Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-05Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2000 APPROVED 10/3/2000 Members Present: Alison Lescarbeau Richard Rowen Richard Nardella John Simons Alberto Angles William Cunningham Others Present: Heidi Griffin, Town Planner Jacki Byerley, Planning Secretary Discussions: Foxwood Jim Rand opened the discussion stating that the DPW was not satisfied with the progress on Foxwood and would like to find a resolution to having the site completed by the contractor. Mr. Rand would like to see one common group l~om the various boards come together and work with the developer to get the outstanding issues completed. This common group could then get one list to the developer about what needs to be completed and lessen the developer confusion on what should be completed. Mr. Rand then mentioned that the Selectmen suggested looking into the licenses of the workers on the development to see if they had recourse that way to get the project finished. He then went on to say that the site will always be a difficult one but he would like to see it finished. Ms. Lescarbeau then questioned Tom Hurley on why after they had numerous meetings regarding the completion and nothing had been tackled on the list that had been given to him. Then she wanted to know that if there were problems or misunderstanding with the list as he hasn't made any phone calls to find a resolution. She then stated that the Planning Board cannot make the phone calls for him and shouldn't be expected to. Mr. Hurley stated that he had received incorrect information about what needed to he done. He then went on to say that there have been a few different lists and wanted to know whether he should he following the VHB directiom or what was given to him by the Board. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that the different lists should be combined and both completed to satisfy all aspects of the development. Mr. Rand told the Board that he has talked to the developer and hasn't gotten any information on the completion date. He also knows that the Bond Money being held by the Board is not enough to complete the remaining work. He would like to see it completed by the developer to the specification required by the Board. Mr. Jack Devlin from the audience informs the Board that they are asking the Zoning Board Of Appeals to step in and have the Building Commissioner enforce the Special Permit granted to the developer by the Planning Board. He then went on to say that the as built plans axe not the same as the proposed plans. Mr. Rand infomted Mr. Devlin that if the as built were to be the same as the proposed most of the owners in the development would have to change their lots at their own cost. Mr. Simons suggested that the developer have a date to give the Planning Department that would show when they are going to come before the Board with a modification plan and some timeline of action taken. Mr. Devlin again spoke about the VHB report and the action items on the report. HE stated that Jim Rand should be passive not active with the development. Mr. Devlin stated that Mr. Rand does not have a degree in hydrology and that VI-IB has enough engineers and they should be the ones reviewing the plans and making the lists on what needs to be done to complete the project to everyone's satisfaction. Mr. Rand defended bim~lfby saying he has always worked with VItB and that DPW does not hesitate to submit plans to VI-lB for review, recommendations are made from him with the answers received from VHB. Mr. Simons suggested that the bond be pulled on the upcoming meeting of October 3. Mr. Rowen disagreed with that saying that the Board should not take on the extra responsibility to design the drainage solution. Mr. Rand again stated that the mount being held in a bond was not enough for the Town to complete the worlc He went on to say that although he would like to see the work completed as quickly as possible realistically it was not going to be done this year. With that he suggested getting the developer to come forward with a definite timeline of when the work was going to progress. He wanted the developer to show good faith towards the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen and have this done in the time limit that the Selectmen set forth at the end of September. Ms. Lescarheau went on to say to the developer that how this is being handled is a poor reflection on his company and how he does business in this Town. Mr. Rowen then told the developer to complete DPW's and VHB's lists and that he had until the next Planning Board meeting of September 26 to come up with an action plan. Mr. Devlin referred to Mr. Scott's memo suggesting that all the departments that are holding bond money for Foxwood's get together and combine totals to see if that was enough to complete work. Planning Board Meeting September 5, 2000 APPROVED 10/3/2000 Members Present: Alison Lescarbeau Richard Rowen Richard Nardella John Simons Alberto Angles William Cunningham Others Present: Heidi Griffi~ Town Planner Jacki Byerley, Planning Secretary Discussions: Foxwood Jim Rand opened the discussion stating that the DPW was not satisfied with the progress on Foxwood and would like to find a resolution to having the site completed by the contractor. Mr. Rand would like to see one common group from the various boards come together and work with the developer to get the outstanding issues completed. This common group could then get one list to the developer about what needs to be completed and lessen the developer confusion on what should be completed. Mr. Rand then mentioned that the Selectmen suggested looking into the licenses of the workers on the development to see if they had recourse that way to get the project finished. He then went on to say that the site will always be a difficult one but he would like to see it finished. Ms. Lescarbeau then questioned Tom Hurley on why after they had numerous meetings regarding the completion and nothing had been tackled on the list that had been given to him. Then she wanted to know that if there were problems or misunderstanding with the list as he hasn't made any phone calls to find a resolution. She then stated that the Planning Board cannot make the phone calls for him and shouldn't be expected to. Mr. Hurley stated that he had received incorrect information about what needed to be done. He then went on to say that there have been a few different lists and wanted to know whether he should be following the VHB directions or what was given to him by the Board. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that the different lists should be combined and both completed to satisfy all aspects of the development. Mr. Rand told the Board that he has talked to the developer and hasn't gotten any information on the completion date. He also knows that the Bond Money being held by the Board is not enough to complete the remaining work. He would like to see it completed by the developer to the specification required by the Board. Mr. Jack Devlin from the audience informs the Board that they are asking the Zoning Board Of Appeals to step in and have the Building Commissioner enforce the Special Permit granted to the developer by the planning Board. He then went on to say that the as built plans are not the same as the proposed plans. Mr. Rand informed Mr. Devlin that if the as built were to be the same as the proposed most of the owners in the development would have to change their lots at their own cost. Mr. Simons suggested that the developer have a date to give the Planning Department that would show when they are going to come before the Board with a modification plan and some timeline of action taken. Mr. Devlin again spoke about the VI-lB report and the action items on the report. HE stated that Jim Rand should be passive not active with the development. Mr. Devlin stated that Mr. Rand does not have a degree in hydrology and that VHB has enough engineers and they should be the ones reviewing the plans and making the lists on what needs to be done to complete the project to everyone's satisfaction. Mr. Rand defended himself by saying he has always worked with VHB and that DPW does not hesitate to submit plans to VHB for review, recommendations are made from him with the answers received from VI-lB. Mr. Simons suggested that the bond be pulled on the upcoming meeting of October 3. Mr. Rowen disagreed with that saying that the Board should not take on the extra responsibility to design the drainage solutiom Mr. Rand again stated that the amount being held in a bond was not enough for the Town to complete the work. He went on to say that although he would like to see the work completed as quickly as possible realistically it was not going to be done this year. With that he suggested getting the developer to come forward with a definite timeline of when the work was going to progress. He wanted the developer to show good faith towards the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen and have this done in the time limit that the Selectmen s~t forth at the end of September. Ms. Lescarbeau went on to say to the developer that how this is being handled is a poor reflection on his company and how he does business in this Town. Mr. Rowen then told the developer to complete DPW's and VHB's lists and that he had until the next Planning Board meeting of September 26 to come up with an action plan. Mr. Devlin referred to Mr. Scott's memo suggesting that all the departments that are holding bond money for Foxwood's get together and combine totals to see if that was enough to complete work. Ms. Lescarbeau agreed with Mr. Rowen about given the developer until the next planning meeting to ex)me up with an acceptable list before any further action is to be taken. The discussion closed with the developer coming to October 3 meeting with enough infmmation to satisfy all involved. The Planning Board instructed the developer to file a Subdivision Modification in accordance with the M.G.L. 41U or else the remaining bond monies would be seized at the October 3 meeting. Public Hearing: 1267 Osgood Street-AT&T Wireless-Repetitive Petition Mr. Steve Anderson handed out a memo showing what he hoped the Board would make a decision on this evening on their request for a Repetitive Petition. He then went on to say that the point of the public hearing was to show the Board that they have a substantial and material change to the original plan. The original height requested was 120' and has been dropped to 80', and they have increased the set back from the Barker House from 142' to 150'. Mr. Simons agreed with making a decision on the Repetitive Petition but as for the continued Public Hearing he would prefer to wait until a later date to make the decisions on that. Mr. Nardella wanted to know whether the foundation and the cables are accessible. Mr. Anderson inforfaed him that the cable are all going underground and that the original plan showed that they had proposed landscaping trees around the 12'x 28' equipment shed. Mr. Angles suggested that they do a balloon test to give the public a sense of what the area would look like, it may help eliminate some fears of the abutters. Ms. Lyn Arkivar an abutter to Barkers Fami stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals had also voted on the height of 90' and that 80' was not enough of substantial change to warrant an approval of the repetitive petition. Mr. Tim William also an abutter questioned AT&T about why when they had come before the ZBA they had said that 90' was the lowest they could go and now they are requesting a height of 80'. Ms. Lescarbeau informed him that the 90' was the height they could live with to give optimum transmission but 80' was acceptable for a smaller area of coverage. Mr. Rowen also stated that the petitioner asked for 120' but could live with 90'. Ms. Lescarbeau commented that 120' to 80' was a substantial change. Mr. Nardella motioned to APPROVE the Repetitive Petition for 1267 Osgood Street, 2~a by Mr. Simons. Voted 6-0 in favor of. Mr. Walter Soule Vice, Chakman of the Zoning Board of Appeals stood and requested that the petitioner and members of the community get together to review other possible sites for antenna and other communication facilities that might want to come to the area. Ms. Bernice Fink stated that the Selectmen had already put together a sub committee to research alternative sites. Mr. Anderson agreed with the creation of the sub committee and would like to sit with this committee to make every possible effort to be cooperative with the Town. 39 Hawkins Lane Lot 5-Access other than Legal Frontage Mr. Steven Stapinski presented to the Board that the original subdivision approval for Lots 4 & 5 included a special permit approval. When Mr. and Mrs. Scott started construction of the second lot (lot 5) they notice that the special permit had expired. Within the mean time of the approval another By law had been passed which required the Scotts to come before the Board for Access other than Legal Frontage. The plan shows that the frontage Ia_as moved 15 feet form the definitive plan. It is now shown in wetlands, the plan is in front of the Conservation Department and that Department has asked for a the delineation to be moved 5 feet. The Health Department has approved the septic system. Mr. Simons commented that the lot wouldn't pass if it were being created today but with the original date of approval the petitioners are doing what they have to do to make the lot accessible. Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing on Lot 5 Hawkins Lane Access other than Legal Frontage, 2nd by Mr. Nardella. Voted 6-0 in favor of. Mr. Nardella questioned the placement of some items in the drafted decision and requested that item//6 be moved to #1 and that the header read that the premises affected are Lots 4 and 5. Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the access other than legal frontage for Lot 5 Hawkins Lane as amended, 2nd by Mr. Simons, Voted 5-1 in favor of. Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing on 39 Hawkins Lane Common Driveway, 2aa by Mr. Angles. Voted 6-0 in favor of. Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the common driveway for Lots 4 & 5 Hawkins Lane as amended, 2~a by Mr. Angles. Voted 5-1 in favor of. 1812 Turnpike Street-Proposed Site Plan Mr. Elmer Pease stated that he had received a copy of the Outside Consultants memo and there are 14 items present on the memo. Eight of those items have been addressed. The remaining items have been addressed on the revised plans and he didn't understand why they were listed again. He commented that since he had just received the memo that day he had not had the chance to talk to Mr. Chessia but was willing do so to straighten up any confusion. Ms. Lescarbeau wanted to know about the easement they would need to create Pond 1. Mr. Pease stated that the petitioner was also the owner of the abutting property that is needed for the easement and as soon as the plan was approve the paper work would be fried. Mr. Simons agreed that more discussions are needed and would have to wait until Mr. Pease had spoken to Mr. Chessia but he suggested that the site share a driveway with the other business on the road. He stated that it would be benefit the community to share a · parking lot rather than create two so close to each other. Mr. Simons would like Mr. Pease to speak to the owner about the possibility. Mr. Pease agreed to speak with the owner. Mr. Rowen motioned to CONTINUE the Public Heating for 1812 Turnpike Street until September 26, 2000meeting, 2nd by Mr. Angles. Voted 6-0 in favor of. 1679 Osgood Street-Stor U Self Richard Kamiinski of Richard F. Kaminski & Associates, Inc. presented the updated plan to the Board. The updated plan showed the location of the dumpster moved to the back of the property by the stockade fence. The handicapped ramp has been revised using the recommendations from VI-lB dated August 29, 2000. Mr. Kaminski has satisfied all of VHB's comments and has received verification from VHB that the remsining concerning matters have been satisfied. Ms. Lescarbeau wanted to know what Mr. Kaminski proposed as the buffer? Mr. Kaminski stated that the area around the pond would be landscaped and have a double rail fence. Mr. Kaminski informed the Board that in the original plans it showed the type of tree as being evergreen and that has been changed to an Exa~lish Oak. Mr. Kaminski then went on to tell the Board that there was a house on either side of the proposed site and the business was going to be coming out the right hand side. The proposed building is shown as stepping up the hill and there was one garage door in the back. The petitioner has received a variance for parking, the approval from Conservation and approval from Health for Septic. They are still waiting to hear from the Mass Highway about the curhage but he believes it will be coming in shortly. Mr. Simons questioned the material being used to construct the building, he would like to see it built to be pleasing to the eye as well as a functioning facility. Mr. Simons understands that the building needs to be made to stand through a certain amount of abuse but he would like to see it built to look pleasing also. At this point the petitioner explained that the market in this area doesn't warrant the higher rents that companies can get in other areas that build better looking brick buildings. Mr. Nardeila motioned to CLOSE the Public Heating for 1670 Osgood Street, 2na by Mr. Rowen. Voted 6-0 in favor of. Mr. Nardella requested that within the decision be added a provision that no vehicle be stored on the site. Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the Site Plan Review Special Permit for 1670 Osgood Street as amended, 2~ by Mr. Angles. Voted 6-0 in favor of. Boston Ski Hill-Proposed Site Plat, Mr. Paul Marehionda opened the discussions showing the Hiking Trail layout, there are five parking spaces at the base ofthe hill which ifthe start ofthe trail. Mr. Angles wanted to know if there would be a reasonably sized bus shelter? Mr. Marchionda informed them that the shelter would be located in the turn around. Mr. Marchionda went on to state that they profiled what a looped roadway would look like and that it is possible to connect the roadway back to Route 114. Mr. Marchionda has subnu'tted plans to VHB with the looped roadway and it would be up to the Planning Board whether they want it built or not. There would be 2 t/2 acres of trees that would need to be cleared to build the looped roadway. Mr. Angles wanted to know whether they had planned on paving the roadway? Mr. Marchionda let them know that the roadway would be 16 feet wide, paved and only used for emergency access. The loop would be a 16% grade. Mr. Nardella wanted to know if they were going to cut and fill the area? Mr. Marchionda let them know that it would be a two to one side slope. The site was going to have a residency of 79 units with 3 bedrooms. In a memo from the Fire Department to Ms. Griff'm the Fire Department wanted to know whether it was feasible to put the roadway in not that it had to be put there. Mr. Angles commented that the looped roadway would be good planning but having a 16% grade is awful. Mr. Rowen wanted to know the grade of the main roadway? Mr. Marchionda informed them that it was to be a 10% grade. Mr. Marchionda went on to say that the vertical alignment has been approved by VHB and that the design speed could handle a speed of 25mph but the posting would be less. Mr. Simons wanted to know what was happening with the open space? Mr. Marchionda commented that the lots would be 30 feet from the open space and that 16.68 acres of land would be designated as such. He went on to say that 11 acres of the 16.68 would stay in its current state without the looped roadway. Ms. Lescarbeau wanted to know what was happening with the widening of Route 1147 Mr. Marchionda told them that they hadn't been asked to widen the roadway so at this time it wasn't going to be done. Mr. Dermot Kelly of Dermot Kelly Associates, Inc stood to speak on hehalf of the Traffic Impact & Access Study. Mr. Kelly went on to say that VHB's memo has stated that a traffic light is not necessary. Ms. Lescarheau commented that even with the VHB memo it had been a close call to not require a traffic light and that doesn't mean that one shouldn't be installed. Mr. Kelly stated that they would construct a serrated concrete island to accommodate the tums of trucks coming into the development. Also that on Johnson Street they were going to have a right turning arrow. Mr. Marchionda stepped in to inform the Board that a Notice of Intent had been filed with the Conservation Department and they were anticipating a decision being made on September 6. Ms. Lesearhean wanted to see a construction schedule fxom the applicant in writing. Mr. Marchionda had a layout to show the schedule using phases and showing sections, he did not have a start or finish date. The layout showed a time line of Section 1 being 6-9 months, Section 2 12 months, and Section 3 18 months. Mr. Marchionda did let the Board know that with each of the Sections they would cut and fill and have all utilities brought to each lot in that Section at the same time. At this time though Mr. Marchionda was unable to give a start date to construction. He did inform the Board that he would write a letter with more detail information for the start date and construction schedule. Ms, Lesearheau question the easement of Route 114 to the State Highway Department? Mr. Marchionda infomted the Board that the Mass Highway Department hadn't asked for an easement and that they were not going to offer one to them. Mr. Marehionda went on to say that they would wait until the Mass Highway Department had asked for the easement. Ms. Bernice Fink an abutter to the site plan stood to say that she had reviewed all the Planning Department files and read her concerns from the attached memo. She also handed the Board members a hand out that is also attached. She went on atter reading the memo to those present to say she believes that this is not a subdivision and that they are showing no change to the lots. Also at the time of the original approval they didn't need a height variance and now they do because it hadn't been grandfathered in. Mr. Marchionda commented regarding Ms. Finks statement. Mr. Marchionda stated that the plan in front of the Board is showing changes from the original so they are not the same as she has stated on previous occasions. Mr. Marchionda informed the Board that the ZBA wanted to wait until the Planning Board had made a decision. Mr. Simons informed Mr. Marchionda that the Planning Board has to deny any plan that does not conform with Zoning. Mr. Rowen stated that with the subdivision having coming in front ofthe Board years before and now there was a new Zoning By Law that the Board would have to use only one By Law instead of referring to the old and then the amended. Mr. Marchionda went on to say that the Board was not approving the height of the houses just the site plan but if the Planning Board chose they could add it into the decision. Mr. Nardeila thought it a good idea to let them know whether they should decide on the plans with the looped roadway or not. Mr. Simons suggested just adding any issues such as the looped roadway and easement into the decision under conditions. Mr. Marchionda went on about the detention pond stating that the roadway can be widened at a later date and the detention Pond would not have to be relocated. Mr. Rowen suggested making a decision with what has been presented to the Board. Mr. Nardella wanted to know the petitioners view on the addition of a traffic light. The applicant offered to pay percentage of the cost of putting in a traffic light at a later date. Mr. Gene Willis an abutter to the site stated that he wanted the Town to get the future owners of the Townhouses to sign a release from being able to sue the Town if anything should happen to them because of the safety issues of no traffic light being present. Mr. Willis also questioned the reliability of the developer of being readily available to listen to the complains of the Townhouse owners. Mr. Grandstaffthe applicant stated that he was building a new commercial office in the area and that he was going to he around a while. Mr. Grandstaffwent on to say that he would approach the Mass Highway about the easement and offer it to them and agreed to offsite improvements such as the traffic light. Mr. Kelly went on to say that he had watched the flow oftraffc on Johnson street and he obserwed that most of the traffic avoided the traffic light at Mill Street. He speculated that if a light were to be place on Johnson Street the traffic would start using Brook Street that has no light. Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing on the proposed Site Plan of Boston Ski Hill 2~ by Mx. Simons. Voted 6-0 in favor of. A decision is to be drafted for the September 26,2000 meeting to be voted on. Mr. Rowen motioned to ADJOURN the Planning Board meeting, 2~a by Mr. Simons. Voted 6-0 in favor of.