Planning Board 08/19/24

The Planning Board discusses the housing bond bill impact and permit requests for 134 Salem Street, 792 Main Street, and 820 Livingston Street.

The Planning Board met Monday night, August 19th. With the exception of Jonathan Ciampa, all members were present. Mr. Duffy attended the meeting virtually. There were no committee reports.

Clerk Nick Lizotte made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of April 29th, 2024. The motion was approved.

Chair Stephen Johnson asked the members of the board if there were any committee reports or administrative actions that wanted to be voiced. There were no reports to be made.

In her Town Planner’s report, Community/Economic Development Planner Alexandra Lowder, announced one new public hearing scheduled for the September 9th Planning Board meeting. 611 Main Street is requesting a site plan review, a land disturbance permit, and a solar and use special permit for a proposed eco-auto expansion. “They are looking to add additional service fees to service their hybrid and electric vehicles, as well as a solar canopy parking area and some additional charging stations.”

Lowder continued, bringing up the proposed language for exemptions for digital menu boards, which was discussed in the previous meeting. She included new word tracks to differentiate menu boards from electronic message board signs. She noted, “we may choose to table [this conversation] until we have Mr. Champa with us again and Mr. Duffy with us in person.”

She noted that the town engineering consultant, EA Engineering, is beginning design work for a wetland, groundwater and floodplain restoration project at two sites in Tewksbury. One site is at Poplar Street, the location of the decommissioned South Street Wellfields, and the other site is at Mollie Drive, a former landfill site along the south bank of the Shawsheen River. EA scheduled to perform wetland delineation and ecological assessments at both of these sites between August 22nd and 23rd, during the daytime. Residents can learn more here.

Additionally, she highlighted the housing bond bill signed by the governor last week. The primary impact on the board and residents of Tewksbury are its effects on zoning and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). It creates a new definition for what’s considered an ADU. She explained, “I won’t belabor the point by reading the definition, but suffice to say, the major provisions are [ADUs] can be attached or detached. It does not have to be owner occupied. The size prescriptions in the law are that it can be a maximum of 900 square feet or half the gross floor living area of the home, whichever is less.”

The definition of an ADU will exist independently of the town’s Family Suite definition, which specifies that an accessory dwelling unit for a family must be incorporated into the existing home, attached to it, and allowed to be up to 1,000 square feet.

Additionally, this new bill undoes this zoning precedent set in 1956. If you have two adjacent lots in the same neighborhood, and one has a house while the other does not, you are now officially allowed to build on the vacant lot.

Vice Chair Vinny Fratalia noted this may start to cause “chaos in some of the communities” with smaller homes and smaller units.

Lowder clarified that residents still have to meet bulk dimension requirements: 25-foot front yard setbacks, 15-foot side and rear setbacks, and a maximum of 15% lot coverage. “People won’t be able to start covering their properties with accessory dwelling units.”

Implementation of the definition does not take effect until 180 days after the law was signed, approximately February 2nd, 2025.

Before continuing with the rest of the meeting agenda items, Chair Stephen Johnson, noted they are missing one board member, so any petitioners coming forward looking for a vote were welcome to come forward next meeting instead.

Family Suite Special Permit: 134 Salem Street

Johnson brought forward Agenda Item C, a special permit request for a family suite at 134 Salem Street. Amy Tammaro, on behalf of Annette Duffy, came forward to the board. They were looking to add a suite to her mother’s home, with the foresight of taking care of her in the future.

Lizotte asked about the overall square footage, confirming 800 square feet. He also clarified that the internal connection would pass through the dining room, into the mud room.

Fratalia, queried if they were connected to a sewer. It was revealed they were on septic currently but they are in communication with contractors to transition to a sewer connection to the town.

There were no other questions and the permit was approved unanimously.

Site Plan Review, Land Disturbance Permit, Sign Special Permit: 792 Main Street

Bridget Souza, representing applicant Arthur J. Triglione, came before the board. This was a continuance from the July meeting. Edits were made to the plans based on comments made from the previous hearing.

She noted that they still plan to proceed with using the existing foundation, installed in 1998, due to its strong integrity. They aim to incorporate some of the existing site features to ensure that the storm water system meets today’s standards

Waiver adjustments were previously requested, addressing the following issues: Curbing Requirements, Non-Residential Driveway Requirements, Parking, Landscape Buffer, Erosion Control, and Signage.

Firstly, the curbing requirement of curbing throughout the entirety of the site – “anywhere there is new pavement proposed and new functionality of the site”- remains in effect. However, as discussed at the last hearing, for storm water purposes, they will be using flush concrete sidewalks instead.

Secondly, there are two existing driveways. Souza proposed utilizing the second one just for increased site mobility. Furthermore, it’ll function as a right-turn only lane to avoid traffic conflict with Nelson Avenue. The board’s request was for the interior driveway to allow for 12 feet instead of 14 feet. It was explained this driveway is the rear internal driveway for delivery trucks.

Thirdly, the board had previously discussed parking along the front property line. Souza explained, the site is very compact. They need that space for storm water, in order “to meet requirements for TSS removal and Phosphorus Removal”. Therefore, no changes were made.

Souza addressed the 20-foot landscape buffer requirement. It is now represented in the plans, as it was previously missing, that the zoning line is on the back property line. “The railway is actually zoned as residential” therefore, because the site is already existing, there is no buffer needed.

Regarding minimum performance standards for regulated activity, they are requesting permit for erosion control structures no more than 15 feet from an abutting property line, based on the limits of the project.

Lastly, the board had previously requested the removal of one of the potential locations for a wall sign. Souza confirmed this was completed, in addition to adjusting “the requirements for the wall signs based on the unit size”. The signs will also include the actual address – 792 main street.

Fratalia inquired whether they had any outstanding issues with BETA Group, an engineering group conducting town peer reviews. She confirmed that there was a PDF error in their drainage report and it had already been corrected.

Lastly, Fratalia voiced his discontent regarding why applicants can’t “abide by our zoning regulations rather than looking for waivers all the time”. Otherwise, he understood, and had no further comments.

Lizotte asked if the narrow driveway in the back, to be used as a loading area, already existed. Souza confirmed, they will be tying into an existing paved area.

He also highlighted that that loading zone is directly across from a dumpster and wanted to ensure that no one would be parking there, preventing dumpster pick-up. Souza addressed that was the best use of “dead space” and was the best location for functionality.

Jim Duffy commented he had issue with the reduction of width of roadway behind the building. He found it to be an impractical space for snow storage, amongst other uses. That said, he did not have issue with the moving of parking spaces below Main Street, but was curious as to why the sidewalk ended at the exit.

Souza disclosed that this was actually one of the items BETA suggested to be discussed with the board. She does not have a problem extending that to the property line.

Duffy also asked her to clarify what a “wellhead zone project” is. It was explained that if proposing storm water improvements, you have to hit additional requirements (Separation from Ground Water Requirements, Phosphorus Removal, etc.,). She also noted that all improvements proposed are outside of the protected area of the property. He continued, “I would like to have your engineer confirmed with a landscape overlay over the underground utilities plan, just to make sure that there aren’t going to be any conflicts”.

Stephen Johnson agreed with Mr. Duffy on the extension of the sidewalk. He also reminded her to upkeep exit signage and paint clarity of directional arrows on the road.

Alex Lowder presented the BETA comments previously mentioned by Bridget Souza to the board. One comment concerned the extension of the sidewalk on the southwest corner, which has now already been addressed. Another comment involved tree plantings within 20-feet of the sewer and a 10-foot setback for the infiltration basin. BETA deferred to the town regarding the applicability of the 10-foot setback for the modified infiltration basin. “I’ll route that through DPW to see if there’s any commentary there.” She added, “maintaining the strengthening and painting on the pavement in perpetuity, as well as directional signs, so that folks don’t take traffic into their own hands.”

The site plan review at 792, Main Street was approved by the board, as proposed, with the conditions and waivers requested (five waivers proposed). This is a a contingent decision by the board pending the finalization of those conditions. The land disturbance permit and sign special permit were also approved.

820 Livingston Street: Use Special Permit

Giuliano Cedrone and Rosella Cedrone came before the board, alongside their realtor John Peterson. Their business of twenty seven years, the renting and maintenance of forklifts, is relocating to 820 Livingston Street, as their previous location is no longer available for rent. They are requesting a use special permit.

Mr. Cedrone noted that he does not have any employees and majority of the work is done on the road. 820 Livingston will be a place to park their machinery and be used for quick service maintenance.

Fratalia responded, “You’re not recreating the wheel. You’re just going back doing business, just [at] a different location, and that’s great.” He asked how many pieces of equipment would need to be stored at the complex. Cedrone responded they would have ten pieces of machinery equipment.

Chair Stephen Johnson opened it up to the audience.

Treasurer of the 820 Livingston Street complex, where Mr. and Mrs. Cedrone plan on conducting their business, addressed the board. He commented on the lack of parking at the complex. “I’m not against anybody doing business. I’m against we don’t have any room for the ten pieces of equipment.”

Tewksbury Auto Repair owner – one of the businesses located at 820 Livingston – addressed the board. He is also President of the complex. He voiced he didn’t realize Mr. Cedrone had that much equipment when they first met. He added, “Why would you have to get a special permit to work on your equipment?”

Alex Lowder then confirmed that what the Cedrones are trying to do is “generally speaking” a contractor yard. “A contractor yard use does require a special permit.”

Another neighbor spoke, who has lived at the complex for thirty years, to comment on the distress of the parking.

Stephen Johnson responded, highlighting that it sounded like the people currently renting and owning units at the complex are not following the rules. He confirmed each unit has three spaces. Addressing those who spoke, “Users appear to be your problem. [You have] issues with a potential user who has not, in fact, done anything or given any occasion that they will do anything [to] exacerbate the problem you have with [current owners].”

The neighbor highlighted that the size of the equipment, being the main issue.

Mrs. Cedrone clarified that they are taking down the walls within their building to store four pieces of equipment. There is another location where the business is allowed to store their machines. Machines would only be brought onsite at Livingston Street for upkeep.

Stephen Johnson clarified, “machines will only be brought onsite for maintenance purposes.” This would be a condition of the permit being approved. He also suggested, “Any effort you can make to give [your neighbor] in your unit a heads-up”, could go a long way.

Mr. Cedrone added he may be able to park some of the equipment behind the building and it was clarified that this was not allowed. Only the three allotted parking spaces and the inside of his building are to be used.

Johnson remarked that lack of delineated parking spaces is a condo issue that should be addressed.

The neighbor continued, stating he was “concerned with [Cedrone] getting his equipment in and out, [based] on the way the parking lot is set up.”

Fratalia expressed, “To say no to a business because of parking abuse at the site isn’t right.” Jim Duffy commented on the the lack of “rhyme or reason” to how the vehicles are parked at that site.

Stephen Johnson inquired as to the maximum number of machinery units the Cendrones have had onsite for maintenance, over the last twenty seven years. He surmised that the ten machinery units may not all be needed on site as they can’t all be maintenance at the same time. He highlighted the difference between storage and maintenance.

Jim Duffy expressed, “I don’t know that a new tenant should be subject to any to restrictions, any different than any other tenant there.” Nick Lizotte followed suit, stating “Three outside spaces seems like as good of a compromise as we can come to … You can use them however you like.”

The owners of the business highlighted that the forks can be removed from the machines so they don’t take up as much space.

Stephen Johnson finalized, “You are limited to three parking spaces. One of them should be available for your vehicle that you get to and from the site in”. He added, “What you get in or out inside [your building unit] is immaterial to us at this point”

The motion to close the public hearing was made.

Alex Lowder concluded the discussion, highlighting that any potential signage to their unit has to meet the bylaw. They have already started the permit to move into the space, itself.

The use special permit was approved.

With no correspondence, the meeting was adjourned. The next Planning Board Meeting will take place on September 9th, 2024.