Meeting Minutes
Planning Board
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Newbury Town Hall
Members Present: Kathleen Pearson, Chair; Linda McCamic; John O’Connell
Members Absent: David Powell; John Weis
Staff Present: Martha Taylor, Town Planner
Chairman Pearson called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
A. Public Hearing Continuation – Site Plan Review for 101 Newburyport Turnpike, ERA Equipment:
Kathleen Pearson, Chair, opened the continuation of the public hearing to consider the Site Plan Review application of ERA Equipment/Angelo Ciardiello for a proposed contractor’s building at 101 Newburyport Turnpike (Route 1). In attendance were Angelo Ciardiello, the applicant, and his engineer, Alan Roscoe of Hancock Associates.
J. O’Connell reported that he, M. Taylor, and Doug Packer, Newbury’s Conservation Agent, had met with Mr. Roscoe, Mr. Ciardiello, and the Board’s review engineer, Joe Serwatka following the last meeting. In order to resolve outstanding questions regarding the soils in key locations, Mr. Ciardiello agreed to do additional soil testing on the site in the areas of the underground detention structure, the grass swale, the detention basin, and the infiltration trench. Three of the pits hit ledge at 18” to 27”; the fourth hit ledge at 56”. To meet the State’s stormwater management requirements, ledge and/or deleterious materials will be removed and replaced with sand where needed. A note to that effect has been placed on the revised drawings. Mr. Serwatka has confirmed that he has no further questions or comments regarding the stormwater management system design.
K. Pearson asked Mr. Roscoe to describe what was new on the drawings since the last meeting. He reviewed the landscape plan, showing new and relocated birch trees to provide the screening requested by the Board and to take the trees out of the detention basin. J. O’Connell noted that the trees now appear to be located in the drainage swale. A. Roscoe replied that the intent of the plan is to indicate the number and spacing of the trees. Final location of the trees will be determined after the swale is constructed.
K. Pearson inquired about the specifications for the paving to be done on Sled Road. A. Roscoe said that the pavement on Sled Road to the site from Route 1 will be designed as an industrial driveway to ensure that it supports the weight of Mr. Ciardiello’s trucks. J. O’Connell said that he found the cross-section shown on the plan to be satisfactory. K. Pearson then asked about the width. A. Roscoe said that the width of pavement shown on the plans is 24’, in order to provide some setback between the edge of pavement and the edge of the pocket wetland. M. Taylor noted that 24’ is the minimum width required for a subcollector per Newbury’s Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Following further discussion regarding the construction and width
of the proposed pavement on Sled Road, the Board determined that the design was acceptable.
A. Roscoe noted that the O & M plan for the site had omitted mowing. The intention is to mow two times per year.
The Board had no further comments or questions. No members of the public were present.
Motion: A motion was made by J. O’Connell and seconded by L. McCamic to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
The Board then reviewed the Decision Criteria for site plan review approval and determined that all criteria had been met, except for § 97-9.A.(4)(g) regarding variances and special permits, which are not needed for this application and therefore don’t apply. The Board’s understanding is that the Conservation Commission has granted conditional approval for the project.
Motion: A motion was made by J. O’Connell and seconded by L. McCamic to approve the Site Plan Review application for 101 Newburyport Turnpike subject to the following conditions: 1) Approval for the access to the site and driveway from the Fire Department; 2) Relocation of trees and plantings out of the stormwater drainage system; 3) Board of Health approval; 4) Approval of the Performance Guarantee by the Selectmen. The motion passed unanimously.
B Subdivision Rules and Regulations Update:
J. O’Connell noted that the 50’ right-of-way width required under the current Subdivision Rules and Regulations is not sufficient to accommodate country drainage and asked the Board members to consider increasing the minimum requirement.
On a motion made by L. McCamic and seconded by J. O’Connell, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha Taylor
Town Planner
| 
