Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-16 Planning Board Minutes DFAFT 4/1/09 416109 Mary's edits approved 417109 1 Town of North Andover 2 Planning Board 3 Minutes of the Meeting 4 Monday, March 16, 2009 5 Town Hall, 7:00 PM 6 7 Members present: John Simons, Chairman 8 Jennifer Kusek, Clerk 9 Richard Rowen, regular member 10 Timothy Seibert, regular members 11 12 Members absent: Michael Walsh, regular member 13 Courtney LaVolpiceelo, alternate 14 15 Staff present: Judy Tymon,Town Planner 16 Mary Ippolito, Recording Secretary 17 18 Chair called the meeting to order at approximately 7:05 PM. 19 20 21 POSTPONEMENTS: 22 none 23 24 25 Chair called for NEW PUBLIC HEARING: 26 o Town of North Andover— 1475 Osgood Street, Map 34, Parcel 16. This 27 application is for a Site Plan Review Special Permit and is a renovation and addition to an 28 existing office building for use as a police station. One-story addition of 3,064 sq. ft. to 29 accommodate a sallyport and detention area within CDD3 zoning district. Apulic_atio 30 received February 2009 31 32 Ray Santilli, Assistant Town Manager presented, this is Site Plan Review Special Permit 33 for a renovation of what used to be the Merrimack Valley Credit Union to make it into a 34 Police Station for the North Andover Police Department to utilize. Kevin Nigro is the 35 Project Manager. Town Meeting voted in May of 2008 to purchase this property at 1475 36 Osgood St., hired an architect and is currently working w/Building Committee and Police 37 station have drawn up tentative plans for the restoration of the building. Police Dept. 38 project requires an addition on backside of building to house sallyport to transport 39 prisoners into building and celiblocks along with State and Federal requirements etc. 40 41 Chair: what is traffic pattern, lighting, how close to residential property and drainage? 42 43 Mr. Santilli: Police will utilize entire building as is presently constructed,public access is 44 by Orchard Hill Road,back side of building is restricted to police personnel &marked Page 1 March 16, 2009 Minutes of the Meeting DRAFT 411109 4/6/09 Mary's edits approved 417109 1 vehicles. Two control gates are located to control access;public access is on Osgood 2 Street side. Mr. Breen's property is the only resident adjacent to 1.475 Osgood St. 3 Several businesses located at backside which access off of Orchard Hill Road, a dance 4 studio, gas station, Dunkin Donuts, etc. is located to the side. 5 6 Worked funding thru capitol improvement budget for FY'09. No changes to be done to 7 outside of building other than securing access to back addition. Fire Department has 8 approved passage of fire trucks thru area. It's a one-way counter clockwise access 9 around the building. 13' 7" foot roadway on backside of building for police vehicles to 10 exit. 11 12 Judy: replacing existing impervious surface- there is actual decrease in impervious 13 surface. Mr. Santilli: renovating basement level and first floor, utilizing entire second 14 floor and going to ZBA for variance for rear setback. 15 16 Judy: submitted a review today, requesting a waiver of community impact, fiscal impact 17 and traffic impact. Mr. Santilli: is not requesting a waiver of the Commonwealth 18 Review because there are no requirements for that, landscaping will remain as is. 19 Meets required parking under zoning, lighting will stay the same and be downcast and 20 will add more lighting in sallyport area. 21 22 JS: flat roof, any run off? Kevin Nitro, PMA Consultant Services, developing plumbing 23 plans and will be collecting from flat roof the rainwater and enter into existing drainage 24 system,this should introduce less water into the system. 25 26 Mr. Santilli: spoke w/previous owners were told there have been no identifiable issues 27 regarding drainage. 28 29 Memo from Gene Willis, DPW, identified a few catch basins that need to be lowered and 30 paved around them. 31 32 Fire Department provided a letter stating fire truck can get around the perimeter of the 33 property. Applicant needs to provide information to the BOH stating current septic 34 system will be able to handle this new usage, as this will be done at the time of 35 submission of the building permit. 36 37 Chair: keep this open, advised Judy to prepare a decision. 38 39 40 Chair announced that he would go out of order on the agenda because there are 41 more people here for the Wireless Bylaw: 42 43 44 CHAIR called for CONTINUED MEETINGS: Page 2 March 16, 2009 Minutes of the Meeting DRAFT 411109 416109 Mary's edits approved 417109 1 2 m John Cahill— 166 Salem Street, Map 37D, Parcel 21. Definitive Subdivision 3 known as The Captain Nathaniel Berry Homestead, consisting of a new 292 foot long 4 roadway and 3 new proposed lots each containing 25,000 s.f & existing lot containing 5 32,174 s.f. with existing single-family dwelling within R-3 zoning district. Meeting not 6 closed. Waiver on file until MaTch 31, 2009 final plan to be,submitted on 3/16109. 7 Judy's edits: see waiver for 50-foot right of way strike it under Special Conditions. Phil 8 Christenson `did submit corrected information such as zoning district, rain garden. 9 Motion by JK to close 166 Salem Street Definitive Subdivision and Watershed Special 10 Permit, 2"d by TS, vote was unanimous. 11 12 RR: page 2 Earth Removal Permit, is it pertinent- is it prejudicial in PB decision? Chair: 13 take it out and include it in Findings of Fact instead. Say they don't need earth removal 14 permit.... etc. Chair: put Earth Removal Permit language and add dates in Watershed SP 15 as well. Chair: in Finding of Fact put it toward the beginning of this decision see C or D 16 final proposed plan, say...is less intrusive, but better environmental impact, for example 17 they don't have to apply for earth removal permit. . 18 19 Chair: under 2 first bullet that is the one. Chair: reference that what PB has done ...that 20 PB waived actual construction of roadway to Town standard. Chair : we need it for the 21 record because if PB ever wants to do this in the fixture it needs to be clear what PB did, 22 if someone comes back in the future and they want snow removal they won't be able to 23 get it because it's a private way. Judy did include this is the decision but Chair wants it 24 in writing for the record. Chair: there can't be any further subdivision of the property, 25 can'tgrab off another lot for the future....put that in decision. Chair: at end of list of 26 waivers, reason is because of positive environmental impact and better sensitivity to the 27 land 28 29 Chair: all street address need to be on intersection of Salem St. 30 31 RR: granite stone have all three street numbers on it on a stone bollard. 32 33 RR: will stonewall on Salem St. be rebuilt? 34 35 Jack Cahill: stonewall will definitely be rebuilt;blended and rounded and replicated at 36 existing fence. Chair: suitable plan will be submitted for wall and fence to be reviewed by 37 Town Planner. 38 39 Strike sign saying private drive. 40 41 JK: see hours of operation during construction ..Say"hours of construction". 42 43 Motion by RR, to approve Definitive Sub as amended this evening, 2'd by TS, vote 44 unanimous. Judy send a copy before you file. Page 3 March 16, 2009 Minutes of the Meeting DRAFT 4/I/09 416/09 Mary's edits approved 4/7/09 1 2 3 4 CONTINUED HEARING: 5 m John Cahill— 166 Salem Street, Map 37D, Parcel 21. Watershed Special 6 Permit to construct a new 292 foot long roadway and 3 new single-family homes, 7 portions of the roadway, one house and a storm water detention/infiltration basin will be 8 within the non-discharge buffer zone. Ageting not closed. Waiver on file uIltil march 31, 9 2009. final plan to be submitted 3116/09 10 11 Chair: current design limits the intrusion by limiting the detention pond. Chair: Put in 12 something like the overall design of.....Chair: earth removal permit do the same as 13 subdivision, wrap earth removal into lesser impact. Judy already has it in there. Judy said 14 she would take out something. 15 16 Motion by RR to approve a Watershed Special Permit for 166 Salem as amended this 17 evening, 2' by JK, vote was unanimous. 18 19 PB thanked Jack for working w/them on the 3-lot subdivision; it should look much better 20 than a traditional Definitive Subdivision. 21 22 23 LOT RELEASE 24 m Dean Chongris—Redgate Subdivision. Developer is requesting two Lot releases 25 for lots 1 and 2. Lots 3 and 4 were previously released in August 2007. 26 27 Mr. Chongris could not make this meeting,however,he stated that he would send an 28 attendee to represent him tonight. Apparently, the attendee was a `no show'. 29 30 Chair: PB isn't going to give Mr. Chongris a lot release for lots 1 and 2. Chair: there are 31 water problem that go onto Salem St., which caused an accident. 32 33 Judy made a site visit and explained her site visit of this property. 34 35 Chair: Have Gene Willis, DPW, and direct Mr. Chongris with making changes to redirect 36 the water flow issues. 37 38 RR: Mosquito Brook is underneath this property and it floods adjacent lots. Flood plain 39 for Mosquito Brook is on the other side of the street. If this complex is not done just right 40 then it's difficult to manage the site. Builder dug up more than they should and haven't 41 pulled down tree coverage. Chair doesn't want to release any more lots until they resolve 42 their problems. PB needs to know froze. Gene Willis if there are problems or deviations 43 from the plan. 44 Page 4 March 16, 2009 Minutes of the Meeting DRAFT 4/1/09 416/09 Mary's edits approved 4/7/09 1 2 DISCUSSION 3 o Wireless Bylaw—Members of the Wireless Bylaw Committee will be present to 4 discuss their version of proposed changes to the Wireless Bylaw. j 5 6 7 Judy provided the PB with a summary tonight. She provided a version of the Wireless 8 Bylaw that she"drafted presented to the Town Clerk and it's on the warrant. There is a 9 version of the Bylaw that the Committee has drafted. 10 11 The following is a summary: 12 Matthew J. Ginsburg, Esq. - Chairperson of Wireless Bylaw Committee. Atty. Ginsburg 13 has a disagreement between members of what the makeup of what the Bylaw should 14 contain. Because the Committee did not coxae up with a draft Bylaw in time to have 15 something placed on the warrant to present to the PB an alternative to.Judy's draft 16 (doesn't know to what extent PB had input to Judy's draft)but be understands his 17 opportunity is to present to the PB an alternative to what Judy has provided. 18 19 Atty. Ginsburg: Regarding review of redline version there are many more things in " 20 common than differences. Tried to retain current Bylaw and what Judy proposes. Most 21 significant difference has to do with setback section. In Judy's draft there is a distinction 22 drawn between application of a 600-foot setback to new construction of new towers and 23 to existing structures. His draft does not contain a distinction of application of 600-foot 24 setback. 25 26 He wants to apply the setback only to properties in which residential, educational, or 27 child care usage were in existence at the time of the application, so that bring back a lot 28 of sites that might be zoned residential but don't have a residential, educational use or 29 childcare use on the property. His draft opens up a lot of areas in the Town for potential 30 placement of Wireless facilities. Make sure there are sufficient areas in Town for 31 consideration of structures, but avoid placement near residential and densely populated 32 residential areas. He tried to make uniform to both types of applications. 33 34 Karen Carroll: explained that track changes from existing Bylaw are there, and then 35 Committee did their changes in different colors. 36 37 TS: who else has seen their version of setbacks? Atty: Ginsburg: ZBA was not provided a 38 copy of this information. Assumed that Atty. Urbelis was cc'd on a lot of 39 correspondence that went back and forth. 40 41 Judy: Atty. Urbelis has written memos regarding setbacks regarding changing the 600 42 foot setback. 43 Page S March 16, 2009 Minutes of the Meeting DRAFT 411109 4/6/09 Mary's edits approved 417109 1 RR: this is a recommendation from the Committee, at this point PB has what they thought 2 would be good and is on the Warrant and this is a recommendation from the Committee 3 and PB should do everything they can to help get that in front of the Town and the Town 4 can choose what the Town thinks is the better way to go. RR wants to spend time 5 critiquing it the Committee's Bylaw now. 6 7 Please note: Edits are not submitted in any chronological order. See attached redlined 8 version of Bylaw for reference: 9 10 RR: regarding put tower in shallow field,the height could only be 10 feet high, wouldn't 11 work from a practical point of view. ....should be corrected, it's too restrictive. (Judy: see 12 page 3 C ii). 13 14RR: regarding antenna can't be higher than the tallest building...too restricted and modify 15 this on the floor of Town Meeting if need be. 16 17 RR: if open area not camouflage with dense trees (scenic landscapes and vistas under 4D). 18 19 RR: Filing requirements 5 D 2 & 3....putting a lot of detail on a map at a scale of I to. 20 1500...showing existing structures, RR doesn't think you're going to get there. 21 22 RR: See page 4, 1 second portion of sentence V 1 .....minimum setback of 600 feet 23 etc...Atty. Ginsburg: it should say from the property line of all buildings or structures or 24 from properties, which contain buildings or structures. 25 26 RR: 3B 2 applicant shall burden there are no feasible existing structures etc.....RR: it's 27 not the correct burden to put on applicant. 28 29 RR: 3A 2 it says shall not exceed terms and conditions of SP etc. what does Atty. 30 Ginsburg mean by that? Atty. Ginsburg: it's verbiage in SP now. Chair: it makes 31 reference for Site Plan Review but this is for a Special Permit for a wireless facility only. 32 33 RR: has language gone away saying we treat this like a license for three years? Judy: she 34 took that language out of the version she presented, the provision that requires the 35 applicant to renew the license in three years. 36 37 RR: language about fines isn't enforceable! Judy: she took that language out. 38 39 Atty. Ginsburg: asked what is history of trying to collect fines? RR: if PB tried to collect 40 those fees we would be in court. Chair said if you tie fine with license approach there 41 was a technical violation because some licenses were not current,however, if someone 42 did violate the Bylaw the fine remedy should be the same one that exists anywhere in the 43 Bylaw for the same reason that anything else exists,but wordsmith it. 44 Page 6 March 16,2009 Minutes of the Meeting DRAFT 411149 416109 Mary's edits approved 417109 .1 RR: if applicant wants to change out antennas then he should come back for a 2 . modii`iication of the SP to change equipment,provided that it is no worse than it was then 3 he should be able to replace old antennas....see maintenance section. 4 5 Atty. Ginsburg: there are monitor and maintenance requirements already. 6 7 RR: if every three years you have to demonstrate you are operating within bounds of SP? 8 9 Atty. Ginsburg: monitor of noise levels, general maintained of structural integrity. Atty: 10 Ginsburg: within 90 days they prove that certain standards are being met and that at I 1 annual intervals of that date. He thinks RR is referring to the renewal requirements? 12 Atty. Ginsburg: his Committee voted to keep Judy from throwing out the renewal 13 requirement for 3 years, the important part are the monitoring requirements because it's 14 important that the carriers be held to those and fines are important. Chair: If PB didn't 15 get certification on a wireless facility to say that we can collect$300.00 a dollar for each 16 day that it's late is a enormous stretch etc. 17 18 Curt Bellevance: Atty. Urbelis recommended if we follow any violation of Bylaw a letter 19 should go to violator saying why haven't you done what you were supposed to do, send 20. another letter if you don't respond within 30 days then the following measure would take 21 place. 22 23 TS: what if they ignore the final letter? RR: then shut them down, carrier would do so at 24 their own risk, PB is saying they take the whole process seriously, they could put this as 25 language in time for Town Meeting. Chair: Judy draft this language along lines that RR 26 said. 27 28 RR: under monitoring and maintenance, measure the before conditions and the after 29 conditions but on a yearly basis (existing and current are one in the same). Atty. 30 Ginsburg: Annual intervals from date of issuance of SP. 31 32 RR: Edits: See page 10 section 8 VIII p2. If applying for a permit in order to determine 33 compliance provide statement existing and maximum of....RR doesn't know if this is 34 possible to do? Chair: it's the second part that is a problem because it's moot. 35 36 Atty. Ginsburg: it refers to permit being requested as to collocation in future. RR: what's 37 happening if applicant wants to install 3 antennas,but application is for 6. However, what 38 is max he can put up? However, applicant is not in a position to say how many antennas 39 will be put up by other cell tower companies. Ask applicant to forecast the maximum 40 that only he can do. Chair: take the word maximum out and it will be fine. 41 42 Chair: in the draft that PB had they took new tower in one category, additions to existing 43 towers and effectively put into the same category if you hid something inside of an 44 existing building that that was the same. Chair: believes that Atty. Ginsburg's draft Page 7 March 16, 2009 Minutes of the Meeting DRAFT 411109 416109 Mary's edits approved 417109 1 makes no exclusions for anything except for existing towers, if existing tower is within 2 600 feet? 3 4 Atty. Ginsburg: he believes collocations require it to comply with 600-foot setback. 5 6 Atty. Ginsburg: impact of tower monopoles visual impacts on property values, Bylaws 7 are designed around. There is legal president that supports notion that even aside of 8 visual impact, esthetic issues and property values and consideration of property value 9 provides justification for requirements for setbacks from wireless facilities. In 2007 case 10 in N.H. court found apart from visual impact that decline in property values was 11 sufficient evidence to support the ZBA decision denying a permit, (it was a new tower). 12 13 Chair: 600-feet is apresumption that there is an impact on property values? In case of 14 monopole adding additional antennas what is effect on property values? 15 16 Atty. Ginsburg: governed by 40A Section 6 regarding legally non-conforming uses, 17 needs reference to statue requirements and could be reconsidered, major issue is 18 placement on existing structures, having setback in those setbacks is defendable. Town 19 of Concord requires 500-foot setback from existing structures such as childcare, school 20 uses. Town of Hamilton etc. ......Town of Wakefield etc....... 21 22 TS: interesting you mentioned 500 feet from structures and not from property lines. Have 23 any of these been challenged? 24 25 Atty. Ginsburg: he doesn't know. 26 27 TS: has anyone tried to site one and been denied? Atty. Ginsburg: doesn't know. 28 29 Chair: N.H. case is free standing structure. Atty. Ginsburg: largest issue is property 30 value issues. Chair: if you can't see it nor hear it why do you need 600-feet? 31 32 Atty. Ginsburg: property value isn't born of visual impact or noise; decline in property 33 value by itself is substantial evidence for denial of the permit. 34 35 RR: is your intent to say no lattice -no guide towers in town? 36 37 Atty. Ginsburg: Gin Valanti said visual and standpoint they are undesirable. 38 39 Thea Fournier, Main St., we don't get sued for having setbacks. Atty. Ginsburg was clear 40 in giving reasons for setbacks. Courts don't prohibit setbacks. It's a matter of whole 41 Bylaw prohibits provision of wireless service communications. Issue is there is 42 significant gap in coverage? Wireless people go to court and find there are alternative 43 sites they can use to uphold their setbacks. 44 Page 8 March 16, 2009 Minutes of the Meeting DRAFT 4/1/09 416109 Mary's edits approved 417109 1 Chair told Judy to make edits tonight to PB version but give Wireless Committee a 2 version of a PB working copy. Put this on as discussion for April 7, 2009 PB meeting 3 agenda. Town Meeting is May 12'11. Judy: what is date for public hearing for annual 4 Town Meeting? Formal hearing on 21"and talk about it on the 7th for discussion. 5 6 Karen Carroll: is there a placeholder on the Warrant for a draft of the Committee's 7 Bylaw? 8 9 Chair: only article on Warrant is PB article at this point as the Warrant is closed as there 10 wasn't an article submitted by the Committee. PB objective is to review the differences 11 to as few as possible so they have a consistent article. PB can edit the article as long as 12 PB doesn't change the scope of the warrant for instance, PB couldn't take 600 feet and 13 make it 1000 feet because it wouldn't be in the published version. If Chair submits PB 14 version and there are substantial changes that the Committee disagrees with then 15 Committee can make amendment on the floor of Town Meeting to change it. 16 17 RR: It's too late for a citizens petition article,Warrant closed on March 6"t. 18 19 TS: all the more reason if this were to happen,that we minimize all of the other bits of 20 discrepancies so if you did have to do an amendment it will be a very brief and direct 21 amendment. 22 23 Steve Tryder, Chestnut St., why is there a separate PB version of the Bylaw? You asked 24 Judy to write her version of the Bylaw outside of the committee, and you wanted it done 25 by her and not by the Committee, would you agree we have 2 different versions? 26 27 Chair: fact is there is one article on Warrant for Town Meeting and it's PB article that's 28 the only fact that exists and that's a reality so not sure what purpose it would serve by 29 going back it is what it is. 30 31 Mr. Tryder: Committee was charged with drafting the Bylaw and bringing it to Town 32 Meeting. At the same time, people who were serving on the Committee were writing a 33 separate Bylaw from the Committee and here we are tonight looking at the differences in 34 the versions. Why did PB ask for a different version outside of the Committee? 35 36 Chair:because we wanted to get a version that we could put on the Town Warrant before 37 it closed so that it didn't look like in the PB's view that the Committee was going to be in 38 a position to have that. 39 40 Mr. Tryder, did you know that? Chair: we asked the Committee many times for their 41 version of the Bylaw. At this point it's done. 42 43 Mr. Tryder: he knows,but he's questioning the process and why it's gotten more 44 confusing. Page 9 March 16, 2009 Minutes of the Meeting DRAFT A/1/09 416109 Mary's edits approved 417109 1 2 Chair: fact is there is only one article, let's not go back and rehash the past,if you want to 3 accuse the PB of bad motives you are certainly willing to do that but the point is... 4 5 Mr. Tryder: interrupted....said he was asking an objective question .. 6 7 Chair: gave an answer there was no article corning forward and PB was not going to go 8 another year without a revised Bylaw so we put it in. 9 10 Mr. Tryder: did you go to the Committee and ask for their draft before the Warrant? Did 11 you send somebody from the Board? 12 13 RR: if Committee had wanted to submit an article for the Warrant they could have 14 done so themselves. 15 16 Mr. Tryder: when you asked Judy to do rewrite, PB didn't say they are doing their own 17 separate version, this version is not a finished product placed on the Warrant. Committee 18 didn't have a chance to put their unfinished draft on the Town Warrant. From what he 19 sees the PB version is not a finished product by the time the Warrant deadline came 20 about. 21 22 TS: the issue was discussed several times at several meetings during the first year of the 23 Committee it was the reason why the first irritation of the Committee did not move 24 forward before putting something on the Warrant was because of this whole discussion 25 having the Bylaw committee get into an ????? process with that PB, ZBA, BOS. He 26 would be surprised if you speak on behalf of the Committee and that the Committee did 27 believe that the PB was not considering doing something like this. 28 29 RR: Mr. Tryder go back and look at all of the tapes of the PB meetings and you will find 30 that a couple of months ago we discussed in this public forum that if the Committee 31 doesn't come forward with an article because if they don't we are not going to sit here 32 two years in a row with a deficient Bylaw and do nothing. 33 34 Mr. Tryder: did you send a letter to the Committee? 35 36 TS: no we didn't. 37 38 Chair: this discussion is going nowhere, ....please... 39 40 RR: if you had the .... 41 42 Atty. Ginsburg: interrupted stating that Mr. Tryder does not speak of the Committee. 43 Page 10 March 16, 2009 Minutes of the Meeting DRAFT 4/1/09 . 4/6/09 Mary's edits approved 417109 1 Mark Dilppolito: he understands why the second version of the Bylaw was created to get 2 it on the Warrant but since it doesn't have'to be final instead of it being one versus the 3 other why can't the one Judy wrote be amended as we discussed including the setback 4 which the Town residents voted on the last time there was a vote. is there a particular 5 reason why the PB wants to remove the setback? 6 7 Chair: that's what we're having a continued discussion about etc. Chair thanked 8 everyone for coming to tonight's meeting. 9 Jennifer not available on April 7'h PB meeting, other PB members are probably available. 10 11 12 Motion by RR to adjourn tonight's meeting, 2nd by JK, meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm. 13 14 15 16 By order or the Planning Board 17 18 19 20 21 22 Approved 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Plse. note: The Planning Board reserves the right to take items out of order and to 41 discuss and/or vote on items that are not listed on the agenda. 42 43 Page 11 March 16, 2009 Minutes of the Meeting �rt t: