Middleton Planning Board Middleton, MA MINUTES OF THE MEETING

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 9 Middleton Planning Board Middleton, MA MINUTES OF THE MEETING The Middleton Planning Board met at a regularly scheduled meeting on at the Fuller Meadow School, 143 South Main Street, Middleton, Massachusetts at 7:00 pm The following board members were in attendance: Acting Chairperson Tony Tierno, Clerk Rick Kassiotis, member David McGlone, alternate member Nick Bonugli with Chairperson Beverly Popielski participating remotely via telephone Others present: Katrina O Leary, Town Planner Acting Chairperson Tony Tierno called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM Acting Chairperson Tierno appointed alternate member Nick Bonugli as full voting members for this meeting. Acting Chairperson Tierno informed the audience that Beverly Popielski would be participating via telephone since she is currently in Florida. The Board took a roll call vote to determine if this was acceptable: Rick Kassiotis Yes Tony Tierno Yes David Maglone Yes Nick Bonugli - Yes Minutes February 8, 2017 MOTION: Made by Rick Kassiotis to approve the minutes as written. Motion seconded by David McGlone. Vote 4-0 in favor, motion carried. Beverly Popielski abstained from voting. Continued Public Hearing A. Special Permit Multifamily Dwelling 97 N Main St Fairway Estates LLC 19 Townhouse units proposed in the R2 zoning district Represented by Jill Mann. Also, present is Chris Sparages Conducted a site walk with the Planning Board on March 4 th. They opened a public hearing with the Conservation Commission on March 7 th and scheduled a site walk with them for April 1 st.

2 Page 2 of 9 They have made some changes to the plan based on the feedback received. They ve added some additional landscaping for a greater buffer zone and brought down the roofline to 33 to be consistent with the neighborhood. Buildings 1 and 2 will be 2 floors while buildings 3 and 4 will have walk-out basements due to the slope of the lot. Comments in response to Atty Rosen s letter: The property is a split zone which allows you to infringe on the more restricted area the rules associated with the less restricted zone All special permit requirements have been satisfied the plans are in full compliance Traffic not really added that much additional volume. The single driveway opening is much preferred over multiple All environmental concerns are being met. Chris Sparages discussed the concerns that were expressed from Chief DiGi about the flow of traffic between the site and the cars on Route 114. The developer intentionally moved the driveway to its current location at the top of the hill since it affords cars exiting to see past the lighted intersection and past the property looking the other way. They conducted sight distance analysis to determine the best location of the driveway for both cars exiting the property and the cars traveling along Route 114. Planning Board Questions: Q: What is the distance from the entrance of the driveway to Essex Street? A: 600 Q: As a car is entering the property, is there any interference with the first unit s garage as shown on the plan? A: Since the original drawing, the driveway has been pushed back 8. The driveway is 20 long and they added a turnaround area without being in the main part of the property driveway. Q: Could the driveway be moved to allow more space in front of the first unit? A: The driveway is intentionally located there to allow for maximum sight lines for cars exiting the property Q: This property has 3 different zones, how much is zoned for business? A: 7,000 sf everything is located on the R1 and R2 zones Q: Could the height of the buildings be lowered? A: The developer reduced the height of the buildings to 33. The first 2 buildings are only 2 floors above ground with the basement below ground Q: Where is the dumpster located? A: It is in the front of the property away from the buildings Q: What is being done for lighting? A: The proposed lighting doesn t go beyond the property. Proposing a total of high lantern style lights

3 Page 3 of 9 Opened the discussion up to the Public for any comments. There was no one present to speak in favor of the project. Opposition: Joel Rosen (attorney representing several abutters) 204 Andover Street, Andover Expressed concern that not everyone who would be an interested party received notice, aware of at least two addresses, 33 Essex Street and 32 Essex Street. Expressed concern that he just received Attorney Mann s response to his letter so it is difficult for him to properly comment immediately. Would like the opportunity to review it and respond to the matter of law officially. His clients feel the proposed development is too dense they are trying to put too many units on the property. They don t object to multifamily housing being proposed but feel it is just too dense. While they are meeting the minimal requirements, the abutters would like to request more set back from their properties and more buffer what they are providing is not sufficient. They also feel the height of the buildings should be lower given the grade of the property compared to the adjacent streets. Concerned with the environmental impact of the current proposal. Asking the Board not to vote tonight to allow for a proper response. Offered to sit down with abutters and Attorney Mann to see if they can reach a compromise. Planning Board (PB) asked how he was aware of the addresses that had not been notified he explained that he had heard it from his clients that while speaking with their neighbors, they heard a few of them had not received any notification. Peter Goodwin 20 Essex Street said that those addresses would fall in the 300 radius that defines an abutter. PB responded that they do not create the abutters list, it is provided to them by the Assessor s Office and they could confirm and also check to see if any mail sent to abutters had been returned. Upon review, 32 and 33 Essex Street are not on the certified abutters list for the property in question. PB had a few more questions for Atty Mann ---- Q: The height of the buildings has come up a few times how much was it reduced? A: The height dropped from 35 to 33 1/2 Q: How did you drop the height of the buildings? A: Reduced the ceiling heights a bit (originally designed with 9 ceilings on the first floor) and took a little space from the attic. Q: There had been some concern regarding back taxes on the property A: All taxes have been taken care of Q: Any oversight required regarding the treatment of runoff water? A: Not beholden to Ipswich watershed oversight because they are not required to comply. This property is being created with a condo association that will be responsible. Q: Any requirement in terms of the Danvers watershed? A: Not within the watershed district

4 Page 4 of 9 Opened the hearing to the general public ---- Peter Goodwin 20 Essex Street The process of how information is shared and how it gets added to the record seems a bit unfair information is brought to the meeting which doesn t provide the other side any opportunity to review it and be prepared to discuss/oppose. Questioned the abutter notification process and why those two addresses are not considered abutters. Answer the live across Essex Street from the side where the property line touches the existing residents on Essex Street. Their property does not directly touch the property in question. Expressed concern especially with units 9-12 in regards to their height they have walkout basements which puts the elevation of the roof line to above the trees of the abutting yards. The proposed development provides no benefit to the community; it is too dense, the developer is simply trying to maximize profit. The developer claims that the community needs more moderately sized and priced homes however, these units are approx. 3,000 sf and not moderately priced. There are other condo units within Town still under construction, these are not needed. Concerned with the traffic/pedestrian flow high potential for accidents. There was some discussion about the safety of being able to take a left-hand turn from the driveway and whether a left-hand turn is allowed to cross a double yellow line in the roadway. Tony Tierno reiterated that the Planning Board did conduct a site walk visit and while standing in the driveway you can clearly see both directions down Route 114. Rick Kassiotis there is no reason you can t turn across a double yellow line, that is only for cars while traveling cannot pass but does not affect turning. Beverly Popielski asked if they had applied to the state of the curb cut since it affects a state roadway answer is that they have not yet until they have an approved plan to present. Scott Vanderwood 136 Main Street Concerned that they height of the buildings is above the natural tree line. The buildings are 33 ½ plus the height difference of the land puts them at 45 high. Also attended the Conservation Commission meeting they haven t even had a site walk yet and have lots of questions/concerns. Concerned with flooding since Essex Street is lower. In general feels there are a lot of open questions the developer made no attempt to meet with abutters the benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the negative impact. Frank Mancini 22 Essex Street Indicated that the abutters are looking for a fair process and are willing to be flexible. At the last meeting, the PB express concern about the height of the buildings and the developer came back with a reduction of 1 ½ ---- seems rather minimal. Peter Murawski 9 Forest Street Agreed that traffic probably didn t seem bad during the Planning Board s site walk visit which was conducted on a Saturday morning but its much different during commuting times. Studies on sight distance is fine but doesn t speak to the practicality of the location and the dangerousness of the intersection. Doesn t want to look at buildings wants to see the trees. Jerry Polito 140 N Main Street

5 Page 5 of 9 The Board has previously expressed concerns regarding the height of the buildings and the density of the proposed project --- asking the Board for their position after their site walk. Board deferred until after all conversation/discussion. Mark Romanowski 152 N Main Street Concerned with traffic while line of sight is great, it is virtually impossible to take a left turn out of his driveway on to Route 114. With the proposed project, there could be an additional 50 cars in that lot. Asked if sidewalks were going to be added to Route 114 answer is yes. Scott Vanderwood 136 N Main Street Concerned with the traffic patter especially during rush hour. Chis Sparages indicated that given the proximity to the traffic lights it will actually create gaps in the traffic flow to allow cars to exit the driveway. Deborah Parker 138 N Main Street Huge concern with the traffic and safety. This is already a major issue so why add more to an existing problem. Mass DOT website allows you to enter and address/intersection and see the accidents that have been reported. The current data on the website is from 2014 but for that small section of Route 114 to Essex St, there has been an average of 15 accidents per year and the number had been increasing. Environmental concerns concerned with the effect on the wetlands and what is being provided as a buffer. They are cutting down existing trees and replacing them with smaller ones that are not natural to the space. Concerned with noise around trash removal on a regular basis and snow removal in the winter. Concerned that the 19 units could have 3-4 people living in each one which will tax the Town and natural resources. Understands and okay with multi-family dwellings but feels the proposal is just too dense. Scott Vanderwood 136 N Main Street Less units would be good but what does it look like units comprising of 2 bedrooms, 2 stories high is a different feel than what is being proposed. Jenn Reutter Everyone knows how bad the traffic is on Route 114 it s not just impacting the abutters, it impacts every citizen in town. David Parker 138 N Main Street The proposed project is just too big and too dense. The developer cites need for more moderately priced housing but there s already building going on in Town. The proposed units are a good size based on that alone would probably be looking at a selling price close to $600,000 that is not very moderately priced, it s higher than the average home in Town. It is also not harmonious with the existing neighborhood. Other similar projects in town have had a bigger buffer zone. Would like to request a 30 buffer screening. Nick Bonugli Planning Board Would like to see the current numbers of the traffic study

6 Page 6 of 9 Jill Mann Attorney Reminded everyone that there is a difference between what can be determined as safe and being able to control how people actually act. The size of the proposed units is 43 x the average home in town is 60 x 36. They are being designed to be 3 bedroom units, some of them have one of the bedrooms in the basement. Most of the neighboring homes are high, the proposed units will not be much higher and will not be higher than natural treeline. Will provide ample buffering and screening along the back of the property The septic system will be under the control of the condo association and will have mandatory maintenance. Will provide the traffic study Tony Tierno Planning Board Also asked that they communicate with the abutters. Pattyann Bampos -= Meadowlark Farm While not an abutter wanted to express her own concerns regarding the traffic and safety of Route 114 Ron Trottier 26 Dixey Drive Wanted to remind the Board that not only with this project be adding additional cars/traffic to Route 114 but the new industrial park that is being constructed a little further up Route 114 will also make this area even busier. David Parker 138 N Main Street Cited the new development on Old Essex Street as an example of something they would like to see smaller in scale, maintaining the feel of the neighborhood with good buffer Peter Goodwin 20 Essex Street Also voiced to the argument that the developer is citing the need for moderately priced housing but doesn t feel this fits that bill. Deborah Parker 138 N Main Street Wasn t aware of the industrial park under construction on Route 114 asking to have even more vigilance in that case. There is an existing problem, the industrial park will be adding to it and now you re adding even more to it. Peter Goodwin 20 Essex Street What is in it for the residents and the abutters? How do we know our voice was heard? Jerry Polito 140 N Main Street Raised question again the Board s position on height and density. Board responded that they don t have enough information to make that decision. Deborah Parker 138 N Main Street Again raised the issue of abutters and notification attorney Mann will address

7 Page 7 of 9 Peter Goodwin 20 Essex Street Again raised the issue about how information is shared and submitted MOTION: Made by David McGlone to continue the Public Hearing until the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Board on April 12, 2017 at 7:00 pm. Motion seconded by Nick Bonugli. Vote 5-0 in favor, motion carried. Beverly Popielski signed off for the remainder of the meeting. New or Other Business A. Sign Plans for Modification of Definitive Subdivision: 17 Old Essex Street: Applicant JJ McCarthy, LLC No appeals had been filed during the 20-day appeal period and applicant has provided an adequate performance guarantee to ensure the completion of the subdivision. Board to sign plans. MOTION: Made by David McGlone to sign the plans for the Modification for the Definitive Subdivision for 17 Old Essex Street. Motion seconded by Nick Bonugli. Vote 4-0 in favor, motion carried. B. South Essex Registry of Deed Signature Form The South Essex Registry of Deeds asks that all Planning Board members in the region place their signatures on file at the Registry to help authenticate signature on received plans. Board members signed. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans A. 5 Norma Way Thomas Fine Homes & Custom Builders, LLC Represented by Chris Sparages, Sparages & Williams. Interested in making a small lot line change between #5 and #7 Norma Way. The area is about a 21 triangle of land. Wants to push the house back just a bit and needs to extra land to maintain the 165 lot width going through the dwelling. MOTION: Made by Rick Kassiotis to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under our Subdivision Control Law. Motion seconded by Nick Bonugli. Vote 4-0 in favor, motion carried. ZBA Recommendations B. Site Plan Reivew 211 Boston Street Bostik, Inc. Represented by Bruce Adams and Dan Welch. They are proposing a fire protection upgrade with a 300,000 gallon water tank. The current fire protection comes from the river without the dam won t

8 Page 8 of 9 have sufficient water impoundment. They get their water from Peabody. Tank will be 48 in diameter and 27 high water is closed. Will be located inside fence 30 from the street. Given the size, they will fill it over the course of 3 days. MOTION: Made by Rick Kassiotis to make a positive recommendation on the site plan. Motion seconded by Nick Bonugli. Vote 4-0 in favor, motion carried. A. Earth Removal Special Permit/Site Plan Review 11 Natsue Way Recreation Plan Town of Middleton Permit # acre proposed recreation area conforms with zoning. Anything being removed from a lot requires a special permit. MOTION: Made by Rick Kassiotis to make a positive recommendation on the Earth Removal special permit and site plan review. Motion seconded by Nick Bonugli. Vote 4-0 in favor, motion carried. Town Planner Update There is an open seat on the Board. April meeting there will be a couple of public hearings: Retail marijuana asking for a moratorium before anything can be granted Duplex on Lewis Drive Adjournment MOTION: Made by Rick Kassiotis to adjourn. Motion seconded by Nick Bonugli. Vote 4-0 in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:10 pm. Respectfully submitted by Amy Becker, recording secretary Minutes approved at the April 12, 2017 meeting of the Planning Board.