1.
Call to Order
Chairman Raymond
Shaw called the meeting to order at 7:25 P.M
at the Town Hall Auditorium. Present at
the meeting were Clerk Michael Sitar, Chief Tom Ryan, Will Lambert, George
Donovan, Steve Deackoff, Director of Community Development Steve Sadwick and
Recording Secretary Dawn Cathcart. Chief
Al Donovan, Vice Chairman James Carter, and Doug Sears were not present.
2.
Approval of Minutes – 03/04/04
MOTION - Mr.
Sitar made a motion to table the minutes of March 04, 2004 for review.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Deackoff and unanimously voted 6-0.
Traffic Update – Douglas Prentiss –
Judith Nitsch Engineering, Inc (JNEI)
Mr. Prentiss presented his report dated March 15, 2004.
The report included an introduction to the project with all the
reference material for review. Mr.
Prentiss stated that he agreed that the 5th Alternative has the
least impact to local roads. Mr.
Prentiss stated that the TEC is not a full study at this point but the report
will be expanded during the MEPA process.
The trip generation numbers have been provided and TEC has also provided
trip generation information from another Mills project in Virginia. That Mills project generated 18-21% less
traffic than the ITE model on a daily peak.
Mr. Prentiss stated that the following would be
recommendations for additional local mitigation. The first intersection that should be
addressed is East Street/Shawsheen Street. Another project is currently looking at
mitigation for this area. He suggests
that Mills be responsible for 25% of engineering design which will include 800’
out from the center point. Mr. Lambert
asked from where the 800’ is calculated.
Mr. Prentiss stated that the center point is in the middle of the
intersection and then go out 800’ in all direction. This will include the study of how many lanes
and how wide the road should be. The
second mitigation is intersection upgrades.
There are several that are defective and should be corrected. They are Shawsheen
Street/Ballard Street, Shawsheen Street/Old
Shawsheen Street/Memorial Drive, and Shawsheen Street/Old Shawsheen
Street/Mohawk Drive. The next mitigation
should occur at East Street/Maple Street. This intersection should be made into a “T”
type intersection to form a more 90 degree turn. The next mitigation should occur at East
Street/Livingston Street. A traffic light may be needed at this
intersection. The last mitigation is Rt.
38/Salem Street, Rt. 38/South Street & Salem
Street/South Street. Rt. 38 falls under Mass
Highway jurisdiction and it’s very congested. A full study in this triangle area is needed.
Mr. Prentiss stated that for his conclusion he did not have
the MVPC model to generate numbers, but the 8% that TEC has presented seems
reasonable. There is no direct access to
local roads except for the emergency access on South
Street. Mr.
Prentiss stated that he concurs with the TEC study. Mr. Prentiss stated that there is a caveat in
the conclusion that mentions 16-24% increase.
This is if the mall was built tomorrow and is not the same as the 8%.
Larry Knight of 16
David Street – Mr. Knight asked if the
costs of these mitigation items are included in the costs of Item #3 of the
Development Agreement. Mr. Shaw replied
yes. Mr. Knight stated that the language
in the Development Agreement seems to negotiate the money away. Mr. Shaw stated that language was added
because some of the intersections are already under review for other projects,
so with this language Mills could complete whatever was not done.
Susan Duffy of 67
Catamount Road – Ms. Duffy stated that the
STOMP traffic consultant could not make it due to weather. Ms. Duffy asked why the movie theater traffic
was not included in the traffic report.
Mr. Prentiss stated that the background growth number used by Mills is 2%. The historical data from Mass
Highway uses 1 – 1 1/2% growth numbers, so the
numbers are conservative from Mills. There
should be enough room to cover movie theater traffic. Mr. Prentiss stated that the Mills
information from Virginia was
monitored information. In this case the
ITE model was higher and Mills was 19-21% lower. Ms. Duffy stated that she is a total novice
but does not agree with the numbers for the theaters. Ms. Duffy asked if movie theaters would be
part of this project and if so how many.
David Wahr joined the meeting and stated that there is not a specific
number, but a range of 12-20 could be used.
Ms. Duffy stated that according to the STOMP traffic consultant, the
traffic for 12 movie theaters on Saturday would be 5,500 trips. Ms. Duffy asked if the movie theaters were
included in the GLA. Attorney Richard
O’Neill responded yes.
Mr. Deackoff asked if the average ITE rates were done by
existing analysis. Mr. Prentiss replied
yes. Mr. Deackoff asked if the data is
put in a range. Mr. Prentiss replied
yes. They have included a shopping
center based on SF. For example if a
range rate is close to 1 than it is considered good. This is about .81. The range rate is .68 per 1,000 SF to 29.27
per 1,000 SF, which is typical. There is
a figure in the TEC to explain this. Mr.
Deackoff asked what category was used.
Mr. Prentiss replied shopping center was used. The PM peak trips is 2374 and AM peak trips
is 531. Mr. Deackoff asked if mitigation
has been talked about. Mr. Prentiss
stated that they met last Tuesday to talk about mitigation. Mr. Deackoff asked why Mills would only pay
for 25% of the design costs on East Street/Shawsheen
Street. Mr.
Prentiss stated that he believes that a warehouse project has committed to
improve that intersection. Mr. Deackoff
stated that because of this mall this intersection drops from a B to a D in
level of service and because of this Mills should contribute more. Attorney Mark Bobrowski stated that Mr.
Prentiss was instructed to get a percentage of what Mills should provide to the
town for mitigation. The other projects
would pick up the rest. Mr. Deackoff
asked if the other intersections mentioned would be included in the Development
Agreement. Mr. Prentiss replied
yes. Mr. Deackoff asked about Rt.
38. Mr. Prentiss stated that the
intersection of Shawsheen Street/Rte. 38 is under contract to be improved by Mass
Highway already.
The intersection of South Street/Rte. 38 is already done. Mr. Deackoff asked about the intersection of South
Street/Salem Street. Mr. Prentiss stated that a study needs to be
conducted on what needs to be done there.
Mr. Sitar asked if every intersection would go out
800’. Mr. Prentiss stated that the
volume of the intersection is looked at as well as the taper lanes and signal lights. The 800’ is a point to start the survey
work. This will include curb cuts,
location of utilities, wires, and Town lines.
Mr. Sadwick asked that Mr. Prentiss explain the MEPA
process. Mr. Prentiss stated that it
starts with an 8-10 page report that addresses the thresholds to determine if a
project goes to an ENF or MEPA process. If
the trips are over 1000 and the parking spaces are over 300 than it
automatically warrant an ENF. The form
is filled out and elements are looked at.
The form is sent to State and Town officials, Mass
Highway, DEP, and Massachusetts Historical
Society. The scoping session is done on
site and information is gathered. The
project may require an Environmental Impact Report which is a one year
process. The entire time of this process
the Town is privy to the information being provided.
Mr. Deackoff stated that in the STOMP traffic information,
the traffic from Wilmington is
double. Mr. Deackoff asked if the
traffic mitigation will occur in Wilmington. Mr. Prentiss replied yes. The MEPA process broadens the scope. Mr. Deackoff asked if funds from other
projects are available for mitigation.
Mr. Prentiss replied sometimes they are.
Ms. Duffy asked if there will be a more comprehensive study
for this process. Mr. Prentiss replied
no, the information provided is enough at this point. The MEPA process will require more
details. Mr. Prentiss added that this
project is at an early state and typically at this stage the peak weekday is
looked at. With the MEPA process it will
include Saturday peaks.
Mr. Donovan stated that the Planning Board process would
also require the detailed numbers.
Mr. Prentiss stated that the applicant would not do a more
detailed study if there is no guarantee zoning will pass. Ms. Duffy stated that Saturday should be
included. Mr. Prentiss stated that it
will be in the MEPA process.
Attorney Bobrowski stated that when it comes to the Special
Permit, Mills would have to provide an escrow account for traffic review to
study these numbers closer.
Mr. Shaw asked who the traffic consultant was for
STOMP. Ms. Duffy replied it was Mr. Guy Busa
of Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc, 38 Chauncy
Street, Boston, MA 02111.
Kim Derosa of 109 Jennies Way
– Ms. Derosa asked if the Wilmington
property would have access to the ring road or local access. Mr. Wahr stated that the parcel in Wilmington
that Mills controls will only be accessed by the ring road. Mr. Shaw asked if there were any plans for
that parcel. Mr. Wahr replied that there
are no commitments and a hotel is not allowed under the current zoning. Mr. Prentiss added that the MEPA process will
look at vacant land and what is allowed by zoning.
Larry Knight of 16
David Street – Mr. Knight stated that if
there is no hotel than why does Item #7 in the Development Agreement talk about
water to Wilmington. Mr. Wahr stated that one option is for two
small hotels with 120 rooms and no conference center. This would not have a lot of traffic coming
from local streets. Most of the traffic
would come from the highway. Mr.
Prentiss stated that the MEPA process would require this to be looked at.
Paul Weitz of 1596 Andover Street
– Mr. Weitz asked where the second point of access to local roads is. Mr. Wahr stated that the only plan is to have
the ring road as a local road and connection to Ballard
Street.
They have met with Mass Highway
to discuss this.
David Silva of 1223 Shawsheen Street – Mr. Silva stated asked who
controls South Street. Mr. Shaw stated that with the information
provided, he believes it is a county road.
Mr. Silva stated than how can this be controlled by Mills and the Town
of Tewksbury. Mr. Wahr stated that the Mills has agreed
that access to their property will not be allowed from South
Street except emergency vehicles. We control the property and people can’t
access our property from South Street. Mr. Silva stated that if it is rezoned, the
residents will lose control. There would
be access to South Street
from Andover. Mr. Wahr stated that Jennies Wood stands
between Andover and the Mills
property.
3.
Sound Peer Review – Douglas Bell of Cavanaugh,
Tocci Associates
Douglas Bell from Cavanaugh Tocci Associates appeared for
the sound peer review. Mr. Bell stated
that the study included two aspects of sound.
The first was stationary mechanical equipment and then traffic. There was no information regarding the HVAC,
chillers, cooling towers, etc. for the project so design goals were used to
model equipment. The sound mitigation
was conducted over a four day period behind 81 Jennies
Way which is the furthest residence away from Rt.
93. The levels were between 48 in the
day to 35 dBA between 2 AM and 4 AM. The
limits should be 45 dBA during the day and 40 dBA at night (10 PM to 7 AM). For
the traffic portion they used information from Alternative 5 and information
from TEC. Mr. Bell stated that he agreed
that the increase in dBA would be 2 or less.
Mr. Deackoff stated that regarding the traffic, the ring
road is included but the ramp is more important because it is closer to the residence. The mall is 600’ away but the ramp is
closer. Mr. Bell stated that the closest
point to Jennies Way from
Rt. 93 is 350’. Mr. Bell stated that the
study area was provided and they looked at the impacts on the closest residence. They looked at the existing speed and volume
on Rt. 93 and the speed was almost ten times greater than what is
proposed. Mr. Deackoff asked if there
would be any forest buffer lost. Mr.
Bell replied he was not sure. Mr. Bell added
that removing a 50’ buffer of trees would not impact the noise levels. Mr. Bell stated that L10 is a federal
standard that says for a sound barrier wall to be required there must be a 67
dBA threshold. Mr. Deackoff asked if the
45 dBA includes outside a house. Mr.
Bell replied that was correct. Mr.
Deackoff asked if the mechanical equipment would ever exceed the traffic
noise. Mr. Bell replied that if they are
designed correctly their noise would not exceed traffic noise. Mr. Deackoff stated that in the Development
Agreement, #5, the maximum for mechanical equipment is 50 dBA, but your report
says 40 and 45 dBA and the octave table levels are different. Attorney Bobrowski stated that Mr. Bell
recommended his numbers and Mills consultant recommended different
numbers. This is part of the negotiation
process. Mr. Deackoff stated that in the
Tech Environmental report, they included a Court decision regarding Jennies
Way that says the dBA cannot exceed 40 in the
houses. Mr. Bell stated that study is
for the houses closest to Rt. 93. The recommendations
we provided is not associated with the interior of the houses, but to create
sound goals. The levels are now around
35 dBA and an increase of more than five should not be allowed. There are three sounds, interior, mechanical
and traffic. Mr. Deackoff stated that he
disagrees with the Development Agreement in that the level is 5 dBA more than
the consultant suggested. Mr. Deackoff
added that the Court decision should be added to the Development Agreement. Attorney Bobrowski stated that the Development
Agreement is at a point now where both parties should agree to the number.
Mr. Donovan asked what the difference is dB and dBA
was. Mr. Bell stated that dBA deals with
how a human hears sounds or a weighted sound.
Mr. Donovan asked traffic will drown out the mechanical sounds. Mr. Bell stated that on the east side of Jennies
Way that is correct.
Mr. Lambert stated that with the Doppler Effect, if one car
is traveling down Rt. 93 no sound would be heard. Mr. Bell stated that is not correct it would
shift the pitch. Mr. Lambert asked if
there would be a difference in sound with trees vs. a sound wall. Mr. Bell stated that it depends on the
location and size of the wall or buffer.
Mr. Bell stated that there already is a large tree buffer.
Peter Guldberg from Tech Environmental joined the
meeting. Mr. Guldberg stated that #5 in
the Development Agreement would address houses on the east side of Jennies
Way. The
covenant of the court order is adapted in the Development Agreement. The reason it is set at 45 dBA in the
Development Agreement is to protect the public against noise indoors. The USEPA guidelines recommend 45 dBA indoors
and peak limits are equitable not arbitrary.
The need to consider house levels is under regional factors, not from
Mills. The 40 dBA may not be reasonable
for years to come and the growth of Rt. 93 with or without the Mills project
needs to be considered.
Mr. Deackoff asked what the Town Noise Bylaw states. Mr. Sadwick replied that it states a maximum
of 50 dBA. Mr. Deackoff asked if there
is anything in the Zoning Bylaw. Mr.
Sadwick replied no it is only in the Town Bylaws. Mr. Guldberg stated that the Town Bylaw
states 50 dBA, but that is not the only regulatory authority. The DEP also has a noise policy, which states
it can go now more than 10 dBA above the lowest background noise. The noise measured 35 dBA at 81
Jennies Way, so the maximum would be 45 dBA. The World Health Organization also recommends
that the sound level at a residential bedroom with the windows open is no more
than 45 dBA average over an 8 hour period.
There are no recommendations from other agencies to go to 40 dBA.
Mr. Deackoff asked if the December 19, 2003 report was prepared by Mr.
Guldberg. Mr. Guldberg replied yes. Mr. Deackoff asked why the level on pg. 2 was
45 dBA throughout the day and night. Mr.
Guldberg stated that 45 dBA is typical background noise in a quiet area, not a
constant condition. The L90 background
noise is not an average sound level.
These are rules of thumb numbers, not the government
recommendations. The average sound level
of 45 dBA is health protective. Mr.
Deackoff asked how 50 dBA (1 hour Leq) differ from 45 dBA. Mr. Guldberg stated that 50 dBA is compiled
per acoustic modeling. Rt. 93 has noise so
the worst case will assume that all mechanical equipment is running at the same
time. The 1 hour Leq is the same as a
snapshot in time. Mr. Bell stated that
he disagrees and the report should use the maximum dBA level, not a Leq. Mr. Deackoff stated that a Leq is the
average, where the dBA is the maximum level.
Mr. Bell replied that was correct.
Mr. Shaw asked how noise is structured in the Town
Bylaw. Mr. Sadwick stated that it is
listed by maximum sound levels and broken out by residential and other property
and day and night. Mr. Bell stated that the
Town Bylaw uses the L10 requirement, which means if the level exceeds 50 dBA in
a residential district at night for 6 minutes in one hour than the noise in
unacceptable. Mr. Deackoff asked if the
numbers in the Development Agreement are not as protective. Mr. Bell stated that they are very similar.
Mr. Sitar asked if the Town Bylaw and Development Agreement
are similar. Mr. Guldberg replied
yes. Mr. Bell stated that they use
different philosophy. People complain
when something new is added, but the change is negligible.
Mary Fishlin of 120
Jennies Way – Mrs. Fishlin stated that Mr.
Cressman is the person who brought the suit against the developer of Jennies
Way to make sure the noise level in the house would not be more than 40 dBA. The limits
should be kept as close to 40 dBA as possible.
Mrs. Fishlin asked what the increase would be in traffic noise to the
closest Jennies Way
resident. Mr. Bell replied there would
be an increase of 1 to 2 dBA during the peak.
Mrs. Fishlin asked what is considered night time. Mr. Bell replied it is 10 PM to 7 AM. Mrs.
Fishlin stated that Mills is asking for concessions.
Kim Derosa of 109 Jennies Way
– Ms. Derosa asked if this study looked at current traffic or proposed
traffic. Mr. Bell stated that they
looked at 2008 with a build scenario of the ramp and ring road. Ms. Derosa stated that if you used the TEC
data for your information, did that include the increase in traffic from
expansion from Wyeth, Gillette, etc. Mr.
Guldberg stated that was included and it assumes the traffic uses the
ramps. Ms. Derosa asked how many cars that
would be. Mr. Shaw stated that was
answered at a previous meeting. Ms.
Derosa asked why mitigation would go out to 1 year after OCC. Mr. Guldberg stated that a project doesn’t
open to maximum use. It usually takes
some time to measure potential impacts.
Attorney Bobrowski stated that the Town is better protected after 1 year
than with a 3 to 6 month time frame. Ms.
Derosa asked why the sound barrier was not proposed prior to the mall because
Liz Link promised that. Attorney
Bobrowski stated that there is a minimal increase in dBA and we asked Mr. Bell
to get a cost estimate and design of a sound wall. This number was a large amount and with the
relative benefit if was decided to put the resources to better uses. Mr. Bell stated that the sound barrier would
have to be 1500’ to 2000’ long and 20’ high.
This would need to be placed right along Rt. 93 and if it was moved to
the mall it would decrease the benefit.
If this wall was built, it would be a benefit of 5-6 dBA reduction for
the closest Jennies Way
parcel. The sound walls works best when
the noise and receptors are close. The
cost of this wall is about $400,000. Ms.
Derosa stated that she doesn’t see the mitigation in the report. Mr. Shaw stated that the report would be
discussed later. Also, the wall would
fall within the jurisdiction of Rt. 93 and also in the area of the Conservation
Restriction.
Mr. Lambert stated that in 1997 when the houses were built,
did they meet the specifications. Ms.
Derosa stated that she is not sure and is looking into this. Mr. Bell stated that it seems that the houses
meet the 40 dBA standard due to the testing results. Ms. Derosa stated that she is not sure it was
built properly.
Larry Knight of 16
David Street – Mr. Knight stated that the
closest resident is 350’. Mr. Bell stated
that the closest residence to Rt. 93 is 365’ and 215’ to center of loop road. Mr. Knight asked if the 4th lane
of Rt. 93 was figured into the calculations.
Mr. Bell replied yes. Mr. Knight
asked if the existing trees would be removed.
Mr. Shaw stated that they are proposing to stay in the right of way of
Rt. 93. The fence marking the right of
way can be seen on Rt. 93. Mr. Shaw
stated that the conservation restriction is on the Tewksbury
side of Rt. 93.
4.
Environmental Review Report – Beta Corporation
Mr. Shaw stated that we do not have the report for
Environmental Review from Beta Corporation.
5.
Draft Zoning Article and Development Agreement –
Mark Bobrowski
Attorney Mark Bobrowski appeared for the discussion on the
zoning article and development agreement.
Attorney Bobrowski stated that they met Tuesday with representatives
from Mills, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Cressman, Mr. Sadwick and himself to discuss the
zoning article. Attorney Bobrowski
stated that he asked Attorney O’Neill to put this together as the next draft
revision. There were a few changes
made. In Section 8502 the definitions
were added for the accessory buildings.
Also in 8502, the building size is limited to 1.2 Million SF. In Section 8507, this was beefed up for the
Site Plan submittal to the Planning Board.
In Section 8508, the automotive uses and drive through facilities were
added as a Special Permit required. In
Section 8510, the landscape and lighting were added. In Section 8511, the sign specifications were
added.
Mr. Deackoff asked why Attorney O’Neill prepared this
draft. Attorney Bobrowski stated that he
was asked to draft this with my review and comments are included. Mr. Deackoff asked if Mr. Sadwick is familiar
with this draft. Mr. Sadwick replied
yes. Mr. Deackoff asked how the lighting
plan matches the current Zoning Bylaw.
Mr. Sadwick stated that it is very different. The applicant started to pull in the Illumination
Engineering Society of North America standards and the Town basically borrowed
from Belmont. Mr. Deackoff asked if this was more
liberal. Mr. Sadwick stated that he
would have to closely look at both before he answered that. Mr. Deackoff asked if this was part of the
meeting. Mr. Sadwick stated that the
Town directed the applicant to investigate the Dark Skies information. Mr. Deackoff asked if the peer review has
looked at this. Mr. Sadwick replied not yet. Mr. Deackoff stated that the building is
still at three stories, 80’ in the Development Agreement. Attorney Bobrowski replied that was
correct. Mr. Deackoff asked if re-tenant
would require a Special Permit. Attorney
Bobrowski stated that the Special Permit would apply to original tenants as
well as re-tenant. Attorney Bobrowski
added that the developer will show a single building and the Special Permit
will show the original tenants. They
will build out to the maximum allowed for the spaces. Mr. Deackoff asked if noise is addressed in
the bylaw. Attorney Bobrowski replied
no, it is in the Development Agreement.
Mr. Deackoff asked if items A-D in Section 8513 were added by Attorney
O’Neill. Attorney Bobrowski replied no, this
language gives the Planning Board full discretionary action. They can approve, approve with conditions or
deny. The Planning Boards decision can
not be overturned unless there was bias in the decision. Mr. Deackoff asked if the mitigation can be
modified without a Town Meeting vote so the Planning Board could instruct Mills
to pay 100% of the costs at the East Street/Shawsheen
Street intersection. Attorney Bobrowski replied yes, this Development
Agreement should be looked at as a floor not a ceiling.
Mr. Lambert stated that the Planning Board will have an
extensive Special Permit review.
Attorney Bobrowski stated that the Town of Tewksbury
procedurally can’t have more protection.
This will require a 2/3 Town Meeting vote, concept and Special Permit approval
from the Planning Board. Mr. Deackoff
asked if comments can be made on the Development Agreement. Mr. Shaw replied yes, this will be the last
meeting to accept info.
Attorney Bobrowski stated that the next item is the Development
Agreement. This is the 4th
draft and there are still changes needed.
He met with Attorney Zaroulis and it was decided that the Town Manager
and Board of Selectmen will sign the Development Agreement. Mr. Deackoff asked if the Town Manager could
amend this without a Board of Selectmen vote.
Attorney Bobrowski stated that there is one item #3, which is local
traffic improvements that will allow the Board of Selectmen to modify this
without a Town Meeting vote. Attorney
Bobrowski stated that Item 1 has not changed.
Mr. Deackoff asked who the easement will be given to. Attorney Bobrowski stated that it will be
given to a charitable organization. It
is up to the Planning Board to determine that.
Mr. Deackoff stated that access road could go over the wetlands. Attorney Bobrowski replied yes, but they are
also looking at getting an easement from the Town by eminent domain over the
Rocco’s property. For an eminent domain
taking it is hard to beat the public benefit.
Mr. Deackoff stated that a 2 to 1 wetlands replication is more appropriate. Attorney Bobrowski replied that is up for
negotiations. Mr. Shaw stated that
should be left to the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Deackoff stated that they never have asked for 2 to 1 replications
because the bylaw states 1 to 1. Mr.
Wahr stated that it is too early in site planning to comment on this. This project will have to go before the
Conservation Commission with more details when they become available. They are not philosophically opposed with the
2 to 1 replications. Mr. Deackoff stated
that in 1998 the flood water storage mitigation was looked at in this
area. This would be a good time to have
Mills perform some of this. Mr. Lambert
stated that this is not in our purview.
Mr. Deackoff stated that for the record he thinks that flood water
storage mitigation should be part of this project. Mr. Shaw agreed. If mitigation was available it should be
performed. Mr. Wahr replied that it is
in the Development Agreement because Mills agrees that there should be
replication. With the flood storage, the
initial plan called for chambers under the parking lot. This isn’t possible because of the water
table. This is an ongoing process but
more details are needed as well as the contamination factors.
Attorney Bobrowski stated that in Item 3 the last sentence
was added that the Town and Mills could modify this section without Town
Meeting. This will be changed to the
Board of Selectmen and Mills. Mr. Shaw
asked that after a public hearing also is added to this section. Attorney Bobrowski stated that in Item #4 the
last sentence was added. In Item #5 the
dBA have been added. Mr. Deackoff stated
that the dBA at 81 Jennies Way
was 35. The Court agreement calls for 40
dBA even though the Town Bylaw calls for no more than 50 dBA. The Development Agreement should reflect the
Town’s peer reviewer.
MOTION - Mr.
Deackoff made a motion to accept the report from Cavanaugh Tocci Associates and
insert the maximum sound levels for vehicular noise shall not exceed 45 dBA in
the day time hours and 40 dBA at night.
The motion was not seconded.
Attorney Bobrowski stated that Item #6 the cost of the
ambulance has been estimated at $150,000.
Mr. Sitar stated that the portable radios in this area do not work. Mr. Sitar requested that bi-directional
amplifiers be set up in the building.
Mr. Wahr stated that he would need the costs but is not opposed to the
idea. Attorney Bobrowski asked that the
costs and statistics be faxed to him as soon as possible. Mr. Wahr stated that costs of the ambulance
were estimated so this cost maybe able to be rolled into it. Mr. Deackoff asked if this is a life safety
issue. Mr. Sitar replied yes. Attorney Bobrowski stated that more
information has been added to Item #7.
This included a cost of $200,000 for water pipes and $250,000 for water storage. Item #8 includes an increased cost of
$273,000 for the sewer. Item #9 provides
for irrigation on landscaped areas. Mr.
Lambert asked what Mills would use for irrigation. Attorney Bobrowski replied wells. A map was provided for Item #10. The only thing closer than 600’ is the
ramp. Mr. Wahr stated that the road will
be in the right of way of Rt. 93. There
is a need to transition the road back to the property. This is about 230’ to 250’ away. Mr. Shaw asked if this would be encroaching more
toward the Jennies Way
property. Mr. Wahr replied no. Attorney Bobrowski stated that the mall is
within the ring road which is over 600’ away.
Mr. Shaw asked if this location of the ring road was taken into account
with the sound testing. Mr. Bell replied
yes.
Kim Derosa of 109 Jennies Way
– Ms. Derosa asked what the distance was to Jennies
Way and the ramp road. Mr. Wahr replied it varies. Ms. Derosa stated that it was agreed upon
that the center of the ring road would be 600’ feet away. Attorney Bobrowski stated that the first
attempt was to be the building 600’ away so if the ring road is 600’ than the
building is more.
Attorney Richard O’Neill – Attorney O’Neill
stated that the buffer will be determined by the location of the ramp and ring
road. The original plan came up as 450’
and about two meeting ago we looked at a 600’ buffer of middle of ring
road. The plan will also be attached to
the Development Agreement. Mr. Deackoff
asked if the plan will be the referenced Exhibit C. Attorney O’Neill replied that is
correct. Mr. Deackoff asked what the
dashed line represented. Attorney
O’Neill replied it was the restricted area.
Mr. Deackoff thought that all wetlands should have the restriction on
it. Attorney O’Neill replied that the
Conservation Commission will deal with that.
Attorney Bobrowski stated that Item #11 will allow for
access to Rocco’s. Item #12 will limit
the uses of adult entertainment and residential. Item #13 addresses the fees involved. There will be a one time payment of
$1,100,000 which includes building, electric, plumbing, gas and sewer permits. Mr. Shaw stated that the fees may be figured different. Mr. Deackoff asked why the fees are $245,000
less than the proposed fees by the Building Commissioner. Mr. Shaw replied he had no comment. Mr. Deackoff asked that the Board of
Selectmen review these numbers. Attorney
Bobrowski stated that nothing changed in Item #14. Item #15 deals with the necessary permits
Mills will be required. Items #16, and
#17 have not changed. Item #18 is new
and this deals with the skating facilities.
Attorney Bobrowski stated that he expects to meet with Beta,
Inc on 21E issues on Friday and possibly have them at Thursday’s meeting.
6.
Draft Committee Report
Mr. Shaw stated that the next Mills Study Committee will be
on March 16, 2004 at 7:00 PM.
7.
Reports
Mr. Shaw stated that there are no reports
8.
Public Input
Kim Derosa of 109 Jennies Way
– Ms. Derosa asked when the updated versions of the Development Agreement and
zoning will be ready. Attorney Bobrowski
replied that there are editorial changes and fixes that can be done right away
but the LSP and radio information will have to be added after. Ms. Derosa asked if Thursday will be the last
meeting of the Mills Study Committee.
Mr. Shaw replied yes, and then it will be going to the Board of
Selectmen. Attorney Bobrowski stated
that the Development Agreement is not a recommendation, it is what was
negotiated. Mr. Sadwick stated that the Development
Agreement will be an article for Town Meeting.
The applicant will advance it and maybe the issues will be hashed out
with the Board of Selectmen.
Mary Fishlin of 120
Jennies Way – Mrs. Fishlin asked why the
time limit for the Special Permit was changed from 4 to 8 years.
Attorney Bobrowski stated that in terms of the entire process this is
not unreasonable. If the ramp is not
built in 8 years then the overlay district goes away.
Larry Knight of 16
David Street – Mr. Knight asked why the
fees are a predetermined amount.
Attorney Bobrowski stated that should be discussed with the Board of
Selectmen.
Susan Duffy of 67
Catamount Road – Ms. Duffy asked why in
Item #8 was the word “may” added instead of shall. Mr. Wahr stated that it is a question of
timing. The sewer in that phase is going
out to bid in June, so depending how the process goes; Mills may want to spend
the $250,000 for the improvements now instead of later. Ms. Duffy asked if there are no permits will
the rinks go away. Attorney Bobrowski
stated that the rinks will have to follow the same procedure for permitting.
Mary Fishlin of 120
Jennies Way – Mrs. Fishlin asked how the
lights proposed a relative to the lights at the new Market Basket and how high
is the sign relative to the Cracker Barrel sign. Mr. Sadwick stated that he is not sure, but
can get those numbers.
Larry Knight of 16
David Street – Mr. Knight asked if the
fire engine could reach an 80’ building.
Chief Ryan stated that the ladder truck extends to 110’. Mr. Knight asked if the ambulance would be
stocked for $150,000. Chief Ryan replied
yes. Mr. Knight stated that he did a lot
of research on this and with the Concord Mills the fire apparatus was not
capable of reaching the top of the building.
As a result Mills agreed to give the town $500,000 in safety costs.
Mr. Lambert asked that the last two speakers at the
microphone speak and then adjourn.
Susan Duffy of 67
Catamount Road – Ms. Duffy stated that she
received a letter from the Tewksbury Rink Authority. Originally Mills promised 40 hours of rink
time to the Tewksbury Skating Association, now the Development Agreement
promises 700 hours per year at a reduction in rate of 25%. When Attorney O’Neill first spoke he said
there would be a reduction in fees of 40-50%.
Ms. Duffy stated that she talked with other rink organizations
associated with Mills and they didn’t get a rate reduction. Ms. Duffy read a letter from a South
Tewksbury resident opposed to the mall.
Attorney Richard O’Neill – Attorney O’Neill
stated that the lighting has changed dramatically due to the input from
residents on Jennies Way. The applicant is looking at Dark Skies. This proposal is tougher than the Zoning
Bylaw. Attorney O’Neill stated that as
far as the rink is concerned, it was put into the Development Agreement for
public access for Tewksbury. This included the School Department, the
Recreation Department for free skate, and Tewksbury Youth Skating
Authority. Mills will live up to their
agreement.
9.
New
Business
Mr. Shaw stated that there is no new business.
10. Old
Business
11. Next Meeting
Mr. Shaw stated that the next meeting will be on March 18, 2004 at 7:00 PM at the Library.
12. Adjournment
MOTION - Mr.
Lambert made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:35
PM. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Donovan and unanimously voted 6-0.
Approved:
Michael
Sitar, Clerk