Public
Hearing & Regular Meeting
Wednesday,
February 14, 2007
Members
Present: Larry Cuddire, Chairman (LC),
Robert Straubel, Vice Chairman (RS), Don Egan (DE), and
Also
Present: Lisa Pearson, Director of Planning (LP), and Jerry Klima, Selectmen (JK)
Meeting Opened at 6:30 P.M.
1.
Public Hearing – 6:30 p.m. – Community Development Strategy,
Priority Action List and Master Plan Discussion (Copies of
the 2007 CD Strategy given to each board member).
DE comments document very well
done, but wants a seasonal population number added to the document. After
discussion by the board, they agreed there is no specific seasonal number. LP will attempt to obtain an average
visitor per day number.
LC comments on transportation, can
we investigate getting a bus from MVTRA to deliver people to
LP we need bus stops, along Beach
road,
LP suggests MVTRA medium priority
for transportation issue. LC
Salisbury pays an assessment to the MBTA, as a result, we should have some
leverage to request service.
JK suggests putting this issue
“Transportation” on the Selectmen’s agenda!
DE would like to see a beach access
study plan added to the list, as a low priority and long-term.
DE Beach Management Plan should be
looked at and revitalized and added to the priority list as a low priority and
long term.
RS motions that the
Planning Board endorse the 2007 Community Development Strategy and Priority
Action List and include the changes suggested by the board.
DE Seconds Vote on motion 4 - 0
unanimous (LC, RS, LL & DE)
LP informed the board that we have
received many letters of interest to be on the Master Plan Advisory Committee. LP has spoken with LC and RS they
agree we should try to utilize as many people as possible. The thought is to create an Executive Committee. And
appoint the rest of the people to the sub-committee therefore you would utilize
as many people and keep the forum open allowing people to feel value and
included in the Master Plan.
RS if we appoint the executive
comm., will the other people feel left out to some degree. RS agrees that max of seven people for
voting input. LP stated that two
selectmen have expressed interest in participating on the Advisory Committee;
Ed Hunt, and Jerry Klima, along with Bob Straubel Planning Board Member as
Chairman.
LC comments that we do not want to
discourage all the people who have expressed interest. A lot of enthusiasm and interest has been
expressed by 20 + town residents. RS
to work with Lisa P. and Jerry K. before the meeting.
LP postpone appointing the Exec.
Committee until the next meeting and to send out a letter now stating
that we have received their letters and thank them for their interest. LP to schedule first Master Plan
Advisory Committee meeting for sometime in March. Schedule the meeting for Monday evening
opposite the Selectmen from 6 – 8 p.m.
Everyone on the Planning Board will be honorary members of the
Committee.
LC would like to create a Master Plan
Calendar. RS wants to work with LP
and conceptualize direction as to move forward.
LC point of order, did we receive a
letter requesting continuance for
1.
Correspondence:
a. LC questions if anyone
reviewed Planning Board Minutes for January 31, 2007 any changes?…RS to
submit changes for (1-31-07) minutes on Thursday, February 15. 2007.
Open Space discussion, LP stated that we need to finish this plan include comments and
hold a public hearing and ask members to take a look and include their
comments, questions and concerns. Board
to check on-line and review Open Space Plan. Larry needs a hard copy.
Revolving Fund – LP stated the Planning Board has $65K. in the
revolving fund. Half is from BUZZ and half from the Master Plan. You need to vote specific funds for the
Master Plan. Letter is presented for
Chairman, Larry Cuddire to review and sign.
Letter is addressed to Ms. Tina Brooks, Under Secretary, Department of
Housing & Community Development,
RS motions we send letter
as written to Tina Brooks, Under Secretary for Department of Housing &
Community Development, so we can get started to hire a consultant for the
Master Plan.
LL Seconds Vote
on motion 4 – 0 unanimous
2.
Public Hearing 7:30 P.M.
Jim Babbin
discusses/shows location of rail trail.
Applicant has been working with Jerry Klima on rail trail location. This trail will go into existing path and
come down into parking spaces, getting away from trucks coming and going. At some point hope to extend into Amesbury’s rail
trail.
Easement
potential negotiation from MA Electric. JK.
best thing is jog. JB knows they will need and agreement with MA
Electric. JK wants copies of
legal rights in order to figure out what to do with MA Electric. Both land owner and MA Electric recreational trail statue provides trail
access.
LL questions fencing, vegetated
screening on Vaughn side. JB
states they will install a green hedge.
LP Construction of trail, easement
along property lines? JB Sewer
Easement connects public/private road.
The intention is to allow crossing in that area.
LP Construction of trail who is
going to construct trail? JB to
talk to JV about that issue.
Jim Babbin
would like to get a handle on waivers that have been requested. Affect whole design of project. Thought process, some discussion, if need
adjustment. Low impact development,
consensus with board that we would try to do an environment friendly design. Applicants effort to develop a low impact
development, is by trying to stay as close to the natural contour of the
land. Design a system of swales of
either side of the road with country drainage instead of catch basins. Extensive area of wetlands with no alterations. Road has some kinks, in road wetlands, which
will require some waivers.
Waivers: (1) From
58 ft. vs. 50 ft. = ROW
(2) From 44 ft. vs. 32 ft. = Width of pavement
(3) Elimination of sidewalks
Swales (3 : 1 slope) 14
ft wide, easier to clean and maintain.
RS questions Ownership of
Infrastructure Jim states it will be Assoc. of Business Owners.
RS states if lots are sold
separately – flat sight – high h2o table, wetland protection.
Waivers: (4)
(5) Horizontal Alignment – LL Zoning ? C4 District
Joe S. to
review for Concom has some issues which are being worked – Jim has Joe’s comments
and is working with Don Levesque on sewer, water and flow test.
RS questions projections for total
sq ft of lots, 40 – 50K sq ft. A few
have shown interest in 100K sq ft. lots.
DE going forward, he would like to
see
LC if it’s going to become a
public road, he’s not in favor of the waivers. We can’t have a project of this
size without sidewalks. If it’s going to be private, that’s another issue. The cul-de-sac and horizontal radius doesn’t
bother me as much as lack of sidewalks. RS
comment’s sidewalks are needed, but he likes the low impact plan as well. Jim states each individual lot owner is
responsible for maintaining their swales, such as a landscaper hired by
Business Assoc.
One parcel is landlocked,
Jim would like to go back and discuss
this issue with Mr. Vaughn, he stated that sidewalks can be considered and
incorporated into the plan.
RS appreciates the rail trail and feels that the board
can work with the applicant on this project.
DE motions to continue public hearing until next meeting on
February 28, 2007.
RS Seconds Vote on motion
4 - 0 unanimous
David Chilensky
to discuss architectural particular’s, in order to stay within the zoning
guidelines for a roof height of 35 feet.
Essentially, a modified flat roof which maintains a 35 ft. height,
buildings will maintained same sq ft., with the same number of units.
Applicant
presented their revised plans also, presented a
LC Is the roof flat up their with
a “mansard shape” on the outside? Yes
LC comments on first presentation,
referred to as plan A, we had a meeting to discuss, as a result, the end caps
were dropped to 35 feet, and they moved pool area = Plan B. Tonight’s revised presentation will be called
Plan C.
RS comments he would have liked to
see roof at 35 feet, and thought your argument was persuasive that you needed
the extra footage (10 ft) for the roof height, also thought it was worth going
for the variance. Applicant said they
felt you would get a better unit with the higher ceilings, but wanted to stay
within the town zoning guide lines.
LP suggest that applicant contact
the DRC design review committee, get some architectural advice, they
have good combined knowledge of the other beach projects.
LL liked end units in Plan B. Is it possible to incorporate them into Plan
C?
DE How about incorporate them on
just the units facing
Applicant
would like to get closure and move this project along.
RS likes the idea of using the DRC
– three independent Architects whose opinion is respected by the Planning
Board.
LC likes the project a lot – Plan
A was massive, however, Plan C does a lot for zoning, but he’s in favor of Plan
B.
DE feels as you approach this site,
with the eight feet of fill allowed for the underground parking and the 35 foot
height of the structures will be a massive height impact.
David suggest
greatest impact is the eave. The
different between the 2 schemes is 5 feet.
Buildings will have elevators.
May be able to get an elevator that doesn’t have a dog house. Three feet between the floor and the
ceilings. If you reduce it to 11
foot and modified the roof structure. You could tweak it down so the total height
of the structure is 43 feet instead of
45 feet.
LC how soon could this project go
before the DRC? Next meeting is schedule
for March 5th, 2007.
Applicant is
looking for some sort of straw vote. The
feel they have an attractive building in either Plan B or Plan C.
Straw Vote:
LC likes Plan B – which would
require a Zoning variance for applicant
RS prefers Plan B, but Plan C is
not bad
LL likes Plan B - likes the way it
looks
DE Plan B looks better than C,
however, he cannot support 42 or 45 ft variance.
Jerry Klima
comments on the zoning that applies in this district was originally created to
fit the Beach Commercial District. It is
the feeling of a lot of people today, that the zoning should reduce
density. He feels that the board should
show some flexibility for such a good project.
Applicant
will plan on attending the next ZBA meeting, on February 27, 2007
RS Motion to continue
LL Seconds Vote on motion 4 – 0 unanimous
RS wants to see a floor plan as to
how you arrived at this being 5 units.
Good idea to
have a floor plan, building needs a lot more parking, and is too big for the
site.
Sal is
willing to work with the board and wants to know what would the board like to
see? This drawing of the building is 96
x 80. Having the bottom floor recessed
by 20 feet. What if they made the
building 96 X 50 feet, would that be acceptable to the board.
LP comments on the map of the
building, one side is
LL questions would you now end up
with 3 floors of 4800 sq ft. Could you
move the building forward and have the parking in the rear.
Jeff K of
Apple, comments that the issue is Concom would not allow building to encroach
on wetlands.
RS A structure of 96 x 50 would
require 48 parking spaces. He continues
to feel that the building is too big for the site.
RS motions to deny
waiver for floor plan for
Vote on motion 4 – 0 unanimous
Lisa list - narrow down the building 96 x 50 sq ft. “nice
facade”
-
1 parking spot per 300 sq feet
-
Fit site approximately 48 spaces
-
Mitigate parking in front
-
Eco paving system
Joe Serwatka
needs his comments on drainage addressed for this site. Also, LC recommends that Sal Ferrandi will be first on next
meetings agenda.
LL motions to continue
SPR for 154,
RS Seconds Vote on motion 4 – 0
unanimous
LL motions to continue
Form B for
RS Seconds Vote on motion 4 – 0
unanimous
LL motions to continue
Form B for
RS Seconds Vote on motion 4 – 0
unanimous
3.
Reports of Committees: N/A
4.
Adjournment: DE Motions to adjourn RS
Second Vote on motion 4 – 0
unanimous
Minutes Approved By:_____________________________ Date:___________