Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-04Planning Board Meeting Senior Center February 4,1997 Members Present: Joseph V. Mahoney, Chairman, Richard Rowen, Vice Chairman, Alison Lescarbeau, Clerk, Richard Nardella arrived at 7:05 p.m. and John Simons arrived at 7:34 p.m. Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner was also present. Minutes: On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Nardella the minutes of January 7, 1997 were approved. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Nardella the minutes of January 21, 1997 were approved as amended. Discussion: Orchard Hill Commerce Park - Preliminary Plan Tom Zahoruiko requested a continuance until the next meeting. Lots 4, 5 and 6 Rosemont Drive - Chapter 6lA Ms. Colwell stated that the Town has the right first refusal on these lots at the entrance to North Andover Estates. At this time she does not recommend purchase of the lots as they do not meet any of the criteria set forth in the Open Space Plan as priority lands for acquisition however she suggested that the Planning Board hold off on their vote until the Open Space Committee has made a recommendation. By consensus, the Planning Board agreed to recommend against purchase of the property subject to a final recommendation from the Open Space Committee. The Crossroads - gate Ms. Colwell stated that the ZBA has to modify their decision before the gate can be opened permanently. Ms. Colwell stated that Chief Stanley has suggested that the gate be kept open. Therefore , based on the Planning Board's special permit issued for this site, Ms. Colwell recommended that the Board vote to keep the gate open. On a motion by Mr. Nardella, seconded by Ms. Lescarbeau the Board voted to direct staff to draft a letter to the ZBA stating that through observation and recommendation by the Police Chief and other department heads that the ZBA should review its decision. Coventry I - bond update Ms. Colwell stated that there is no new information. Ms. Colwell will follow up on her contact person for the next meeting. Master Plan Committee - update The Committee has wrapped up the neighborhood meetings and have a draft report available. Ms. Colwell suggested that the Chairman of the Master Plan Committee come to the next meeting to update the Board on the neighborhood meetings. The next step is to get volunteers together for the phone surveys. Mr. Mahoney asked what topics have been discussed at the neighborhood meetings. Ms. Colwell stated some issues are protection of the 'watershed, water quality, and traffic control. PRD's are a hot topic, people like the concept but don't like outcome. The neighborhood meetings have shown that people want open space with trails, parks and ball fields. Ms Colwell stated that this has been an issue in the past as the Town does not have the funds to maintain such amenities. The committee also believes that the Lawrence Airport has no benefit to North kndover and going back to 1956 the Master Plan Committee thought that property should be an. industrial park. Public Hearings - New: Lot 5 Pheasant Brook - access Ms. Lescarbeau read the legal notice to open the public hearing. No one was present to represent Lot 5 Pheasant Brook. Ms. Colwell gave a brief presentation on the proposed access for the benefit of the Board and the abutters present. The applicant has requested access other than over the legal frontage on the direction of the Conservation Commission in order to avoid a driveway between two vernal pools. The Board continued the public hearing to the next meeting on February 18th. Continued: 200 Chickering Road (Rennies) - site plan review Mark Gross of MHF Design, was present to discuss the traffic study. Mr. Gross stated that they have filed an Environmental Notification Form. Mr. Gross has spoken to Mass. DEP and Mass. DPW and they stated that they are free to go ahead and file for curb cut permit. Dermot Kelley, President of DJK Associates was present to give an overview of the traffic study. Mr. Kelley showed a plan with a single access as far away as possible from Farrwood Ave. A stop line and a stop sign will be installed at the exit onto Rt. 125. Mr. Kelley stated that he has requested data from the state regarding the number of accidents but has not received it yet. Mr. Nardella stated that his major concern is the number of accidents that could occur. Mr. Kelley stated they cannot determine the number of accidents. Mr. Mahoney asked if they could get data from the Town's Police Department on the number of accidents that have occurred on Farrwood entering and exiting. Mr. Nardella asked what the distance is from center line of the access drive to the center line at Farwood. Mr. Kelley stated 250'. Mr. Kelley stated that Ms. Colwell, Mr. Hajec and himself went out to Chickering Road to observe the traffic flow. Mr. Kelley stated that the traffic flows in cycles every 70 seconds. They observed that the traffic flows from one direction for 30 seconds and from the other direction for 40-50 seconds. For 20-30 seconds the traffic is lessened. So people who are exiting and entering Farrwood have 30-35 seconds of no traffic and for 45 cars turning onto Farrwood there was no queuing. Mr. Nardella asked the number of cars that could que up out of 200 Chickering Road. Mr. Kelley stated that 3 could. Paul Hajec, President of Hajec Associates, the town's traffic consultant was present to explain what he has observed. Mr. Hajec stated that everything that Mr. Kelley has said is correct. Mr. Hajec stated that they did not observed more than 2 cars at a time queuing. There could be some traffic problems when Rt. 495 is blocked up and people use this as an alternative route however that is a rare occurrence and is not one that the applicant should be expected to fix. Ms. Lescarbeau asked what would happen if there was a car turning into the plaza and there was a car behind them that is turning into Farrwood. Mr. Hajec stated that they could use the shoulder of the road. It is a paved road and the shoulder is 8'to 10' wide. Mr. Hajec stated a traffic light would have to be approved by the state and Mr. Hajec thought that would be very unlikely. The traffic lights would make unnecessary delays and more accidents usually occur when there is a traffic light. Dave Johns of 209 Chickering Road, stated that it is difficult to take a left hand turn out of his driveway and that people walk on the shoulder therefore it is very hard to pass in the shoulder. Lisa Neukuckatz of 68 Fernview Ave. stated that her children walk 'on Chickering Road to and from school and believes it is dangerous if people use the shoulder to pass. Joseph Balliro of 27 Farrwood Ave. stated that he is a criminal defense lawyer and thinks it is not a legitimate point to use the shoulder. It may be legal but it is not safe. Peggy Walsh of 27 Farrwood stated too many things are happening (too many other driveways)within the 250' of road. Mr. Nardetla asked as residents if they had any ideas to make the flow better. Mr. Balliro stated that they should put in a dedicated turn lane and possibly a yellow blinking light. Jim McCarthy stated that during the 20-30 second delay if there is somebody coming out of the 99 Restaurant or Bulgers Animal Hospital then the delay is shortened. Mark Johnson who represents Heritage Green Estates asked that there should be no heavy trucks on the site and questioned the level of service. Is E or D? Mr. Gross responded by saying that they are not planning to have any trailer trucks on the property just box trucks and are willing to put that in the decision as a condition. Mr. Johnson stated that level D represents a condition with long delays to minor street traffic. The levels go from A - F and A being the least amount of delays and F being the longest. Chickering Road and Farrwood currently operates at a level of service at C or better. Under 2001 Build weekday evening peak hour conditions the service will decrease to Level D. Mr. Balliro asked why the exit could not be changed to the back of the property. Mr. Gross stated that access to commercial property has to be through commercial property and cannot be through residential property. Ms. Curcio, 23 Edgelawn Ave questioned the zoning for the site. Ms. Colwell stated that the site is zoned B-1 for business but is surrounded by residential property. Ms. Colwell suggested that Ms. Curcio come into the Planning Office to look at the zoning map. If she had additional questions she can review the zoning with the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer. Continued the public hearing until the March 4, 1997 meeting. Forest View Estates - subdivision Steve Stapinski of Merrimack Engineering, Tom Laudani and Anthony Mesiti were present representing Forest View Estates. Mr. Stapinski stated the subdivision consists of 100 lots off of Rt. 114. Plan to extend town water to the site. There is no town sewer on the property. They will be constructing 2 pump stations. The sewer system will be gravity sewer and will run to the pump stations. This will also allow for expansion by other developers in the future. The property is west of Rt 114 adjacent to Harold Parker State Forest. There are wetlands on the property and they plan to file a Notice of Intent with ConCom. All the houses are outside of the 50' no build zone and all grading is outside of the 25' of setback. They are planning to keep wooded buffers around the site. They would like to put an entrance to the DEM lands at the end of the cul-de-sac for pedestrian use. Mr. Stapinski stated that there is a considerable amount of frontage on Rt. 114. Mr. Mahoney questioned the amount of frontage. Mr. Stapinski stated that there was 1800' Mr. Stapinski added that there was an existing building on the property that is an old recycling company. There is a road that leads into the property as the entrance. Mr. Nardella stated that there should be a second access on Rt 114. Ms. Colwell stated that a second access was possible as there is a section along Rt. 114 that does not involve a wetland crossing. Mr. Rowen stated that a second access is necessary. If something should happened to the main access point people could be stranded in there. Mr. Stapinski stated that he knows 100 houses sounds like a lot but they would only be building probably 16-17 houses a year under the phased growth bylaw. Ms. Colwell stated to Mr. Stapinski that the Planning Board did not review the plans at the last meeting because nothing was submitted. In fact, plans were not submitted to the Planning Department until Friday January 24 at 2:00 p.m. after a reminder was sent to the engineer. The plans were not forwarded to John Chessia until Monday, January 27. Mr. Chessia came to the Planning Office on Friday, January 31 and walked the site with Ms. Colwell for more than half the day and spent the rest of the day going over the plans. Significant errors were found. Ms. Colwell's biggest concern was that the plans were not signed nor stamped by an engineer and were therefore not technically valid. Mr. Stapinski stated that some of the plans were stamped but that he wasn't aware that plans needed to be submitted by a certain time and didn't have enough time to stamp them. Ms. Colwell then stated that they were supposed to be stamped and revised by Tuesday of the last meeting which was January 21. Mr. Laudani stated that it was an oversight because of the change of his fax number. Mr. Laudani stated that he would have not known about the deadline for 2:00 p.m. on January 24 if he did not come into the Planning Office to speak to Ms. Colwell. Mr. Laudani then called Mr. Stapinski and told him to get the plans ready and here by 2:00 p.m.. Ms. Colwell stated that the plans were supposedly complete on January 21 when Mr. Stapinski as represented to the Board at the last meeting. The Planning Baord made it clear to the applicant at that meeting that the plans were to be submitted immediately. If they were in fact complete on the 21st, how did they become incomplete by the 24th? Mr. Laudani stated that he received a memo dated February 3 on February 4 the day the meeting took place. Mr. Laudani then stated that he and Mr. Stapinski were not aware of the zoning regulation that you need 100' of frontage. Ms. Colwell pointed out that that issue was brought up at the December TRC however she stated that this was an issue to be addressed by the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Rowen stated that the plans did not have any revisions dates on them therefore it was impossible for the Board to determine which plans were in fact the revised. Mr. Rowen then stated that the Legal Notice is printed in the citizen and in that legal notice it states that a copy of the plan is in the Planning Office for anyone to look at. How can the public come in the office to look at the plans and they are incomplete and not on time. Mr. Laudani stated that his only concern is being informed of things in memos the day of meetings, he would like to get feedback before the next public hearing. Mr. Rowen stated that the applicant needs to get information into the Board on time and cannot get submit them the day of the meeting. The applicant was told at the last meeting to get the plans in the Planning Department immediately. Mr. Mahoney stated that the Board has one more hearing date and then time runs out for the Board to make a decision. If all of the required information as outlined in the memos and letter and the subdivisions rules and regulations is not submitted within two weeks the applicant is out of time. Mr. Laudani stated that they will make all corrections. Mr. Nardella asked when the Planning Department will see a set of revised and stamped plans. Mr. Stapinski stated 2 weeks from today. Mr. Stapinski stated that revised plans cannot be made in two days it will take two weeks. Ms. Colwell stated that in two weeks the Board has to make decision to either extend or deny the project. She will not have time to review the plans prior to the meeting if they are submitted on that day. Mr. Nardella asked if the Board would reject the project if the plans are not in, in two weeks. Mr. Laudani asked when they needed a response by and what the board needed. Mr. Rowen made a recommendation that they have the plans stamped by an engineer and by the rules & regulations 2 weeks from today and if the Board is not satisfied enough is enough, if the plans are suitable then the Baord will carry on. Mr. Laudani stated that they would like to set up a meeting with Mr. Stapinski, Mr. Chessia and Ms. Colwell to discuss the changes. Mr. Chessia stated that there are some issues that he found. There was a question with 2 entrances. The Board agreed that there should be two entrances shown on the plan. Ms. Lescarbeau questioned whether the second access should be for emergency only. Mr. Nardella stated that would be a waste of an access. Ms. Colwell suggested the Board see what the traffic consultant suggests. Mr. Chessia brought up the issue of the connection between Garnet and Amberville that is not a conforming intersection. Mr. Rowen stated there should be one roadway with a conforming 150 degree radius. Mr. Stapinski stated that the Police Department would like 2 streets and 2 street names. Ms. Colwell stated that the Police Department requested two roadway names only if the street was configured as shown on the plan. Mr. Chessia also stated under the subdiviison rules and regulations, that the denser the project the shorter the length of the allowed cul-de-sac. Mr. Stapinski asked if they needed to provide access to DEM lands. Ms. Colwell stated would like to have something in writing from DEM regarding access to the State Forest. Mr. Stapinski asked about providing Open Space. There are some areas on the plan that are not buildable due the presence of wetlands however they could be used for ball fields or a tot lot. Ms Colwell stated that in the past the Board of Selectmen has recommended against the creation of town owned parks as the town does not have sufficient funds to maintain them. It was the opinion of the Board that a field should be created and donated to the Town The Town could then decided whether or not it can maintain it. Mr. Stapinski asked for guidance on the Town's interpretation of the requirement for a 2% grade at intersections. Ms. Colwell will ask DPW for a recommendation. Lot Releases/Bonds: Lots 1M, 2M, & 3M - common driveway/access Ms. Colwell recommended the release of the reDaining balance of $5,000 plus interest for the common drive and $5,000 for the access as all of the work has been completed satisfactorily . On a motion by Mr. Nardella, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Board voted unanimously to release the remaining $5,000 plus interest for the common drive and $5,000 for the access. North Andover Country Club - watershed special permit Ms. Colwell recommended the release of the remaining balance of $2,000 plus interest as all work is complete. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Nardella the Board voted unanimously to release $2,000 plus interest. Parcel B Rosemont Drive - lot release Ms. Colwell recommended to release the lot since we still have a roadway bond. The Board asked what the amount of roadway bond was. Ms. Colwell will provide that information for the next meeting. Ad~ ournraent: On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Ms. Lescarbeau, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.