CITY OF GLOUCESTER

              PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

                         MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2006 at 7:00 PM

                                  Kyrouz Auditorium, City Hall

 

 

 

MEMBERS PRESENT              MEMBERS ABSENT             STAFF PRESENT

Paul Lundberg, Chair                                                                   Gregg Cademartori, Planning Dir.

Jeneth Fahey, Vice Chair                                                              Ellen Preston, Assistant Planner

Mary R. Black                                                                                Lisa English, Recording Clerk

Marvin Kushner

Henry McCarl

Michael Rubin

 

I.          BUSINESS

            A.  Call to order with Quorum of Planning Board. 

            B.   Introduction of Planning Board Members and Staff.

           

II.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES

            A.  Meeting of August 14, 2006

                  Motion:  Mr. McCarl moved to approve the minutes of August 14, 2006 as presented.

                  Second:  Mr. Rubin

                  Vote:      6-0; Motion carried.

 

III.       PUBLIC COMMENT

Stevan Goldin, 14 Hodgkins Street, stated that Mr. Lundberg spoke in other meetings regarding limited discretion.  Mr. Goldin’s opinion is that Mr. Cademartori has started some important initiatives.  He stated that the Excavation and Fill Ordinance is something that the Planning Board should have control over.  Mr. Goldin questioned why subdivisions are excluded from it.  On the subject of sewers, he stated that the Planning Board should revoke the ordinance stating that any subdivision within 1500 feet needs to hook up.  Mr. Goldin stated that he is concerned that the Planning Board will lose discretionary power.

 

IV.       CONSENT AGENDA                                  

            A.  New Form A Applications:  There were none.

                                                                                                                       

B.  Chapter 91 Recommendations:  There were none.

           

V.        CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

            A.  An application from Carrigan Enterprises, Inc., for a Cluster Development Special

                 Permit at 7 & 11 Hutchins Court and 14 Tufts Lane for 30 units (Assessors Map 125,

                 Lots 71 & 22; and Map 115, Lot 30). Definitive Cluster Plan prepared by Hayes

                Engineering; dated June 26, 2006.

Michele Harrison, Attorney, 63 Middle Street, stated that she would address issues that were raised from the last meeting.  She stated that her main focus would be a review of the draft of the condominium association’s documents and the proposed improvements to Hutchins Court. 

 

 

 

Ms. Harrison also stated that the third party review is going forward and that VHB has been chosen as the reviewer.

Ms. Harrison then reviewed the draft of the Condominium documents.  Under Stormwater Management there will be four detention ponds which will have quarterly reviews and an annual inspection.  Ms. Harrison stated that the Board of Health expressed interest in nitrogen loading and how the development will handle canine waste.  Ms. Harrison stated that a “doggie port” would be provided in each cluster.  It will act as its own waste management system and will be picked up as part of the private trash collection.  Also part of the documents will be the declaration that the use of chemical pesticides, herbicides, de-icers, and fertilizers will be forbidden. 

Ms. Harrison stated that when one of the units is sold it will be subject to Chapter 183A which is the Condominium Statute.  The master deed and the Declaration of Trust will have maintenance covenants and that will obligate the unit owners and the Association.  Ms. Harrison stated that the Board of Health requested that there be a limit on the addition to impervious surfaces.  Ms. Harrison stated that in response to the issue of mosquito control, if any of the detention ponds hold water for more than 72 hours then the BTI mosquito dunks will be used.  She also noted that no treatment would take place in the vernal pools or any of the isolated vegetative wetlands on site.

The Condominium Association will be responsible for snow removal.  Ms. Harrison stated that the other part of the Condominium Documents discusses the ownership and maintenance of the sewer connection.  She stated that the developer is in receipt of a sewer connection permit issued by the Engineering Department.  The Condominium Association will be responsible for the ownership, maintenance, and the installation.  Ms. Harrison stated that an engineering firm would be retained by the Association to perform regular inspections and maintenance.  Ms. Harrison stated that her client believes that the issue of sewer is over and does not need to be mentioned again.  Other miscellaneous responsibilities of the Association will be trash collection along with recycling, electricity obligations in the common areas, landscaping, and signage.

 

Mr. Kushner stated that he felt the list of responsibilities was extensive.  The condominium provisions are only a contractual relationship between unit owners and do not give any authority or enforceability to the City.  Is there a list of costs that you could provide that will show what type of costs that may occur?

Ms. Harrison stated that the Declaration of Trust can have a paragraph that states it cannot be changed.  Ms. Harrison stated that based on this she is comfortable with enforceability.  She also stated that it is hard to say what the budget should be as it is unclear when the development will be finished.  She has looked at other developments and their condominium fees are roughly $360 - $380.  She estimates that this development will be less than that.

            Mr. Kushner questioned the costs that the other developments faced.

Ms. Harrison stated that they are different in the sense that they are connected to the municipal sewer but also share some similar costs.

            Mr. Kushner asked if the developer would provide a financial guarantee.

            Ms. Harrison stated that they would consider it.

Mr. Lundberg asked what the timeline is for the Engineering report that would provide results of flow and pressure testing.

Ms. Harrison stated that the Engineering Department has recommended three firms and one has been retained and they are awaiting a signed contract so that the work can begin.

            Mr. Lundberg asked if each unit in the development will have its own STEP holding tank.

            Ms. Harrison stated that there would be one large tank for the development.

 

 

 

Mr. Lundberg asked if that was an appropriate design for the STEP system because normally each unit would have its own tank.

            Ms. Harrison feels that this is better design.

Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering, stated that the reason they feel that this is a better design is the opportunity to collect and handle all in one septic tank.  Mr. Ogren stated   that if there are capacity issues this will help as it affords the opportunity to pump at off-peak hours.  Mr. Ogren stated that they will hire a company like Weston and Sampson to handle the contract.

            Mr. Lundberg asked if there was a proposed location for the single tank.

Mr. Ogren stated that the location is near the bus turn around.  Mr. Ogren showed on the map the site of the two pressure systems, one at the third cluster and one at Hutchins Court, both pumping to one location.

            Mr. Lundberg asked if the review by the City would comment on this system.

Mr. Ogren stated that an engineer had been selected and that person would report on the pressure monitoring and the flow monitoring as well as the overall design.

Mr. Lundberg asked if there is any design issues for the one tank that are different from other STEP systems.

Mr. Ogren stated that the concrete tank that would be stronger and much less likely to develop leaks.  The development will have an engineer visiting on a regular basis. 

Ms. Fahey asked if point #5 in the conditions could be reviewed; mainly septic disposal and the haulage.

Mr. Ogren stated that there has been some difficulty with getting the septic haulers to comply with what the plant has wanted.  This development will have an agreement with the plant and comply with that. 

            Ms. Fahey asked when this would be necessary.

Mr. Ogren stated that when the solids deem it.  The general recommendation is to pump at least annually.  After a review period, the timeline may change.

            Ms. Fahey asked if there is a way to calculate when pumping would be needed.

Mr. Ogren stated that it is really based on population.  Annually pumping has always been the norm.  Depending upon the population, it is possible to pump every other year.

Ms. Black asked to revisit the cost issue.  If the system is running effectively is there a projected yearly cost of the management fees?

            Mr. Ogren stated they did not have that figure.

Ms. Harrison stated that it was possible to get that figure by sitting down with the consultant to the sewer and developing a contract.

Mr. Cademartori stated that that issue was scoped for the independent review.  An analysis and evaluation of what the Association’s fees and responsibilities will be provided to the Planning Board.

Mr. Lundberg stated that even though the Applicant’s Attorney has stated that the sewer issue is closed; the Planning Board would still like to know about the Engineering report throughout these proceedings.

Mr. Ogren stated that on the site visit there was an opportunity to view more specifically the improvements to Hutchins Court.  It was requested that the Applicant provide the Planning Board with a plan that was at a larger scale.  It is the desire of the Applicant to widen Hutchins Court to a 20 foot width.  This will provide for an adequate pavement width so that two cars can pass at once.  By putting a segregation island at the entrance of Hutchins Court, when vehicles are exiting they will stay to the left of the island and thus have a better sight distance.  The plan also suggests how the driveways should be redone to accommodate these changes.  The Applicant is proposing the extension of the culverts and a review of these to check for adequacy. 

 

 

 

The Applicant is also proposing a construction of a head wall which will retain the roadway and also would retain a vehicle from going off the road.  The Applicant also looked at the possibility of changing some of the existing grade in some locations.  The adjoining owners will provide an easement so that a paved lane can be built and connected to the existing Hutchins Court. 

Mr. Ogren also stated that they are in the process of working out a stormwater management system for Hutchins Court. 

Mr. Lundberg asked in terms of the construction of the new paved lane, is it on the Applicants’ property. 

Mr. Ogren stated that it is on David Tuft’s property and his uncle’s.  Both property owners will provide easements

Mr. Lundberg stated that at the site visit we walked a long way after the pavement stopped.  He asked Mr. Ogren to clarify where the right of way is.

            Mr. Ogren pointed to the location on the map.

            Mr. Lundberg asked where the new road would be; does it fork down to the right.

            Mr. Ogren stated that it did.

            Ms. Fahey asked if the sewer follows the old road and will it be maintained that way.

            Mr. Ogren stated that was correct.

            Ms. Fahey asked if the road would remain an easement.

Ms. Harrison believed it would remain an easement.  She stated that because of the extensive third party review, the Applicant will have more comments later.

 

            Opposition

Mr. James Groves, 50 Revere Street, Gloucester, Vice President of Annisquam Bayview Woodlands Association, stated that he would like to introduce the next two speakers.

 

Diane Tillotson, 60 State Street, Boston, Attorney representing the Annisquam Bayview Woodlands Association, stated that a traditional subdivision plan was not submitted.  She is questioning whether a traditional subdivision could be built on the site.  Ms. Tillotson questioned why the sewer permit that has been provided was a sewer connection permit and not a sewer extension permit.  She suggested that the Planning Board weigh whether or not the plan is in the best interest of the neighbors as well as the owners.  She would like the opportunity to make comments based on the results of the third party review.  Ms. Tillotson commented on the condominium documents stating that she would like a separate covenant; it provides stronger language given all the conditions that exist.

Ms. Tillotson also noted that the documents seem very technical in nature.  She asked who will monitor compliance with these items.  In her opinion, these are not easy for a trustee to ensure.  It would seem necessary to hire an engineer to handle these responsibilities.  Ms. Tillotson stated that in her opinion $300-$350 per month seems low for an estimate for the types of maintenance that are required.  For example, she wondered who will convey to the snow plow driver the types of de-icers that can be used.  Ms. Tillotson would like the developer to take additional engineering steps.  She also stated that the stormwater plan looks to be cursory.

 

Fred Geisel, 15 Steep Hill Drive, Gloucester, Professional Civil Engineer, stated that he has been hired by the Annisquam Bayview Woodlands Association to review the project for public health and safety, topography, flooding, stormwater management in compliance with the City’s rules and regulations.  Mr. Geisel has over 33 years of experience.  Although he has not conducted a comprehensive review, he did have a site visit on August 10, 2006.  Mr. Geisel stated that the Zoning Ordinance has a Cluster Development option as a rational alternative to a conventional development.  In Mr. Geisel’s opinion, it is inconceivable that 30 lots can be

 

 

developed.  Mr. Geisel stated that proof plan needs to be required from the developer.  Mr. Geisel questioned all the waivers that have been requested.  One waiver in particular would allow the maximum roadway slope to be relaxed.  Mr. Geisel feels that this would jeopardize public health

and safety.  Mr. Geisel stated that from the site visit Hutchins Court does not appear to be 20 feet wide in all spots.  He also stated that one of detention ponds still needs a lot of work.  Mr. Geisel would like to reiterate that the sewer issue is still an issue of importance.  The city has signed off on the application but DEP needs to approve and then issue the permit.  Mr. Geisel then provided a letter that summarized his comments.

Mr. Lundberg stated that in fairness to the Applicant, the attorney for the Annisquam Bayview Woodlands Association should provide something in writing to the Applicant.  Then an opportunity to rebut will be given later.

 

Stevan Goldin, 14 Hodgkins Street, stated that he doesn’t feel the comments of the neighbors and abutters are being addressed.  He stated that he wants the Planning Board to require a conventional plan.  Mr. Goldin is annoyed that the Association would have to hire these two consultants to do the job of the Planning Board.  Mr. Goldin stated that he felt that the sewer permit appears to have been written by the Applicant.  He stated that it has lots of loopholes.  It is his opinion that the Planning Board needs to go beyond the third party reviewer and hire botanists and wild life experts for this very special area. 

Mr. Lundberg reiterated that all rights are taken into account.  All persons who speak and/or write are heard.

 

Cara White, 4 Brierwood Street, reminded the Planning Board that at the last meeting Mr. Lundberg stated that “the Planning Board is here protecting your rights too.”  Ms. White feels that the Planning Board should filter out bad proposals.  She stated that this development is irrational.  She also stated that Condominium and house sales are down and therefore there is no need to increase supply.

 

Ms. Harrison stated that she wished to advise the Planning Board, Attorney Tillotson, and Fred Geisel that her client would be happy to look at their concerns.  They are waiting for the results of the third party review.  She reminded them that only 11% of the acreage is wetlands; keeping 68% as open space.

 

Mr. Lundberg stated that the Planning Board has received a memo from Mr. Cademartori stating that the Board of Health review had been continued.  Mr. Lundberg also stated that the Planning Board is awaiting comments from the Fire Chief.  In addition, the Planning Board has received correspondence from James Groves, a letter from Mr. Groves to Chief McKay, Robert Smith of 60 Bennett Street,  David Condino,  Margaret Grady, Greg Morrow, and a letter from Linda Stout Saunders.  He stated that the Public Hearing would be continued.

Mr. McCarl asked if it is really the job of the Planning Board to look out for the natural environment or is it the job of the Conservation Committee.

            Mr. Cademartori stated that there was some jurisdiction for the Planning Board as well.

            Ms. Harrison stated that the Applicant would be willing to grant an extension.

 

            Motion:  Mr. McCarl moved to extend a application from Carrigan Enterprises, Inc., for a

   Cluster Development Special Permit at 7 & 11 Hutchins Court and 14 Tufts Lane for

   30 units until Monday, September 25, 2006.

            Second:  Mr. Rubin

            Vote:      6-0; Motion carried.

 

 

 

VI.             OTHER BUSINESS

A.     Request to extend Common Driveway special permit for Cole’s Island Road; Applicant Christopher Nash.

Mr. Lundberg stated that the Planning Board was in receipt of a letter from Creek Partners to extend the Common Driveway special permit for Cole’s Island Road until September 8, 2007.  He then asked Mr. Cademartori if there was any issue that should prohibit the extension.

Mr. Cademartori stated the letter does mention some outstanding issues but he did not see any reason not to extend.

 

Motion:     Ms. Fahey moved to extend the Common Driveway special permit for Cole’s Island Road as it exists until September 8, 2007; Applicant Christopher Nash.

            Second:     Mr. Rubin

            Vote:         6-0; Motion carried.

 

B.     Decision to adopt:  WPOD special permit for parking expansion at Varian, 35 Dory Road.

 

Motion:     Mr. McCarl moved to adopt the WPOD special permit decision for parking expansion at Varian, 35 Dory Road.

Second:     Ms. Fahey

Vote:         6-0; Motion carried.

 

C.     Planner's Report

·        Mr. Cademartori stated that at the last City Council meeting, he presented the Cluster and OSRD amendments which were approved. 

·        There will be a workshop meeting on September 18, 2006 to discuss the first 3 sections of the Zoning Amendments.   This is a good opportunity to become familiar with the changes.

·        Mr. McCarl stated that with regard to the Demolition and Delay Ordinance, he hopes to get a final draft for review at the next meeting.

·        Mr. Cademartori announced that according to the Mullen Act the City Solicitor announced a provision that if a counselor/board member misses a meeting; he or she may not be allowed to vote.

·        Ms. Fahey asked if this affects the issue of needing to be at the opening of a public hearing or would be a separate issue. 

·        Mr. Cademartori stated that he will get the exact language.

               

            D.  Chairman's Report

Mr. Lundberg stated that there are six interviews scheduled for the position of Community Development Director.

 

VII.     ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Lundberg adjourned the meeting at 8:40 pm.

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Lisa English