CITY
OF
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2006 at 7:00 PM
GLOUCESTER HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Paul Lundberg, Chair Jeneth Fahey, Vice
Chair Gregg Cademartori,
Planning Dir
Mary R. Black
Ellen
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 September
25, 2006
MOTION: Mr. McCarl moved to approve the minutes of September
25, 2006 as presented.
Second: Mr.
Rubin
Vote: 5-0;
motion carried.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
Stevan Goldin, 14
Hodgkins Street, stated that he agrees on open meetings with transparencies
of minutes as adequate.
He continued that his complaint about TAG meetings is that they are a
collaboration for adapting smaller issues, not asking the
big questions: for instance, the applicant
took too long responding to Mr. Cademartori’s request for
a conventional plan for Annisquam
Woods; City Engineer Dave Knowlton’s initial refusal to
extend the sewer system was
overridden by Mayor Bell.
Meetings need citizen participation.
Another issue is that the
Planning Board needs to be part of designing regulations
that affect projects now.
Barbara Lambert,
27 Vine Street, discussed the Symes project at
stated
that the city needs a good definition for sewer extension and connection. Symes project
for 24 units on 6 acres needs a sewer extension
permit. She continued that houses on
Rigg’s
Point have doubled; there’s so much growth, we need to
save what’s left. She provided history
of Riggs Pasture with its use prior to Goose Cove
bridge. She added that Symes parcel sits
in
middle of pasture.
Owner did not pay taxes for 8 years, and Board should not reward the
developer. City
will not benefit until after development is completed. She ended by saying that
this project is an example of a sewer extension permit.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
A. New Form A Applications:
1. David &
Jacquelyn Bell, and Jamieson Terelak & James Farrell to reconfigure lot
line at
2. Joan
Duchane to divide lot into two parcels, each one with a principal building at
46 and 461/2 Warner Street (Assessors Map 29, Lot 59). Plan of Land prepared by County Land Survey;
dated April 28, 2006.
MOTION: Mr. Rubin moved that the Subdivision
Control Law does not apply to the
above
applications of David & Jacqueline Bell, and Jamieson Terelak &
James Farrell at
Joan Duchane at
Second: Mr. Kushner
Vote: 5-0; motion carried.
3. Peter
& Laurence Bershad to divide two lots into three parcels at
September 5, 2006.
Mr. McCarl asked what needs to be done with
regard to Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr.
Cademartori responded
that with the creation of new lots, some nonconforming structures may need
variances from ZBA which do not affect issuance of an ANR.
MOTION: Mr. McCarl moved that the
Subdivision Control Law does not apply to
the above application of
Peter & Laurence Bershad to divide property at
Second: Mr. Kushner
Vote: 5-0; motion carried.
B. Chapter 91 Recommendations: There were
none.
V. NEW
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Revocation of Common Driveway Special Permit
for failure to comply with the conditions of decision at
issued by Planning Board to Walter &
Roberta Donnelly on October 24, 2005.
John
Judd, Gateway Consultants representing the Donnelly’s, stated that since
the second
common
driveway did not comply with the regulations for Planning and Engineering, the
Donnelly’s will be submitting a new
common driveway special permit application showing
modifications
to the second common driveway.
Mr. Cademartori explained the process
for revocation of the permit granted by the Planning Board: The decision for the special permit issued in
October 2005 was for a division of lot into two parcels with minor
modifications to the existing common driveway which would now be serving 3
lots. He continued that a condition of
the permit was for reconstruction of the apron and repaving of driveway, and
that this condition should be incorporated in any new common driveway special permit.
Mr. Lundberg stated that the condition was number 11(c) of the October
25, 2005 decision.
MOTION: Mr.
McCarl moved to revoke the Common Driveway Special Permit granted October
24, 2005 to Walter & Roberta Donnelly, with the understanding that the resubmitted common driveway special permit shall include
the condition of 11(c)
of the special permit being revoked at this meeting.
Second: Mr.
Rubin
Vote: 5-0;
motion carried.
VI. CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING
A. An application from Carrigan Enterprises,
Inc., for a Cluster Development Special
Permit entitled “Annisquam Woods” at 7
&
30 units (Assessors Map 125, Lots 71
& 22; and Map 115,
Plan prepared by Hayes Engineering; dated
June 26, 2006.
Mr.
Lundberg reviewed some parts of the Cluster Development ordinance, Section
5.9:
·
Section 5.9.1
states that the purpose of Cluster Development is to encourage the efficient
and creative use of land in harmony with its natural features;
·
The preliminary
plan was approved by the Planning Board April 10, 2006.
·
Section 5.9.4 –
Definitive Cluster Plan has been submitted in accordance with Subdivision Rules
& Regulations Sections 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4.
·
The Board may
approve the plan, with or without modification, or disapprove it. The Board shall make sure that application is
in accordance with the ordinance and applicable Subdivision Rules and
Regulations.
·
Section 5.9.5(a)
of the ordinance requires the Board to find that the cluster development is
superior to a conventional subdivision plan.
·
Planning Board
has contracted an individual consultant to review the application and
plans: does applicant’s submittal meet
criteria of the ordinance and Rules and Regulations.
Michele Harrison, 63 Middle Street, stated that she is the attorney representing applicants
Michael Carrigan and David Tufts. She
could not attend last meeting at which time Atty. Peter Feuerbach requested a
continuation of the public hearing since Board member Jen Fahey was
absent. She stated that tonight they
will go forward with five Board members.
Regarding issue of completeness of submittal, Ms. Harrison stated that
through recommendations from Engineering and Conservation Commission, parts of
the submittal have changed. The
application itself has not been submitted in piecemeal manner, rather only additions
have been made. She then gave an
overview of recommendations and conditions of Board of Health’s review to be
incorporated into Planning Board’s decision:
Review of Board of Health (BOH) Recommendation:
1) Applicant agrees to no modifications of any
BOH conditions incorporated in Condo Assoc. documents without BOH approval, and
suggests adding without approval by the BOH and/or Planning Board.
2) Applicant agrees with management plan having
prohibition on use of chemical pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and
de-icers. Also, suggests prohibition be
included in Condo documents.
3) Applicant
researched canine waste management and came up with establishing a “Dogiport”
in each cluster with bags and containers.
4) If detention basins are used (LID techniques might
be used and would eliminate the use of detention basins), they will not hold
water for more than 72 hours, and environmental “dunks” will be used for
mosquito control.
5) Condo Assoc. will be responsible for snow and
ice removal, and applicant has added a designated area for snow storage.
6) Annual water quality testing and reporting
have been included in stormwater management plan, and O&M requirements
shall be incorporated in Condo documents.
7) Condo documents will have language restricting
additional impervious surfaces, and suggest that there will not be any
impervious increase in common areas.
Also, drainage calculations will be in compliance with Drainage and
Grading Requirements, Section 1.3.3(g).
8) Applicant agrees to posting signs about
potential dangers of mosquitoes in all common areas.
9) Applicant agrees
that Condo Association will be responsible for contract with an O&M
provider for maintenance and repair of sewer system, which has already been
accounted for in the budget.
10) Project to be
designed to comply with American Waterworks standards, but if there is a
conflict with DEP standards, applicant recommends DEP standards should
control. Also, suggest that house water
service must also comply with Subdivision Rules and Regulations Section 4.5.
11) Applicant agrees
to condition that Title cannot pass on a unit without proof that O&M for
stormwater has been performed. (See #16
below.)
12) Nutrient loading
study has already been performed and submitted to Planning Board. No
recommendation needed for Planning Board’s decision.
13) Project to be
designed to comply with regulations that apply to the protection of the
watershed and wetlands. This
recommendation does not have to be repeated in Planning Board’s decision.
14) Street sweeping,
deep sump catch basin inspections, and stormwater filtration and overflow
structures inspections, and other provisions in Stormwater O&M Plan are
included in the application.
15) Applicant intends
to implement a 3-times-a-year water quality testing, instead of the BOH requirement
of 2-times-a-year.
16) Certification that
Stormwater Management O&M has been performed within one year of Title
transfer, and requiring Health Department signature.
Water Analysis performed by Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. to evaluate cluster development and potential impacts
to the City’s water system.
Dewberry’s Recommendations:
That the 6” main
running 1,100’ along
Building Inspector’s Comments – Bill Sanborn:
·
Fill – Mr.
Sanborn stated that it is incidental to 30 homes, that a special permit is not
necessary.
·
Sprinklers –
Chief McKay and Mr. Sanborn have discussed sprinklers, and, although they are
not required, applicant has agreed to install sprinkles in all buildings.
·
Distance between
buildings and from wooded areas – Project is intended to have as much open
space as possible, limit clearing: 70%
of area is open space; there is no zoning requirement for separation between
buildings in this cluster development since it is one lot, but there is
separation requirement of 50’ between clusters.
·
Tufts property
needs an ANR to divide lot with two principal buildings into two parcels.
Chief
McKay’s Letter in Response to Mr. Groves’ letter:
·
Roads: Chief found new roads adequate for emergency
vehicles, and two points of access and bus turnaround positive additions.
·
Water pressure:
Chief found looped waterlines and enlarged lines improvements for good
pressure.
·
Sprinkler
Systems: Standards that Chief recommends
will be followed.
·
Woodlands:
Hydrants will be installed every 500 feet as Chief recommends.
Condominium Documents:
·
Sample of
proposed condo documents included in packet.
·
Estimated budget
included for maintenance of driveways, sewer system and stormwater management. Maintenance of common area shared by all;
condo needing roof repairs paid for by owner.
Mr. Lundberg asked
whether common areas include all land in the development.
Ms. Harrison stated
that most of the land will be under conservation restriction; meeting area,
mail kiosk, etc. will be shared; individually owned units will have exclusive
use areas.
“Proof Plan” of Conventional Subdivision Conventional plan can be developed but there is sprawl, density,
impact on resource areas and excessive impervious areas. Cluster development is an example of smart
growth, preserving open space and protecting resource areas, thus it is
superior to conventional development.
Third Party Review will be presented at another meeting.
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB) had many technical issues. Cluster Development and standards of
Subdivision Rules & Regulations are inconsistent, i.e. SR&R require
more impervious areas with wide roads and sidewalks.
Mr. Lundberg stated
that we need to deal with SR&R despite waiver requests.
Ms. Harrison stated
that project needs relief from sidewalks due to alteration of land. Traffic comments will be forthcoming from VHB
which reviewed the project at a different speed limit (25mph) than Hayes
Engineering (15mph). A compromise in the
speed limit may be used.
Speaking in opposition:
James Groves, 50 Revere Street, handed out copy of petition, “Low Water Pressure Means
Poor Fire Protection”, to be certified by Clerk’s office. He also distributed copy of his response to
Chief McKay’s letter and further report on Annisquam Woods project:
Fire Department
Report: Lack of comprehensive review;
Not a thorough evaluation of planned roads; No review of road requirements; 24
Waiver requests are excessive and should not compromise safety.
Independent
Engineering Peer Review: Report received
10/6/06; it is critical of road design issues:
two sets of reverse curves without separation affects fire response; Bus
stop not well enough designed; No street lights which are needed for fire
engines; hydrants must deliver 750 gpm at 20psi which is a lot of water that no
one has seen in years. Project is in
remote location subject to “wild land urban interface fire” similar to
Mr. Lundberg requested
that new issues be raised.
Fred Geisel, 15 Steep Hill Drive, stated that he has not done a thorough review since he
received VHB report late. He stated that
he needed clarification on the following:
1) New water mains to be
installed are confusing as to where they are going and how big they will
be. 2)
40psi is 5psi higher that DEP regulations. Dewberry has made recommendation for booster
pumps, Wants clarification on impact of
water pressure in neighborhood.
Mr. Lundberg asked if Mr. Geisel was
questioning the affect of pumps outside the development.
Mr. Geisel stated
that he is concerned about residual pressure outside on
Board of Health report: He
stated that he found the Board of Health report confusing: if Low Impact Development (LID) techniques
are used: What happens to the detention basins and stormwater? Will there be swales, trenches? If LID features are proposed then the Board
of Health needs to review them.
Building Inspector’s
letter: Mr. Geisel stated that he has
not done a detailed review, but affirms that the retaining wall needs to be
addressed. He stated that more than 50
cubic yards of fill need a City Council Special Permit; that 20 to 30 cubic
yards are not “incidental fill”.
Roads: Mr. Geisel stated that the roads are too narrow
to allow big truck traffic.
Conventional
Subdivision: Mr. Geisel stated that
while the cluster development touts less sprawl and less impervious area, the
development is still not a good fit for the area.
Mr. Geisel stated that
he will have more comments when he reviews VHB report.
Daan Sandee, 12 Dorset Drive, handed out his written comments to the Board: one discusses his thoughts on open space issues
with Annisquam Woods, the other discusses environmental issues. His comments are as follows:
Environmental: 1) Resource and wildlife habitat are valuable
and will be destroyed by development.
Need to have biologist and botanist for proper habitat and plant
studies.
2) Remaining value of
land would be 10-20%, not 70% open space: northern piece of 8 acres will be
untouched but it connects only to Langford Pond and is isolated from rest of
parcel. Southern piece is 24 acres, 15
of them remain protected but fragmented; connection to with Dogtown is
poor. 3) Conservation restriction: With Greenbelt’s refusal for stewardship, the
City would pick up restriction but it
costs money to maintain it. 4) Activities of adults, kids, and pet animals
will add to disturbing protected space.
5) “no one will have the
effrontery to say this is an environmentally sensible solution. It is an environmental disaster.”
Richard Crangle, 30 Bennett Street North, presented a profile of the step slope to be filled
along Driveway A at
Stevan Goldin, 14 Hodgkins Street, stated that he has two issues: 1) The conventional plan has been submitted,
showing a cluster plan versus an unbuildable plan. He added that there are two choices: either
to reject the project or no project.
2) Process: a) If
the Chair feels the public hearing has been adequate, he should announce it
ahead of closing the discussion. b)
Applicant needs to make better submittal to include biomap, botanists, etc. –
this should have been done earlier. c) Sewer issue that was raised but ignored: Michele Harrison stated that sewer should be
tabled. He questioned whether it is a
sewer extension or connection. Need to
look at Dave Knowlton’s first report.
Elizabeth Novella, 18 Hutchins Court, stated that the residents bought their homes for the
peace and quiet of
Janice Chick, 16 Hutchins Court, discussed the issue of rights to
Mr. Lundberg stated
that the Planning Board gathers all the information regarding the proposed
project with objections, etc. and then evaluates everything in relation to the
ordinance and Subdivision Rules and Regulations (SR&R). He added that the Planning Board takes all
this into account and does not debate any issues at this time.
Rebuttal:
Mr. Lundberg asked
why there are two different road designs between the conventional and cluster
plans.
Mr. Carrigan stated
that the cluster development road was planned to stay out of the buffer zone,
while the conventional plan would go through it.
Ms. Harrison stated
that SR&R sections 3.22, 3.2.2, 3.2.4 deal with submission requirements,
while Section 5.9.4 of the Cluster Development Ordinance sends the applicant to
the design standards of SR&R Section IV.
Mr. Lundberg stated
that the Board will read through what the city departments are supposed to
review under the SR&R. Under
ordinance Section 5.9.5 the Board must find the Cluster Development plan
superior to a conventional plan which could be approved under the SR&R
standards. He stated that the ordinance
asks for comparison between the two regarding preserving open space for
conservation and recreation, preserving natural features of the land, and allowing more efficient provision of streets,
utilities and other public services.”
Ms. Harrison stated
that for the conventional plan to be approved, it would have to meet the design
standards, but the Cluster is an environmentally sound plan with significant
open space preserved. She stated that in
response to Mr. Geisel’s questions about water lines, the Dewberry report says
that the plan will reflect individual pumps on elevations above 220 feet. If LID techniques are included, the
Conservation Commission shall issue a negative determination on the Request for
Determination of Applicability, and VHB will also review the LID. She continued: details of the wall will be
made, and Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering will address VHB comments at next
meeting on November 13.
Mr. Cademartori listed the communications that have come in since the last Board
meeting:
·
Letter from James
Groves responding to the Mullen Rule.
·
Letter from
Councilor Jackie Hardy requesting submission of a conventional plan.
·
Letter from James
Groves responding to Building Inspector’s report.
·
Letter from
Judith Hughes and Michael Malyskzo
·
Packet from Michele
Harrison with materials from owner and developer in response to issues raised.
·
Letter from Diane
Tillotson
Mr. Lundberg stated
that the Board of Health, Fire Department and Building Inspector have submitted
their reviews; we need comments from DPW through the Engineering Department and
from Conservation Commission which meets November 1st to continue
discussion.
Mr. McCarl supported
Mr. Lundberg’s statement about the Board needing to listen to all comments to
evaluate the project before it holds any discussion and makes a determination.
Mr. Cademartori asked for request to extend the public hearing to after second meeting
in November.
MOTION: Mr. McCarl moved to extend the public hearing for
“Annisquam Woods” Cluster
Development
to November 30, 2006.
Second: Ms. Black
Vote: 5-0; motion carried.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Discussion of pre-application submission of “
Mr. Lundberg
cited Pre-application Section 5.15.6 of the zoning Ordinance: 1)
The applicant
has made a written request
for an informal review by the Board at September 25, 2006 meeting;
2) All
submittals were labeled “PRE-APPLICATION”.
3) The Board held a site visit
September 30, 2006.
He stated that the Board has recognized that these items have been
completed, and that the applicant may go forward
with submittal of a Site Plan, comprising a
Yield and Sketch Plan.
B. Request
to change name of Parker River/Essex Bay ACEC to the Great Marsh ACEC.
Mr. Lundberg stated that the Board is in receipt of a memo from
Ellen Preston regarding the
request to change the ACEC name from
Ms. Preston stated that the Great Marsh
name is more widely known.
Mr. Cademartori stated that communities are looking for consistency
for groups working with
ACEC.
Consensus:
Planning Board gave full support of name change.
C. Planner's
Report – Mr. Cademartori
·
Boards, Commissions, Committees (BCC) Meeting: will be held November 18, 2006; Paul Lundberg is the
moderator; agenda will be sent out to members shortly: topic will include public access with
attention to public meetings (visual aids, etc.).
·
O&A Standing Committee will be discussing Wind Turbines. Sam Cleaves from MAPC will return with more
information.
·
P&D Standing Committee will hold workshop with ZORTF on Monday, October 30,
to review Section III. All are welcome
to attend. Workshop at Guidance
Counselor’s Office, GHS, at 7:00PM.
·
Sam Park Project:
Michele Harrison is looking to
accelerate an independent review of traffic for this project. Enabling this process may come through a
motion of the City Council.
D. Chairman's Report – Mr. Lundberg
·
Seeking another member of the Board, he asked members to come up with
someone who would have local or technical knowledge.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Lundberg moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Ellen Preston
Assistant Planner