Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-16Planning Board Meeting Senior Center .luly 16, 1996 Members Present: Joseph V. Mahoney, Chairman and Richard Rowen, Vice Chaim~an. Alison Lescarbeau, Clerk, arrived at 7:20 p.m.. Richard Nardella arrived at p.m. loho Simons arrived at p.m. Alberto Angles, Associate Member, was absent. Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner, was also present. The meeting opened at 7:05. The Board met as a committee of the whole as only two members were present. Minutes: On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, the Board approved the minutes ofthe July 2, 1996 meeting. Discussion: Foxwood - stone wall Ms. Colwell gave an overview of the of the issues. The Planning Board derision for Foxwood requires that a stone wall be constructed in front of lots 6 and 7. The developer began staking out the area for the wall last week. The homeowners are now concerned about the location and height of the wall. They have asked if the wall can be eliminated, erected closer to the curb, or lower. Ms. Colwell spoke with Bill Hmurciak and he went out to look at the site. In his opinion vertical granite curbing would work to stop a car but probably not a truck. A guard rail can be erected on town property which would be closer to the curb but that would not fit in as well aesthetically. A stone wall can not be built on town property therefore the stone wall cannot be moved closer to the curb. The wall height is appropriate if it is to be constructed. The wall does split their "lawn" area in half (although it is placed right on the property line) however it is there for their protection. Ms. Karen Sieger, Lot 7 Foxwood, stated that the there may be a drainage problem with the wall as it is at the bottom ora downhill slope. She is concerned that the water will pool up. Her sprinkler system will be disturbed by the wall construction. Ms. Colwell stated that the developer will be responsible for constructing the wall appropriately so that there is no water build up behind the wall. Mr. Paul McDonough, Lot 6 Foxwood, understands the need for the wall for public safety purposes. He would like it moved closer to the street or reduced in size. Mr. Mahoney suggested that the Planning Board members take a look at the area and make a recommendation at the August 6 Planning Board Meeting. Ms. Lescarbeau arrived at 7:20. As the Board now had a majority of members the Board moved into regular session out committee as a whole. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Ms. Lescarbeau, the Board ratified the actions taken previously. Authorization to Town Planner to create Development Schedule for FORM A plans On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Ms. Lescarbeau, the Planning Board authorized the Town Planner to create Development Schedules for FORM A Plans. Authorization to sign plans Ms. Colwell stated that a list of all Planning Board Members and their signatures must be sent to the Laud Court and the Registry of Deeds each year. The members present signed the form. Master Plan Committee - update Ms Colwell gave an update on the Master Plan Committee. The Committee met on July 11. The RFP is underway. The committee is now focusing on the scope of services that the consultant will supply. They will be interviewing the chair and vice chair of all oftbe major committees and boards in town in the next two weeks (this includes the Planning Board). Four people have expressed interest in being on the steering committee: Marty Larson, Rhonda Pogodziensld (Alberto's colleague), Carol Gendel, and George Koehler. Rhonda came to the meeting and has an excellent background in water quality and watershed preservation. The next meeting is on July 25. At 7:00 p.m. in the DPW. The Planning Board will make a recommendation on the final member at the August 6 meeting. Endorsement of Plnn.~: Woodlea Village - subdivision/PRD Ms. Colwell stated_she has received all of the required documents. DPW and the drainage consultant have reviewed and approved the plans with a few minor changes that can be made in the field and reflected on as-built plans. The Planning Board endorsed the plans and the FORM I Covenant. Lots lB and lC Evergreen Estates - FORM A George Fan' requests the division of Lot lA into Lots lB and lC. The lots have the required frontage, area and cba. The Board questioned the cba and the drainage areas. Ms. Colwell reminded the Board that their jurisdiction over FORM A plans is only for frontage, roadways, and access. There is a small area of upland between the road and the buildable area along Boston Brook. Mr. Simons arrived at 7:30 p.m. Bond~Lot Releases Jerad IV- subdivision/PPI) Ms. Colwell stated that she has received all of the required documents from Bob Janusz. He would like to release two lots at the entrance to the subdivision. Ms. Colwell suggested that the lots be released be released upon the posting of a $10,000 bond per lot. This will not cover the cost of the roadway but would be sufficient to remove partial construction if the developer were to become bankrupt. Furthermore, a certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the binder coat has been placed on the roadway. Mr. Janusz has not chosen the two lots to be released yet. He would like to release 2, 5, 16, or 19. The Planning Board discussed allowing the release &two lots to be determined in the future. The Planning Office will work out the details. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Simons, the Planning Board voted to release two lots upon the posting of $20,000 bond. Public Hearin~ ~7:30 ~.m.): 200 Chickering Road CRennies~: Ms. Lescarbeau read a letter from the applicant requesting permission to withdraw the site plan review application without prejudice. Ms. Colwell stated that the reasons for the withdrawal are as follows: the applicant failed to submit a traffic study, drainage plan, and site plan as requested by the Planning Board and required by the zoning bylaw. The notice to the condominium association was questioned and it has been deteraiined by Town Counsel that all owners of units in buildings within 300 feet of the property line should be notified. Ms. Curcio, a unit owner in the condominium complex, stated that she felt that the abutters have been inconvenienced by the applicant's delay in providing the required information and urged the Board to deny the plan. The Planning Board acknowledged the inconvenience however they favored the withdrawal to allow the applicant the opportunity to cure the notice defect and supply the required information. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Ms. Lescarbeau, the voted to allow the applicant to withdraw the application for site plan review concerning 200 Chickering Road without prejudice. 1750 Great Pond Road - watershed special permit Ms. Lescarbeau read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Ms. Colwell gave an overview of the history behind this lot. A special permit was issued by the Planning Board for this project on August 18, 1992. The lot is located on Great Pond Road across from the Lake. The permit expired in 1994. The applicant, Mike Ratio, is proposing the same project however it will now be fled into sewer connecting through to French Farm. The work within the watershed consists of the construction of a very long windy driveway. The original plan shows a specific limit of clearing. The driveway was to be constructed of porous pavement on top of gravel with "waterstops" of clay perpendicular to the gravel every few feet to stop water from running under the driveway onto the street. The watershed council expressed some concerns upon review of the plan. Porous pavemem with a 12% grade may as well be impervious. There is nothing to stop/control sheet flow offofthe porous pavement. The council also expressed concerns about the long term maintenance of the driveway. In a few years when the porous pavement needs repair, the homeowner will simply pave it with regular paving and there will be no control over the stomt water. It will mn across Great Pond Road into the Lake. Phil Cluistiansen ofChristiansen & Sergi, stated that regular pavement with leaching/infiltration trenches would work and would be a better long term solution. However, there would be additional clearing of trees to create the trenches. The house will now be connected to sewer therefore the area in which the septic system would have been placed can now be undisturbed. Mr. John Desmond, 1775 Great Pond Road, is concerned about the number of trees that must be cut and will be damaged by the driveway. He asked whether the "s: curve could be reduced to minimize the area of clearing. He is also concerned about mnoffonto his property at the ends of the "S" curves, and wants to make sure that the trees he has planted will remain. He submitted a letter from residents on French Farm concerned about the sewer line. Mr. Christiansen stated that the driveway is 30 ft away from Mr. Desmond's property line therefore is doubtful that there will be any erosion on his property. He also stated that the driveway will be cut into the hill approximately 2 ft therefore the water will be contained within the driveway itself and will be directed to a catch basin. He stated that a reduction in the "s" curve would increase the percent slope on the driveway. It is his opinion that a grade greater than 12% is unsafe and he will not stamp a plan that shows that grade. Mr. Simons asked if there was a way to reduce the curve by looking at the area the septic system would have been placed in. Mr. Christiansen will look at this again. Ms. Colwell stated that the sewer line is not within the Planning Board's jurisdiction however the Conservation Commission and DPW will review it. The Planning Board scheduled a site walk for Saturday at 8:00 a.m. On a motion by Mr. Simons, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Board continued the public hearing to August 6, 1996. 27 Charles Sweet - Site Plan Review Ms. Lescarbeau read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Charles Matses, Charles Construction, is seeking to put a 9200 SF two story addition onto the exiting UPS building on Charles Street for use as an office building. Charles Street is a private road owned and maintained by Mr. Matses. No additional impervious surface will be created therefore no drainage review or topography was provided. The building conforms to all building setback requirements and parking space requirements. Specific species have not been submitted however the areas to he landscaped have been shown on the plan. There will not be any additional lighting in the rear of the building. All lighting will he shielded and will shine away from the neighbors. Mr. Simons questioned the building materials. Mr. Matses stated that the building have a steel flame with stow (?) coating which is similar to stucco. The color of the building will be creme with accent colors. Mr. Simons requested a side elevation be provided. Mr. Rowen questioned where the entrance sign will be located. There was a general discussion that this site was not as visible as others in town. The project is an addition to an existing building in an industrial zone. Laura Duffy, 3 Ellis Street, expressed concern about the back of the building, the lighting, the limit of pavement, the construction hours, etc. Mr. Matses replied that there will be no additional paving and no additional lighting planned, ffthere is any additional lighting it will be reviewed by the Planning Board. The construction will take approximately 5 to 6 months and will take place approximately between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday with a few Saturdays. Ms. Colwell stated that the police department will control the hours of construction. Mr. Rowen expressed concern about the HVAC units. Mr. Matses stated that there will only be office use, there will not be any industrial uses which require large capacity units. No tracks will be parked/stored outside. The Planning Board requested Mr. Matses to provide the Board with a landscaping plan, a side elevation, signs location and stated that the Board will have final review over the fighting. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Nardella, the Planning voted to dose the public hearing. Mr. Simons was opposed. The staff'was directed to revise the draft decision for the next meeting. continued: Lot 2A Beechwood - Site Plan Review Phil Christiansen, Christiansen & Sergi, handed out new plans and storm water drainage calculations. He has responded to the concerns raised by Coler & Colantonio, the outside drainage consultant. The porous pavement has been changed to leaching areas. The mechanicals have been moved behind the building the building in response to the neighbors concern about the level of noise. Pine trees have been added to the plan to screen the site from the neighbors. The wetland lone will be added to the plan however all of the work is outside of the 25' no-cut and the 50' no-build therefore no changes in the plan are anticipated. Steve Webster, Channel Building, provided a cross-section of the site to the Planing Board and the neighbors demonstrating that the building will be below the current foundations of the homes on Cherise Circle. The building is tucked down into the hill. The lighting will be directed towards the parking lot, not towards the residential area. The lighting will be similar to those in the Senior Center Parking lot. A sample of the lighting was handed out. Mr. Simons questioned the building materials. Ms. Colwell stated that she received a letter from the abutters listing their concerns however many &them were addressed by the applicant tonight. Jeanne Bramanti, 35 Cherise Circle, wanted to make sure that the trees to be planted will he of a specific size, not 3" high trees. Ms. Colwell asked the Board to consider the neighbor's request to reduce the parking area on the side of the building. Mr. Nardella expr4essed concerns about eliminating parking spaces for an industrial use. Ed Castleton, Lcom stated that the parking is needed due the number of temporary employees and handicapped and older employees. The Board decided that the parking spaces are necessary. Bill Gordon, 29 Cherise Circle, questioned the hours of operation and deliveries. Mr. Castleton stated that the hours of operation are generally between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.. Mr. Rowen stated that the shipments and deliveries should be limited to the period between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Nardella, the Planning Board continued the public hearing to August 6, 1996. Appleton Street Extension - Subdivision Scott Giles stated that Bill Hmurciak, DPW, reviewed the plans and questioned the right of the applicant to construct the road. The Town officially abandoned the road in 1928. The Planning Board discussed the need for a fifty foot right of way. The applicant does not have enough property for a roadway and two lots. He would need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. On a motion by Ms. Lescarbeau, seconded by Mr. Rowen the Planning Board voted to continue the public hearing to August 6, 1996. Bond/Lot Releases: Ever~een Estates - subdivision Ms. Colwell stated that she has received all of the required documents. Ms. Lescarbeau read a letter from DPW stating that a $140,000 bond should be set. On a motion by Mr. Nardella, seconded by Mr., Simons, the Board voted to release the lots upon the posting of the roadway bond. Meadow0od HI - subdivision/R-6 Ms. Colwell stated that she received a letter from DPW stating that roadway connection between Nadine Lane and Meadowood III is complete and recommends the release of Lots 17, 18 and 19: On a motion by Ms. Lescarheau, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Planning Board voted to release the lots. Jerad IV - subdivision/PRD Ms. Colwell stated that she has received all of the required documents from Bob Janusz. He would like to release two lots at the entrance to the subdivision. Ms. Colwell recommends the release of the two lots upon the posting of a roadway bond sufficient to cover the road way needed to reach these homes. The Board discussed allowing the 2 lots, to be determined in the future, to be released upon the posting of a $10,000 bond per lot. Decisions: 27 Charles Street - Site Plan Review There was no decision to discuss at this time. Adjournment: On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Ms. Lescarbeau, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.