Planning Board – September 23rd

The Planning Board met September 23rd to discuss Zoning Bylaw Amendments and Special Permits.

Chair Stephen Johnson called the board to order, Monday night, September 23rd. All board members were present.

Clerk Nick Lizotte made motion to approve meeting minutes for July 15th, 2024, August 19th, 2024, and September 9th, 2024. The motion carried.

Committee Reports

The Community Preservation Committee (CPC) had met the previous week to discuss the Ella E. Flemings School, a historic schoolhouse in North Tewksbury. 3.8 million dollars of CPC funding was approved for spending on three rooms of the historic school. Fratalia highlighted that he thought this was a large amount and recommended that it may be more economical to use Shawsheen Technical High School for the project.

In her Town Planner’s report, Community/Economic Development Planner Alexandra Lowder noted two family suite special permit requests scheduled for the October 7th meeting: 81 Navillus Road and 60 Oxford Road. The Tewksbury Historical Society shared articles from last week’s event, which honored the Tewksbury Gas Explosion of 1972. Details have been added to their website, for those interested.

The final Community Market of the summer was marked for Thursday, the 26th, but was unfortunately canceled due to poor weather. However, the Tewksbury Community Market will once again hold an indoor market season this winter at the Tewksbury Senior Center. Stay tuned for an exciting announcement in the coming weeks.

The town is hosting its first-ever Fall-O-Ween celebration on Sunday, October 20th, from 1pm to 4pm in the Town Center. The event is sponsored in conjunction with the fire department, police department, library, senior center, and Tewksbury Congressional Church. Visit here for more details.

Vice Chair Fratalia thanked Lowder for her efforts and the success of the summer Community Market.

1023 East Street – Bond Release

No one was in attendance to address the bond release. Lowder placed it on the agenda and noted that there were no discrepancies or items to resolve. It was fully submitted to the DPW and approved by the Select Board regarding the easement for the sidewalk. Their request was for the release of the $10,000 bond.

The motion was passed unanimously and the board released the bond, as-built.

170 Charles Drive – Family Suite Special Permit

Johnson made motion to waive the public reading.

Danielle Noseworthy and Barbara Clitsky, Project Manager of Innovative Home Solutions, came before the board in request for Family Suite Special Permit for Noseworthy’s father-in-law.

Ciampa thanked them for the quality and detail of their submission and had no issues with the design.

Nick Lizotte inquired about the overall square footage. It was confirmed the total added area would be 972 square feet and the family suit would be 486 square feet. Duffy confirmed that the in-law suite was on the bottom floor, as he didn’t see a set of stairs on the design. Clitsky equated it to being comparable to a studio.

Fratalia confirmed that there would be no bedroom; the space would be open and included a bathroom, closet, and small kitchenette. He also clarified that the property was connected to the sewer line.

Johnson addressed the audience, asking if there were any questions comments or concerns. There were none and the permit was passed unanimously.

Zoning Bylaw Amendments – Special Town Meeting Warrant

A motion was made to waive the public reading.

Article 14

Lowder addressed the board regarding a town-sponsored zoning article, Article 14, which concerned map changes to the SBDA plume area and buffer zone of the Sutton Brook Disposal Area Superfund Site.

She reminded the board, “As part of a legal settlement to permanently close the site, a collection of companies, including the town of Tewksbury, voluntarily agreed to clean it up and cap the landfill in 2014 and then again in 2015, consistent with remedies identified by the US EPA and Mass DEP.” The groundwater continues to be collected and discharged to the local regional wastewater utility for treatment. The EPA and the DEP have restricted groundwater use until the groundwater remedy is complete.

In 2020 the US EPA proposed an extension of the town’s Groundwater Protection District, and in 2021 a special town meeting approved the inclusion of the plume area and the buffer zone around it.

Until the area is fully mitigated, the shifts in groundwater contamination will necessitate periodic revisions to the zoning map. This is the first iteration of its shrinking. The EPA asked the board to update the zoning maps to consistently align with their groundwater monitoring maps.

Duffy had no comments.

Fratalia confirmed that the groundwater contamination mapping was being reduced versus expanded. He commented how this was good for the town and the residents. Lizotte reiterated how it was great to see progress.

The audience had no questions or concerns with the article. Motion for adoption of Article 14 passed unanimously.

Article 15

Robert Scarano, 1147 Main Street, represented petitioner, Nancy Anderson.

Scarono interpreted article’s purpose as a modification of the current building setbacks in the town center district. Currently, the town center district allows buildings to be 20 feet from the curb. Scarano requested relief from the article due to unintended consequences, expressing concerns about safety—specifically regarding sightlines near Ryan and Senate Elementary Schools.

He explained that modifying building setbacks ‘crouches and impinges’ on the site view from all side streets. He deduced that a minor project on those streets could force the hands of neighboring properties who are also considering improvements, rather than being assessed by the Planning Board on a case-by-case basis.

Scarano and Anderson proposed changing the minimum maximums on the front setback – originally set for 20 feet – to 10 feet. Additionally, the rear setback would be 50 feet on lots abutting the R40 district, unless waived by the planning board.

Fratalia noted that a lot of work went into the zoning bylaw, but he doesn’t have a problem endorsing small tweaks

Lizotte inquired as to how much of the town district center was bordering the the R40 district? It was concluded a very small portion of the actual district bordered R40. Scarano noted the importance for the Planning Board to be able to waive and modify, to keep that buffer.

Mr. Duffy asked if there was a specific project in mind that would be affected by the current zoning law. The Andersons had a property that would have to be moved close to the neighboring school. They had a safety officer review the proposed plan, and safety concerns were raised.

Duffy addressed the rest of the board members, asking if the board already had the authority to grant waivers. Lowder clarified, only if it was expressly written. “Under strict adherence [to] the zoning bylaw, the planning board does not have the authority to waive this particular provision, and it would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.”

Scarano added that the CBA does not have the authority to grant a waiver on the buffer. “A variance requires special circumstances, owing to that one lot [being] different from the entire zoning district. That’s why variances aren’t really applicable or warranted in these types of situations.”

He continued that while the bylaw is congruent for the major projects in the town center district, parking in the rear is more difficult for the smaller lots, especially when 20 feet from the front curb is demanded.

Ciampa commented on how the district boundary was laid out in a certain way and stated that as long as there was a means to make an appeal, the article shouldn’t be amended.

Scarano reiterated that variances were not easily applied for and this situation did not meet the criteria of a lot-by-lot basis.

Ciampa responded, “If we make a change here, this change would affect a whole series of lots where the setbacks work really well and are very much needed. Would we be shifting things in one direction and then creating another problem with the other districts?”

Johnson noted that ‘hardship appeals’ are difficult to prove. “If it’s an issue, we should fix it, because this is something we deal with, not pawn it off on the Zoning Board of Appeals to try to correct something that might be an issue on a one-off basis, as people have to keep coming in.” He continued, based on the enormous size of the zoning project, “to think that we don’t have some cleanup work, or possible cleanup work would be hubris.”

A motion was made and the recommended adoption of the article, as written, was passed four to one, with Ciampa voting against it.

Article 16

Robert Scarano continued presenting to the board, in argument against Article 16.

Based on the town’s current definition of “multifamily”, there are three types of housing that are not allowed: single-family dwellings, townhouses, and two-family dwellings. He argued that this definition was not consistent with the chart currently associated with it in Article 16. Updating the definition would “allow a diverse array of housing in the district to include single families, which now can have accessory dwelling units. It would allow duplexes, and it would allow multi-two-family dwellings.” The planning board would have the ultimate say on whether the type of housing was warranted for that particular project.

While Ciampa understood townhouses and two-family dwellings, he asked for the rationale behind incorporating single-family dwellings. He also inquired if they’d be one-story units or two-story units.

Scarano responded that single-family dwellings were still houses that could have multiple parties and multiple families living in them, via Additional Dwelling Units. An array of housing was better for the neighborhood rather than crowding it out with specific types of housing. This would be strictly for the town center district. These three types of housing are included in the Congress definition of multi-family housing.

Ciampa responded that, based on his knowledge of current single-family houses, he doesn’t necessarily see them as multi-family, even though they may fall within the full extent of that definition.

Fratalia commented, “Like Mr. Johnson said, it’s a grueling process. It took us six or seven years to get done.” However, he didn’t have a problem changing the article, provided that the Planning Board had the ability to review it.

While Duffy agreed with Fratalia, he also agreed with Ciampa as it would open the door for nothing but change.

Scarano commented on the legal standpoint versus the board members’ practical standpoint. “The legal perspective is that we have a bylaw [in which] the definition doesn’t match the chart. That’s a challengeable situation.”

Johnson pointed out that if a court decision determined that the article was inconsistent, Mr. Scarano could return with a warrant article.

Scarano reiterated that, with their adoption, the planning board would be able to address proposals individually. This would allow them to see the bigger picture in the zone—considering what surrounds it, what is already developed, and what is available for development.

Lizotte asked if this would allow single-family dwellings on a 10,000-square-foot lot.

It was explained that, currently, one can replace existing single-family dwellings on a 10,000-square-foot lot without utilizing the bylaw. However, due to the cost of land and the promotion of housing by state and local communities, it wouldn’t be economical, which is why a duplex is also an option.

Johnson expressed how he was torn about the proposed article adaption. If the idea was to create more housing, putting something in place that might somehow deter that, even nominally, would take issue for him. However, he explained he was also in favor of small lot zoning. He concluded that while he was in favor of townhouses and two-family dwellings, he was not in favor of single-family dwellings.

The Board suggested they return to Town Meeting to debate and amend it.

Fratalia added that he appreciated the proposal because it gave the board oversight, which they have not always had in the past. Scarano described it as “site plan purview.”

Ciampa emphasized that the board always wanted to work with the applicant to get to a ‘yes’, as long as it fits all the criteria and the board’s objections wouldn’t stand up to an appeal. He mentioned that if passed, single-family dwellings could be brought to the planning board, turned down, and be continuously appealed over and over.

Before conclusion, Lowder noted, “[Properties] are protected as a pre-existing non-conforming use. So anything that’s been in existence federalism, if it lawfully existed beforehand, can continue to lawfully exist.” One would have the ability to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special permit to increase the pre-existing non-conforming structure.

Fratalia recommended that they endorse Article 16 as written. Lizotte seconded, however with a two to three vote, the article was not recommended for adoption.

Scarano queried whether the board could be polled on whether or not they would support the Article with single-family homes redacted from the definition change. Johnson denied this request as it was in the abstract rather than proposed during the initial discussion. It was suggested to be taken to town meeting to be discussed.

Eco Auto

Al and Michelle Salas, along with Patrick McCarty from McCarty Engineering, once again came before the board to represent Eco Auto at 611 Main Street and 623 Main Street. They had previously presented to the board on September 9th, 2024.

On the 13th, they addressed the comments received from the Engineering Corps. Both Lowder and TEC submitted comment letters on the 19th with suggestions, and Lowder followed up with a summary letter on the 20th.

The biggest change presented was the removal of the proposed driveway on Rogers Street. Their new Fire Truck turning movement plan showed that an aerial fire truck—the largest apparatus—could enter the existing driveway off Route 38, make a right into the parking lot, loop around, and exit. Therefore, the Rogers Street entrance, as previously proposed, would no longer be needed. This change has allowed Eco Auto to extend its green landscape along the frontage of Rogers Street.

Mr. McCarty added they incorporated the abutters’ requests from the previous meeting. While there is a sewer line limiting the extent of their efforts, they added larger evergreen plantings along the rear of the property line. There also included a proposed stockade fence.

Additionally, sidewalks for the handicapped parking spaces were adjusted to the relocated front door of the building. McCarty highlighted how grateful they were for the speedy cooperation of all parties involved, due to their imminent project timeline.

Alex Lowder’s letter to the board, dated the 20th, summarized the following items that needed to be addressed:

• Fire truck turning plan and the proposed elevation of the solar canopy
• Sidewalks, as a condition of the bylaw
• Details on the construction sketch
• Details on the storm tech
• Details on the infiltration system
• Reiteration of the requested waivers, some of which relate to suggested approval from the board

In response, McCarty reconfirmed that the new fire truck turning plan allowed for both commercial and fire trucks to circulate beneath the solar canopy.

He asked for clarification from the board and staff, on where they needed to show sidewalks, other than what was previously presented from the accessible spaces to the front door of the building.

As mentioned in their previous presentation, all the stormwater would be directed to the front of the site, to an underground infiltration basin with 100% infiltration.

Michelle and Al had not selected a final solar vendor for the canopy or the solar on the existing roof. It was decided, based on the abutter’s comments, that they would no longer pursue solar on the roof of the new building. This eliminated the concern relative to glare.

Alex Lowder responded, that when a solar vendor was selected, they should come to the board to receive specs for the ladder truck to ensure it could move within the property.

Concerning McCarty’s sidewalk query, Lowder clarified that all developments must construct sidewalks on all public frontage. In the presenter’s case, it would be along Roger Street and Main Street. However, if the DPW determined that the sidewalks were impractical, a fee could be submitted in place of constructing them. “When they are generating their fee in lieu of calculation, it is with prevailing wage and mass procurement laws in mind.” The intent of the bylaw is to ensure safe pedestrian access from multiple points within the site.

Nick Lizotte commended them on their progress and is ” happy to see that the exit onto Roger Street is no longer in the plan.” Additionally, he ensured that the snow storage, located along the sides of the building on Route 38, would not block the line of sight when turning onto Route 38.

McCarty clarified this was a condition of approval by the staff to ensure that the line of sightings was maintained for snow-plowing efforts. Lizotte also inquired how the snow was cleared off of the snow canopy. It was confirmed the snow would be mounted off.

Mr. Duffy commented that he didn’t think the reflectiveness of the roof solar panels was an issue in the prior meeting. McCarty stated the cost versus benefit was weighed and they decided to take it down. Duffy also addressed if they had bike racks for their main building. They do not. They didn’t want any bicycles to cause damage to the cars, but they noted that if the board wanted bike rack accessibility for their employees, they would comply.

Ciampa commented on the photometric plan for the back of the building. He pointed out two lights over the back door. While he preferred some light to prevent public safety issues, he also wanted to ensure it was “designed and installed in such a way that it doesn’t create a spillover nuisance for your neighbor.”

However, he was corrected as the two lights were for emergency only, not for daily use. He proposed small lighting to help discourage poor behavior. Ciampa also confirmed, based on the renderings of the plans, that there would be two signs, one on the front of the property and one by the side door.

Johnson asked about putting in a sidewalk along Rogers Street, however, McCarty needed to consult with the DPW as three mature trees were lining the property that he wouldn’t want to tear down to construct the sidewalk. Fratalia also seconded a desire to see sidewalks put in for the local residents.

Fratalia referenced the clearance for the center canopy height, 13 feet and 6 inches. He wanted to ensure that firetrucks, delivery trucks, and plowing trucks had room to operate.

It was confirmed that car washing and car repairs would take place inside the back building.

To protect the town, Fratalia also asked for a decommissioning plan. Lowder confirmed a decommission amount is tailored to the development rather than a flat fee.

Johnson clarified the building was still structurally sound enough for the solar panels to be put on the roof of the building, for any future desire of installation. He also commented that with the current roof – 28 feet sloping down to 25 feet along the back of the building – if they ever were to install solar panels, the directional orientation of those panels would not be economically sensible.

Duffy looked up the reflectivity of modern solar panels – 2% – and stated in the future if they were added he wouldn’t have a problem with it.

Johnson highlighted that they maintain all sides of the building in perpetuity. He also commented on Ciampa’s previous suggestion of lighting in the back of the building for public safety concerns. Johnson stated that until there was a loitering issue, he did not want to install lighting that could create unnecessary nuisance for their neighbors.

Motion was made to close the public hearing. Motion was made to approve waivers 6.1.10.B, 6.1.14 and 6.2.10.H and site plan review, special permit. It was passed unanimously.

Correspondence

Johnson gave notice of a community outreach meeting for October 7, 2024, at 5:30pm, regarding adult use marijuana retail at 1625, Andover Street.

The next Planning Board Meeting session will be held on October 7th.