Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-02-29The Planning Board held a special meeting on Monday evening, February 2~, 1~88, at 8:12 p.m. in the Town Hall, Selectmen's Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting, Paul A. Hedstrom~ Chairman~ George Perna, Vice-Chairman~ John J. Burke, and Erich W. Nitzsche. John Simons, Clerk, arrived at 8:20 p.m. Scott Stocking Town Planner presented the Board with a draft decision on Abbott Village, also a copy of Erich Nitzsche's draft of the same. The wording in Erich's draft is a little different than that of Scott's. Paul Hedstrom stated the purpose of the meeting was because an extension was not received from the applicant and that the Board was going to discuss the decision on Abbott Village. Paul Hedstr~Jm asked Erich Nitzsche about the As-Built bond, from $13,000 to $18,000. Erich stated that there may be more drainage work involved and inflation. Paul asked Scott if he had received Erich's notes. Scott had and said they were substantially similar, some changes in the cul-de-sac waiver. John Burke wanted to know basically what Erich was saying. Erich stated that basically it was the connection of Woodberry Lane and because of the length of a dead end road on Thistle, water pressure and traffic flow all coming back onto Abbott Street and a temporary cul-de-sac coming halfway up Thistle. John Burke stated that the issue was in court. He questioned that if the court does not allow the connection then the cul-de-sac becomes permanent. Erich stated that the applicant has tl~e option to come back with a modification under 81W. Scott Stocking asked Erich how many lots would it remove from the current plan before the Board. Erich stated In lots possibly lot #38 might be served with a common driveway. Water pressure is a big issue. Bill Hmurciak~ of DPW was present and stated that he felt shortening the cul-de-sac would not make much difference. Paul Hedstrom stated that the issue was not how the impact of the cul-de-sac is on the law suit, the issue is what the effect the cul-de-sac is on the particular subdivision~ which raises such issues as length of roadway that is a dead-en~ beyond the allowable limit (500') water looping and water pressure. These are related to this subdivision. What the Board does with the law suit thats on appeal is different consideration. Paul said he was infavor of conditioning Thistle Road, somehow~ the questions are what is the appropriate length, and is water pressure an issue. Erich Nitzsche stated that if that easement was not there for the strict purpose of continuing Woodberry Lane he would have no problem with the length of the dead end road provided they could get sewer and water connection, then the cul-de-sac should be shortened. Bill Hmurciak stated that if the water main and utilities were extended to the end of the road if it would be that more adventagous. Erich stated that the Board has to take it that the easement does not exist yet for the strict purpose with connecting Woodberry Lane. Bill also stated that the people were using the legal issue, possibly a valid one, to stop a development from connecting in to their neighborhood. Extending the water and sewer into that location is a different circumstance. John BUrke felt maybe the people on Woodberry Lane do not want the traffic, but m~ybe t~ay would not mind the utilities connecting. Paul Hedstrom questioned if there was sufficient information in the file to reflect that there is a water pressure issue if they did not loop the water. Erich said he did not think there was any such information in the file. John Simons asked how many years has the 500~ length cul-de-sac been in the Rules and Regulations? Erich stated that it was always there. John also wanted to know the rational of 500~ lengths. Erich said that it started back in 1960, with one or two exceptions of 1000' if you looped the water main. John Burke stated that in most cases the 500' length had been waived by the Board. John Simons is reluctent to have an 1800' long dead-end roadway and in general, sympathic to connecting roads, however, in this situation the circumstances that it would be one thing if you had a subdivision that was built two years ago and people could anticipate that the road was going to cut through but quite another situation when there is really no expectation of the road ever cutting through. Erich Nitzsche disagreed that there was no expection that the 50' easement in the Woodberry Lane was always on record plans. Scott stated that he had been told that the judge ruled that the easement was defective since there was nothing in the deed of either the subdivision or the lot in question, in which indicated an easement. John Burke commented that "it was over with" Scott said it was on appeal. John Simons asked Paul Hedstrom to give some back ground on how disputed easements are resovled. Paul stated that by this time they would have settled out. Scott stated that the easement is filed on the plans in the Deeds Office. Paul Hedstrom told the Board that instead of substituting Erich~s draft for the Town Planner's draft, that they should discuss the draft decision that has been before them for two meetings, drafted by the Town Planner and amend it. Erich drew a rough sketch of where the cul-decsac should end, showing still a few good house lots left. Shortening would not distrub the hill or cross the wetlands. John Simons stated basically the way the cul-de-sac condition is written if the Town loses the suit, the road stays that way. Paul Hedstrom stated that for any Planning Board to support a road length, they must have facts in the decision that relate to the soil and topography issues pertaining to way. If the water pressure was extrodinar¥ at 1,800' and better than most looped roads in Town and we were not smart enough to notice that or that the water pressure was inadequate and did not cite tha~ in the decision, we just said end at 1,800', that's kind of arbitrary. We have to have detail our reasons for it. John Simons stated he had no pnobtem with a compromise position to stop at 1,~00' mark. Paul Hedstrom cited condition ~E which deals with a temporary stop at a particular station and because of issue to be determined in the courts or whatever he would like an opinion from Town Counsel that are able to do this. John Simons stated that the condition should be stated that this was based on the topography and wetlands. Paul Hedstrom also cited the minimizing of cutting as it relates to this site as it is extremely wet. Paul Hedstrom asked if there were any other issues that on the draft decision seemed troublesome. George Perna said on Condition 2E, write in issues that were just discussed by the Board, also the last three sentences contained in Erich's draft, which states in effect due to tack of detail that a require modification the Planning Board might require an additional public hearing. Paul Hedstrom - Whether or not the DPW condition of requiring sewer to be in road creates the requirement for additional information whether it requires additional public hearing or not depends on what the final plans look like. Erich Nitzsche stated that making a modification within the subdivision does not really effect anybody outside the subdivision but a sewer in the middle of Abbott Street would effect abutters. Paul Hedstrom said it should be worded differently. We require in the 30 something conditions that the realignment of sewer easements shall be shown as required by DPW. Paul also asked to add to Conditions 6c or 6d requesting the applciant as soon as possible revise plans showing sewer lines locations in accordance with the DPW directive to review the plan in a normal agenda item and determine whether or not the plans require an additional public hearing. Secondly, language that address the construction activity comtemplated by the DPW for where the sewer line will go and whether or not we ought to regulate traffic -- change our bond figures; it will have a covenant at this point. Highlight that as part of the condition. Paragraph 6 is highlighting that he has to show sewer line on a different location and considering that location, and the need for additional hearings. George Perna said move Condition 30 to Conditions 6d, rewording to that effect. George Perna questioned why the change in the Bond amount. Erich Nitzsche said he felt that additional work would be done in the road and an inflation figure. Paul asked if the bond was reasonable as what it relates to, and to insure a set of As-Built Plans will be supplied to the Board. George Perna read from the draft "The Board is concerned with length of the dead-end roadway in regards to water pressure extensive removal of earth materials from the hill at station 16+0 and additional wetland crossing". On Condition lB from the Town Planner's draft or Condition 5 from Erich Nitzsche's draft; cited another condition which already says there is no lot releases until a binder coat is down and Condition ~5 which states no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until binder coat is down. Paul Hedstrom cited that there was a big difference. Differences between lot release and a certificate of occupancy is the whole construction period. If we have fully bonded subdivision we lack the authority to deny the applicant construction activity. As long as there is a bond securing this Board and this Town that the ways will be improved to the satisfaction of the Highway Surveyor, the issue is the restrain on the certificate of occupancy until there is a roadway not lot release where you would not have any construction. Nobody occupies a house on a lot and is sold until binder coat is placed. George Perna discussed Conditions 18 and 10 and the difference in how they deal with tree cutting. John Simons cited using the original language in the decision. "Tree cutting shall be kept to a minimum through out the project in order to minimize erosion, preserve the natural features of the site. Accordingly the developer in conjunction with a registered arborist shall submit a tree cutting, reforestation plan and for areas were substantial areas of cutting and filling shall be reviewed by the Planning Board. This plan shall explicitly include specific trees to be retained and also the developer shall inform the Town Planner when significant tree cutting is to occur in order that the Planner may determine the need to be present at that time." Erich added - There will be no tree cutting outside of the easements within the lots. Jim Burke, an abutter, questioned the original approval regarding street trees and securing $27,000 which was in the 1985 decision. John Burke said that the previous bond was set to provide B trees per lot. Scott Stocking said the Board has not received recommendations from the DPW for bond amounts yet. Letters can be submitted later with bond recommendations. George Perna cited that from condition 18 on, were all new conditions contained in Erich~s draft. Erich Nitzsche's Condition 19 - The plans shall be revised to show construction details of all drainage control structures, box culverts and roadway retaining walls (adding the words) to be approved by the DRW. The Board agreed that Condition 20 should be added. The Board agreed that Condition 21 should be added. The Board agreed that Condition 22 should also be added which stated that the catch basins outlet at station 9+50 on Nutmeg Lane shall be shown. On Condition ~23, Paul Hedstrom stated that he had no interest in seeing interim As-Built Plans. Erich felt that they were very important because if you have drainage pipes flowing up hill the time to correct it is before you put the binder coat down and start putting the finish pavement down. The As-Builts that have been coming in this office on prior subdivisions show hydrants not even on the right-of way, they show drain pipes going up hill and then the developer will come in with a blea of hardship. Paul stated that he found it hard to believe the fact that the As-Builts and field circumstances are such that they are missing hydrants. If that is the case, then the Fire Chief and Fire Department are not doing their job and if the drainage is not connected properly then Buddy Cyr is not doing his job. Erich said he was not saying the Fire Department or Buddy was not doing their job. The Fire Department may walk out there and say there is a hydrant every five hundred feet. The Fire Department does not know where the hydrants are, but they end up 10 feet away from the right-of-way on someone's property, they do not know that and it is not their responsibility. They assume the Planning Board is doing their job. Paul said that was not true, we are not out there inspecting the field, they know where the hydrants are - off the center line of the road. Erich cited the fact that there are so many and in French Farm every other hydrant was on someone's lot, how many drain pipes are going up hill, forget were the sewer was. That is a big issue. John Burke said that in French Farm everyone knows where the sewer was, it was just never recorded in the Registry. Paul did not agree that the field circumstances are as chaotic as Erich suggests. Bill Hmurciak, Public Works Department, stated that he did not want the burden of determining exactly whether everything was installed properly, be placed on him. John Burke said that it should not be, but if the contractor or developer should have that burden, but somehow it could be worked out where there is enough water, sewage and drainage going in. George Perna, suggested that the wording be changed to read: The As-Builts will be submitted to the Planning Board on an as completed basis for all drainage facilities, water and sewer and other utilities and the roadway binder centerline grade. The As-Builts for the utilities shall be prior to the binder coat being applied in the right-of-way. Such As-Built Plans shall be certified by a registered civil engineer and/or professional land surveyor that all aforementioned utilities are in compliance with the approved plans both in location and in grade. Any deviations will be corrected prior to bond release unless the design engineer can document that the deviation is at least as good or better than the approved plans. On Condition ~24 o~ Erich Draft which states: No certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for any structure built within this subdivision without the approval of the DPW. Such approval will include as a minimum that the roadway can be serviced in the winter months and that the water and sewer facilities are connected and can be used. This condition is to be added to the draft decision of the Town Planner. On Condition 0E5 of Erich's draft which states: All hydrants to have six (6) inch gates installed within the pavement area of the roadway. This condition is to be added to the draft decision of the Town Planner. Also the Board agreed to place Conditions 026 and 02? of Erich's draft which states: Condition #26 There shall be no driveway placed in the location where catch basins or stone bounds are to be installed. It shall be the developers responsibility to insure against such instances even if lots are sold to others after lot releases. Condition ~27 There shall be installed 3-8" gate valve at each intersection of the subdivision roads with public roadways. On Condition #28, Erich could not see any mitigation of run-off on Salem Street or Abbott Street, only within the subdivision. The condition is to be added to the draft decision of the Town Planner and states the following: The developer shall document mitigation of run-off from the site during the 10 year and 100 year storm, especially in those area of Thistle Road and Nutmeg Lane onto Abbott and Nutmeg Lane onto Salem Street. Drainage computations will also be certified that existing off site drainage facilities are capable of accepting the additional storm run-off from the subdivision without causing flooding and/or damage to private property. The drain outlet on the South side of Abbott Street opposite Lot 30 requires a drain easement as well as topographic details to its outlet areas. Likewise the existing drainage on Rea Street to the "unknown brook location" shall be documented. On the draft of Erich's~ Condition #29 is redundent to that of the Town Planner's Condition #1 and was withdrawn. Condition #30 of Erich~s is the same as Condition 6d of the Town Planner's. Erich's Condition #31 will be removed from the decision. ~n Itl ~38 which states that Lots 25,86 and 87 shall be On Erich's ~_ndi on set aside as a playground and not built upon for a period of three (3) years in accordance with Subdivision Control Law. John Simons questioned if the set aside was possible. Erich said that it was in the Subdivision Control Law. John also questioned if this modification supercedes all other Planning Board decisions on this subdivision. Paul Hedstrom told John that this decision does supercede all others because it is an entirely different filing. John Simons asked Erich if he had seen a construction plan. Erich said he had not seen one. John Simons checked the M.G.L. to see if condition ~38 of Erich draft could be done and found it under Chapter 41 Section 81U. He read the section to the Board. Erich cited circumstances in an other Town , saying that the developer thanked the Planning Board for setting the lots aside for a playground because three years later the developer made more money selling those lots then instead of selling them with the rest of the subdivision. That is if the Town does not buy them, it works out to the advantage of the developer. John Burke questions why Erich had picked those particular lots. Erich said because they were the three highest and driest lots together. Paul Hedstrom said that the Planning Board determines suitability of lots. The Board agreed to place Condition ~32 into the decision. John Simons thought that a construction plan should be submitted. Erich agreed, adding to the list of conditions. MOTION: By George Perna to approve the draft decision of the subdivision modification adding in what was discussed. SECOND: Erich Nitzsche VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: By Erich Nitzsche to adjourn SECOND: John Simons VOTE: Unanimous The meeting adjou at 9:25 p.m. Paul A. Hedstrom, Chairman ~net L. Eaton-, Secret y