Lincoln goes back he will find maps where Sprint, MCI,AT&T will show where there are
17 gaps in coverage, These towers were not cited just willy-nilly. In the early days the PB looked
18 at RF radiation and emissions etc. and was instructed that they could not talk about this kind of
19 thing. Chair gave an example of how some studies were originally done relative to a radio
20 located by a nightstand and how it was deemed to be about the worst item you could have in
21 your house.
22
23 (Mr. Tryder interrupted and asked if this was a public discussion because it's not on the
24 agenda?)
25
26 A microwave oven and a BABY COM were also considered possible items that could emit
27 more RF radiation than normal. Chair directed Lincoln to find maps and submit them to the
28 Cell Tower Committee. Lincoln stated that is his goal to get a map and show coverage area and
29 update it. Chair wants the cell companies to provide the Planning Department with a map of
30 where the coverage is and where they may go in the future? It's possible that the town may be
31 maxed out already, and we may not get too many more applications for cell towers because
32 there is enough coverage in certain areas, and there may be no other places to put cell towers.
33 When one company doesn't have coverage and its membership has grown to such a degree that
34 now they want to provide coverage they will try to co-locate on an existing antenna.
35
36 Lincoln stated that he would like to check with other surrounding towns and maybe utilize their
37 existing towers. Tim should convey this information to the Cell Tower Committee.
38
39 Mr. Tryder made a comment that this discussion is out of order because this is not on the
40 agenda tonight,he's on the Cell Tower Committee which was appointed by the Town to discuss
41 these issues it's not up to this Board to do that at this point. If the Chair wants to be invited to
42 attend the Committee then ok,but it's not his place to speak tonight!
43
44 Chair stated that he was instructing a member of this Board who's assigned to the Cell Tower
45 Committee on some of the things that we have done in the past,and he's well within his right to
46 do that.The Planning Board is an appointed body. The Cell Tower Committee is just an
47 advisory committee that has been charged with recommendations.The Planning Board can and
48 will discuss any issue ti deems relevant and the formation of a Committee will not prevent such.
49 The Chair thanked Mr.Tryder for his comments.
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
October 2,2007
Page 2
unapproved
10/17/07
1
2 CHAIR CALLED FOR DISCUSSION ITEM:
3
4 3.Paul A.Marchionda,PE,96-unit,55+residential housing project located at Boston Hill.
5 Requesting a one-year extension to the approved Site Plan Review Special Permit that will
6 expire on October 26,2007.
7
8 Gene Willis was present and submitted the following memo(s) for the record.
9
10 To the North Andover Planning Board
11 Re: Boston Hill Over 55 Residential Development
12
13 I have been asked to comment on the extension of the special permit for the above referenced
14 project. This project is a large& complex project that will remain private. I have restricted my
15 review to potential impacts of the project's entrance on residents' safety and on public ways
16 within the town. The project entrance,as first proposed, was located at the intersection of
17 Johnson St. and Rte. 114 apparently in compliance with sections 6.7.3 "Topography and
18 Location", and 6.8.9"Intersections"of the North Andover Rules and Regulations Governing
19 the Subdivision of Land, The proposed entrance has been moved east along Rte 114 and now is
20 no longer in compliance with those two regulations. I have asked for the engineering rationale
21 for this revision. The potential future widening of Route 114 is of major interest to the
22 town and region; the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission is presently studying it.
23 A copy of the approved Mass Highway permit extension, dated August 31, 2007, has
24 been forwarded to me. It refers questions to District Permit Engineer Michael
25 Formichella. On Sept. 25 and 26, 2007, I called Mass Highway asking to speak with
26 Mr. Formichella. On Sept. 26, 2007, I spoke with Mr. Steve MacVickers(sp?). He
27 advised me that the potential future widening of Route 114 would not have been within
28 the scope of the review Mass Highway performed when issuing this permit. I have
29 requested information from the applicant, showing how a potential widening could be
30 accomplished with the entrance located as presently proposed as opposed to as first
31 proposed. Thirdly I have requested an analysis as to the possible necessity for a
32 vertical curve at the grade change in the entrance as proposed. I believe vehicular
33 traffic may have difficulty with the presently designed entrance. Route 114 is an
34 east/west road with speed limits of 45 mph through this section. The sun is low on the
35 horizon in the Fall, Winter, and Spring. It shines into the windshield of eastbound
36 traffic during the morning and westbound traffic during the evening commutes. For
37 these reasons, I feel that particular attention should be paid to how the project enters
38 and exits this roadway. I have requested more information in order to provide a
39 recommendation
40
41 Mr.Willis submitted his reply with the following letter.
42 RE: Boston Hill Condos
43 On October 2, 2007, Mr.Marchionda responded for the record to my requests for information.
44 His response includes misstatements of fact that I would like to clarify for the record. I offer the
45 following comments:
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
October 2,2007
Page 3
unapproved
10/17/07
1 1. Paul references"a copy of a letter from Gene Willis dated October 1,2007".
2 a. The letter is in fact dated Sept. 26,2007 and was e-mailed from Lincoln to him on that
3 date. It is a reiteration of the same issues raised in my Sept. 4,2007 memo to the
4 Board.
5 Intersection Relocation
6 1. "Mr. Willis, who at the time was employed in private practice continually testified before
7 the board that an intersection opposite Johnson Street required traffic signalization."
8 b. At the time I appeared in front of the board as a town resident,whose children
9 daily traveled a route through the proposed intersection of the project entrance on
10 their way to and from home. I was not appearing in a professional capacity.
11 c. I did not state that the intersection needed signalization;I pointed out that the
12 level of service at the Johnson St, intersection needed to be improved to an
13 acceptable level. This is standard engineering practice. I believe the board
14 suggested signalization as one method of accomplishing this.
15 d. I don't know that the applicant ever proposed any alternatives to raise the
16 intersection's level of service from its present level of F.
17 2. "Mr.Willis'testimony to the contrary(vis-a vis signalization) garnered support from
18 abutters who were opposed to the project As such,the location of the project entrance was
19 moved to its current location."
20 a. This statement is false. I never suggested that the intersection had to be signalized
21 just that it could not remain as a level of service F.
22 b. Does this mean the answer to the question of"why was the entrance moved from the
23 originally proposed(presumably preferred/safer?)location"is that it was moved in
24 order to avoid the expense of upgrading the Johnson St, intersection?
25 3. "Finally, it should be noted that the starting point for Mr. Willis's complaint is the Town's
26 Subdivision Rules and Relations which do not even apply to this development which is a
27 special permit,not subdivision,project."
28 a. I would not characterize my request for information as"a complaint".
29 b. I believe it is appropriate for the board to enforce the same requirements for safe
30 access and egress in granting special permits as it does for conventional
31 subdivisions. As stated in my letter of Sept. 26, 2007"I have restricted my review
32 to potential impacts of the project's entrance on residents' safety and on public ways
33 within the town."
34 Widening of Route 114
35 1. I believe the applicant's answer is non-responsive.
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
October 2,2007
Page 4
unapproved
10/17/07
1 a. Paul references approved MASS Highway permits. On Sept. 26, 2007,I spoke
2 with Mr. Steve MacVickers(sp?). He advised me that the potential future
3 widening of Route 114 would not have been within the scope of the review Mass
4 Highway performed when issuing this permit.
5 b. It appears that the entrance as proposed cannot meet the minimum 3%tangent for
6 the first 100 feet of roadway.
7 c. The proposed location is in deep cuts(approx. 22'). I have requested a proposed
8 road profile showing the edge of pavement for rte 114 moved south for potential
9 widening.
10 2. Paul states"Furthermore,the proposed entrance road profile in both the original proposed
11 location and the current approved location are essentially the same.Thus there is no
12 difference in the ability to accomplish the potential widening between the two entrance
13 locations.
14 a, What is the definition of"essentially"? Looking at existing topography in the two
15 locations raises a concern.
16 b, Even if the profiles are similar,the cuts required would not be. The side slopes of
17 the proposed drive presents the potential difficulty to future widening of rte 114
18 c. Exhibit A&B last pages seem to contradict this assertion. (see Marcionda
19 response date Oct. 2,2007)
20 Vertical Curve
21 1. Paul states"Standard engineering practice is not to provide a vertical curve to transition
22 from the-2% grade to the+4%grade at the proposed entrance."
23 a. I suggest this may not be the case in this instance. The grade change does not
24 occur at the existing edge of pavement but 20' in. Traffic at this point could
25 conceivably be traveling at a velocity that would create a need for vertical curve,
26 b. Traffic entering the project from the westbound lane of rte 114 may have queued
27 up in the middle lane. If two or three vehicles cross on-coming traffic, and the
28 first car in line brakes for the transition(absent a vertical curve),the following
29 cars may be stopped in the on coming traffic lane.
30 2, "As stated earlier,on August 31,2007,Mass Highway issued an extension of its curb cut
31 permit for the project entrance presumably taking into account all factors it believed to be
32 relevant. (A copy of that permit(#4-2002-0219) and the current extension are attached as
33 Exhibit B)"
34 a. The key would here is"presumably".At no point does Mr.Marcionda
35 acknowledge that these specific issues raised could have been overlooked or not
36 addressed in previous reviews. He merely states that he has permits.
37 b. I have asked for information relative to these issues before I,as Town Engineer,
38 recommend an extension to the special permit. Absent this information,I cannot
39 recommend the board grant the extension requested.
40
41 3. "Furthermore,the transition from the -2%grade to the+4% grade occurs within the state
42 highway layout of Route 114 which is under the jurisdiction of Mass Highway."Does
43 this suggest that that the Town Engineer should not comment or request information
44 before he makes a recommendation to the Board?
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
October 2,2007
Page 5
unapproved
10/17/07
1
2 Mr. Willis stated that in the absence of the applicant's providing this information,he
3 recommend the board not extend the special permit.
4
5 Please note John Simons arrived at 7:25 pm.
6
7 Mr. Willis stated that traffic might have difficulty with the presently proposed entrance.Traffic
8 entering the project may cue in the middle lane; the following cars may be stopped at the on
9 coming line of traffic. Mr. Willis asked for answers to his questions before a one-year
10 extension would be granted.
11
12 Chair asked if Gene is uncomfortable where the entrance is now? Gene answered yes.
13
14 Chair asked if we put a signal at Johnson St. then Mass Highway stated we would have more
15 accidents,they are against putting lights at intersection?
16
17 Gene answered it's standard practice to have intersections opposed to each other. Gene never
18 stated they had to signalize the intersection. However,it got moved East on#114. Gene wants
19 it brought back to its original spot.
20
21 Chair wants to send Gene the draft decision.
22
23 Mr. Marchionda stated that a letter was sent on Oct. 1st. The entrance was located
24 across Johnson St. and Mass highways stated a warrant analysis was done.
25
26 JS stated that the Planning Board made an informed decision; the situation was less than
27 optimal.
28
29 Chair wants to make sure that the conditions have not changed dramatically from the original
30 date approved by the decision.
31
32 Chair asked where is Rte. #114 going to be widened?
33
34 Mr. Marchionda to demonstrate to Gene where the widening of Rte. #114 will take place,
35 Sunshine from East to West is an issue w/Gene. He stated if entrance isn't safe then the project
36 should not get built. This applicant will come back in on Oct. 16th PB meeting as public
37 hearing.
38
39
40 CHAIR CALLED FOR DISCUSSION ITEM:
41
42 ANR application for 95 Lacey Street—Proposing to create 4 lots out of existing lot regarding
43 the estate of Barbara Tighe.
44 Lincoln submitted an ANR application and plan to the PB tonight. Involves 4 properties on
45 Lacey St, a/k/a WhipperWill Farm. Barbara Tighe's will is being disputed, These properties
46 are currently under Chapter 61A, There is a court order decision to readjust the current lot lines
47 into 4 separate lots.
48
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
October 2,2007
Page 6
unapproved
10/17/07
1 JS stated that we should get the facts first. PB is not here to make a legal judgment. PB wants
2 to hear why the lots are being realigned.
3
4 Atty. Hurley was present and represents the Estate of Barbara Tighe. Ms Tighe owned all of
5 the land shown on the ANR plan. She did an earlier subdivision in 1989 subdividing this into 4
6 lots. She left a described parcel of real estate to a companion of hers,it was a portion of the
7 whole parcel not less than 3 acres,which contained a house, attached barn and hill behind the
8 house with barn,Unfortunately,Ms Tighe never had this new plan drawn. Atty. Hurley asked
9 the courts instruction on how to divide this property because someone had to determine where
10 the lot lines were. January 29, 2004 the court said lot is less than 3 acres etc. Problem is on
11 prior plan it showed 3 structures that could be considered barns,which contained horses, so the
12 question became did you mean for the Attorney to include 2 barns or 1 barn? 2004 decision
13 was never appealed. Stacey Hughes-Birch will get only less than 3 acres. Judge determined
14 that the only structure to be contained was only one barn. 2005 Judge entered a decision and
15 approved a plan that contained only one structure,take it to the Town and get it approved,
16 Order by the Court to pay outstanding taxes.
17
18 Lincoln stated there are concerned abutters here tonight.
19
20 Atty. stated the plan would be drawn to contain an overlay of previous subdivision lots,
21 approval of this plan does not indicate that there are immediate plans to break this into lots.
22
23 Lincoln consulted Town Counsel regarding 61A. This currently submitted ANR plan does
24 comply with ANR requirements. All 4 lots are under agricultural taxes. 61A is independent of
25 the PB approval of an ANR plan.
26
27 JS asked why the dates don't appear on any original plans other than 1989?
28
29 Chair wants to see a copy of the registered 1989 ANR plan.
30
31 Atty, stated that lot 2A was increased in size.
32
33 JS stated take the 4 lots before and lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 see yellow line on plan and show the size
34 of the old lots and the size of the new lots, and put former lots on the plan.
35
36 PB asked for a table showing lot 2 and lots 2A and the size of each of them should add up to the
37 same. Has wetlands been flagged? Are the wetland lines based on 1989?
38
39 Atty. stated the wetlands are the old wetlands and not re-modified. See 5B it's 126,000 s.£ it
40 claims to have CBA is 65,000 s.f, about half the lot?
41
42 PB wants Lincoln to find out if Con/Com has looked at the wetland.
43
44 JS wants engineer to verify if the wetlands have been flagged and determined by an engineer.
45 JS asked if the barns need to be razed in order for these lot lines to be done? Send Attorney
46 back to Neve Engineering Group to get JS questioned answered.
47
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
October 2,2007
Page 7
unapproved
10117107.
1 Lincoln stated that slope bylaw does not play a role in this, and he asked is the hill counted into,
2 the calculations of the size of the lots? Lincoln stated that the ANR plan meets our regulations,
3 and PB should incorporate our regulations into the ANR plan.
4
5 Chair stated there are things that PB cannot do.
6
7 Stacey Birch, 95 Lacey St., stated that what Atty. Hurley was speaking to is under appeal in a
8 court order and could be thrown out tomorrow. Atty. has to notify the Town if the barns will
9 need to be torn down in order to activate a first approval process. She asked if anybody could
10 come in and change the lines on anybody's property? She is in court tomorrow regarding a
11 restraining order in order to have this go thru the court system. Look up case of Sudbury vs.
12 Scott and the Supreme Court ruled that any change has to be passed by the Town Assessor first
13 and the BOS in writing.
14
15 Lincoln stated that pertains to notification process,not the form A process.
16
17 Chair asked if Town Counsel gave any direction to PB? Lincoln stated that Atty. Carol
18 McGravey stated the ANR process is independent of any kind of legal matters on the property,
19 she concurs with estate of Barbara Tighe.
20
21 Chair stated that if the PB would take a course of action that would be prejudicing anything
22 regarding a court action then the PB couldn't do this.
23
24 JS is not going to vote tonight because of the wetland issue.
25
26 Ms. Birch stated that the wetland, electricity and driveway,has been cut out of her lot, so why
27 would PB approve an ANR lot which is keeping her out of her home.
28
29 PB can only rule on ANR plan in front of them, Chair understands her issues but unfortunately
30 the PB cannot get into legal issues. Chair recommends that the applicant request an extension
31 to go past Oct. 16, 2007.
32
33 JS asked if existing dwelling has to have access over frontage,then can you recreate access
34 over frontage?
35
36 Lincoln stated the lot is wooded to a degree.
37
38 Ms Birch stated it has a severe slope and is wooded. There is only a holding tank where will
39 septic go?
40
41 Chair stated that these issues aren't going to be taken into consideration regarding an ANR
42 approval.
43
44 Ms Birch is asking for a reprieve for a few days?
45
46 Stacey Mahoney, 143 Lacey St.was present and stated that it has always been a farm and the
47 land was surveyed,they did ask permission to come onto her property, in order to flag the
48 wetlands,she's asking to consider this information before approving the ANR,because this
49 effects the entire neighborhood, regarding rezoning the whole area, she knows how much
Pianning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
October 2,2007
Page 8
unapproved
10/17/07
1 wetland there are,because she's had a water issue in her basement,it looks great on paper but
2 to say that they will divide lots she doesn't see how it's possible?
3
4 Chair asked Atty. Hurley if engineer on(Feb. of 2006)if they reflaged the wetlands? Atty. said
5 yes.
6
7 Ms Birch interrupted and said no.
8
9 Abutter stated that in the last 2 years there were builders looking at this property possibly to
10 build homes on the lots.
11
12 Chair stated the law is the law, and PB knows of many pieces of beautiful property that were
13 built on, even though PB didn't necessarily approve of it.
14
15 Atty. Hurley stated that he has had no discussions with any builders,this plan has not been done
16 with design of specific sales to anyone,or any builder;this was done to respond to the Court.
17
18 Walter Hughes, Stacey's father,was present, If the land is agricultural, what the PB is being
19 asked to do is rearrange the lines on the ANR regarding agricultural without giving the Assessor
20 the opportunity to deal with back taxes.The Town must respond first.This is wrong because
21 they have had 5 years to do this, and they are asking the PB to approve to make the land
22 residential and not agricultural.
23
24 Our Town counsel is giving the PB a different interpretation than what Stacey's father is giving
25 us,
26
27 There is an Assessors lien on this land since 1993. This lean it's specific as to what it covers,
28 several lots noted as 105D on assessor's map. Mr.Hughes stated this would not end the issue.
29
30 Chair asked Lincoln if any of these lots are rat-tails? Lincoln stated no.
31
32 Chair wants to know if 6 1 A would trigger a notification process to the Town,whether the PB is
33 prejudicing this by signing a form A and what does the Town lien really entail? Applicant
34 should grant an extension until Oct. 18'h. Atty. to submit a letter tomorrow waiving the time
35 constraints and if we don't get one then call an emergency meeting of the PB.
36
37
38 CHAIR CALLED FOR CONTINUED HEARING:
39
40 5.Thomson Brothers Industries,Inc.210 Holt Road,Map 34 & 77 Parcels 27,38,40, & 14.
41 Site Plan Review Special Permit to construct a recycling facility and solid waste transfer station
42 of approximately 39,000 s.f. within 1-2 zoning district. (Continued from.September 18, 1007)
43
44 Lincoln had questions that he submitted to engineer and ANR plan. Lincoln reviewed the plan it
45 does comply with Section 3 of rules and regulations to the point that it could be approved,
46 Decision should have the site assignment language incorporated into this decision. Lincoln
47 should draft decision. See the following edits: Incorporation of light at Holt Road intersection,
48 Mass Highway stated they would not approve a full light intersection there. Police to get $5,000
49 to keep in escrow.
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
October 2,2007
Page 9
unapproved
10/17/07
1
2 Chair stated for the record PB instructed Lincoln to sign ANR plan tonight. Lincoln
3 recommended that Mr.Thomson record the easement w/Registry of Deeds. He will forward the
4 DEP plan to Lincoln to show how the easements are laid out.
5
6 Fix bond it reads$3,000 revised plan 8122, it should be 9/12/and 9125. Chair stated this has
7 dragged on since 1995, is it ok if we do this on Oct. 160"? Mr. Thomson stated that the DEP has
8 a deadline this will hold them up.
9
10 Lincoln stated look at finding of fact#1,change word to conditions, change to public record,put
11 period there. See#23,should be lapsed on 2009 not 2007. See#5 as part of site assignment
12 needs to say applicant,put in up to a maximum of$200,000 toward installation of a traffic light?
13 Chair said he's spent up to$15,000. Lincoln stated it's not relevant in his opinion.
14
15 Mr.Thomson to come back to Lincoln with a ballpark figure, go under not up. Applicant pays
16 for the environmental monitor. Mr.Thomson asked if all snow must be removed from site?
17 Chair stated that a change would be required, if upon determination of Town Planner,snow
18 storage on site is not sufficient to provide for safety and access. Chair stated unless Mr.
19 Thomson has everything from every Board then this decision doesn't happen. Chair stated dust
20 mitigation isn't enforced well in decision Chair stated make sure the developer will place a tarp
21 on top of stockpiles. Stock piles can't stay longer than one week. 4B is this standard? Lincoln
22 said yes. Chair stated copies should be submitted to the Town for reference. Chair stated
23 modify snow storage in this section.
24
25 Motion by JS, 2nd by JK to close the public hearing,vote 4-0 unanimous.
26 Motion by JS, 2❑d JK to approve a Site Plan Review Special Permit as amended tonight for 210
27 Hold Road,vote was 4-0 unanimous.
28
29 Chair wishes Mr.Thomson best of luck and to follow the agreement to do what we all agreed to
30 do.
31
32 CHAIR CALLED FOR CONTINUED HEARING:
33
34 RCG, 120 Water Street& 21 High Street, Definitive Planned Development Special
35 Permit and Site Plan Special Permit. First phase of a multi-phased mixed-use
36 development for conversion of 15,000 s.f. of current vacant office space and retail uses
37 on ground floor of buildings #1, 1A, 2 & 3 front High Street and the renovation and
38 conversion of approximately 20,000 s.f. of vacant space to 20 residential loft-style one
39 & two bedroom apartment units location in the I-S zoning district. (Continued from
40 Septemberl8, 2007)
41 Atty. Smolak was present; PB asked for Phase 1 follow-up, incorporation of 4 way stop
42 sign and updated landscaping plan, and adjustments to crosswalks at request of Police.
43 David Steinbergh stated that he submitted both revisions of street improvements and
44 landscaping. This plan does have a 4 way stop sign. He removed the 4"' crosswalk; it
45 created too much foot traffic. Landscape engineer has incorporated more color to the
46 proposed trees. Added two more parking spaces on the street only one hour turn over.
47 Mr. Steinbergh addressed a complaint letter from an abutter, David met w/abutter and he
48 plans to clear up this issue.
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
October 2,2007
Page 10
unapproved
10/17/07
1
2 Gene Willis wants to reconsider putting a stop sign at top of the hill, Mr. Steinbergh
3 provided for this stop sign in his plans.
4
5 Lincoln stated if there are problems as a result of the 4 way stop sign that the Town
6 would remove the stop sign if it results in accidents. VHB reviewed this with minor
7 comments. Lincoln reviewed the application under 8.3, 10.3 it meets criteria of Site
8 Plan SP for PDD. Lincoln recommends closing the public hearing tonight and drafting
9 decision.
10
11 Upon a motion by JS, 2nd by JK to close the public hearing, vote 4-0 unanimous.
12
13 PB wants staff to draft decision for Phase 1.
14
15 Atty. Smolak asked that two decisions, a Site Plan Review SP and a PDD be acted upon
16 tonight?
17
18 See the following edits: Chair asked about dust mitigation? Mr. Steinbergh stated there
19 are loading areas to the rear of the property, there will be work on High St, and the rest
20 of the work is interior. He will need to reset curbs and reset drains. Site opening bond is
21 $5K. Street cleaning must be performed once a month? Chair thinks this should be
22 done more often; Lincoln change this take out"once per month". Performance
23 guarantee will be set by DPW. References/revisions of all plans must be submitted to
24 Lincoln. Chair stated the road needs to be put back into absolutely good passing
25 conditions, they don't want ruts etc. Lincoln to put a condition ensuring that any
26 opening of road will be closed during work day, and brought up to acceptable conditions
27 for passing. JS stated PDD in conditions in findings 1,2,3,4, should there be some
28 preamble to that? JS stated find section for preservation of historical buildings. JS stated
29 in finding of fact do it in both. Lincoln stated cross out striping of fire lane wording.
30 Chair stated put clause in about dust mitigation and street cleaning in. JK stated cange
31 hours to 7 to 7 in both decisions. Is #19 truck deliveries ok, on Site Plan SP? Mr.
32 Steinbergh stated he doesn't know. Chair stated leave it in 6 am to 9 pm use, which is
33 pretty broad. Lincoln stated dumpster thing is to limit the dumpster removal process.
34
35 Motion by JK, 2nd by JS to approve the PDD Special Permit for Phase 1 specifically as
36 amended this evening,vote was unanimous. 4-0.
37
38 Motion by JK, 2'd by JS to approve the Site Plan Review Special Permit specifically for
39 Phase l for 21 High Street, as amended this evening, vote was unanimous 4-0.
40
41 Chair congratulated the applicant and wished Mr. Steinbergh the best of luck.
42
43 CHAIR CALLED FOR THE FOLLOWING DRAFTED DECISION:
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
October 2,2007
Page 11
unapproved
10/17/07
1 Sprint Spectrum L.P., 723 Osgood Street, Map 35, Lot 23. Renewal of a Special
2 Permit application to allow for the operation of a 100' tall wireless communications
3 facility& associated equipment. (closed public hearing on 9/4/07—draft decision).
4 Lincoln submitted a draft decision tonight. PB has documentation in hand for their
5 renewal; Chair wants to know if the annual insurance is an opened date or a closed date?
6 Lincoln stated yes. Chair instructed Mary to make a column in the cell tower log and to
7 include insurance certificates. Lincoln will work w/applicant for annual maintenance
8 cost to maintain the tower facility; Chair wants Tim Seibert to bring this annual
9 certification of maintenance to the Cell Tower if it is needed. Tim should consider if the
10 SP should be renewed for 3 years, versus a different number of years etc.
11
12 JS stated he doesn't know why the time period was restricted to a 3-year time period
13 versus a different number of years,but doesn't want to go into it tonight.
14
15 See the following edits: Chair stated look at 3B an C - readings/now and annual noise—
16 Lincoln stated this was provided as part of filing of application said we need language to
17 say that applicant needs to submit same documents to us that they send to FCC. Chair
18 stated get rid of E. #15 the date lapse after 3 years should be 2010. Chair stated that if
19 there is a facility located out there then the Board wants to make sure that it is
20 structurally sound, let the Bylaw speak to this. JS stated it should be a Town bylaw and
21 not a zoning bylaw.
22
23 Mr. Tryder asked what the actual date of expiration is? He stated the actual date of the
24 original SP was 2001? Does that mean a permit was issued? Then the application states
25 2004? Lincoln gave a chronological assessment of the filing of this SP for 723 Osgood
26 St. Mr. Tryder commented that there's something missing, he couldn't find
27 documentation in the file relative to the renewal date? Chair stated that the Planning
28 Department has the issue of the renewal dates of cell tower SP under control.
29
30 Mr. Tryder stated that he wants a copy of the request for renewal for 723 Osgood St, and
31 not just the extension for one year.
32
33 Mr. Tryder stated that monitoring and maintenance see 81) failure to obtain information
34 required a$300.00 fine for each offense, etc. Mr. Tryder asked how come this wording
35 isn't in the terms of the SP on 723 Osgood St. decision? Lincoln stated see draft
36 decision -page 4 #10- it incorporates all conditions.
37
38 Mr. Tryder wants condition#17 spelled out and written out in all decisions. Mr. Tryder
39 stated it's 8.9 in bylaw#8 monitoring and maintenance, some of that is listed in the
40 drafted decision but it's left out under 8D and abandonment and discontinuance is left
41 out. Mr. Tryder stated that other decisions contain this language spelled out.
42
43 JS asked Mr. Tryder to show him where the language is contained that he's questioning
44 tonight and passed the decision to Mr. Tryder. Mr. Tryder said no, you can look for it.
45
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
October 2,2007
Page 12
unapproved
10/17/07
1 Chair stated that the specific information is included in the draft decision,
2
3 Mr. Tryder stated he was not happy.
4 Motion by JK, 2nd by TS to approve a renewal of a Special Permit for 723 Osgood St. as
5 amended this evening, vote was unanimous 4-0.
6
7 Chair thanked Mr. Tryder for his input.
8
9
10 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
11
12 8."Minutes" for the following Planning Board Public Meetings:
13 September 4, 2007
14 September 18, 2007
15
16 Motion by JS, 2nd by TS to approve Mintues of Sept 4 and Sept. 18th, 2007 vote was
17 unanimous 4-0.
18
19
20 THE FOLLOWING UPDATE TOOK PLACE:
21
22 Lincoln attended the Weir Hill application of pesticides, Franz Inglefinger applied them
23 by a leaf blower in small doses of water and herbicide, very localized, mist was
24 minimum, also applied cut and paint and cut stems of plants and applied herbicides and
25 killed them in a couple of days. Franz didn't explain himself properly in the first place.
26 This tools place a few days after the last PB meeting.
27
28 Motion by JS, 2nd JK, to adjourn tonight meeting at approximately 10:10 pm.
29
30
31 UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS:
32
33 October 16, 2007
34 November 6, 2007
35 November 20, 2007
36
37 By order of the Planning Board
38
39
40
41 Approved
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
October 2,2007
Page 13