Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-02 Planning Board Minutes (5)Present: J. Simons, M. Colantoni, R. Rowen, D. Kellogg, L. Rudnicki. L. McSherry Absent: Staff Present: J. Tymon, J. Enright Meeting began at 7:00pm. BOND RELEASE 62 Saile Way: Eugene Piacentini requests the release of a $2,000 performance bond. J. Tymon: This bond is associated with a Watershed Special Permit for construction of a single family home. An as-built has been submitted and a site visit conducted. MOTION A motion was made by D. Kellogg to release the bond for 62 Saile Way, including interest. The motion was seconded by M. Colantoni. The vote was unanimous. FORM A 78 and 80 Great Pond Road: Change of lot lines. Thomas Zahoruiko: This change allows for a 188 sq. ft. adjustment from one lot to the other. MOTION A motion was made by R. Rowen to direct the Town Planner to signoff on the Form A for 78 and 80 Great Pond Road. The motion was seconded by D. Kellogg. The vote was unanimous. 0 and 1591 Osgood Street: Change of lot lines. J. Tymon: These are two separate lots. The back lot will be part of the approved subdivision for 1679 Osgood Street. This lot line change was approved as part of that subdivision plan. MOTION A motion was made by R. Rowen to direct the Town Planner to sign the Form A for 0 and 1591 Osgood Street, which is consistent with the approved Subdivision Plan. The motion was seconded by M. Colantoni. The vote was unanimous. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, 1018 Osgood Street: Application for Site Plan Review-Special Permit for proposed construction of a 2,250 sq. ft. coffee shop with drive-thru and associated site amenities including drive-thru lane and twenty five (25) parking spaces. In addition, applicant has filed for a Request of Determination of Applicability of Watershed Protection District Requirements. J. Tymon: L. Eggleston has completed her review and there are some relatively minor changes recommended in her review letter submitted today. Those changes need to be reflected on a new plan. Reviewed changes to the plans related to the size of the infiltration system. Mark Gross, MHF Design Consultants: These revisions are to the details on the plan. The basic drainage design has been accepted. MOTION A motion was made by R. Rowen to close the Site Plan Review, Reduction in Parking, and Watershed Special Permit public hearings for 1018 Osgood Street. The motion was seconded by L. Rudnicki. The vote was unanimous. A draft Decision was reviewed. MOTION A motion was made by D. Kellogg to approve the Site Plan Special Permit and Reduction in Parking Special Permit for 1018 Osgood Street, as amended. The motion was seconded by R. Rowen. The vote was unanimous. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, 1018 Osgood Street: Application for a Watershed Special Permit and Parking Special Permit for proposed construction of a 2,250 sq. ft. coffee shop with drive-thru and associated site amenities including drive-thru lane. A draft Decision was reviewed. MOTION A motion was made by D. Kellogg to approve the Watershed Special Permit for 1018 Osgood Street, as amended. The motion was seconded by R. Rowen. The vote was unanimous. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Appleton Street: Proposed six lot Planned Residential Development Special Permit and Definitive Subdivision Plan to be located at 464 Appleton Street in the Residential-1 (R-1) Zoning District. The project would combine three (3) lots and raze an existing dwelling with frontage on Appleton Street. J. Tymon: A new plan has been submitted with a 30’ buffer shown. There is ongoing discussion between the Town’s attorney and the applicant related to the language in the paper street access and utility easement that is proposed to run across Lot 4. The Fire Department has approved the roadway plan of 24’. There are drainage structures proposed in the Open Space. There are infiltration ponds on Lot 4 and Lot 3. These will look like depressions in the back yards. L. Eggleston recommended rain gardens as opposed to infiltration ponds. Rain gardens would be more attractive and they would be less likely to be destroyed or filled in by a perspective homeowner. Phil Christiansen, Christiansen & Sergi: All infiltration systems have to be two feet above ground water. For a rain garden to be constructed properly there needs to be an additional two and a half feet of sand. The backyards would have to be built up two and a half feet higher than they are. R. Rowen: If they were dry they could be a grassy area in someone’s backyard. Recommended that they be left the way they are. They are a structure in a backyard and they work. J. Tymon: The detention basins would be reference on the deeds and would be required to be maintained by the property owners. The DPW is adamant about not maintaining the proposed stormceptor even though it is in the Right of Way. The Town does not have the particular equipment that is required to maintain the stormceptor. Bruce Thibodeau, Director, Department of Public Works, submitted an email stating that he backs up Gene Willis’, Town Engineer, recommendation. It is expensive to buy or rent the necessary equipment. The maintenance of the stormceptor would have to be put in the Homeowner’s Association agreement. R. Rowen: What is the requirement for the amount of Open Space in a Planned Residential Development? J. Tymon: They exceeded the amount required. R. Rowen: If the area of Open Space that is taken up by stormwater management structures was removed would they still meet the requirement? J. Tymon: Yes. The outstanding issues are the waiver request for the buffer zone and the language for the access and utility easement. R. Rowen: PRDs tend to be more congested. Adjacent properties wanted a buffer. There is an 80’ buffer of the Railway but it is open, no trees. P. Christiansen: Displayed the proximity of the adjacent houses to the proposed 30’ buffer area. J. Simons: What, in practicality, would be different between a 30’ buffer and a 50’ buffer? Are there unique site features that are driving the request? P. Christiansen: Since there is an existing 80’ buffer it is already greater than the 50’ required. J. Simons: What are you specifically trying to do with the 30’ that you could not get with the 50’? P. Christiansen: At a minimum there is 80’ of electric easement and 20’ of sewer easement that nothing can be built on. There is not any real benefit of the 50’ buffer for the neighbors because they are already getting what they want with the existing 100’ of buffer. J. Simons: You are not proposing to build anything in that 50’ from the property line. Would there be more tree clearing? P. Christiansen: Showed where the tree clearing would be if it were to be a 50’ buffer vs. a 30’ buffer. With a 30’ buffer there is 55 feet from the back of the house on Lot 1 to the 30’ buffer. There would be 35’from the house to a 50’ buffer. Eugene Garcia, 30 Keyes Way: The rule is 50’ of a buffer. The development can be built with the 50’ buffer zone. Why should the rule be broken and aesthetically bring down the view from my backyard? There is more security in fact that the 50’ buffer area can not be touched and further ruin the view. Requested that the required buffer zone be kept in place. Woelk Egbert, 50 Keyes Way: The existing structure is one story. The new structure would be much higher. The land is also a little higher. Requested that the required buffer zone be kept in place. R. Rowen: There is no compelling reason given to waive the 50’ buffer. There is a 50’ buffer for a reason and it is appropriate to have here. J. Simons: Agreed, there is not a unique or compelling circumstance here. We will keep the hearing open and vote on it at the next meeting. NEW PUBLIC HEARING, 110 Sutton Street: Application for Special Permit-Site Plan Review. Applicant proposes to construct a 3,850 sq. ft. single story addition and stormwater improvements. The addition will house two single room dance studios. Doug Mund, Mund Design Group: This project went before the Conservation Commission last week. Nancy Chippendale’s dance studio is looking to expand. Reviewed a recent new lobby addition and the proposed new addition of two dance studios. The construction would be completely outside of the 100’ buffer zone, the 100 year flood zone and the 200’riverfront area. All setbacks and height restrictions will be met. The existing site is almost completely asphalt and the runoff is fairly significant. In working with Lisa Eggleston and DGT Survey Group the strormwater management has been greatly improved. Reviewed the existing conditions, proposed site plan, stormwater management plan, architectural design, and landscape plan. The mechanical equipment will be located on the roof with the existing mechanicals and will not be visible from Sutton Street. Phil Yetman, DGT Survey Group: Reviewed detailed parking plan, site plan and stromwater management plan. A thousand feet of asphalt will be removed at the rear of the parking lot and two oversized forebays will be installed that will drain into a lever spreader. This will prevent the washout that exists today. J. Tymon: The existing parking lot sheet flows right into the river. There has not been any stormwater treatment for this parking lot. Lisa Eggleston has approved the design. J. Simons: Will there be 360 degree fire department access. P. Yetman: There will be a small gravel area but they will be able to come in and out in an emergency situation. D. Mund: Stated he has met with Lt. McCarthy, Fire Prevention Officer, and he has approved the plans. J. Tymon: A letter from National Heritage is pending. There is an eagle habitat that they are reviewing. MOTION A motion was made by R. Rowen to close the public hearing for the Site Plan Special Permit for 110 Sutton Street. The motion was seconded by D. Kellogg. The vote was unanimous. A draft Decision was reviewed. MOTION A motion was made by L. McSherry to approve the Site Plan Review Special Permit for 110 Sutton Street, as amended. The motion was seconded by D. Kellogg. The vote was unanimous. NEW PUBLIC HEARING, 250 Clark Street: Application for Special Permit-Site Plan Review. Applicant proposes to expand the existing building. The expansion will include an additional hanger as well as additional office space, research and development space and storage space. The expansion will also provide additional parking, a larger septic system and stormwater facilities. J. Tymon: The applicant is proposing to expand an existing leased area at the airport to add a 9,000 sq. ft. addition. The existing building is approximately 9,000 sq. ft. and there are currently nine parking spaces. Lisa Eggleston is reviewing the project. There is a high ground water table. The Board of Health is reviewing a preliminary design of the septic system. Jill Mann, Attorney on behalf of Flight Landata, Inc.: The existing building was constructed in 1989. Flight Landata was purchased by KEYW Corp. last year and they need to expand their space. This proposed addition is almost a mirror image of the existing building and will be connected to the existing building. Provided an overview of the building location, existing conditions, proposed site plan, and interior layout of proposed new building. A stormwater management plan has been submitted to L. Eggleston. Final plans will be submitted upon approval of the stormwater design. The project will be brought before the Conservation Commission on April 10, 2013. Pavement will be added to increase parking to thirty eight spaces. J. Tymon: There is still some work to do with L. Eggleston. She realizes it is a difficult site. The issues come down to drainage and septic design. A civil review was not completed for this site. J. Mann: Changes have been made to the plans based on L. Eggleston’s comments. Those changes will be submitted to her tomorrow. M. Colantoni: Is there any concern about aviation fuel leakage or spillage? J. Mann: The aircraft is taken to a fueling station for fuel. If there were any type of a failing on site it would happen inside the hangers where the aircraft is stored. There are drains, tight tanks, and suppression system which are required by the building code. MEETING MINUTES: Approval of March 5, 2013 meeting minutes. MOTION A motion was made by L. Rudnicki to approve the March 5, 2013 meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by L. McSherry. The vote was unanimous. MISCELLANEOUS J. Tymon: The Zoning public hearing has been advertised to open on April 16, 2013. Provided an overview of the Zoning articles to be discussed. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by R. Rowen to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by L. Rudnicki. The vote was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 9:.05pm. MEETING MATERIALS: Agenda, ANR Plan 78/80 Great Pond Road, ANR Plan 0/1591 Great Pond Road, 1018 Osgood Street: Grading & Drainage Plan dated 3/18/13, Eggleston Environmental review response dated 4/3/13, Eggleston Environmental review response dated 3/25/13, Draft Site Plan Review and Reduction in Parking Special Permit dated April 2, 2013, Draft Decision Watershed Special Permit dated April 2, 2013, 464 Appleton Street “Regency Place”: Definitive P.R.D. Subdivision Plan for “Regency Place” dated 3/12/13-4 Sheets, Draft easement language, Eugene Willis review letter dated 3/29/13, Request for waivers from PRD Requirements letter from Christiansen & Sergi dated 3/15/13, Email from B. Thibodeau to J. Tymon RE: Regency Place dated 3/12/13, Hancock Associates final peer review letter for 464 Appleton Street dated 3/14/13, 110 Sutton Street: aerial view, Existing Conditions Plan, Site Improvement Plan, Proposed First Floor Plan, Architectural Rendering Plan, Eggleston Environmental review letter dated 3/15/13, Proposed First Floor Plan dated 3/19/13, Draft Decision Site Plan Review dated April 2, 2013, 250 Clark Street: New Building Views dated 2/15/13, Layout Plan dated 2/15/13, Site Plan showing existing conditions dated 2/15/13, Site Plan showing proposed improvements dated 2/15/13, Site Plan Details dated 2/15/13, Eggleston Environmental review letter dated 3/13/13, 3/5/13 draft meeting minutes.