Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-10 Planning Board MinutesPlanning Board Meeting January 10, 2002 Members Present: John Simons, Chairman Alberto Angles, Vice Chairman Richard Nardella, Clerk (7:15) Richard Rowen Staff Present: Jacki Byefley, Interim Assistant Town Planner Heidi Griffin, Community Development Director Discussions: Rocky Brook Phase I-Subdivision Update Mr. Peter Breen, developer for Rocky Brook, stated that for Phase I of the project has the trees in, the lawns growing, the hot topping is scheduled for spring 2002 and his attorney is working on the easements. Mr. Simons questioned whether in Phase 1I if emergency access to Boxford would be possible? Mr. Breen stated that Boxford didn't want the connection. Mr. Rowen motioned to RETAIN $34,300 from Rocky Brook Subdivision Phase I, 2~ by Mr. Angles voted 3-0 in favor of the motion. Bake-N-Joy-Bond Release Mr. Rowen motioned to RELEASE all remaining funds from 351 Willow Street- Bake-N-Joy-Site Plan, 2aa by Mr. Angles, voted 3-0 in favor of the motion. 56 Main Street-Site Plan Waiver Ms. Byerley informed the Planning Board that the applicant was requested to place a showroom at 56 Main Street and would require a change of use special permit from the Planning Board. The hours of operation would be 9-5 Monday-Saturday and would be less intrusive than the previous operation. Mr. Angles motioned to WAIVE Site Plan Review for 56 Main Street Edward E. Viel, Jr. dba General Contracting Services for a kitchen Center, 2~a by Mr. Rowen, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Eagle Tribune-Bond Release Ms. Byerley informed the Planning Board that the applicant had submitted as-built plans and a site visit was performed. Mr. Angles motioned to RELEASE all remaining funds from 100 Tumpike Street-Eagle Tribune Site Plan, 2~d by Mr. Rowen, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Windldst Farm Subdivision-Bond Reduction Ms. Byerley informed the Planning Board that DPW had recommended a release of $12,000 but the sidewalk encroaches on lot 10. Mr. Rowen questioned whether the amount being held would be sufficient for the work to be completed. Ms. Byerley stated that she would speak with DPW and the developer. Mr. Rowen motioned to NOT RELEASE any money from Windkist Farm Subdivision, 2nd by Mr. Angles, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Public Hearings: 94 Peters Street-Site Plan Special Pertnit Mr. Ben Osgood, engineer for the project, stated that fencing has been provided along the abutting residential properties. The garage would be razed with the driveway entrance being 23' and turning into 25' by the parking spaces. There is an existing curb cut and Mr. Osgood will apply to the state for a curb cut to reach the 25'. The use would be office for a real estate operating from 9-5 Monday through Friday and 9-3 on Saturdays. Mr. Osgood stated that the parking spaces would include a van accessible handicapped space. Mr. Angles questioned how much impervious area was being created? Mr. Osgood stated 3500 SF. Mr. Osgood stated that the drainage system the state has is sufficient for the area being created. Mr. Angles motioned to CLOSE the Public Heating for 94 Peters Street-Site Plan Special Permit, 2nd by Mr. Nardella, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Rowen suggested that the Zoning Board of Appeals section of the decision be revised. Mr. Angles motioned to APPROVE the Site Plan Special Permit for 94 Peters Street as amended, 2~a by Mr. Nardella, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Lot B2-B30sgood Street-Common Driveway-Access Other Than Special Permit Ms. Byefley informed the Planning Board that the applicant had received approval for an ANR plan to divide the lot. Presently the applicant would like to access lot B2 over the frontage of B3 and use the existing curb cut off of Route 125 and create a common driveway. Mr. Nardella motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing for Lot B2-B30sgood Street-Common Driveway & Access Other than Legal Frontage Special Permits, 2na by Mr. Rowen, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Nardella suggested that the decision read that two special pen,tits are being received for the site. Mr. Nardella motioned to APPROVE the Common Drive Special Permit & Access Other Than Legal Frontage Special Permit for Lot B2-B30sgood Street as amended, 2nd by Mr. Rowen, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Continued Public Hearings: Boston Hill Condominiums-Site Plan Special Permit Mr. Chris Huntress stated that the landscaping would be re-established along Route 114 with a New England wildflower mix. About 14'-15' back from the roadway with a height of 12' a wall would be created. The wall would have a field stone look using concrete interlocking. Fencing will be places ranging from 4'-6' to break up the wall. The architect from MZO Group informed the Planning Board that the faqade of the buildings would have variations with the brick, clapboard, shingles, and color from building to building. Mr. Rowen questioned whether there were visitor parking spaces provided? Mr. Rosati stated that each driveway could accommodate two cars and each unit has a garage. Mr. Rowen suggested that the applicant provide more visitors parking along the streets. Mr. Angles questioned the where the wetlands were? Mr. Rosati stated they were currently in front of the Conservation Commission in regards to the wetlands. Ms. Bernice Fink questioned whether the existing pond would be staying on site? Mr. Rosati stated the pond would stay with the existing fencing so as not to disturb the wetlands. Mr. Rowen questioned that amount of land the units would have for personal use? Mr. Huntress stated about 20'-30'. Mr. Rowen questioned what would happen to the site if the State chooses to widen Route 1147 Mr. Rosati stated that with the underground detention basin the widening of Route 114 should not affect the site. Mr. Angles questioned the cell tower located on Boston Hill and the proximity to the site? Mr. Rosati stated that the tower was within view. Mr. Angles questioned whether they met the current setbacks of locating by a wireless facility. Mr. Angles questioned the retaining wall heights? Mr. Rosati stated that the heights on the hill would range from 4'-6' and the entrance retaining wall was 12'. Mr. Angles questioned the drainage control? Mr. Rosati stated that trenching and swales would be placed on site. Mr. Ted Berrington of Maine Drilling and Blasting stated that their procedures for blasting on site is first to contact the Fire Department then perform a preblast survey infomfing abutters within 1000'. Mr. Berrington explained that blasting was regulated through the State. Mr. Berrington explained that warning whistles with a ~A mile audible radius would be used and a seismograph would be used. Mr. Rosati stated that currently he does not see ledge on site and is not sure that blasting would have to be done. Ms. Bernice Fink stated that she believed a lot ledge existing on site. Mr. Berrington stated that the seismograph would be used to make sure that the vibrations at the tower would receive minimal vibrations. Ms. Griffin questioned which phase the blasting would take place? Mr. Rosati stated it would be within the upper area phasing. Mr. Rosati stated that hay bales and silt fencing would be in place along with a sedimentation pond outside the area of the detention pond to ensure that 90% of the water flow goes to the sedimentation pond. Diversion swales will be used to ensure this along with dams. At the end of the job the drainage system will be flushed out. Mr. Rosati stated that within the Phasing no earth moving would be done between January and April. The beginning phase would be cutting and filling at the same time at the opening comer. The cuts and fills would be balanced in Phase II and llI. Mr. Rosati expected 30,000 yards to be removed from the site when it was completed. Mr. Rosati stated that within conditioning of the project the contractor should be required to come to the Planning Board every couple of months to explain the progress and especially before starting a new phase. Mr. Nardella questioned when the areas would be loamed and seeded? Mr. Rosati stated that would happen right away and once a foundation pad was in place mulch would immediately be put in place. Mr. Nardella questioned when stabilization of the site would be happening? Mr. Grandstaff stated that the stabilization of the site would be happening at the same time. 4 Ms. Fink questioned whether the fkst units built would be occupied while the remaining roadway and units were constructed? Mr. Grandstaff stated yes they hoped to have them occupied with the occupant being aware of the remaining construction. Ms. Fink questioned the snow storage? Mr. Rosati stated that if there was not enough room on site for the snow it would be hauled off if need be. Ms. Griffin questioned how to regulate the amount of cutting and filling done on site and the moving of the phases? Mr. Grandstaff stated that if need be a monthly report can be submitted to the Planning Department and having the contractor come before the Planning Board on a regular bases. Mr. Nardella motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Boston Hill Condominiums-Site Plan Special Penrdt until January 22, 2002, 2~d by Mr. Angles voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Minutes: December 4, 2001 Mr. Nardella motioned to APPROVE the Planning Board minutes for December 4, 2001, 2na by Mr. Angles, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. December 18, 2001 Mr. Nardella motioned to APPROVE the Planning Board minutes for December 18, 2001, 2na by Mr. Angles, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Angles motioned to ADJOURN the Planning Board meeting of January 10, 2002 at 9:10 pm, 2~a by Mr. Nardella, voted 4-0 in favor of the motion.