Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-18 Planning Board Meeting Minutes PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 18, 2012 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7:00 PM Present: J. Simons, R. Rowen, M. Colantoni, D. Kellogg, L. Rudnicki. L. McSherry 1 Absent: 2 Staff Present: J. Tymon, J. Enright 3 4 Meeting began at 7:00pm. 5 6 J. Simons: The continued public meeting for the Preliminary Subdivision Plan Appleton 7 Street will be postponed. 8 9 BOND RELEASES 10 Chatham Crossing: Doug Ahearn, Jeffco, Inc., to request release of a $10,000 performance 11 bond. 12 J. Tymon: This property was conveyed from Jeffco, Inc. of Andover Mass to Ray Von Realty 13 Trust, 59 Chandler Circle, Andover Mass on September 8, 2000. We have a copy of the 14 th Quitclaim Deed that has been recorded at the registry. The subdivision is not complete; 15 however, Ray Von Realty Trust has a substantial bond that is sufficient to cover the 16 remaining work required posted with the Town. 17 MOTION 18 A motion was made by D. Kellogg to release the $10,000 performance bond fund held for 19 Doug Ahearn, Chatham Crossing, including interest. The motion was seconded by M. 20 Colantoni. The vote was unanimous. 21 22 ANR 23 65 Russell Street: Proposal to create two lots from one existing lot. 24 The ANR plan was reviewed with the Board. Both lots meet the Zoning frontage and area 25 requirements. 26 MOTION 27 A motion was made by R. Rowen to direct the Town Planner to sign the Form A for 65 28 Russell Street. The motion was seconded by L. Rudnicki. The vote was unanimous. 29 30 PUBLIC HEARINGS 31 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, 0 Great Pond Road: Application for a Watershed Special 32 Permit for construction of a single dwelling, porous pavement driveway, roofed porches, 33 deck, site utilities, and associated site grading on a presently undeveloped, buildable lot. 34 J. Tymon: A second plan has been submitted. L. Eggleston’s recommends confirmatory soil 35 testing to verify soil suitability in the vicinity of the porous pavement driveway be included 36 as a condition of approval, as should ongoing maintenance requirements for the pervious 37 pavement and the restrictions on landscaping chemicals. All of Lisa’s previous comments 38 have been satisfactorily addressed. 39 Jack Sullivan, Sullivan Engineering Group: An additional test hole was excavated where the 40 proposed driveway is to be located. It is consistent with the test hole that was excavated 41 where the proposed drywell is to be located. The Conservation Commission is satisfied 42 1 PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 18, 2012 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7:00 PM with the current plan; however, they have left the hearing open until this Board completes 43 its review. The limit of work has been pulled in on this plan to 50’ from the wetland. There 44 will be a post and rail fence installed at the limit of work. There will not be any grading or 45 cutting past the stone wall on the side of the lot. Notes have been added to the plan and the 46 drywell has been increased from 500 gallons to 1,000 gallons. 47 The Board discussed the maintenance requirement for the porous pavement driveway and 48 whether this requirement should be conditioned in the Decision. The porous pavement can 49 be approved and a restriction that it can not be seal coated can be written in the Decision. 50 The pavement will need some maintenance. The porous pavement and the dry well are 51 included in the calculations that J. Sullivan produced and were reviewed by L. Eggleston to 52 make sure that stormwater runoff is being mitigated. 53 J. Sullivan: The calculations are conservative and even if the porous pavement got clogged 54 there would be some runoff from the driveway but the total house would still be recharged. 55 Although there is no requirement to do so, the drainage system has been sized for a 100 56 year storm. The drainage system proposed meets DEP Stormwater Standards. With any 57 drainage system there is some maintenance required. Detention basins and catch basins 58 need to be maintained. 59 Board discussed the proximity of the proposed structure to the wetlands and alternatives; 60 including possibly eliminating one of the three garage bays, moving the structure to the 61 right, and moving the house forward. 62 J. Sullivan: The structure is outside of the 50’ no-build zone and the house is located and 63 orientated on the property due to the sight distances and safety concerns. The Zoning 64 Board approved the dimensions of the house with the setbacks as part of the Variance they 65 granted. The details of that plan are all included in the Variance. If the house were to be 66 moved from were it is located on this plan the applicant would have to go back to the 67 Zoning Board and Conservation Commission and start over. Moving the house ten feet 68 would not affect the drainage. 69 J. Simons: Asked if there was potential for development on the surrounding non-developed 70 lots. 71 J. Sullivan: The lot to the left is considerably wet and probably can not be built on. The 72 parcel to the right is also wet; however, it appears to be buildable. 73 L. Rudnicki: Recommended gutter guards on the roof and installing a silt box for the dry 74 well. 75 J. Simons: We will leave the hearing open and draft a Decision for the next meeting. 76 77 PUBLIC MEETING 78 CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING: Preliminary Subdivision Plan Appleton Street: Application 79 for a proposed 11 lot Preliminary Planned Residential Development Subdivision Plan on 80 three existing lots comprised of approximately 21 acres of land (map 65, lots 8, 9, and 55). 81 82 As noted above the Public Meeting for Appleton Street is postponed. 83 J. Simons: Questioned the time period for rendering a Decision on the project. 84 2 PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 18, 2012 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7:00 PM J. Tymon: Explained that the Preliminary has to be approved or disapproved within forty- 85 five days of submission. The application was filed approximately one month prior to the 86 last Planning Board meeting. We should vote. 87 J. Simons: We should have an unfavorable Decision because it does not comply with 88 Zoning. They can resubmit a Preliminary. 89 MOTION 90 A motion was made by R. Rowen to deny the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Appleton 91 Street because it does not comply with Zoning. The motion was seconded by M. Colantoni. 92 The vote was unanimous. 93 94 DISCUSSION 95 RED GATE: Certificate of Occupancy Lot 4 96 J. Tymon: As a condition for releasing the final lot of the subdivision the Planning Board 97 required that the entire drainage pond be constructed, curbing be installed, and the final 98 pavement coat be installed. These have all been completed. The site grading is complete 99 and the house on Lot 2 is almost completed. The Developer has submitted an as-built 100 grading plan for Lot 2 and a letter from a structural engineer that assures the Board that 101 the retaining wall construction is adequate to support the soil behind the wall. 102 R. Rowen: Requested that language be included that states that the homeowner can not 103 make any changes to the drainage system. 104 Rick Dellaire, Developer: There was a drain that was not on the original plan added to Lot 105 3 by a different builder. The issue has been fixed. There is no way that any changes could 106 be made to this Lot. 107 J. Tymon: Stated she will work with the R. Dellaire to develop language that could be 108 included in the deed. 109 MOTION 110 A motion was made by D. Kellogg to authorize the Town Planner to sign the Certificate of 111 Occupancy for Lot 2, subject to the discussion at tonight’s meeting. The motion was 112 seconded by M. Colantoni. The vote was unanimous. 113 114 HILLARY STASONIS: Proposed change to Section 4.121.6 Agricultural Uses within the 115 Residence 1, 2, and 3 Districts. 116 J. Tymon: H. Stasonis is recommending changing the current Bylaw with regard to how 117 large of a parcel is required to keep chickens. Currently chickens are an allowed 118 agricultural use in Residential Districts 1, 2, 3 and 4 on parcels larger than three acres. The 119 Building Inspector enforces the Bylaw. He has recommended the Bylaw language include a 120 50’ setback from a neighboring dwelling, the chickens should be enclosed at all times, and 121 that the enclosure should be covered. 122 Thomas Ralph, 1483 Salem Street: Stated that he is more focused on the setbacks than the 123 lot size. This recommendation is a return to North Andover’s agricultural past and would 124 bring us to conforming to the neighboring communities. 125 3 PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 18, 2012 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7:00 PM H. Stasonis, 1514 Salem Street: Maintaining a proper setback is more relevant than 126 meeting a specific parcel size. Her proposal is for a 25’ setback from neighboring dwellings 127 with no minimum lot size. Submitted a document to the Board that included a proposal for 128 revised Bylaw language, adjacent Town policies, average decibel levels of noise, and Bylaws 129 written specifically to allow backyard chickens from Billerica and Amherst. Roosters 130 would not be allowed. Reviewed decibel noise readings taken of chickens at Smolak Farms. 131 J. Tymon: Currently if the Building Inspector receives a complaint about chickens and the 132 parcel is less than 3 acres the homeowner has to demonstrate that the chickens are pets. 133 J. Simons: Requested J. Tymon to talk to other Towns about their Bylaw requirements and 134 get some feedback from them. 135 T. Ralph: Stated he will develop the language proposal and perhaps come back to the 136 Board to discuss the specific language. This will be the language they intend to take to 137 Town Meeting. 138 R. Rowen: The Board will make a recommendation to support the Article or not and it will 139 be brought to Town Meeting where a 2/3 vote will be required for approval. 140 141 DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT TO FCC REGULATIONS 142 Tom Urbelis, Town Attorney: Advised the Board of the House Report 112-399 – Middle 143 Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 recently approved by the Congress and signed 144 by the President. Within this act is Section 6409 Wireless Facilities Deployment. This is a 145 Federal law. Like the Telecommunications Act of 1996 it pre-empts State law and local 146 Zoning. Telecommunication companies are replacing antennas and base stations that 147 service those antennas. The Building Inspector is the Zoning Enforcement Officer for the 148 Town. T. Urbelis has spoken with the Building Inspector (Gerald Brown) and the 149 Inspector’s view, based on reading this Federal Law in conjunction with his reading of the 150 Zoning Law, is that if someone is to come to the Town for replacement of antennas they 151 would not need a Special Permit. The Building Inspector would require proof that the 152 facility is structurally sound, in compliance with the State building code. If they satisfied 153 him, in regards to those issues, a building permit would be permissible without having to 154 go through the process of a Special Permit Modification for a particular facility. This does 155 not apply to a new application for a tower. This is for an existing tower or facility. Co- 156 locations would also not require a Special Permit. 157 J. Simons: Does this render the requirement in the Bylaw to renew every three years mute? 158 T. Urbelis: No. It is still on the books. 159 R. Rowen: If a carrier does not obtain a Special Permit at the time they co-locate on an 160 existing tower we can not renew something they do not have. The Building Inspector 161 should verify it meets the FCC Act of 1996 for emissions and it is structurally sound. 162 J. Tymon: For co-location of new equipment the Building Inspector will enforce the 163 provisions of Section 8.9 Wireless Facilities? 164 T. Urbelis: Stated he could not speak for the Building Inspector. Each application should be 165 taken on a case by case basis. 166 4 PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 18, 2012 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7:00 PM J. Tymon: The applicant will speak with G. Brown and herself and G. Brown will determine 167 if they need a Special Permit. 168 169 MEETING MINUTES: Approval of September 4, 2012 meeting minutes. 170 MOTION 171 A motion was made by D. Kellogg to approve the September 4, 2012 meeting minutes. The 172 motion was seconded by L. McSherry. The vote was unanimous. 173 174 ADJOURNMENT 175 MOTION: 176 A motion was made by R. Rowen to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by L, 177 McSherry. The vote was unanimous. 178 179 The meeting adjourned at 8:28pm. 180 181 MEETING MATERIALS: Agenda, Quitclaim Deed Doug J. Ahearn and George A. Hughes, 182 Letter dated Oct. 17, 2000 from Raymond Y. Cormier, Form A application 65 Russell Street, 183 ANR plan 65 Russell Street, 0 Great Pond Rd: email from L. Eggleston to J. Tymon dated 184 Sept. 10, 2012, Great Pond Rd. Site Development-Plan of Land 2 pages, Narrative from 185 Sullivan Engineering Group, LLC dated Sept. 5, 2012, Appleton Street Proposed P.R.D: 186 North Andover MIMAP dated September 10, 2012 indicating zoning districts, Article 9 from 187 Annual Report – Town of North Andover- FY 1987, Preliminary Conventional Subdivision 188 Proof Plan for “Regency Place” dated July 18, 2012 5 pages, Preliminary P.R.D. Subdivision 189 Plan for “Regency Place” dated July 18, 2012 6 pages, Red Gate Lane: Letter dated May 24, 190 2012 RE; Foundation Inspection 40 Red Gate Rd from Martel Engineering, Inc., Letter dated 191 Sept. 18, 2012 RE: Red Gate Pasture Subdivision from Pennoni Associates, Inc., As-Built Site 192 Plan Lot 2 Red Gate Lane dated Sept. 13, 2012, Proposed language for Backyard Chicken 193 Bylaw, Addressing Noise Concerns, By-Laws Written Specifically to allow Backyard 194 Chickens, Committee Reports 112 Congress (2011-2012) House Report 112-399 3 pages, 195 th Letter dated Sept. 12, 2012 RE: 16 Berry Street/Riding Academy Preserve from Board of 196 Selectmen, draft 9/04/12 meeting minutes. 197 5