Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-12-06P~ann~ng Board Neeting H~nutee December 6; ~994 Sen~o~ Center The meeting was called to order at 8:15 p.m. Heuhors Present Joseph Mahoney, Vice Chairman, Richard Rowen, Clerk, and John Simons. Also present were Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner and George Perna, Director of Public Works, Acting Director of Planning & Community Development. Richard Nardella, Chairman, arrived at 9:15 p.m. North Andover Estates - Bond Ms. Colwell to mark up Letter of Credit with the revised language for review. Discussions continued to the December 20th meeting. B.U. Conference center - PrelAm4nary Pla-- Ms. Colwell drafted a denial for review by the Planning Board. add question as to whether plan was properly received in the first place lack of frontage on lots roads do not line up adequately On a motion by Mr. Simons, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Planning Board voted to deny the preliminary plan based on the decision and additional comments. Leland ProDert¥ - Lot 4 Great Pond Road (Watershed) On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Simons, the Planning Board voted that Lot 4 is in compliance and that construction can commence on the site as per the revised site plan. Bruin H~ll Road - Bond Reduotio- No bond releases until easements obtained. Hitahin~ Post ~oa~ - Set Bond/Release Lot~ Mr. Simons read D.P.W. recommendations to set bond at $112,270. On a ~otion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Nr. Mahoney, the Board voted to release Lots 6 to 15 Hitching Post Road upon receipt of the $112,270 bond. Publio Hearinos Sale~ Forest IV - Definitive Subdivision Mr. Rowen read a letter requesting an extension. Ns. Colwell recommended against granting the extension but recommended allowing a withdrawal and possibly waiving the fees. The Board tabled the discussion until the applicant arrived. ~/nutes November 15. 1994 On a motion by Mr. Simons, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Planning Board voted to approve the minutes of November 15, 1994. Mr. Perna stated that the Planning Board needs to look at whether a subdivision should have a rural look or an urban look. Urban look should have curbs and sidewalks, may not need them in a rural look. This also comes into play in determining where street trees go. Mr. Simons wants to look at standards that other communities have. Look at what award winning developments have done. Ms. Colwell to check with the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission about general information about street and roads. Balsa Fores~ ~¥ - Def~itive Subdivision Mr. Rowen read the request for an extension until March of 1995 in order to complete septic testing. Mr. Joseph Serwatka was present representing the applicant. Ms. Colwell suggested that the applicant withdraw the application and that fees be waived. Mr. Serwatka requested the withdrawal. On a motion by Mr. Simons, seconded by Mr. Mahoney the Planning Board accepted the request for withdrawal without prejudice and to waive the filing fees. Mr. Nardella arrived at 9:15 p.m. 2 ~ublic Hearinq~ Greenery Bxtended Care - Special Permit/Site Plan Revie= Mr. Rowen read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Ms. Colwell gave the Board an overview of the original pek~mit and specific prohibition against use of the residential building as an office. Hr. Tho_ma__s Long, Administrator of the Greenery, stated that the issue is use of the duplex building. Mr. Nardella stated that the Planning Board representations to the neighborhood were that this use would not expand, not willing to entertain expansion unless there is a critical need. Mr. Long would not operate client services out of this building, would use it for secretarial staff. Did meet with the neighbors on this issue. Mr. Rowen stated that unless 100% of the neighbors are in support, he would not be in favor. Mr. Simons stated that the decision specifically states that the building is not to be used for office space, it is an incremental increase of a non-conforming use. Mr. Mahoney is not inclined to change decision, Mr. Long had knowledge of space limitations when he purchased the company. Mr. Nardella suggests a meeting with the abutters but unless there was 100% support for the expansion he would not be in favor of it. Walter Mahoney, Vice President of Operations, resident of North Andover, have 40 residents all from North Andover. Regulations have changed, records need to be kept now that were not required previously, asset to the community in that it is maintaining the site, do have a problem with space. Mr. Nardella sympathetic to business storage issues but believes there are ways to address issue. Planning Board is unanimous in its feelings on this issue. If there is agreement with the neighborhood he would suggest coming back to the Planning Board then. Mr. David McHale, Pleasant Street, expressed concerns with problems with traffic, lights and noise. Mr. Larry Murray, 60 Park Street, would like the Planning Board to vote on th~ issue tonight, would like to express disagreement with the expansion, direct abutters to the project, want to keep Park Street a residential neighborhood. Mr. Nardella stated that the applicant may choose to continue the public hearing to work things out with the neighbors or withdraw. Mr. Rowen stated that the burden was on the Greenery to show that modification is a good thing for the neighborhood. Mr. Murray stated that it would be an additional burden on the neighbors to continue to come to addltional meetings. Mr. Long asked what should the Greenery should come back with on December 20th. Mr. Nardella told him to talk with the abutters or look into other storage ideas. Mr. McHale reiterated the burden on the neighbors to continue to come to meetings. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, the Planning Board continued the p~hlic hearing to December 20, 1994. PBJ Development - Crossroads - Site Plan Review Mr. Rowen read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Attorney Peter Shaheen, 565Turnpike Street gave the Planning Board the following information: Kent Mover property on the corner of Route 114 and Hillside Road 24,000 sq.ft, retail center is proposed warehouses currently on the site take buildings down to foundation and re-build with an addition zoned GB kept similar design themes as Chestnut Green walkway between the two buildings Mr. Nardella asked what variances are required. Attorney Shaheen listed the variances: expanding a pre-existing non-conforming use because building is too close to Route 114, need a special permit for this from ZBA taking the majority of the building down, greater than 65%, therefore a special permit from the ZBA is needed to keep non-conforming use status rear and front setback variances required Attorney Shaheen stated that they're not using the total foundation of the existing building, only a portion of it. Mr. Simons asked if the zoning regulations were thrown out, were would the building go. Attorney Shaheen stated that the building is in the location it should be. Mr. Simons stated the need for an adequate buffer for the neighbors and the need to make a safe access. Mr. Nardella wants something closer to the street with parking in the back. Attorney Shaheen spoke with retailers and retailers stated that the building is not marketable with parking in the back. Mr. Perna stated that the Technical Review Committee stated that the building should be moved up to the street. Abutters do not want parking in the back. Attorney Shaheen cannot get the quality national tenants that the town will want on this site if the parking is in the back. The site is not zoned Village Commercial. Mr. Nardella asked why a 24,000 sq.ft, building, why not stay with 19,000 sq.ft, and create a larger buffer zone. Attorney Shaheen stated that the numbers do not work with a building 19,000 sq. ft. Mr. Mahoney asked what has been done about traffic. A traffic study was submitted. Ms. Colwell to copy that study for the Planning Board. Attorney Shaheen stated that Mr. David Friend created a traffic impact study for the site based on the Osco Drug site. Mr. Nardella asked how will traffic enter and exit from the site. Attorney Shaheen stated that the curb cut on Hillside Road would be blocked off. There would be two curb cuts on Route 114. State curb cut permit will be required (required as part of the permit). There will be two way traffic, both entrances are exits too. Mr. Friend stated that the driveway away from Hillside Road will have 3 lanes, right and left hand turns, as well as an entrance lane. Ms. Colwell asked how will the lane be marked. Mr. Friend stated that lanes will be striped, no islands. Mr. Mahoney stated that traffic will be of major concern. Mr. Nardella asked what uses will be put in the site. Attorney Shaheen stated that they were looking at a restaurant, family oriented, Blockbuster Video, White Hen Pantry, one general store, general retail, clothing, etc.. He has spoken with a bank. Mr. Nardella expressed concern about permitting something without specific tenants. What if a structure is permitted and use changes in the future that is not currently accommodated. Mr. Mahoney stated the need to look at what is currently there. He asked how many acres. Attorney Shaheen stated that there are 3.89 acres. Mr. Nardella had questions about other residential properties that may become available in the future. Mr. Simons wants to avoid suburban sprawl, many curb cuts in a small area, and parking surrounding a building. Mr. Simons asked if there was any other access or parking available on adjacent property. Hr. Simons stated that it was a tight site and that the applicant may want to look at shared parking. Attorney Shaheen stated that it was discussed in the process, adjacent business may be amenable to it, will look into it. Dumpster would be located near Micro Electronics. Lighting at the front will be lanterns, similar to those at Chestnut Green. Lighting in the back will be down cast. Mr. Friendstated that shared parking does not generally reduce the parking but may allow the building to shift. Mr. Nardella discussed buffers and fences. Attorney Shaheen stated that abutters want an eight foot stockade fence. Mr. Robert Nicetta, Building Inspector, stated that the State Fence Statue considers an eight foot fence a spite fence, nothing greater than six feet is allowed. Mr. Mahoney asked why the plan showed one section with chainlink fence with green fabric. Attorney Shaheen stated that the fence was currently on site and would be along the drainage swale. Mr. Simons asked what was the existing area of paving. Attorney Shaheen showed the Board were the paving was on the plans. Ms. Arcari, Hillside Road, can see the parking area currently from her home. She also expressed concerns about traffic. Mr. Nardella stated he will want a buffer along the residential zone. Attorney Shaheen stated that the site will be developed and will still need the same amount of parking. Mrs. Ellen Kent stated that something will be built on that property, do not want trucking on the site. She does not want overnight parking, wants controlled lighting. She is in favor of the project as long as certain issues are addressed. The Planning Board members want to review the traffic study. Mr. Nardella stated that under the existing bylaw, they could expand building by 25%. Ms. Marylou Sharman expressed concern about safety on Route 114 and traffic problems in the area. Mr. Simons expressed concerns about the ability to turn into and out of the site. Mr. Nardella asked the applicant to look at traffic issues in response to Hillside Road traffic. Mr. Simons asked what are the building materials. Attorney Shaheen replied that the exterior would be clapboard. He will provide the Board with specific information. Mr. Simons wants a list of projects that the architect has completed. Items to be addressed by the applicant: ability to take a left hand turn into site new trips - additional trips down Hillside Road Mr. Perna asked about signage on the site and green spaces. Mr. Perna also asked about lighting. Attorney Shaheen stated that carriage lamps are not down cast but match Chestnut Green. Landscaping at front has a small white picket fence with landscaping. They will not have business names on an entrance sign, business names will be wood signs over each individual business. Mr. Rowen expressed concern about sale signs on the glass windows, would like to limit area of window to be covered by a sign, as part of the order of condition. He would like to eliminate left hand turn from exit close to Hillside Road. A site visit will be held on Saturday, December 10, 1994 at 8:00 a.m. Mr. Vanett stated that there was a dispute over the property boundaries and location of the shed on his property. Mr. Jay Diane, Hillside Road, concerned about an eight foot fence. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, the Planning Board continued the public hearing to December 20, 1994. The Planning Board will want to see elevations for all sides. Ms. Colwell to draft letter to the applicant. Lot SandLot 6 Boxford Street - Special Permit Common Driveway and Access Applicant requested a continuance on the public hearings until December 20, 1994. Hidden Pond (Lost Pond) Definitive Subdivision Applicant requested a continuance until December 20, 1994. Pinewood (Woodchuck Grove) - Definitive Sub~ivlsion The applicant requested a continuance until December 20, 1994. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Mahoney the Planning Board adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ~ Richard A. Nardella, Chairman