Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-07-05Planning Board Meeting Minutee Jul2 $, X994 Senior Center The meeting was called to order at 7:11 p.m. Members Present Joseph Mahoney, Vice Chairman, Richard Rowen Clerk and John Daghlian. Richard Nardella, Chairman, arrived at 7:20 p.m. and John Simons arrived at 8:50 p.m. Alison Lescarbeau, Associate Member was absent. Also present was Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner. Plannin~ Board Fee System Ms. Colwell told the Board that D.P.W. will not longer review drainage calculations, erosion control plans and the like. The increase in the number of applications and the complexities of projects are too much for the D.P.W. staff to handle. The Board reviewed the Town of Groton's system. The Town of Groton charges both an administrative and a project review fee. Project review fee is used to pay for outside consultants. The Board discussed hiring outside consultant with fees vs. hiring additional staff. D.P.W. may be able to review small projects. Ms. Colwell to discuss with Mr. George Perna, Director of Public Works, and talk to other towns. [KBC - talk to GP about fees, - Keep on agenda] Lot 26 Kara Drive - Lot Releas~ Mr. John McGarry requested that Lot 26 Kara Drive be released from the covenant on the subdivision. Ms. Colwell stated that Lot 26 was created as part of the Kara Drive Subdivision. Twenty five lots were built upon and released from the covenant. Lot 26 was subsequently broken up into four (4) Form A lots. [The question of Form A lots from a subdivision to Town Counsel. Mr. Mahoney to get a copy of case to Ms-Colwell.] Mr. Rowen stated that prior to accepting a road, all lots must be released. On a motion by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Daghlian, the Board voted to release Lot 26 Kara Drive from the covenant of Mills Hills Definitive Subdivision. Mr. Nardella voted as Mr. Rowen stepped out of the room. Osco Drua - Info.al Discus~on The Board had an informal discussion of Osco Drug to create specific list of problems/issues for the next meeting. pitched roof (not flat) change location of the building landscape mounds in parking lots Ms. Colwell and Mr. Nardella to meet with Mr. Kennedy in the evening, before the next Board meeting. Mr. Kennedy will not be on the July 19th meeting unless a new plan delivered is to Board members for review before the meeting. [Question to Traffic Engineer - move exit onto Route 114 back away from intersection.] Coventry Phase II - Hodification - Wetland Delineation Lots 43 & 4~ Mr. Rowen read the legal notice to open the public hearing. He also read a memo from Richard Doucette, Conservation Administrator, stating that areas noted on Lots 43 and 46 as wetlands are not in fact wetlands. Ms. Colwell stated the need to clean up subdivision plan for legal clarification. An error was made by original engineer as to the existence of wetland on these lots. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Daghlian, the Board voted to close the public hearing. Decision - Coventr~ Phase II - Modification - Wetland Delineation Lots 43 and 46 On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded byMr. Mahoney, the Board voted unanimously to eliminate the no-cut, no-build and wetland lines shown on Lot 43 and 46 of the Coventry Estates Phase II Subdivision Plan. As part of the decision, the applicant must come in with a revised plan within ninety (90) days of the decision being filed with the Town Clerk. Coventr~ Phase XX - sidewalks The Board reviewed the plans. sheet 32 "typical section" shows sidewalks to be on right hand side of road 6'± foot path - Blue Ridge Road - Salem Street to South Bradford Street Mr. Nardella questioned why D.P.W. proposed sidewalk on the left- hand side and not the right-hand side as shown on the plans. Mr. Perna, Director of Public Works, stated that it was D.P.W.'s opinion that the left-hand side of the road was the safer side because you do not need to cross any roads. If sidewalk was on the right-hand side, pedestrians would need to cross Hidden Court and South Bradford Street or cross Lancaster twice. D.P.W. wants sidewalks, does not necessarily care where they are. Could use walking path at end of Hidden Court. Mr. Rowen stated that there was less impact if on right-hand side of road, less grading and a smaller number of yards to be disturbed. Mr. William Hmurciak, D.P.W., stated that three lots on left-hand side would require some cutting and filling. Mr. Rowen read a letter from Attorney John Willis, stating that developer would agree to put $10.00 per foot for sidewalks into the sidewalk fund or $41,500. Mr. Perna stated that D.P.W. could not install the sidewalk for this amount at this time but that $10.00 per foot is a reasonable amount generally. Mr. Nardella asked what plans there were to put sidewalks in around the new school. He asked if this money could be better used elsewhere. Mr. Perna stated that the Planning Board needs to make a determination regarding sidewalks in subdivisions in general. Cannot make a site by site determination because there will always be a street that needs sidewalks more than a new subdivision. D.P.W. is focusing on Johnson Street. D.P.W. can use some state funds to build sidewalks if repaying the road. [Ms. Colwell to copy a list of 5 year streets to be paved plan and put in Planning Board boxes.] Mr. Perna stated that he asks the School Department where sidewalks are needed every year. Last Year it was on Milk Street. Money being put into the sidewalk fund would not be more beneficial to the Town than having sidewalks constructed in the subdivision. Mr. Simons arrived at 8:50 p.m. Mr. Thomas Neve, of Thomas Neve Associates, made a suggestion that the developer be required to build the sidewalk instead of contributing to sidewalk fund. Mr. Mahoney asked why were no sidewalks constructed at the beginning. Mr. Hmurciak stated that original developer went bankrupt. Current developer chose not to put the sidewalk in prior to house construction. Developer sells lots to make money then puts in the sidewalks. Mr. Nardella stated that the Board needs to mandate that sidewalks be constructed at same time as roadway. Mr. Mahoney said he preferred that the money be used for sidewalks on Johnson Street because of the new elementary school. Mr. Perna stated that the Planning Board should change rules if the Planning Board is not going to require sidewalks. Ms. Joan Mailhot, 410 Blue Ridge Road, expressed concern about safety of children, the road is a cut through, she wants sidewalks. Mr. Perna commented on the sidewalk fund. It was set up for sites where sidewalks will never be required or are environmentally sensitive such as in the watershed or where there are wetlands. Mr. Hmurciak stated that generally sidewalks are built close to the end of completion of the subdivision because they get destroyed during construction. Ms. Colwell to add to decisions from now on that sidewalks be constructed at same time as road. Mr. Hmurciak stated that developers will be required to deal with whatever site conditions are in place on the lots. If there is a grass strip the sprinkler heads can stay. Ms. Colwell stated that Planning staff recommends that sidewalks be put in. Staff would be willing to look at the location that will have the least impact. Mr. Simons stated that the Board needs to listen to the citizens who live there. He stated that there does not appear to be an overriding social need for the sidewalk. He would rather have the money put to better use on another site. Mr. Matthew Zenakis, 317 Blue Ridge Road, expressed concern that anything done, be done professionally. He questioned what would happen to sidewalk when the road crosses the bridge to Salem Street. He expressed concern that a child walking on the sidewalk has to walk on the road over the bridge, will not be safe. Mr. Nardella asked Mr. Zenakis what was his specific concern. Mr. Zenakis stated that his main concern is about the sprinkler system. Ms. Colwell stated that if the Town could assure him that the sprinkler system would not be affected, would he change his opinion. Mr. Zenakis stated that he was also concerned about children walking to the new school, and concerned about the maintenance of sidewalks. Mr. John Leemah, 45 Pine Ridge Road, stated that the Board need to look at where sidewalks are needed in Town. Mr. Perna stated that there will always be an issue because there will always be a road that needs sidewalks more than a new subdivision. Mr. Simons stated that there was always a need to look at need for sidewalks in a specific subdivision vs. another site. Mr. Ned Epstein, 200 Blue Ridge Road, stated that the majority of the neighborhood does not want sidewalks, kids play and walk in the street, should put them in a place where they are needed. Mr. Perna stated that if the Board is going to vote to not require sidewalks, then they should require contractor to actually put in the sidewalks elsewhere. Mr. Nardella stated that the letter from the developer states that a certain amount will be donated to the sidewalk fund. No mention is made of doing work elsewhere. Mr. Rowen stated that the Planning Board needs an accurate length of the road. Mr. Nardella asked that Ms. Colwell is to have the following information at the next meeting. length of required sidewalks How Mr. Willis came up with the square footage? Would developer construct sidewalks off-site? Check Blue Ridge Road Modification to see if path was required. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, the Board voted to continue the public hearing to July 19, 1994, at which time the Board will vote. Jerad Place III - Definitive Subdivision - Special Permit PRD Mr. Thomas Neve, of Thomas Neve Associates, told the Board that he reworked the original conventional subdivision to create additional 1/2 acre, took some land from the Form A lot, shortened the road. The Planning Board discussed access to all lots from legal frontage. Lot 1 would require a special permit for access. The Planning Board discussed the issue that lots from 1 acre grandfathered subdivision are being changed and added to a 2 acre subdivision. Ms. Colwell stated that Town Counsel stated that at some point when lots are changed to such an extent that they no longer "relate" to the original subdivision that they then lose any zoning protection held by the original subdivision. [KBC to check date auto approved] Mr. Mahoney questioned what effect would this have on Jerad II. Mr. Neve stated he was not changing anything regarding the roadway in Jerad II. He's not changing any lot lines of people currently owning the land. He is creating 1 acre lots under the PRD which is the lot size of the existing Jerad II. Mr. Nardella had questions about who would own the open space. Discussion that portion of Form A lot could be placed under a conservation restriction and a connection created with Seven Oaks open space. Ms. Colwell and Mr. Doucette to discuss ownership of open space. Ms. Colwell to confirm date Jerad II application filed and CBA requirement. Jerad II plan endorsed in October of 1986. Mr. Neve stated that if one lot is lost, the deal will fall through and Form A lots will be built along Forest Street. Mr. Simons stated that protecting greenbelt along Forest Street is laudable. The Planning Board has a creditability problem with the PRD process, perceived as allowing more lots, need to look closely at this. Mr. Mahoney stated that the creditability problem is due to the lack of education on the part of the public. He endorsed the concept. Hr. Daghlian would rather see a PRD than a Form A plan, major wetland crossings would be involved with Form A's. Mr. Rowen stated that if the Planning Board determines that 8 lots are appropriate instead of 9 lots what would happen. Mr. Neve replied that the deal would fall through if he loses one lot due to financial commitments. Mr. Rowen stated that he can accept the concept after reviewing the math of the acres. Mr. Nardella stated that Counsel advised that when lots are changed to such a point that they lose association, they lose their grandfathering, it is discretionary with the Planning Board to decide this. Mr. Neve stated that he will need to redo the Form A lot with a conservation restriction placed on the land. Mr. Nardella stated that the supports this conventional plan. Mr. Simons expressed concerns about conventional plan, needs to think about it. Mr. Neve stated that the drainage is in the cul-de-sac, leaching catch basins at end of cul-de-sac with grading between lots. Mr. Neve requested a sidewalk waiver. Mr. Neve stated that he will construct $25,000 worth of off-site improvements with the watermain. Mr. Nardella told Mr. Neve that sprinklers will be required. Mr. Neve asked the Planning Board to consider waiving sidewalk requirement in lieu of off-site improvements. (550' of watermain on Forest Street). Mr. Nardella stated that sidewalks where not an issue of discussion. Ms. Colwell questioned the house designs. Mr. Neve told her he will be keeping with existing homes. [KBC add to decision that homes should be in keeping with existing homes.] [KBC - Why no fire pull boxes required]? Mr. Nardella stated that sidewalks are to be constructed or donate to fund. lamp post at end of driveways houses will be sprinklered curbing will be required limit roadway pavement to 24'. Mr. Neve told Mr. Nardella that the road is basically flat, curb not needed. Mr. Nardella stated that cape cod berm along both sides of the road will be required. Mr. Neve told Mr. Nardella that you need a 26' binder with berms. On a motion by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Board voted to close the public hearing on both the subdivision and the special permit for a PRD.