Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-03-01Planning Board Meeting Minutes Hatch X; X994 The meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m. Richard Nardella, Chairman, Joseph Mahoney, Clerk, Richard Rowen and John Daghlian. Also present was Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner. John Simons was absent. Mr. Nardella recognized Mr. Daghlian as a full member of the Planning Board. Congratulations Mr. Daghlian. Jorad III - Miller Property off Candlestick Road Thomas Neve, Thomas E. Neve Associates, was present representing Mr. Robert Janusz. Ms. Colwell told the Board that she and Richard Doucette, Conservation Administrator, have preliminarily reviewed the plans. Mr. Neve told the Board that the land was part of a subdivision that came before the Board in the 1980's. It was never approved. Nine (9) Form A lots on Forest Street thus created land still never developed Conventional Plan - 2 acres - 75% CBA - all lots - want to keep development away from Forest Street · PRD Plan - road is same place as conventional plan - lots layed out more uniformly - part of a one acre series of subdivisions - create greenspace buffer along Forest Street - bring Form A from Forest Street into subdivision - 5 acres of contiguous open space created (more than 900 feet along Forest Street and more than 200 feet deep) Mr. Nardella concerned that the Board cannot approve a road through a lot in a previously approved subdivision. Concerned that land from one subdivision being put in into another subdivision. Mr. Neve walked Board through the Conventional Plan and the PRD Plan. · do not need to modify subdivision plan because Candlestick is already created, therefore, can divide land off of Candlestick Road · Candlestick Road is a private road · part of Jerad II · will provide the Board with a locus plan of the area showing which lots have been developed Mr. Daghlian asked what are the finished grades. ~r. Nardella · if 90% CBA how that effect lot layout and the number of lots? Mr. Neve told Mr. Nardella that it would not effect it because lots are large. 900f long road will be constructed. Mr. Nardella asked Mr. Neve to compile a list of all waivers and variances that would be required. Ms. Colwell asked Mr. Neve to come back to the next meeting of March 15 for further discussions. Sutton Pond Condominiums Change existing stone building previously approved for maintenance to 2 condos - does not increase overall n~!mber of condos. Staff to write a letter of approval, confirm that it hooks up to sewer system. Letter from applicant detailing number of lots per building, proof that no additional units are created that the number approved. APProval Not ~e~uire~ - Form A PXan~ Lot 3 Boxfor~ Stree~ Mr. David Kindred presented the Board with his plans. MOTION: The Board signed the plans. The was a discussion regarding "pork chop" lots and should the Board eliminate them. MOTION: The Board signed the plans. Mr. Peter Breen came before the Board. D.P.W. recommended that lots be released upon receipt of a $51,700 bond. Mr. Rowen would like to add 10% to the amount of D.P.W. recommendations. This can be done in the future. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded byMr. Mahoney, the Board voted to release lots upon receipt of $51,700 and check has cleared. Public Hearinas Seven Oa~s Mr. Mahoney read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Ms. Colwell gave the Board an overview of the plans, and read a letter from D.P.W. outlining D.P.W. comments. Mr. Philip christiansen, christiansen & Sergi, presented conventional plan with 6 two acre lots and presented PRD Plan with 6 new lots which would extend Sugarcane Lane, limits amount of pavement and tree cutting. double catch basins discharge into leaching basins in the island in the cul-de-sac sidewalks proposed because Sugarcane Lane will have sidewalks (Ms. Colwell to confirm) §Oft buffer zone in open space - 18 acres of open space created Mr. Rowen: If 8 new lots created, with 7 new houses, with Lot 2 - Can a house be built? what happens Mr. Christiansen: . no because designated as open space · fifteen 500 gallon leaching tanks will be provided Mr. Nardella asked what is D.P.W.'s opinion of leaching tanks? Mr. Christiansen reply to Mr. Nardella was that EPA recommends use of leaching tanks because all oil, grease, sand, salt and acid rain are filtered prior to entering the environment. Water flows out of the bottom of leach pit, designed for a 100 year storm. Mr. Nardella asked what is D.P.W.'s opinion? Mr. George Perna, D.P.W. told the Board that perc tests will have to be done to show that basin will work. Mr. Nardella stated that the Planning Board had walked the site in the fall. Mr. Mahoney asked who is responsible for cleaning out leach pits? Mr. Christiansen answered, D.P.W. Mr. Daghlian questioned the ground water table. Mr. Christiansen answered, 8' to 9'. Mr. Rowen - Therefore leach pit will be above ground water table. Mr. Nardella asked why PRD? Mr. Christiansen: shorter roadway, limit disturbance of land provides open space for the Town all the conventional lots perc and conform to zoning Mr. Rowen - What is the spacing between the homes? Does it have the same "look and feel" of existing Sugarcane Lane? Mr. Christiansen - Yes, it will look like Sugarcane Lane. Mr. James Grifoni, developer, told the Board that 3,500 minimum sq.ft, homes will be built. Mr. Nardella - How would drainage be mitigated with conventional plan? Mr. Perna - D.P.W. will be more diligent about run-off from individual homes and water rushing down driveways. Mr. Thomas Lyons, abutter to the project: concerned about covenants on the property was not notified about public hearing concerned that house size be consistent with what is on Sugarcane Lane Mr. Nardella: We will ask the developer to provide house plans to the Board for review. Mr. Nicholas DiNatale, 45 Sugarcane Lane bought house thinking that land adjacent to 2 acre zoning concern that houses will be too large for the lots too many house lots in a concentrated area Mr. Nardella - look at conventional plan - would houses be sited any differently? Mr. Christiansen - Yes because roadway is shorter but houses on lots 1 and 3 would be in the same location. Discussion that in a R-1 Zone lots can be 1/2 acre in size (21,780 sq. ft.) Planning Board should change this at Town Meeting· R-l, 2 acre should have 1 acre PRD lots. Mark Dudman asked why no 50' buffer zone along Lot 8? Mr. Christiansen told Mr. Dudman that the 50' buffer zone should be added on the plan around the entire property· Ann Perry, 31 Sugarcane Lane wants to see covenants on the subdivision to make sure that it looks the same as Sugarcane Lane. Mr. Nardella asked Mr. Grifoni if he was willing to put covenants on homes? Mr. Grifoni told Mr. Nardella that he would commit to size of house, design and materials to be used. Mr. Nardella: · Construct the home to fit the topography Mr. Grifoni: · everyone has their own privacy because of 50ft. buffer · all houses oriented to look into the woods, not into other houses · can move house on Lot 7 away from Lot 8 Mr. Dudman: · concern that trailers will be parked in existing cul-de- sac Planning Board decision can limit amount of trailers/construction equipment in the cul-de-sac· Mr. Daghlian: 26' needs to be shown on street detail On a motion byMr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Board voted to continue the public hearing to March 15, 1994. L~t 15 C&rriaae Chase Howard Speicher, attorney for the Willners: · settlement with Conservation Commission concern about placement of house on the lot, moved house as far as possible from wetland · need a side yard and front yard variance . creating a pond on Town water and sewer · 20' no disturbance zone Ms. Colwell - Construction is entirely within 100' non-disturbance zone. Board has never approved a house within non-disturbance zone and should deny application. Discussion of Conservastion Commission settlement. Board needs statement from Conservation Commission as to their position on this project for the next meeting. Mr. Perna - Beaver dam has caused increase in the wetland area, additional pond created, therefore extra wetlands. Attorney Speicher - Plan does everything it can to protect the watershed. Mr. Nardella asked the Board if they wanted to consider this. Mr. Mahoney would like to have time to review the plans. Mr. Perna suggested the Board take a site walk. Mr. Daghlian was not comfortable with construction that close to the watershed. Continue to March 15, 1994 Mr. Robert Nicetta, Building Inspector: Zoning Board of Appeals will not act until the Planning Board makes a decision. Mr. Nardella not in favor of approving this and would be willing to vote on this tonight. Attorney Speicher believes that they do not need a Special Permit because wetland is not a tributary to Lake Cochichewick. willing to submit to some conditions applicants are addressing all of the issues related to the Watershed Protection District. Mr. Nardella: Need an opinion in writing from the Conservation Commission, not the Conservation Administrator, regarding their position. Mr. Willner - Conservation Commission has approved this with 20' no cut zone and retaining wall. On a motion by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Board voted to continue the public hearing to March 15, 1994. Mr. Rowen wants to walk the site with the Conservation Commission. Lc,no Pastu~ Attorney George O. Gregson submitted a letter to Town Counsel and to the Planning Board. The plans were left with the Planning Board after subdivision approved. Plans were never signed by the Planning Board although in Planning Board possession. Mr. Nardella - Does the Board want a response from Counsel to the letter submitted tonight? Mr. Rowen - Vote tonight Mr. Daghlian would like to have Counsel review. Mr. Mahoney would like to have time to review the letter. Staff to discuss letter with Town Counsel. Mr. Paul Plisinski, 505 Forest Street, fully supports Board to rescind approval. Mr. Carl Schoene, abutter: project was submitted 2 hours before zone change, issues many factors required by Rules 7 Regulations were not in place project has had many issues and problems On a motion by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Daghlian, the Board voted to continue the public hearing to March 15, 1994. Brook Far~ Mr. Nardella asked Mr. Mahoney to read a letter from Mr. Antonelli regarding the subdivision. Mr. Nardella asked Mr. Mahoney to read a letter from Attorney Sackrider that was sent to all Planning Board members. Mr. Mahoney concerned that the subdivision should be i acre zoning due to the legal notice and the intentions of the Board at that time. Board should be consistent therefore fire sprinklers should not be required under the current requirements. They did file a covenant, it lapsed. Should not rescind plan, should modify it under current Rules & Regulations. Mr. Nardella - What about covenant expiring and lack of action within 2 years? Mr. George Schrunder, Realtor: have been marketing the project were told by Planning Department that subdivision was "ok". Mr. Rowen - Have great concern that the subdivision has been unsecured for almost four years. Mr. Nardella concerned that applicant did not build within.time period required. Mr. Daghlian stated that the burden is on the applicant, not the Planning Board to act to pursue subdivision. Ms. Colwell relayed Town Counsel's comments regarding 1988 legal notice. 1988 legal notice advertised a hearing for a modification of the subdivision, not a new subdivision, therefore, Counsel believes that the developer would prevail if he sought a court determination that the land shown on the modified Brook Farm Plan is still governed by the zoning in effect on March 16, 1987 when the plan was filed. Counsel stated that the Board could choose to extend, modify or rescind subdivision approval. If Board chose to extend or modify, strict time periods for completion should be set. Mr. Mahoney moved that approval be modified and updated to fit into current subdivision Rules and Regulations. There was no second. Mr. Rowen moved to vote to rescind the subdivision based on failure to secure subdivision for almost four years. Mr. Daghlian seconded. Mr. Nardella amended motion adding that the applicant failed to renew covenants and construct subdivision and failed to seek an extension within the time periods required. The vote was Mr.'s Rowen and Daghlian in the affirmative, Mahoney opposed, and Mr. Nardella voted in the affirmative. Mr. Mr. Nardella would be willing to work with applicant in a new submittal. Februax-¥ ~, L994 ~ebzuaL-v tS, 1994 Februa~-,f 22, 1994 The Board did not have February 15, 1994 minutes. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Daghlian, the Board voted to approve the minutes of February 1, 1994 and February 22, 1994. Warrant &rtioles The Planning Board will schedule a workshop meeting on March 8, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. at Town Hall to discuss warrant articles. On a motion by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the ~oard voted to adjourn at 11:40 p.m. ~ Richard A. Nardella, Chairman