Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-06Planning Board ~=ting Senior Center F~b~uary 6, 1996 Members Present.' Joseph V. Mahoney, Chairman, Richard Rowen, Vice Chairman, Alberto Angles, Associate Member. A/ison Lescarbeau arrived at 7:10 p.m., Richard Nardella arrived at 7:20 p.m., and John Simons arrived at 7:25 p.m. Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner was also present. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. Minutes On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Angles, the minutes of January 16, 1996 and January 23, 1996 were unanimously approved. Discussion: Coventry I - bond enforcement Ms. Colwell reported to the Board that there is no update from Kevin Mahoney, Interim Town Manager. The Board was generally disturbed regarding the lack of an update, and Mr. Nardella vehemently stated for the record "that we have no gutsy people in Town willing to make a decision!" Mr. Mahoney stated he will be sending a letter to the new Town Manager and Board of Selectmen. Warrant Articles Ms. Colwell gave a brief update stating that the public hearings on the hotel, motel; site plan review; rezoning of route 114; and the sign bylaw will be held on February 13, 1996. Mr. Mahoney asked, regarding site plan review, how are the parking spaces figured? Ms. Colwell stated that Mr. Nicetta, the Building Inspector, uses a formula for calculating how many spaces are needed. Mr. Rowen asked in his calculations are there any provisions regarding the timing of how many spaces are needed in regards to the hours of operation of a business? It was unclear whether that is taken into consideration. Ms. Colwell stated that she is to meet with Chief Dolan and Chief Stanley tomorrow regarding the possible location of an adult use zone. 1 Endorsement of Plans Campbell Forest - Subdivision Ms. Colwell stated that the Planning Board had endorsed the plans in 1992, but they were never recorded. Therefore, the Board must now re-endorse the plans in order for them to be recorded. All the documents were dated 1992, but have been brought up to date. She sees no reason why not to re-endorse. There was some concern regarding where the Board should re-endorse the plans. Atty. Scalise was present and stated that according to the Registry of Deeds, a new signature space area with a date is sufficient. The Planning Board signed the plans and the covenants. Public Hearings New: Fee Regulations - adoption of new fees for outside consultants Ms. Lescarbeau read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Ms. Colwell recommends adopting these fee regulations as they will allow the Planning Board to officially hire outside consultants to look at drainage, legal issues, design issues, watershed issues, etc. The basic application fee remains the same, but the applicant must also now pay a project review fee. This money will be placed into a special fund that is drawn down to provide for consultant services. Ms. Colwell stated that these fees have the support of the Board of Selectmen and the Acting Town Manager. On a motion by Mr. Simons, seconded by Mr. Nardella, the Board voted unanimously to approve. Continued: Lot 1 Dale Street - Watershed Ms. Lescarbeau read a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance until the March 5, 1996 meeting. Lot F Flagship Drive - Site Plan Review Ms. Lescarbeau read a letter from the applicant continuance until the February 20, 1996 meeting. requesting a 50 Sutton Hill Road - Watershed and 52 Sutton Hill Road - Watershed and 130 Sutton Hill Road - Watershed and 110 Sandra Lane - Watershed and 165 Sandra Lane - Watershed Ms. Colwell gave a brief update stating that Mr. Howard (Conservation Agent) was able to check the wetland line due to the melting of the snow. She has received the new plans showing the revised wetland line and will review them with Ms. Starr (Health Agent) tomorrow. Ben Osgood, Jr. stated that there is a new infiltrator system being used for septic now and it has been approved in Mass. It also works for ground water control, has the ability to handle runoff. They will be using catch basins and sumps to capture one inch of rain water. Mr. Osgood pointed out on the plans where these would be stored on the lots. A question came up regarding the ability of the soil to handle the water. Mr. Osgood Stated that he did some soil hole testing on the lots, and it's typical of what you'd expect, the soil absorbs water very readily. Mr. Rowen asked Mr. Osgood why would you put the infiltrator system only 2 feet deep? Mr. Osgood stated any deeper and the ground would not absorb the water from it. Mr. Mahoney asked who will maintain the basins over the years? Mr. Osgood stated the homeowner would. Mr. Nardella asked if there was any way to inspect the system, and Mr. Osgood stated a T pipe could be installed. Ms. Colwell stated that she met with the watershed council regarding their position on a single driveway v. a common driveway in the watershed. The council didn't feel strongly either way. Mrs. Armitage, Sutton Hill Road, stated that Sutton Hill Road is shown on the map as above the grading, therefore, lot 30B's filtration will be nearer to the wetlands and she objects to that. Mr. Rowen asked regarding the wall on lot 30B, will the water go thru or under it? Mr. Osgood answered under it. Discussion to be continued at the February 20, 1996 meeting. 154 - 164 Johnson Street - Frontage Exception Lot The applicant requested a continuance until this meeting. At the last meeting the Board strongly encouraged the applicant and the abutters to meet and find some common ground. Mr. Osgood stated that he made several calls to the Rodriques and they were not returned. Atty. Philip Niman.was present representing the Rodriques, abutters to the property in question. He stated that at the last meeting reference was. made to a lawsuit stating that if all requirements are met the Planning Board must grant an affirmative vote. Mr. Mahoney maintains that is not correct but, the Board must not act capriciously or whimsically in making a decision. An abutter asked if this special peri, it is granted, would the neighbors have any say in the special conditions? Mr. Simons stated that is what we're trying to do now. Mr. Osgood stated that if the lot was sold, the seller would maintain some control over the style of home placed there. Atty. Niman wants to know who everyone is. If the applicant is the purchaser, who is the owner? Mr. Nardella stated that we grant to an applicant; it's up to them to be of good standing. Atty. Niman stated that you can't grant unless it is a proper partyl Mr. Rowen stated that the Board is trying to eliminate stacked housing; and he asked at the last meeting if the home could be moved. Mr. Nardella asked how does a lot become confo£ming? Ms. Colwell replied that 25 more feet of frontage is needed. The subdivision rules and regulations state that a builder needs only 50' to build a road. Mr. Nardella stated that a builder could put a road and a small subdivision in. On a motion by Ms. Lescarbeau, seconded bY Mr. Rowen, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing and directed staff to draft a decision for the February 20, 1996 meeting. Ad~ourD_ment On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Nardella, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.