Town of North Reading, MA - Community Planning Commission Minutes 03/15/2005

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Mr. Christopher Hayden, Chairman, called the Tuesday, March 15, 2005 meeting of the Community Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. in Room 10 of the North Reading Town Hall, 235 North Street, North Reading, MA.

PRESENT: Christopher Hayden, Chairperson

Neal Rooney, Vice Chairperson

Patricia Romeo, Clerk (8:14PM)

PRESENT: Robert J. Rodgers, Planning Administrator

CPC March 15, 2005 Page 2

Mrs. Romeo moved, seconded by Mr. Pearce and voted 4-0: (Mr. Spear absent)

that the Community Planning Commission vote to accept the minutes of March 1, 2005.

Land Utilization Committee

Ken Tarr stated that the Land Utilization Committee requested that the warrant article be put in place at Town Meeting to purchase the property on Adam Street, so that they can continue to look at the pros and cons, and in good conscience, make a recommendation to the town’s people. The Board of Selectmen voted 2-2 not to put the article on for Town Meeting. A citizen’s petition was put forth privately, therefore the Land Utilization Committee voted to support the continuing investigation into the property.

Mr. Pearce asked if this parcel was controlling another piece of land?

Ken Tarr stated no. This is just mainly looking at the future development, because it is a sensitive area.

Trish Colella stated that these two pieces of property totaling 10.77 acres are an environmentally sensitive area. The USGS aerials show this area as being the only place left that is not developed. Out of the 61As’ left in town, two of them abut this piece of property, one at 25 acres and one at 7 acres, also owned by Rodham, but not included in this sale.

Mr. Pearce asked if there was frontage along Swan Pond Road or Adam Street?

The answer given was that the frontage is on Adam Street.

Mr. Hayden stated to have access, they would have to have the road width and the approval of the property owner for widening easements.

Rita Mullen asked if the town purchased the property, could it stop the development on the 25 acres parcel?

Mr. Hayden stated that the road would still have to be brought to the standards of being safe and adequate access.

Mr. Pearce stated that if a developer came in and wanted to put houses on the property, they would probably spend the money to improve the road.

Mr. Rodgers stated that the question of crossing an abutter’s property would still be an issue.

Mr. Pearce stated that some deeds might show prescriptive rights, which means that the abutters may have been traveling over these properties for the past fifty years. Land Court would probably not allow this to be eliminated.

Mr. Hayden stated that they would still have to get easements to cross the property to make the road safe and adequate.

CPC March 15, 2005 Page 3

Trish Colella asked if this would be prescriptive right only to current conditions?

Mr. Pearce stated that Land Court would decide this on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Rodgers stated that the question is whether or not you have a right of access or a right of access and a building permit. They are separate issues. This is a decision the court would have to make.

5 & 7 Mentus Farm Lane – ANR

Rich Williams of Hayes Engineering stated that the proposal is to revise the lot line between lots 3 and 4.

Mr. Pearce moved seconded by Mr. Rooney and voted 3-0:

that the Community Planning Commission vote to endorse as “Approval-Not-Required” the plan entitled “Plan of Land in No. Reading, Mass.; dated January 19, 2005; drawn by Hayes Engineering, Inc. and depicting the modifications of lot 3 and lot 4 property lines.

Mrs. Romeo arrived at 8:14PM.

1 Winthrop Road, 21 Wilson Avenue, 184 & 186 Main Street – SPR

Public Hearing 8:15PM

Mr. Pearce read the Public Hearing notice into the record.

Attorney James Senior stated that this property consists of 22,500 sq. ft. of land. The proposal is for a retail building, which contains office space, which would have 5400 sq. ft. of space. The front of the property used to be the old trolley R.O.W. and has no legal frontage on Main Street. The frontage is on Winthrop Road. The property does have access to Main Street and there is a copy of the deed, the owner reserved the right to pass and re-pass over the strip and also reserved the right to lay utilities within the strip of land. The major complication caused by this, is that this building is set back from Main Street exactly 25’, which would be the front yard requirement in this district. Because of the 10’ strip of land that is used only for landscaping it ends up being 15’ from a side property line. Technically it violates the zoning and a filing has been made to the Board of Appeals. They have gone through the Conservation Commission and were issued an Order of Conditions. They comply with all stormwater management criteria. No changes are being made within the 100’ buffer and drainage calculations were submitted and reviewed and approved.

Mr. Pearce asked why they do not take the strips?

Attorney James Senior stated that one belongs to the Town of North Reading, one belongs to an owner unknown and one is owned by the abutter, who does not want to sell.

Attorney James Senior addressed some of the memos:

CPC March 15, 2005 Page 4

Mr. Rodgers was concerned with access. A copy of the deed was submitted.

Water Department was concerned with getting an easement from the town to lay utilities. A deed will be submitted.

Jack McQuilken of JM Associates stated that this is a parcel of land with 22,500 sq. ft. The zoning district is Highway Business (HB). Existing currently are three small wood framed buildings in the front and wooded in the rear. The topography is relatively flat, the highest point is on the southwest side, which is about elevation 85 and low point is in the wetlands elevation 81. The soil is mostly medium to loam and sand and the water table varies from 2 to 5 feet. A two-story building is being proposed. A paved parking area consisting of 15 parking spaces is being proposed. The east side is impervious pavement and the west side is pervious pavement, in order to comply with the Conservation Commission’s regulations. A 6’ wooden fence is being proposed where the property abuts a residential dwelling. An 800 sq. ft. pressure dosed septic system will be installed in the northeast corner under the parking area. A trench drain will collect the drainage on Main Street and a catch basin in the northwest corner of the parking lot will be discharged to a vortex treatment unit to remove 80% of the suspended solids. This will then discharge to a small detention pond that will release the water slowly back into the wetlands. Drainage calculations have been submitted to the Town Engineer showing that the existing run-off is less than or equal to the proposed run-off.

Attorney James Senior stated that the proposal is to have 15 parking spaces. The number of square feet in the building, if one were to consider this all retail would require 18 parking spaces. In fact, the particular user, who will buy the property, is to sell garage doors and loading docks. The proposal for the building is that the downstairs area will be used primarily as a shell room and storage area and the upstairs will be used for the office portion of the sales operation. The number of employees to be on site will be approximately 5 employees at one time. In terms of customers on site there would probably be one at a time, if any at all. If one takes the full square footage of the building and uses the one space per 300 sq. ft., 18 spaces would need to be provided. If one were to look at the upstairs as being an office type of use and requiring one per the 300 sq. ft. and the downstairs being a storage area, then the calculation would be 14 parking spaces being required. The Board of Appeals may grant a special permit in the event that the particular use of the property is appropriate for the granting of the special permit and the Board of Appeals can reduce the parking requirement to 80%.

Mr. Hayden stated that the parking spaces are all undersized.

Attorney James Senior stated that the conclusion he has come to in talking to engineers is that the 10x20 parking spaces really design to accommodate a lot of unloading and loading. A standard vehicle or even an SUV. A 9’ wide parking space would be perfectly adequate.

Mrs. Romeo stated that there are no architectural elevations and she feels that this is some type of industrial operation. The current front elevation is located on Winthrop Avenue.

Vincent Visconte stated that the way this is identified, actually is assuming that the front elevation goes along Main Street.

Mr. Hayden asked why the split face stone?

CPC March 15, 2005 Page 5

Vincent Visconte stated that it is the most easily maintained, low maintenance and a beautiful look.

Mr. Hayden stated that he does not particularly like split face. He does like the roof design. He suggested that clapboard and detail on the side would look great.

Mrs. Romeo asked if any mechanicals would be on the roof?

Vincent Visconte stated no. The mechanicals will be on the inside, in the attic.

Mrs. Romeo read the Planning Administrator’s (3/11/05), Conservation Commission’s (2/15/05) and Water Department’s (2/15/05) memos into the record.

Mr. Hayden stated that there is a 4’ wide concrete walk across the front of the building. He stated that there is no emergency access door.

Vincent Visconte stated that it is to access the front and side of the building.

Mr. Hayden stated that he would prefer to see landscaping instead of the concrete walk.

Mr. Hayden stated that a sidewalk on Main Street would be preferable.

Mr. Rooney stated that the Community Planning Commission approved the split face on the carwash renovations located on Main Street. It is a good dress block and easy to maintain.

The Community Planning Commission would like to see the following changes to the plan:

1. Add three parking spaces.

2. Add sidewalk and landscaping in the front.

3. New façade drawing.

Mary Lawlor of 15 Wilson Avenue asked the size of the trucks?

Chris Frommalt stated all sizes.

Mr. Hayden asked about the hours of operation and the delivery hours?

Chris Frommalt stated 7:00am to 5:00PM. Deliveries will be made at 7:00AM.

Public hearing continued to March 29, 2005 @ 9:00PM.

CPC March 15, 2005 Page 6

Great Lott Estates – Definitive Subdivision modification – P.H. 8:30PM

Mrs. Romeo read the Public Hearing notice into the record.

Attorney James Senior stated that this is a modification to a subdivision plan for roadway realignment. The purpose of this modification is to allow the abutter at 99 Marblehead Street (Laine Raia) better use of her land (horses), to give a greater buffer from the roadway and also for the Conservation Commission’s issue of a vernal pool being located near the roadway. Everything else remains with one exception; the Rules & Regulations state that all of the lots have to conform to the Zoning Bylaw with the respect to two dimensions. Lot 2 was changed, to accommodate the technical reading of the judge’s decision in the earlier plan. This plan does not accommodate the technical reading, in that lot 2 for its entire frontage dimension is not 40’ deep. A request is made to the Community Planning Commission to approve this subdivision plan, if you believe that the reading of the judge of the North Reading bylaw requires a waiver from the Rules & Regulations with respect to the lot width. They will then deal with the Building Inspector and the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine if lot 2 is buildable.

Mr. Hayden asked the depth of the narrowest spot on the lot 2?

Rich Williams of Hayes Engineering stated 13.5’.

Mr. Rooney stated that he is in favor of the change.

Mr. Pearce stated that he approves the change

Mrs. Romeo stated that she is in also in favor of the change.

Mr. Hayden stated that this change makes it better for the neighborhood and environment.

Laine Raia of 99 Marblehead Street stated that she likes the change.

Maureen Doherty of the Transcript asked how far the road was going to be moved?

Rich Williams stated the road will be moved approximately 30’.

Public Hearing closed at 9:22PM.

Mrs. Romeo moved, seconded by Mr. Pearce and voted 4-0: (Mr. Spear absent)

that the Community Planning Commission vote to GRANT the proposed amendment to the Conditional Approval of the Definitive Subdivision Plan for Great Lott Estates as presented this evening. Subject to the Zoning Board of Appeals approval that Lot 2 is buildable.

CPC March 15, 2005 Page 7

28 North Street – Definitive Subdivision – cont. P.H. 9:25

Attorney James Senior stated that the following changes have been made to the plan:

- Mrs. Romeo had stated at the last meeting that there is a gas main on North Street.

A representative from Keyspan stated that there is no gas main on North Street.

Mrs. Romeo stated that she had just left 74 North Street, which is heated by gas.

Mr. Hayden asked that this be re-checked by Keyspan.

Attorney James Senior continued with the following changes:

- Sight distance – not just the minimum, but desirable sight distance in both directions.

- Drainage Report – The engineers have redone the calculations in a more conservative manner than previously. The Town Engineer has stated in his memo that he accepts these calculations.

- School buses – The new plan will provide for a widened area for a sidewalk.

- Cul-de-sac – not oversized and the grass island has been removed.

- Subsurface drainage detention area – changed to a standard detention pond.

- Minimize the cutting of trees – plan has been changed to minimize the cutting of trees as much as possible, given the topography of the land.

- Lot 1 has been made less strangely shaped and the house has been moved slightly east.

- Lot 2 has been increased in size.

Luke Roy of O’Neill Associates described in detail some of the changes being made to the plan.

- Lot 1 was reconfigured so that the 50’ strip has been eliminated at the rear of the property.

- Lot 2 line was angled slightly to accommodate the detention area on the corner of the lot.

- Revisions were made to the grading plan. Low field stone walls were proposed in some areas to maximize the existing trees. Approximately 40% of the site is maintained as undisturbed.

- Lot 2 detention area has been increased in size.

- The detention area on North Street has been converted to conventional open detention pond.

- Currently the site contributes to 4 major watershed areas:

o The first one drains to a wetland area and into Eisenhaure Pond.

o The second drains to a culvert at Stonecleave Road and into a wetland area, which continues parallel to North Street.

o The third drains to the gutter line at North Street and continues to a catch basin at Stonecleave Road.

o And the fourth drains to North Street and into a catch basin in the front of 36 North Street.

CPC March 15, 2005 Page 8

Drainage issues for Stonecleave Road and North Street are isolated areas from the wetland system. There is a pipe that goes under North Street and empties into the wetlands. A survey was done in the Fall, it was noted that the structures and pipe are badly clogged and silted. This could possibly be the reason for some of the flooding issues.

Luke Roy stated that he put together a plan to show the overall cut and fill on the site.

The road profile plan shows the following:

- A new water service will be needed for each home.

- The bus stop area is shown.

- Street trees are shown.

- Center island has been eliminated.

- Site distances are over 400’ (exceeds the 50mph requirement)

Mrs. Romeo read the Town Engineer’s (3/15/05), Conservations Commission’s (3/15/05), Water Department’s (3/11/05) and School Department’s (3/11/05) memos into the record.

Mr. Hayden asked if sidewalks would be placed on North Street?

Attorney James Senior stated that there is no sidewalk proposed for North Street.

Mrs. Romeo stated that she is not happy with the cut & fill. She is not convinced about the stormwater management system. Also, there have been many accidents on North Street and she feels that in the bad weather the site distance does not make a difference. The name for the street is inappropriate for this area.

Rick Wichmann of 31 North Street stated that the following concerns have not been addressed in regard to his property.

1. The headlights hitting his house.

2. The subsurface water on his side is high and he does not want the development to create a problem.

3. Traffic on the road is a problem and his stonewall has been hit a few times.

Mrs. Romeo stated that there is something wrong with the roadway design at that location that goes beyond speed or sight distances.

The Town Engineer should be asked to review North Street design at this corner.

Mr. Hayden stated that a buffer screen should be included in the plan to divert the headlights.

David Martin of 1 Stonecleave Road stated that he would also like to have a buffer between his house and lot 1. He would also like to know if the sidewalks could connect the two subdivisions.

Luke Roy stated that they would check to see if the sidewalks could be connected.

Gloria Surette of 20 North Street is concerned with the runoff.

CPC March 15, 2005 Page 9

Mr. Hayden stated that the culvert is clogged and needs to be cleaned out. The Community Planning Commission would like to request that an outside engineer review this property.

Cindy Pacino of 29 North Street stated that she is concerned with the drainage during construction.

Public Hearing continued to March 29, 2005 @9:30PM.

ADJOURNMENT AT 10:40P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________

Patricia Romeo, Clerk