HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-06 Planning Board Minutes NO R Tli
O�
%-E ID
2 DRAFT 3/4/08 * _
3yy C11 e�
T CO[HiC newK.t V
5 ��SSRcE�u5���5
6
7 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
8 PLANNING BOARD
9 Minutes of the Meeting
10Wednesday, February 6, 2008
11 Town Hall, 120 Main Street
12 7:00 PM
13
14 Members present: Richard Nardella, Chairman
15 John Simons, Vice Chairman.
16 Richard Rowen,regular member
17 Jennifer Kusek,regular member
18 Timothy Seibert, alternate member
19
20
21 Member absent: Alberto Angles, Clerk
22
23 Staff present: Lincoln Daley, Town Planner
24 Mary Ippolito, Recording Secretary
25
'.6
L? Chairman Nardella introduced the panel to the assembly at approximately 7:05 prn.
28
29 Chair stated that during voting yesterday the additional egress road located at the high school
30 was locked and gated. When the Planning Board rendered their decision they wanted that gate
31 open for certain events at the high school, the reason being that it's a matter of public safety that
32 our Town have one entrance and one exist. There was a traffic jam.-up at one of the previous
33 elections, and the Superintendent (Mr. Hartonnian) promised that somebody would man the gates
34 to ensure that people could getout. Chair instructed Lincoln to send a letter asking why the gate
35 to Rte. #125 was not opened for the election on Tuesday night and send it to the School
36 Committee,principal of our high school and cc Town Manager. Chair stated there is no reason
37 to have everything bogged down, 'PB makes developers live up to their decisions, so we make
38 school department live up to their decisions, or we do something about it.
39
40
41 CHAIR CALLED FOR THE FOLLOWING POSTPONEMENT:
42
43 ]. The DF Parker Company,LLC,500 Sutton Street, Map 74,Lot 1-B. Site Plan
44 Review Special Permit to permit construction of a 20,540 s.£, two floor masonry and steel pet
45 care facility and a Watershed Special Permit for the construction of a detention basin in the
46 Non-Discharge buffer zone within the I-2 zoning district. Applicant requested to be postponed,
47 as their engineer needed more time to respond to VHB's review.
48
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
February 6,2008
Page 1
I' CHAIR CALLED FOR FOLLOWING DISCUSSION:
2
3 Annual Town Meeting Zoning Amendments:
4 2. Rte. 125 Corridor Rezoning—Workshop to discuss the rezoning of parcels along the
5 northern corridor of Rte. 125 and Osgood Street.
6
7 Lincoln did a presentation showing the different parcels on the zoning map, pink color signifies
8 B-2 new zoning district.
9
10 Chair stated create language regarding a particular zone and call it B-2 or B 1, Lincoln wants to
11 work within the confines of the current zoning and not to create a new zoning district. Chair
12 wants to make this flexible.
13
14 RR what's B-2 for? Lincoln explained the property owners want their district done individually.
15 Some of the pre-existing non-conforming lots were like that when their development was built
16 provided they don't go beyond the lots lines they currently have, this is for any pre-existing non-
17 conforming use.
18
19 JK agrees to keep this simple.
20
21 RR asked why not go with B-2 and CDD1 or CDD2 district? Lincoln stated he agreed, combine
22 one structure w/4 business in it. Make them only one-acre lots PB doesn't want drive thru
23 restaurants.
24
25 Chair stated just call it CDD3? Follow the same theme as before and drive thru is only permitted
:6 by special permit.
27
28 RR stated restrict a bank drive thru but restrict the distance where another bank drive thru could
29 be built.
30
31 CHAIR CALLED FOR FOLLOWING DISCUSSION ITEM:
32
33 3. Modifications to Sections 8.1 Off-Street Parking and 8.3 Site Plan Review—
34 Formation of Subcommittee to update the current parking regulations.
35
36 Lincoln submitted his review to the PB tonight. See#1 put in a movie theatre, 2 providing
37 design standards etc. (see handout).
38
39 Chair asked are our Town's parking regulations/spaces better than other towns?
40
41 Lincoln stated that our parking regulations are prohibitive, especially in the down Town area, it
42 creates a sea of parking, our regulations in place look at the use within a retail facility or plaza
43 and also the times in which the uses are actually being utilized by hours of operation and because
44 of this we over constructed parking spaces in Town. This creates a burden on the applicant to
45 adhere to those standards and creates a less than desirable parking design on overall project. As
46 opposed to designing the project they designed the parking first as opposed to designing the
47 project first.
�S
Manning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
February 6,2008
Page 2
lF Chair stated marry up Lincoln's suggestions with what we have today. He sees single and multi
2 family 2 per dwelling units what are the requirements today?
3
4 Lincoln stated some are the same. Chair stated we have issues when we get to section regarding
5 restaurants then we come up with the Park Street Redevelopment and we find that the parking
6 would have been too much.
7
8 RR stated the lot across the street (Messina's Plaza) is never totally full and it's half the number
9 of parking spaces required.
10
11 Lincoln stated that looks at the kind of spaces utilized, the Chowder House is open a little after
12 hours,but otherwise the parking lot is empty.
13
14 Chair stated there was a pre-existing bylaw existing at the time when Messina's Plaza was built
15 if they built down town they only needed 50% of the required parking spaces that parking lot is
16 literally half of what it was supposed to be and there is still plenty of parking imagine if it were
17 twice the size?
18
19 Lincoln to submit a table of what he is proposing verses what we have now.
20
21 Lincoln stated number 8 on page 7 see parking provided on a separate lot, an example being
22 RCG, they have a parking easement on the West Mill site which they couldn't really use to
23 satisfy their parking requirements according to our current bylaw, this section would allow them
24 to do that. Most important, looking at common parking areas among different uses such as a
25 restaurant and a business. A restaurant requirement is really tough to meet; this one actually
16 looks at the entire plaza based on the peek use during that time of day.
27
28 CHAIR CALLED FOR FOLLOWING DISCUSSION:
29
30 4. Modifications to Section.4.2 Phased Development Bylaw—The Phased Development
31 section is set to expire on July 1, 2009.
32
33 Lincoln stated Atty. Urbelis submitted a memo stating Section 4.2 bylaw would expire on July 1,
34 2009. Town should complete the Master Plan or extend the 4.2 bylaw for an extra few years and
35 address it then. Per Curt Bellavance the Town is looking to revise its Master Plan that is more
36 than 8 years old. PB still has to do more work on our current studies that apply to Section 4.2.
37
38 Lincoln recommends put language in current bylaw Section 4.2 to allow the PB to issue a SP to
39 allow for it's own Phased Development in Town such as RCG as an example.
40
41 Chair asked if we have exemptions to Phase development such as 55 and over housing? Because
42 if you look at RCG and it's going to be one-bedroom apartments and we're guessing 90% single
43 people why do we want to restrict it?
44
45 RR stated see Boston Hill as an example, from an environmental point of view, stabilize it each
46 winter,but don't drag it thru 6 years, it will become an eye soar and a risk.
47
-8 RR stated that this Town in the mid-80's could not keep up with the rapid growth, and that's why
49 this bylaw was put in initially to give the Town a change to let the infrastructure keep pace. If
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
February 6,2008
Page 3
1 there was a subdivision with 90 homes in it then maybe you would have to phase it, the school
2 impact, if that isn't the case and there is no screaming need for infrastructure to catch up with the
3 development pace then it's a burden that is not necessary.
4
5 Lincoln stated see page 56 (underlined in red) this may give PB flexibility to design phase
6 developments,which are more relevant to what we are seeing now.
7
8 Chair asked could RCG apply for modifications retroactively?
9
10 Lincoln stated no when decisions are approved by the PB that decision must adhere to the
11 standards of the bylaw at that time.
12
13 RR asked could it apply for a modification?
14
15 Lincoln stated yes.
16
17 Chair stated so RCG could come in and apply for a modification under the new zoning bylaw?
18
19 Lincoln stated yes.
20
21 Chair commended Lincoln for his good work on this project.
22
23
24 CHAIR CALLED FOR FOLLOWING DISCUSSION:
25
?6 5. Modifications to Section 2. Definitions to define the term "Structure" and "Trailer".
27
28 Lincoln stated this stems from a previous issue which involved a recent Site Plan Review process
29 and an appeal process. Our Town Counsel along with Butcher Boy filed a dismissal involving
30 an appeal by Mr. Ragonese on the PB decision.
31
32 RR asked did the Court define what is a structure?
33
34 Lincoln stated yes. The Court decision involving the definition of what a structure actually is as
35 applies to the trailers on the Butcher Boy site is well defined.
36
37 Lincoln stated see page 2 for his recommendation: "Structure means a combination of materials
38 that form a construction that is safe and stable including among other buildings stadium stands,
39 reviewing stands,platforms with staging observation towers, ratio towers, water towers,water
40 tanks, private and public swimming pools, permanent storage trailers and condexes, and the rest
41 is the same, where the addition would be is: where the North Andover bylaws are silent then the
42 current of the Mass Building code shall be assumed to apply".
43
44 Chair is troubled by the term permanent storage trailer. If we define the bylaw more specifically
45 then the Building Inspector will have something to hang his hat on. How does he tell the
46 difference between permanent storage trailer that has wheels and a temporary storage trailer that
47 has wheels?
«`18
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
February 6,2008
Page 4
1 Lincoln stated that will fall upon the recent court decision which defines what a permanent trailer
2 is.
3
A
5 Chair asked if the PB could enhance that somehow? We know what we want to exclude.
6
7 RR stated put the court language in there so that they don't have to look up what the language is.
8
9
10 CHAIR CALLED FOR FOLLOWING DISCUSSION:
11
12 6. Modifications to Section 6. Signage and Sign Lighting Regulations.
13
14 Lincoln submitted the same language as last year. Due to the lack of interest on everyone's part
15 there is a recent push by the BOS to examine the issue of signs and put forth a sign bylaw.
16 Lincoln stated he's working w/BOS and ZBA Chairman to revise this to a certain degree and to
17 have this ready this year.
18
19
20 CHAIR CALLED FOR FOLLOWING DISCUSSION:
21
22 7. Wireless Bylaw Committee Update. Modification to the Section 8.9 Wireless Service
23 Facility
24
25 TS stated they want a draft bylaw by March 7th and asking for feedback by April 7th. TS will
'.6 continue to send language to the PB even though this project is moving slowly.
27
28 RR stated if the purpose in the bylaw is to get rid of cell phone towers then committee is on the
29 wrong direction.
30
31 Chair stated TS to look at what the purpose of the Cell Tower Committee is.
32
33 TS stated he didn't know if what was currently under the purpose section under#1, he would
34 assume that what is in there is in the current bylaw, the committee has not addressed that section
35 yet, what they have addressed is definitions etc.
36
37 TS stated the Committee membership changed, a woman was added as a resident w/health care
38 experience.
39
40 RR stated the original discussion was geared around wireless facilities, the transmission of radio
41 waves emitting issue,however, if committee thinks their charter is to get rid of all towers then
42 they are wrong.
43
44 Chair stated we have"one new cell tower in Town" on Osgood Hill property. The other towers
45 were put up many years ago. Look at the 600-foot issue and come up with some realistic
46 regulations.
47
18 Lincoln stated we have a project in CDD development that is now done so it's working, have a
49 lot of inquires on CDD1 district.
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
February 6,2008
Page 5
„ 1
2 Chair stated when people from Avalon spoke they said they would come right back in? Curt
3 stated it's still in design phase, should be hearing soon hopefully.
4
5
6 CHAIR CALLED FOR CONTINUED HEARING(S):
7
8 8. Park Street Redevelopment LLC, 498 Chickering Road, Map 71, Parcel 26. Site
9 Plan Review Special Permit to raze existing structures of gas station and automobile service
10 station and construct a 5,000 s.f. one-story retail building.
11
12 Lincoln stated drainage design was addressed w/engineer. Lincoln drafted a decision.
13
14 Edits: 1. Revised calculation of parking needs to be modified in accordance w/what they
15 presented. 2. They responded to traffic analysis on Rte. #114 but how do they categorize the
16 drive thru? However, VHB has a different opinion of what a restaurant is? Discussions are on
17 going.
18
19 Chair asked did study use morning peak hour? Lincoln stated basic concern is the queuing in
20 the morning; the morning hours are more utilized.
21
22 Please note: John Simons arrived at Bpm.
23
24 Lincoln stated make one of the entrance ways an exit only.
25
...)6 Brian Darcey stated Dermott Kelly provided his traffic study to VHB and his study was right on
27 in his evaluation.
28
29 Lincoln stated the issue is the queuing effect on Chickering Road. PB can make changes in the
30 future if they need to regarding the queuing of cars. Put arrow showing entrance and exit.
31
32 Steve Stapinski stated driveway and parking lot is designed to be two-way traffic in front and
33 one way in back. Circulation wouldn't work if you had one exit and one entrance.
34
35 RR stated leave one of them as is, and make the other one a two way.
36
37 Lincoln will put a condition in the decision that PB will review this during the first year of
38 operation.
39
40 Mr. Stapinski stated he answers to Mass Highway authority, even though we have exiting curb
41 cut, then PB may go in to modify this curb cut but Mass Highway may say no.
42
43 Chair stated put in the decision pending Mass Highway approval.
44
45 Mr. Stapinski to send a PDF for modification to Lincoln ASAP.
46
47 Motion by RR, 2nd by JS to close the public hearing vote was unanimous 5-0.
18
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
February 6,2008
Page 6
I Chairs edits: Finding of fact#3; see if this needs to be modified by Lincoln. TS #2, take out
2 Berry Street in decision. JK 493 Chickering Road is wrong change it to 498 make it consistent
3 throughout. JK said page 2 at top see 493?
4
5 Chair stated do we need environmental monitor? Lincoln stated we could take it out. Chair
6 stated put in"if required" at the direction of PB. Chair stated get rid of the word
7 environmental leave construction monitor in.
8
9 Chair asked if Mobile will clean up site does PB get a copy stating site is clean? Lincoln stated
10 usually yes, if not he can contact DEP.
11
12 Brian Darcey stated he has owned the property for a year and he has paperwork from Mobile
13 stating the site has been cleaned up.
14
15 JS stated put this in finding of fact (about Mobile cleaned up site.)
16
17 Chair stated bond this for$5K as site opening bond, which can be rolled over into $15K as-
18 built bond. Chair wants Mr. Darcey to keep this site clean. Chair will look to enforce this
19 issue. Put in RR statement about reviewing this site within the first year.
20
21 Mr. Darcey stated prior to certificate of occupancy see#8 he feels the $15K bond would be
22 covered in this issue. Chair stated the $15K is for as-built issue. Mr. Darcey stated P#8
23 reference demonstrating materials regarding sign? This stays in.
24
25 Motion by RR to approve 498 Chickering Road Site Plan SP as amended 2nd by JS, vote was
>6 unanimous 5-0.
27
28 CHAIR CALLED FOR PUBLIC HEARING(S):
29
30 9. Robert Ercolini, 880 Great Pond Road—Map 103,Lot 111 —Watershed Special
31 Permit to raze existing dwelling and construct a single-family dwelling, driveway, &roof runoff
32 infiltration system within the Non-Disturbance and Non-Discharge district within the R-1 zoning
33 district.
34
35 Lincoln stated this is to raze existing house and construct a new residence etc. Applicant went to
36 ZBA for relief from 4.136 and determined that a variance was not needed because building a
37 new structure doesn't apply to the percentage of the new structure.
38
39 Patrick Bower, Andover Consultants, stated since existing structure will be completely removed
40 then looking at conforming lot w/conforming structure will be ok, VHB reviewed project, and
41 Mr. Bower reviewed their comments. He's working w/Con/Com and filed NOI. New house has
42 increase in impervious area. VHB stated separation from water table issue. Engineer specified
43 stone trench would take care of run off.
44
45 JS asked how close is corner of construction to lake itself? Lincoln stated 111 feet. There is a
46 variance issue for this purpose to build within 100+feet of lake. Question is there a tributary to
47 the lake lying within 100+feet of proposed structure? Engineer stated the stream is intermittent.
`;8
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
February 6,2008
Page 7
1 Chair stated 189-foot variance was granted on a 250-foot non-disturbance area? Deck is
2 encroaching on the lake by about 40 feet?
3 i
4 Mr. Ercolini stated he is removing existing structure and complying w/wetland protection Bylaw
5 to rebuild a new structure. When Atty. Vivenzio is available he may be able to put this issue into
6 perspective, Mr. Ercolini wants to stay in this neighborhood and build a retirement home there,
7 which should be better and good for the Town. Mr. Ercolini stated he would use a stone
8 foundation and canter leave it out, talking to architect on how to achieve this. Engineer stated
9 existing driveway would stay the same. Engineer stated standard pavers incorporate spaces for
10 stony pervious material.
11
12 RR asked what kind of soils are there? Engineer stated pre-draining soils are there now.
13 Engineer stated cellar drain is clean ground water. Put rip wrap stone there to defuse creating a
14 ditch.
15
16 JS wants engineer to state these are best practices regarding infiltration is working, and
17 demonstrate that it is better than it was with the other house but prove it beyond a reasonable
18 doubt.
19
20 Engineer stated bridge is used because it's in a wetland and has been there historically.
21
22 RR asked is stonewall going to be 7 feet high? Engineer said it's going to be 2 feet high.
23
24 Engineer stated hay bale line runs with wall so work done doesn't run off into wetland,
25
6 Lincoln read 47 regarding less than 50%of gross floor area. There is an existing two-bedroom
27 home located there now, and there is an abutting property containing the barn.
28
29 Chair stated it falls to the PB to protect the lake so Lincoln stated VHB has made comments and
30 reviews. They made their usual statement that project will not affect the lake etc.
31
32 RR stated you would strip existing lawn he wants to see recommendation by a professional
33 (landscape architect) to propose where to put shrubs etc. and to satisfy Con/Com.
34
35 Lincoln wants him to check the Variance from ZBA because it only permits the relief from 100
36 foot buffer zone and 15 feet regarding wetland resource area, therefore, there was only one
37 variance issued and it should have issued two variances the other being from the lake itself.
38
39 Chair instructed Lincoln to send a letter on the applicant's behalf asking what the intent of the
40 ZBA was regarding their variance.
41
42 David Poalino, 940 Great Pond Rd, abutter,his concerns are major such as replacing a 1200 s.£
43 home with 8K s.f. home. Most of the homes on Great Pond Rd. are set back several hundred feet
44 from the lake front, this project is very close to the water, the stream is very shallow in that area
45 it's 2 feet in the summer it's a lot less then that in the winter and it does not flush out.
46
0
47 Chair stated VHB does their review and they are the experts. PB will make a site walk maybe a
8 site walk on 10 at 8am. Mary send e-mail to PB reminding them. Not for this Saturday but for
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
February 6,2008
Page 8
,1 next Saturday do a site walk. Mr. Ercolini will meet the PB then, and engineer should be there
2 too, and abutter is welcome to join the site walk as well.
3
4 JK asked what's with the big house on the lake that is being built? Lincoln stated it's on going
5 issue by the building inspector, not sure what the time line is? Lincoln to get back to JK.
6
7 CHAIR CALLED FOR PUBLIC HEARING:
8
9 10. RCG, 21 High Street W Map 069.0 & 068.0 Lot 0001 & 0010 for a Site Plan Review
10 Special Permit and Definitive Plan Approval for Planned Development District Special
11 Permit for Phase 2 which shall include the renovation and conversion of approximately 65,000
12 s.£ of existing vacant space and total of fifty residential, loft-style, one&two bedroom
13 residential units located within the second and fourth floors of Building#3A and the fourth and
14 fifth floors of Building No.1 the conversion of other space within the existing building to
15 commercial uses along with parking and other improvements on the premises in the I-S zoning
16 district.
17
18 Board to open this petition, however, applicant wishes not to be heard this evening as they are
19 gathering additional information for the February 19th PB meeting. JS asked are they coming in
20 with residential?
21
22 Lincoln stated the issue of the parking garage wouldn't be resolved until Town Meeting.
23
24 JS made a site walk to look at the parking issue. They need to look at parking on both sides of
25 the street to come up with a better parking strategy. Slope changes of land etc. Easement issues
�6 also.
27
28 RR stated neighbors made agreement regarding the parking garage and PB understands this
29 issue. Find out what was done regarding the limitation of the parking garage. Lincoln stated
30 they could modify the Special Permit from the ZBA, or amend the bylaw to allow them to extend
31 the backside of the property.
32
33 JS stated the decision that was done by the ZBA is what it is. Check the deed and see if it was
34 ever recorded.
35
36
37 CHAIR CALLED FOR APPROVAL OF THE "MINUTES".
38
39 10. Minutes for the following Planning Board Public Meetings
40 ■ November 20, 2007
41 ■ December 4, 2007
42 ■ December 18, 2007
43 * January 15, 2008
44
45 Motion by JS to approve the following"Minutes": Nov 20, 2007, Dec 4, and Dec 18,'2007 so
46 moved by RR vote was unanimous.
47
49 UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS:
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
February b,2008
Page 9
d
I r
i
2 ■ February 19, 2008
3 ■ March 4, 2008
4 . March 19, 2008
5
6
7 Mary to get back to the Chair on the March PB meeting is there a conflict with the primary
8 election?
9
10 Motion made by RR to adjourn, 2"d by JS,motion approved vote was unanimous meeting
11 adjourned at approximately 9:30 pm.
12
13
14
15 By order of the Planning Board
16
17
18
19 Approved
20
21
22
23
24
25
}6
27
28 Note: The Planning Board reserves the right to take items out of order and to discuss and/or vote
29 on items that are not listed on the agenda.
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
February 6,2008
Page 10