Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-05Planning Board Meeting June 5, 2001 Members Present: Staff Present: Alison Lescarbeau, Chairman John Simons, Vice Chairman Alberto Angles, Clerk Richard Nardella Richard Rowen Heidi Griffin, Planning Director APPROVED 7/10/01 The Planning Board Meeting of June 5, 2001 was called to order at 7:10 p.m. Discussions: Stevens Estate Wireless Facility-Development Plan Richard Nardella, Alison Lescarbean, Alberto Angles Steven Anderson is here this evening to have a pre-application informal discussion with the board. Sprint and AT&T are virtually tied on the bid. They are here tonight to present a variety of proposals and have a review of what they would like to present. Mr. Anderson stated they have proposed two different options at the site. Each option is on the hill, near the mansion, and is pretty well shielded from the mansion itself. The two proposals are as follows: Because the site is near the airport, height is an important issue. Under the zoning bylaw and the FAA, height is the key issue to make sure it's high enough to work. The first idea would have a sign equipment compound just off the existing telephone lines. There's a clearing in the woods and will follow that in and have a 40 x 40-fence compound, one pole in the middle and two sets of equipment on the grotmd. Traditionally, Sprint uses an earth-tone cabinet. If the board prefers they could combine it into one building. There would be a fence around the outside of the building and they are proposing a 5' stockade fence and could propose a higher fence if necessary. For the two carders on the one pole, the antennas would be inside the pole, without a flag. To accommodate two carders, they propose 100'. The trees are already in excess of 80' tall. The second alternative would allow them to bring down the height of the pole with more ground space at the height of the property. Each pole would be 90' tall, with internal antennas inside the pole. The same driveway would be used coming in, with a y at the end and separate equipment areas for AT&T and Sprint. A few issues with this proposal: the second compound is within 300' of the garage of the Stevens estate property. Briefly, some of the issues they would like guidance from the board on: First of all, they are concemed with what the MHC and the FAA would do and they would like to put both proposals through the zoning process. This is because if the FAA says they can't have 100' pole, they will have the backup option. They would like to put both through the process. Ms. Lescarbeau ask what are the FAA regs relative to these proposals? Mr. Anderson stated it's only applicable if it's on the glide path on the runway. Their informal analysis would be 47' or 87' as the maximum height of the pole. Mr. Anderson stated he thinks that if the airport would give their support of the proposal, it will benefit them. Mr. Nardella asked when they would give their proposal? Mr. Anderson stated they have spoken with the airport consultant, and he is unsure if they will support them or not. Mr. Andersen stated if they can build one single pole, then that's what they will do? Mr. Nardella asked if there would be much excavation for the one pole option? Mr. Andersen responded there is half as much clearing for option A then for option B (2 poles). Mr. Nardella asked what the height of equipment is? Mr. Andersen responded 10' and 5'. Mr. Nardella stated that the 6' stockade fence would not cover the 10' equipment. Mr. Nardella stated that on previous occasions, the applicant has provided coverage areas. Mr. Nardella asked if that analysis would be done? Mr. Andersen responded that higher than 100' would be preferable. The foliage of trees has a tremendous affect on the coverage. They will provide that information at the public hearing. Mr. Nardella requested a picture of the tower, and if lights will be flashing? Mr. Andersen stated that red lights would be on at night. Mr. Nardella asked if the proposal will require any variances? Mr. Andersen stated the closest call is on the height, and that there would be no more variances required. Mr. Keith Mitchell, chair of telecommtmications subcommittee, stated that the subcommittee is recommending to the Board of Selectmen that option A be pursued, and option A falls, option B be pursued. Mr. Mitchell asked that the Planning Board appoint another Planning Board member to the subcommittee in light of the fact that the alternate planning board member resigned from the Planning Board and was the liaison to the subcommittee. Mr. Andersen stared the cables that mn from the equipment shelter to the pole, which would be above ground. Mr. Andersen stated they would be asking for a waiver from the requirement for identification of the trees on the property. Mr. Andersen stated the bylaw required a variance if the proposal was 300' to a habitable building, and that the garage was located within 300' of the proposal. The Board replied they did not believe a variance was required as the garage was not a "habitable" building. Commercial Development - Route 125- Informal Discussion IVh-. Steven Webster stated they have located the industrial line. Mr. Webster stated the first phase would be the 50,000 SF building in the front. Mr. Webster stated the back buildings would total approximately 145,000 SF. Mr. Webster stated they have moved the front building back, and separated the automobile traffic from the truck traffic. Mr. Webster stated they planned on returning in approximately one month with a formal submission. Mr. Nardella asked if their parking complied with the zoning bylaw? Mr. Webster replied yes. Mr. Simons asked if the buildings would be a brick faqade like the adjacent credit union? Mr. Webster replied it would be a brick facade, with glass. 401 Andover Street-Verizon Wireless-Informal Discussion Ms. Janet Steams was before the Planning Board tonight representing Verizon. Ms. Steams stated she was proposing some roof-mounted antennas on top of the building. A discussion ensued relative to whether or not the application would require a variance relative to the setbacks of 600'. The Planning Board directed Ms. Steams to meet with the Town Planner and the Building Commissioner to iron out the issue of the interpretation of the setbacks. The Planning Board stated they believed that the application would require a variance and that must be obtained prior to applying for the Planning Board special permit. Public Hearings: Redgate Pasture-Definitive Subdivision-Court Remand Mr. Howard Speicher stated that they are here tonight on a new public hearing stemming from an old denial. Mr. Speicher stated that the Planning Board denied an earlier version of the plan in 1998. The developer filed an appeal to the Land Court, and decided it was more productive to address the board's concerns as expressed in its denial and by the town engineer than to litigate the case. Mr. Speicher stated the town and the town's outside consultant, Coler & Colantonio, have reviewed several revised plans. Mr. Speicher stated that they had a slope stabilization issue, which has been approved by the DPW and concludes its review by the town and the plan meets the town's regulations. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated that the layout of the project has stayed the same, along with the house locations. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated that most of the work changed was on the drainage system. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated the drainage system was originally too small, and DPW had a real aversion to maintaining an underground drainage system. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated they have redesigned the drainage system so there is an open infiltration pond, all drainage comes into the pond, and the pond has an outlet that's above the water of the pond, which will infiltrate into the ground. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated it produces a reduction in both vohune and rate of runoff for all storms. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated they've gone with the open pond concept because Jim Rand preferred the open infiltration pond to the underground system. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated that all other minor changes have been made. Ms. Lescarbeau asked if it is the same number of lots and length of road? Mr. Osgood Jr. replied yes. Ms. LescarbeaU asked if the detention pond is right on Salem Street? Mr. Osgood Jr. replied it is back off of Salem Street approximately 100' and 20' from the new roadway. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated that if the pond overflows it would go into a weir with a level spreader. Mr. Nardella asked where that location of the overflowing would be? Mr. Osgood Jr. stated it would overflow into the same location it was flows in now. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated the existing drainage system does back up, and cannot handle a 100-year rainstorm. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated that the new proposal entails a zero increase in volume. Mr. Nardella asked how deep is the detention pond? Mr. Osgood Jr. stated the bottom is 144, and the top of the berm is 148, with the street level being 146. Mr. Nardella asked what it would look like from Salem Street? Mr. Osgood Jr. stated the top of the berm is about 3 V2 feet above Salem Street. Mr. Nardella stated he does not like the look of detention ponds and the Board has been encouraging underground detention structures. Mr. Simons asked if the detention pond could be disguised? Mr. Osgood Jr. stated that it would be loamed and seeded, and planted with some plantings around the entryway. Mr. Speicher stated if there's a concern about the detention pond, the plans could be revised for landscaping. Ms. Lescarbeau stated she thinks it's a very difficult site to develop. Mr. Simons asked why you have to go so far back on the slopes? Mr. Osgood Jr. stated they're 2:1 slopes, and they're needed to obtain the lot frontage. Mr. Simon stated that could be a problem. Mr. Simons stated the board's experience is that everytime they build on a hill there are problems. Mr. Simons asked if they could talk a little bit more about the disturbance of the slope. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated the proposed grade is 174 existing grade is 188. IVh'. Simons asked how many feet of the hill would be taken out? Mr. Osgood Jr. stated from the road it might be 60 feet to 80 feet. Mr. Simons asked if that could be pulled back? Mr. Osgood Jr. stated that because of the lot configuration roles, it causes them to go into the slopes and disturb them. Mr. Simons stated he would like the applicant to come back and investigate the diminishing of the cutting on the slopes. Mr. Simons asked about the strip of land on Lot 4? Mr. Osgood Jr. stated the strip of land is not included on the lot area of lot 4 and is adjacent to the neighboring property. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated the strip is due to the radius of the roadway alignment. Mr. Nardella asked how wide it is? Mr. Osgood Jr. stated 20' and the strip would be part of Lot 4. Mr. Simons asked if the applicant would consider building the road as a driveway, instead of a road, how would it make the proposal different and would the applicant revise their plans? Mr. Speicher stated that with less roadway, it would be a smaller detention system. Mr. Rowen stated from what he remembered from the old public hearings, the site was sensitive relative to the timing of the release of the water in a storm. Mr. Rowen stated the applicant could not demonstrate to their engineer the timing of the drainage was correct. Mr. Rowen asked if it was possible to have an adjustment in the field if necessary if the water overflowed? Mr. Osgood Jr. stated there would be 2.5 feet of water storage in the pond, which is equal to the increase of runoff in a 100-year storm. In a smaller storm, the pond will still hold the volume, with much less runoff. Mr. Osgood stated test pits indicate that the sand is glacial and water will percolate into the ground. Mr. Rowen stated that the Mosquito Brook floodplain is subterranean at that point, and the water will dump almost directly into the brook. Mr. Rowen stated he's unsure if with the water is draining into the ground will the Ceirs property still have drainage issues? Mr. Osgood Jr. stated that the water would go down below the Ceirs property. Ms. Osgood Jr. stated the slopes would be stabilized as follows. The main problem is the water bleeding down on top of the slopes. They have proposed drainage swales to channel any surface water flow away fi'om the slope. All water on the site is routed then to catch basins and sub-drains to perforated pipe with stones. The detention pond is designed to handle the groundwater inflow. Mr. Nardella asked if they would reforest or replant those cuts? Mr. Jn stated they will be seeded with a slope mix, and they will eventually reforest if no one else goes out and cuts those slopes. Mr. Rowen asked if the soil was sandy on the slopes? Mr. Jr. replied it was a till soil. Mr. Rowen stated that all the slopes the board has had problems with in the past were comprised of a till soil. Mr. Nardella pointed out that right next door is the Foxwood subdivision, and those slopes have had serious problems and he would like to make sure this was avoided for this application. Mr. Angles echoed Mr. Nardella's concerns and would like to see a more aggressive slope stabilization plan, as well as the swales. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated they could rip-rap the whole slope. Mr. Angles suggested they look at geo-grid or a similar material. Mr. Osgood Jr. stated these issues could be addressed during the construction phase. Mr. Nardella stated the applicant is hearing universally from the Planning Board that the slope stabilization issues be addressed, and be addressed now, not during the construction phase. Ms. Lescarbeau agreed, stating that the applicant needs to address the issue during the design phase, not during the construction phase. Jim Corbit, Weyland Circle of Foxwood subdivision, stated he abuts the proposal on the side in the back. Mr. Corbit stated he is concerned about the slope stabilization also, as it appears the slope failures could end up in his yard. Mr. Nardella stated the contours in the slopes in the back don't appear to be too different from the natural contours of the land. In other words, the cutting in the back of the slopes is more or less keeping with the topography of the land. Mr. Rowen suggested the applicant revise their plans to a 9% road grade to eliminate any slope issues at the cul-de-sac area. Mr. Osgood Jr. replied this would mitigate some cutting. Mr. Steve Tombarelli, abutter, Salem Street, stated his concern is that there are serious water problems here and the water is being pushed into one spot. He is concerned his cellar will get flooded. Mr. Osgood stated with this type of soil it wouldn't increase the groundwater. Mr. Nardella explained that is why the outside consultant reviews the plans just to ensure that all drainage issues are resolved. Mr. Nardella also stated the Planning Board holds bond monies, which can be seized to correct a problem if a developer does not address the problem. Bob Nickel, 871 Salem Street, stated that when Foxwood Subdivision went in, he had more water in his cellar, and he is very concerned this proposal would add to the water in his basement. Mr. Nardella stated the applicant was denied and asked to return when there would be no more water coming off the site than what exists presently and this has been concluded by the town's outside consulting engineer. Mr. Steven Ceir, 895 Salem Street, abutter stated that he does not feel comfortable with the subdivision. Mr. Ceir stated he was disappointed that the plans still have four houses. Mr. Ceir stated that on March 2, 2001 a major rainstorm occurred. Mr. Ceir presented pictures of the storm and the affect it had on his home. Mr. Ceir stated the water comes from the Redgate Pasture land and presented pictures, which he states demonstrates the affect of the storm and the water runoff. Mr. Speicher stated that they would examine the slope stabilization as an issue for the next meeting. Mr. Lescarbeau suggested they pursue the geogfid as a solution. Mr. Nardella motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Red Gate Pasture- Definitive Subdivision-Court Remand until June 19, 2001, 2na by Mr. Simons, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Delucia Way-Def'mitive Subdivision Mr. Phil Christiansen stated this is a small parcel of land off Waverly Road. There is an existing house on Lots 6 and Lots 2. They are proposing a roadway approximately 560' long, with sidewalk on one side, town sewer and water, and detention ponds on lots 4 and 5. Mr. Chritiansen stated the Shawsheen River is the rear of the property and the wetlands have been flagged and approved by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Christiansen stated Lot 6 was included in the subdivision to obtain 14 feet for the roadway radius. Mr. Christiansen stated all lots are conforming to the zoning bylaw, all with proper frontage. Mr. Christiansen stated they have responded to comments from the consultant. Mr. Christiansen stated the subdivision regulations require an environmental analysis for six lots; however, four of the lots are new. Mr. Simons pointed out that the plan refers to the Lots as Numbered Lots 1 through Lots 6 and depict six lots. Mr. Rowen asked where the Greene Street property is located? Mr. Christiansen responded right next door to the proposal. All of the nmoff drains to the back to the Shawsheen River. Mr. Nardella asked the applicant respond to the Building Commissioner's memorandums. Mr. Christiansen stated the parking spaces have been depicted on the plans. There are nineteen parking spaces on Lot 2. Mr. Simons requested that the apartment building may not be in compliance with zoning and asked if the use would be conforming to these new plans. Mr. Simons stated this might create a more non-conforming use. Mr. SimOns requested that the Town Planner check with the Building Commissioner relative to this issue. Mr. Christiansen stated he could re-orient the house on Lot 1 so that it fronts Waverly Road instead of the new road. Mr. Simons motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Delucia Way- Definitive Subdivision until June 19, 2001, 2nd by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. 1070 Osgood Street-Chao Praya Restaurant Mr. Neve stated this is a restaurant use. Mr. Neve stated they have received approvals from the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Conservation Commission. Mr. Neve stated they received variances to reduce the travel width around the site from 25' to 20', and they withdrew their request for compact parking spaces. Mr. Neve stated the entire curb cut was already installed and it is complete, the traffic light will change. Mr. Rowen asked if there' s a basement for the site? Mr. Neve replied yes, and it can only be utilized for storage. Mr. Neve stated that the basement is not an occupiable space. Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing for 1070 Osgood Street, Site Plan and instruct the Town Planner to draft a decision for the June 19, 2001 meeting, 2nd by Mr. Simons voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Lot F Fia~shiu Drive Mr. Huntress presented the plans, stating they are proposing a medical office building JACKI TAKE OUT MY OPENING MEMO STATEMENT AND INCLUDE HERE Mr. Huntress stated there is an existing retaining wall on the abutter's property. Mr. Karl Dubay, MHF Design stated the existing conditions are that the drainage flows onto the adjacent property. The new plan will redirect the drainage onto our own site. Mr. Dubay stated they are planting additional landscaping behind the wall adjacent to the residential property. 10 Mr. Huntress stated that the building steps into the grade of the land. Mr. Huntress stated that the building serves as a retaining wall. Mr. Dubay stated the back wall is only 6' high. Mr. Simons asked if the residents of Marion Drive would see the new building? Mr. Huntress replied in the winter you might see portions of the building through the trees as they would not be fully blossomed during the winter season. Mr. Simons asked for a sight line or orientation for visualization purposes of the new building? Mr. Dubay stated he would provide a cross-section for the board at the next hearing. Mr. Nardella questioned the applicant relative to the use of the building and the parking? Mr. Huntress replied that the applicant would have to justify to the Building Commissioner that the use met the parking for the building. Mr. Nardella stated he believes the parking is not ample as of this time. Mr. Nardella stated that if the applicant wants to change to a medical office, the parking will also change and they will be required to come back to the Planning Board. Mr. Simons stated that the abutters are an important issue relative to this project. Mr. Simons stated the applicant has maximized on the floor area ratio. Mr. Huntress explained that was based upon a definition from the Building Commissioner, and that was based upon the utilization of the basement, which the Commissioner included as floor area ratio. Ms. Lescarbeau read aloud a letter from the Mottolas, abutters from Marion Drive, who are concerned about extensive excavation and future groundwater in their basement. Ms. Mottola stated she was primarily concerned with water and would like to ensure that there will not be water in their basement. Ms. Lescarbeau pointed out that the Mottolas homes are higher than the top of the proposed building and its land. Mi'. Dubay stated the abutters are uphill from the site and that area will be cut slightly. Mr. Dubay stated they would excavate approximately 130' away. Mr. Dubay stated they would be providing underdrains. 11 Ms. Griffin noted that there are approximately 20 catch basins around the site in addition to the underdrains. Mr. Ed Condon, 89 Marion Drive, stated that even though he's hearing water does flow downhill, there are 3 houses on the top of Marion Drive that were dramatically affected when the previous building on the site were built. Mr. Condon stated that there are springs up in the area and if the springs are blocked the water backs up. Mr. Dubay stated the retaining wall in that area also acts as an interceptor. Ms. Mottola stated she does not feel anything should be built on the lot. Ms. Marie Amaresco of Stets and Company, LLC presented pictures of when there were serious erosion problems when the last building was built on this site. Ms. Amaresco stated that this puddling has caused holes, which have eroded her driveway. Mr. Nardella asked if the Town Planner could provide the Planning Board with the previous decision on the site. Ms. Marie Amaresco requested site lines be presented for the building to her property for aesthetic purposes. Mr. Nardella replied this is not necessary as the use is allowed on the site and her site was allowed to be utilized in the same way. Ms. Marie Amaresco stated her concern was that her tenants will be viewing the parking garage of the building. Ms. Amaresco stated that her building will be cast in shadows, and what could she do about that? Mr. Rowen re-emphasized Mr. Nardella's comments that the applicant is proposing a permitted use in the proper zone and have not requested any variances, and as such, their proposal is in conformance with the Zoning Bylaw. Mr. Rowen stated the only way to prevent the building from being built in the manner it is proposed to be would be to purchase the land to protect it from being built upon. Ms. Amaresco stated that her last comment was in 1997 they came as willing abutters for the buildout of a one-story building. Ms. Amaresco stated that this didn't work out well back then. Ms. Griffin stated that there are letters in the file for Intellisense, the previous proposal, which indicate the site was brought into compliance and had addressed the erosion problems, from both the prior Town Planner and the prior Conservation Administrator. Mr. Nardella stated he made it clem' to the applicant that the parking will need to be addressed if the uses change. 12 Mr. Nardella motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Lot F Flagship Drive-Site Plan Special Permit until June 19, 2001, 2na by Mr. Simons, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. 257 Bridle Path Mr. Osgood Jr. stated all outstanding issues have been addressed. Mr. Simons motioned to CLOSE the Public Heating for 257 Bridle Path- Watershed Special Permit, 2nd by Mr. Rowen, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Simons motioned to APPROVE the Watershed Special Permit for 257 Bridle Path, 2na by Mr. Rowen, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Greene street/Riverbend Crossing-PDD Special Permit Mr. LaGrasse stated that all outstanding engineering issues have been addressed and there is a memorandum from VHB identifying this. Mark Johnson, attorney for applicant, stated that the way the 55 year and older housing will work is that an over 55 community does discriminate. The Fair Housing Act allows for this. In order to comply for this exemption, to discriminate, three requirements must be met. Housing intended to operate 55 years age of older 80% Units be utilized for 55 or older; Community comply with HUD regs for verification of occupancy The Master Deed would track compliance of these regulations. Under HOPA, people who are under 55 can use the remaining 20%. Mr. Johnson stated they are investigating putting in a clause in the Master Deed limiting the amount of time children can live with the 55-year and older residents. Mr. Nardella stated previously they had looked at provisions for renters. Mr. Johnson stated this deed can be prepared in the near future and he can supply the Planning Board with a sample. Mr. Nardella's question is whether the definition of "elderly" housing constitutes 55 or older. Mr. Rowen did not believe they were in non-compliance with the zoning bylaw. 13 Ken Kramm, Vanasse and Associates, stated he prepared a traffic study and sent a copy to VHB. He received a fax back with about six general comments on the study. They agreed the proposal would not have a significant impact on the proposal. Mr. Kramm stated he has addressed most of the comments and will send the revised traffic study to VHB. Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the Public Heating for Greene Street/Riverbend Crossing and instruct the Town Planner to draft a decision for the June 19th Meeting, 2~d by Mr. Simons, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. 740 Turnpike Street-Car Wash-Site Plan Special Permit Mr. Thomas Laudani, representing Lake Realty Trust, owner of the property, stated that at this point in time in the approval process he has had discussions with various town departments and he believes all remaining issues have been addressed. Mr. Laudani stated one issue was the status of the sewer flows and he has had two meetings with Bill Hmurciak and that DPW is now satisfied with their submittal. Mr. Laudani stated there was an outstanding issue with the traffic study and that has been approved. Mr. Laudani stated there was an issue relative to the issue of the chemicals being used, and they are all biodegradable and DPW's requirements have been met. Mr. Laudani provided the Board with some samples of the architectural renderings of the building. Mr. Laudani stated that this parcel is zoned Village Commercial, McGregor's parcel is zoned B2. Directly adjacent to this are three parcels zoned Village Commercial. Mr. Laudani stated he has the frontage over to Saville Lane. Mr. Laudani has entered into a purchase and sales agreement with the McGregor parcel so he can rezone his property to Village Commercial and will also have frontage on Route 114. Mr. Simons stated he feels uncomfortable that there is 3 parcels contiguous to each other being developed piece meal. Mr. Laudani stated the other 3 parcels would be sold to McGregor, so there will only be the car wash site and the proposal for the McGregors. Mr. Laudani provided the Board with samples of the shingling and architectural walls of the building. 14 Mr. Nardella motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing for 740 Turnpike Street- Site Plan Special Permit and instructed the Town Planner to draft a decision for the June 19th meeting, 2nd by Mr. Rowen, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Nardella requested that a clause be placed in the decision relative to sewer mitigation fees. Brooks School Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing for Brooks School Headmaster/Admissions-Site Plan Special Permit, 2na by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the Site Plan Special Permit for Brooks School Headmaster/Admission with the addition of sewer mitigation fees being added to the decision if applicable, 2nd by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Bond Establishments/Releases: Forestview-Palomino Drive Mr. Rowen motioned to ESTABLISH a Performance Guarantee by Surety Company for Forest View Subdivision in the amount of $152,400.00, 2"a by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Forest View-Lot Releases Mr. Rowen motioned to RELEASE lots by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. from Forest View Estates, 2nd Lot 24B & Lot 23B Rocky Brook Mr. Rowen motioned to RELEASE all remaining bond money held for lots 23B & 24B Rocky Brook Road, 2nd by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Wallace Street Subdivision Endorsements Mr. Rowen motioned to ESTABLISH a $5,000 bond for Wallace Street Subdivision for the completion of the roadway, 2na by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. 15 249 Marbleridge Road-Bond Release Mr. Rowen motioned to RELEASE ail remaining bond money from 249 Marbleridge Road, 2nd by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Rowen motioned to APPOINT Mr. Nardella to the Financiai Task Force, 2nd by Mr. Simons, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Rowen motioned to APPOINT Ms. Lescarbeau as the Telecommunications Subcommittee Liaison, 2nd by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. The Planning Board endorsed the Covenant and Conveyance of Easements and Utilities for Wallace Street Subdivision. The Planning Board endorsed the Form J Lot Release for Wailace Street Subdivision to be held until the $5,000 bond is posted. Decisions: Frontage Exception-Lot 1 Bradford Street Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the Frontage Exception for Lot 1 Bradford Street, 2na by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Frontage Exception-Lot 2 Bradford Street Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the Frontage Exception for Lot 2 Bradlbrd Street, 2nd by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. ANR Plan-Bradford Street Map 62 Lot 138 The ANR Plan divides the lot into 5 lots with Lots 1 &2 requiring a Frontage Exception Special Permit. Mr. Nardella motioned to APPROVE the ANR Plan for Bradford Street Map 62 Lot 138, 2na by Mr. Rowen, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Board Reorganization Mr. Rowen motioned to ELECT Mr. Simons as the Chairman of the Planning Board, 2~a by Mr. Angles, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. 16