Community Development Board

Approved by the Community Development Board 09/27/2022 CITY OF METHUEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Wednesday, August 10, 2022 6:30 P.M. VIA ZOOM WEB CONFERENCE MINUTES 1) Call to Order of Regular Meeting. Chairman Stephen DeFeo called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm and read the following statement into the record: Pursuant to Chapter 186 of the General Laws, An Act Relative to Extending Certain State of Emergency Accommodations, this meeting/public hearing will be conducted via remote means. For this meeting, members of the public who wish to watch the meeting may do so on their televisions by turning to Comcast Xfinity Channel 8 or Verizon FiOS Channel 32 or view on a computer or cell phone via LIVE Stream on https://www.methuentv.org/methuen- government-tv-live-stream/ No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, and public participation in any public hearing conducted during this meeting shall be by remote means only. If the public would like to participate in the public hearing, please email your questions/comments by noon on the meeting day to kbcolwell@ci.methuen.ma.us. The questions/comments will be read during the proceedings and responded to accordingly. Members of the public who wish to speak during the public hearing can register here: https://www.methuentv.org/govmeet/ by noon on the meeting day. 2) Roll Call. Members in Attendance Stephen DeFeo, Chairman Present Michael Comei, Secretary Arrived at 6:41pm Gisette Beshara Present Brian Boes, member Present Ronald Hatem, member Absent Neal Hunter, member Present Heather Plunkett, member Absent Others in Attendance Kathleen Colwell, Director of Planning Nancy Hudson, Community Development Confidential Secretary Petitioners and Representatives of Petitioners 3) Acceptance of the Minutes. a) April 13, 2022 b) May 11, 2022 c) June 8, 2022 d) July 13, 2022 1 Filed in the Office of the City Clerk 09/27/2022  Approved by the Community Development Board 09/27/2022 Chairman DeFeo entertained a motion to approve the Minutes of April 13, 2022 and July 13, 2022. MOTION: Brian Boes so moved. SECOND: Neal Hunter DISCUSSION: None VOTE: UNANIMOUS Roll Call Stephen DeFeo Yes Michael Comei Yes Gisette Beshara Yes Brian Boes Yes Ronald Hatem Absent Neal Hunter Yes Heather Plunkett Absent 4) Consent Agenda. For the record there was nothing on the Consent Agenda. 5) Zoning Issues: For the record there were no Zoning Issues. 6) Form A Plans. For the record there were no Form A Plans. 7) Continued Public Hearing: 80 Hampstead Street (Guzman Lane) -Definitive Subdivision (Deadline: October 1, 2022) Kathleen Colwell informed the Board that the applicant had requested a continuance to the September 14, 2022 meeting. MOTION: Brian Boes made a motion to continue the public hearing to the September 14, 2022 meeting. SECOND: Neal Hunter DISCUSSION: None VOTE: UNANIMOUS Roll Call 2 Filed in the Office of the City Clerk 09/27/2022  Approved by the Community Development Board 09/27/2022 Stephen DeFeo Yes Michael Comei Yes Gisette Beshara Yes Brian Boes Yes Ronald Hatem Absent Neal Hunter Yes Heather Plunkett Absent 8) Continued Public Hearing: 46 Old Ferry Road – Site Plan Approval Kathleen Colwell stated that the applicant would be updating the Board on where they are in the permit process. She noted that the Board had a site visit in July and the public hearing was continued from the June 8th meeting. They have not had a chance to reschedule a meeting with the Conservation Commission yet to address the Engineering comments. Chad Brannon, engineer for the applicant updated the Board. They have been working to address staff comments, as well as septic comments and some comments from the Conservation Commission. They received follow up comments from TEC and they have addressed most of the comments with just a few small items remaining. They have also received a sign off from the Fire Department. They worked with the Engineering Department with some of the off-site improvements and how they transition into the site. The intersection of Old Ferry Road and the site driveway has been modified to address Engineering comments. They met with the DPW director and Steve Gagnon and walked through their recent submittals and the majority of their comments have been addressed. At the site walk everybody got to see how the alignment adjustments to the driveway will benefit the abutting property, improving headlights into the property, and vehicles decelerating down the driveway. They also discussed providing a stockade fence with augmented landscaping. Kathleen Colwell noted that the Board had a letter from TEC dated July 19, 2022, a letter from the Engineering Department dated July 13, 2022 and a septic review memo from Felix Zemel dated July 20, 2022. There was also a letter from TEC dated August 9, 2022 which was related to traffic. The applicant is working through those comments now. She also noted that she has a series of emails from abutters that came in for the July 13th meeting and some that have come in subsequently. The emails were read into the record. • Email dated July 13, 2022 from John Nardone, 2 Birch Hill Drive. • Email dated July 12, 2022 from Carrie Lavallee, 41 Maple Ridge Road • Email from Edgar Saindon, 4 Birch Hill Drive • Email from dated July 12, 2022 from John Nardone, 2 Birch Hill Drive • Email dated August 8, 2022 from John Nardone, 2 Birch Hill Drive Chairman Stephen DeFeo opened the floor for public comment. John Nardone, 2 Birch Hill Drive: Mr. Nardone mentioned that there was one more email, from his wife, Robin Lynch Nardone, dated July 12, 2022. 3 Filed in the Office of the City Clerk 09/27/2022  Approved by the Community Development Board 09/27/2022 Kathleen Colwell read into the record; the email dated July 12, 2022 from Robin Lynch Nardone. John Nardone, 2 Birch Hill Drive: Mr. Nardone noted that his concerns were included in the emails that were read into the record. He added that this property has been for sale for over a decade. As the price of property in general has increased, this property has decreased in value. He hopes the owners can find a suitable use for the property. Jeremy Solemina, 8 Birch Hill Road: Mr. Solemina expressed concern about the potential for noise and safety concerns related to the truck traffic. Gisette Beshara asked to see a plan showing the location of the 60’ buffer that the applicant is requesting to waive. Chad Brannon shared the plan on the screen and pointed out the location along the access road where the 60 foot buffer would be located and the 30 foot edge of disturbance that they are proposing. The measurement from 2 Birch Hill Drive to the tree cutting that they are proposing is 90 feet. He noted that the home at 2 Birch Hill Drive was given a variance to construct the house closer to the lot line. They chose to locate the driveway on the side of the house adjacent to 46 Old Ferry Road. He also noted that there is no vegetation on that property. Mr. Brannon explained that this design is the best design for the site, it’s the best design for the natural conditions of the property and provides the most effective buffer to the closest abutter. There are a number of design elements that they have been trying to balance with this property. One of them is dealing with drainage improvements to the north. This plan is providing significant stormwater improvements. The design is driven in part by some of the comments from the Engineering Department on how they want the intersection of the road designed. The design of the intersection, along with some of the existing utilities on site dictates where the access has to be on this property. They have designed the best plan possible, while meeting these constraints. They have provided for significant drainage improvements along Old Ferry Road, there is now stormwater management in a number of areas along the driveway, intercepting all stormwater that was previously traveling to the north, routing it through stormwater treatment, and outletting in a jurisdictional wetland. For safety reasons, the Fire Department and the Engineering Department wanted the access road to be as close to 9% as possible. In order do that, in combination with the design of the intersection of the road, they had to create an alignment that worked more favorably with the topography. The alignment of the road, as proposed, offers more improvements to the neighboring properties. The current driveway comes straight down the hill and faces almost directly at 2 Birch Hill Drive. Many of the pictures and videos that are shared are reflecting current conditions. With the new alignment the headlights will face away from the home, and as the turn is made, there will be a stockade fence and landscaping to act as a visual and sound barrier and ensure that there won’t be any light trespass from vehicles onto the neighboring property. This is far better than the buffer that exists twenty feet below the current driveway. The residence is next to an industrial property. The residents haven’t supported either application that was before the Board, but the applicant has done the best they can to prepare a plan that improves upon the existing conditions. By constructing a retaining wall along the entire length of the driveway, they have created another barrier. Along the curve it will be 15-20 feet in height, which is about a second story elevation. Even if the wall was moved 30 feet to the south, they would still be at the same height. The existing vegetation is not an effective buffer at that height. There are existing constraints on 4 Filed in the Office of the City Clerk 09/27/2022  Approved by the Community Development Board 09/27/2022 the site. There is an existing high pressure gas main that runs through the property from north to south with a requirement for certain depth of cover. That also impacts where the driveway can be located. The property is being accessed at the only place where they can provide for safe and reasonable access to the site. Mr. Brannon also pointed out that Carrie Lavallee’s property is closest to the transmission lines, and is approximately 530 feet from the site, not 50 feet as she stated. The Saindon’s property is on the other side of the Nardone’s property and is more than 225 feet from the site. The applicant is proposing what they believe to be a very reasonable and fair development of a property that is properly zoned for this use. Gisette Beshara asked if there would be any contribution to the sidewalk fund. Kathleen Colwell responded that the Board has not had a discussion about a contribution to the sidewalk fund, but at the first public hearing we had talked about a contribution to fixing Old Ferry Road. That issue is still outstanding. They have offered to provide the city with a certain level of engineered plans to use in order to go out bid, or with which to apply for a grant. The Board also discussed that each property across the street contributed $5,000 to the upgrade of Old Ferry Road and those building are each less than 5,000 square feet in size. Gisette Beshara said that she would like to predetermine how much the applicant should contribute so that residents know that they are contributing to the community and improving a lot of sidewalks on this side of the city that are in need of improvement. It’s especially important if the DPW is considering moving to Old Ferry Road. Brian Boes noted that the neighbors purchased property abutting an industrial zone and this type of development should be expected. They also applied for a variance to be closer to the lot line. He also questioned whether the development of a DPW yard on this street would undergo the same review as this project. Kathleen Colwell responded that that there is generally an exemption for municipal buildings. She added that since she has worked for the city, the schools were renovated and those did not need to go before the Community Development Board. Chairman DeFeo, in response to Mr. Boes, commented that if this development does not go into the site, then there are no improvements to Old Ferry Road and no assistance to the city for plans to improve Old Ferry Road. Kathleen Colwell mentioned that there is a significant amount of hazardous waste on the potential site for the Town Yard, so that it would be at least 10 years out. Neal Hunter commented that there are a lot of things to balance with this project. This is an appropriate project for an industrial zone, and he appreciates some of the things that the applicant has done to try to mitigate some of the issues that the properties have with the water, lighting and the noise, but the waiver in front of the Board is to reduce the 60 foot buffer. He asked if it was at all feasible to provide a 60 foot buffer. Mr. Brannon explained that the Engineering Department required them to extend Old Ferry Road at no greater than 8% and Old Ferry Road is 12% and 14% in other portions along its stretch. That dictates what their elevation can be at the intersection. Additionally, three feet 5 Filed in the Office of the City Clerk 09/27/2022  Approved by the Community Development Board 09/27/2022 of cover must be maintained over the high pressure gas main. There is no room to make adjustments and provide additional space. When you cross the gas main at the beginning of the road, you have to start preparing for the second crossing while contemplating safe turning radii for emergency response vehicles, as well as design vehicles. This improves the design of the existing road, which is much steeper. It will improve braking, which will reduce noise. They could provide a 40 foot buffer and have the wall located right against the driveway, but it would not be an effective buffer without the fence and landscaping at the height of the access road. Brian Boes asked how far the gas line and the electric right of way are from the Nardone’s property. Mr. Brannon replied that the gas line goes through their property and there are two electric right of ways that go by their property. Mr. Brannon mentioned that when they met with the City Engineering Department, one of the discussions was the offsite improvements. Mr. Brannon stated that his client is willing to make a $10,000 commitment to the offsite improvements. Bob Best, attorney representing the applicant, noted that some of the video presented by an abutter sounded like the backup alarms of construction vehicles, which are required by OSHA to be loud. You would have the same construction vehicles if a single family home was being built. It’s a temporary thing. When the construction ends, you will not have those. It occurs during the day and there’s not much any applicant can do about those things. As for other noise, there is a noise ordinance in place, those are legal standards that must be followed. The applicant is bound to those things. A warehouse is a fairly low impact development. It isn’t particularly noisy on the spectrum of things that can be done on an industrial parcel. In response to a question by Gisette Beshara, Kathleen Colwell explained that Site Plan Approval is triggered by a building over 5,000 square feet. There is no limitation on the size of the building. This project does not require any variance for the Zoning Board. The only waiver they are seeking from the Community Development Board is a waiver from 60 feet to 30 feet, which our regulations provide for. Historically, this Board has granted this waiver with additional buffer, as they have provided. This is an allowed use; it is Site Plan Approval, not a Special Permit, which means this is not a yes or no vote; it is yes with conditions. Neal Hunter asked if the state regulations on increasing ambient noise would apply to this project. Kathleen Colwell responded that the city has noise regulations that they would be required to comply with. Those are regulated by the police as far as construction and loading and unloading hours. The Board of Health would be looking at decimal levels or vibration noises. Brian Boes asked what the hours of operations are for the other business on Old Ferry Road. Kathleen Colwell responded that they would be subject to the same noise ordinances. 6 Filed in the Office of the City Clerk 09/27/2022  Approved by the Community Development Board 09/27/2022 Chairman Stephen DeFeo asked if there was an approved septic system design and where they were with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Brannon responded that they don’t yet have one, however, they have addressed the sanitarian’s comments and expect to have a sign off prior to the next hearing. They have been to the Conservation Commission and have addressed the Engineering Department comments and expect to be on next week’s meeting. Chairman DeFeo noted that typically this Board like to have a read from the Conservation Commission because they could have territorial issues that may change the Site Plan before us. If the Conservation Commission finds the plan acceptable, this Board feels more comfortable moving forward. He also noted that this Board usually has a sewer design or a septic design before we approve. Mr. Brannon shared that in the city’s transition of personnel, the septic hadn’t been reviewed. They reached out to the state and all of the concerns have been addressed to meet Title 5 requirements. MOTION: Gisette Beshara made a motion to table this item to the next meeting. SECOND: Neal Hunter VOTE: UNANIMOUS Roll Call Stephen DeFeo Yes Michael Comei Yes Gisette Beshara Yes Brian Boes No Ronald Hatem Absent Neal Hunter Yes Heather Plunkett Absent 4 Yes; 1 No - Motion Carries 9) New Business. a) Set public hearing date: i) 386 Oak Street – Frontage Exception Lot Special Permit MOTION: Michael Comei made a motion to set the public hearing for September 14, 2022 at 6:30 pm as recommended by the department. SECOND: Brian Boes DISCUSSION: None VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7 Filed in the Office of the City Clerk 09/27/2022  Approved by the Community Development Board 09/27/2022 Roll Call Stephen DeFeo Yes Michael Comei Yes Gisette Beshara Yes Brian Boes Yes Ronald Hatem Absent Neal Hunter Yes Heather Plunkett Absent b) Plan endorsement: i) 170 Haverhill Street – Site Plan Approval/Special Permit MOTION: Michael Comei made a motion to authorize the Chairman to endorse the plans on behalf of the Board. SECOND: Brian Boes DISCUSSION: None VOTE: UNANIMOUS Roll Call Stephen DeFeo Yes Michael Comei Yes Gisette Beshara Yes Brian Boes Yes Ronald Hatem Absent Neal Hunter Yes Heather Plunkett Absent c) Vale Street – bond reduction/street acceptance Kathleen Colwell informed the Board that the applicant has requested to table this to another meeting as they work through some of the issues on Vale Street. MOTION: Brian Boes moved to table this item SECOND: Michael Comei VOTE: UNANIMOUS Roll Call Stephen DeFeo Yes Michael Comei Yes Gisette Beshara Yes Brian Boes Yes Ronald Hatem Absent Neal Hunter Yes Heather Plunkett Absent 8 Filed in the Office of the City Clerk 09/27/2022  Approved by the Community Development Board 09/27/2022 d) Any other new business For the record, there was no additional old new business. 10) Old Business. a) Liam’s Lane -street acceptance Kathleen Colwell informed the Board that they have an approved pavement plan and will be requesting street acceptance soon. MOTION: Brian Boes made a motion to continue this item to the September 14, 2022 meeting. SECOND: Michael Comei DISCUSSION: None VOTE: UNANIMOUS Roll Call Stephen DeFeo Yes Michael Comei Yes Gisette Beshara Yes Brian Boes Yes Ronald Hatem Absent Neal Hunter Yes Heather Plunkett Absent b) Any other old business For the record, there was no additional old business. 11) Correspondence. For the record, there was no additional correspondence. 12) Adjournment. There being no further business before the Board, Chairman Stephen DeFeo entertained a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Brian Boes so moved. SECOND: Michael Comei VOTE: UNANIMOUS Roll Call 9 Filed in the Office of the City Clerk 09/27/2022  Approved by the Community Development Board 09/27/2022 Stephen DeFeo Yes Michael Comei Yes Gisette Beshara Yes Brian Boes Yes Ronald Hatem Absent Neal Hunter Yes Heather Plunkett Absent Chairman Stephen DeFeo adjourned the meeting at 8:12 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Nancy P. Hudson Community Development Confidential Secretary *** NEXT REGULAR MEETING Wednesday September 14, 2022 *** Pursuant to Chapter 186 of the General Laws, An Act Relative to Extending Certain State of Emergency Accommodations, this meeting/public hearing will be conducted via remote means. For this meeting, members of the public who wish to watch the meeting may do so on their televisions by turning to Comcast Xfinity Channel 8 or Verizon FiOS Channel 32 or view on a computer or cell phone via LIVE Stream on https://www.methuentv.org/methuen-government- tv-live-stream/ No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, and public participation in any public hearing conducted during this meeting shall be by remote means only. If the public would like to participate in the public hearing, please email your questions/comments by noon on the meeting day to kbcolwell@ci.methuen.ma.us. The questions/comments will be read during the proceedings and responded to accordingly. Members of the public who wish to speak during the public hearing can register here: https://www.methuentv.org/govmeet/ by noon on the meeting day. Anyone needing an access accommodation to participate in City of Methuen programs or services, please contact Sandy Almonte, ADA/DEI Coordinator at 978-983-8680 or salmonte@ci.methuen.ma.us at least 2 weeks in advance, or 2 business days before any Board or Commission meeting. This notice is available in alternative formats upon request. 10 Filed in the Office of the City Clerk 09/27/2022