Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 09/15/04 ,'-- Planning Board ':M,un.M ~ E 1 Vf8 ,., ,,' " '- Dl{'.... Ol-F I j September 15,'2004 '~',..'" ,:) ( C~. ' Present: Doug Annino, Acting Chair; Fred ~~Tf21frkAW*1r Jenkins, John DeMassl, Frank Holmes 4\ August 31, 2004 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (Holmes-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES 2. September 1, 2004 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (Jenkins-Armstrong) Three in favor. Annino abstained. PASSES 3. ZBA application for Variance - 76 Williams Street - side yard setback Mr. Burke explained the property bas already received a variance for an addition; he said this addition would be within six feet of the property line. The application states the addition has to be on the driveway side ofthe house because of the location of the septic system and a mudroom. Mr. Burke said there are a number of dimensions missing from the plan, and the application does not explain whether the addition is one or two stories. Mr. Annino said this would aher the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Jenkins said the addition is very large and suggested the garage could be made a side-entrance structure to avoid the encroachment. Mr. DeMassi said an addition resulting in a six-foot setback would have a significant impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Armstrong said there is no hardship shown in the application. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because there is no hardship demonstrated and an addition resulting in a six-foot setback would have a significant impact on the character of the neighborhood. The board suggested the garage could be redesigned as a side-entrance structure to avoid the encroachment. (Armstrong-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES 4. August 31, 2004 letter from Kurt Gaffuey, Water Operations Manager re: Gourdin Estates (Mill Street) Utility and Access Easement. Mr. Gaffuey's letter indicates the Water Department no longer needs the 20-foot utility and access easement because the water line will be looped within the subdivision. Mr. Burke explained the developer has a prospective buyer who is concerned about the easement as approved. He said the easement bas not been accepted at Town Meeting, so the board has the ability to allow the developer to extinguish the easement. Motion: To acknowledge receipt of Mr. Gaffuey's letter recommending the easement be dissolved because the water was looped in the subdivision to ensure water quality and prevent a dead-end situation. (Jenkins-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES 5. Meeting notices Easton, North Attleboro, Norton, SRPEDD 6. TransReport newsletter r- ,-- ,-- Williams Street - Mr. Burke explained the plan seeks to create Lot 2 as a conforming lot; Lot 1 was created with a variance in 1995. He said Lot 2 has the required frontage and area and it warrants endorsement. Motion: To endorse the Form A Plan (Armstrong-Holmes) All in favor. PASSES The clerk read a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance until October 26, 2004 at 8:30 p.rn. Motion: To continue the public hearing to October 26,2004 at 8:30 p.m. (DeMassi-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES John Sullivan, Town Engineer, explained the plan for expansion of the parking lot at the Kennedy-Donovan Center in order to serve the center's present needs. He said the parking area isn't all paved and bas no striping; if it were striped, there would be about 11 spaces. They have determined they need 20 spaces, so the pavement will have to be increased. ,-- Mr. Sullivan explained the proposed drainage system. He said permeability tests have been done, with good infiltration and low ground water. The system will take all the water from the existing and proposed pavement to a manhole, then to infiltrators under the parking lot, and infiltrate the water underground. The system will be designed for the 100-year event. There will be an overflow pipe tied into the drain manhole in the existing street drainage system. Mr. Sullivan said the additional spaces will handle the center's needs, adding the Zoning By-Law does not address parking requirements for this type of use. He said there are eight units, but the residents do not have cars. There are six employees per shift, which all change at once, so there will be 12 employees at the center at one time for a short time, plus an average of four visitors per day and two handicapped vans. This would require 18 spaces and 20 will be provided. Mr. DeMassi asked if20 spaces will really be needed. Mr. Sullivan said he and Mr. Forbes, Mansfield Housing Authority Director, arrived at 20 as a reasonable number to accommodate the needs of this site. Mr. Sullivan said the Housing Authority is described as an "operating agency" in the Mass General Laws, which is why he and the DPWare assisting the authority. However, they are still required to follow the town's regulations. Mr. Jenkins asked who owns the parcel labeled 14-51; Mr. Sullivan said that is owned by the town. Mr. Jenkins asked if there is proposed leaching field expansion at the back of the site; Mr. Sullivan said the Board of Health required an expansion area in case the system fuils, so that area already exists. He said there is a dumpster on a concrete pad ,-- that will be relocated to the back of the site. Mr. Jenkins said he was concerned about adjacent property owned by the town that may at some point be used for expansion of this ,'-- center. He asked if this could be engineered to allow for expansion. Mr. Sullivan said testing would have to be done to find another location for a leaching field. Mr. Burke said that is part of the town's conservation land. Mr. Annino asked about screening the dumpster. Mr. Sullivan said none is proposed; he said there is a tree line across the back of the property to screen the residential neighbor. Mr. Sullivan said the new dumpster location will be as far from the property line as possible. He said some trees could be planted on the residential neighbor's side and suggested six-foot high hemlock trees. Motion: To accept the recommendation from the Town Engineer that the facility can operate with 20 parking spaces as described in Mr. Sullivan's memorandum, based on 6 employees per shift, 4 visitors and 2 handicapped vans (Jenkins-Holmes) Mr. Forbes said they have no plans to expand the facility at this time. All in favor. PASSES Motion: To send the Building Inspector a positive recommendation with the addition of three six-foot hemlock trees around the new dumpster location (Jenkins-Armstrong) Mr. Annino asked about site lighting; Mr. Sullivan said none is proposed. Mr. Forbes ,r- said there are existing entry lights and one light pole to the left ofthe driveway, where the vans park. Mr. Annino suggested adding wheel stops to the handicapped parking spaces. All in favor. PASSES The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. Burke explained the scenic road by-law, the intent of which is to preserve the characteristics of the roadway, specifically stone walls and trees in the right-of-way. Mr. Sullivan explained the plan for the reconstruction of Jewell Street from Williams Street to Balcom Street. He said the majority of the reconstruction will consist of grinding the existing roadway and starting new. The drainage issues have been examined, and he said the drainage can be improved at the Balcom Street end by improving the grading of the road with minor elevation changes. He said there are three areas where pavement adjustments wouldn't accomplish that; a catch basin at the intersection of Nelson Way, two catch basins at the Williams Street end, and two catch basins in front of97 Jewell Street. He said they want to separate the roadway runoff from the natural drainage by installing two new catch basins with four sumps, one with a storm ceptor. r- Mr. Sullivan explained they do not intend to remove any trees greater than 1 Y:a" caliper; they are allowed to trim under the scenic road by-law. ,..-.. Mr. Sullivan said there is an existing catch basin in the roadway with a pipe from the woods coming into it near the stone wall at 97 Jewell Street. They want to temporarily remove the stone wall and replace it after the work. On the other side of the catch basin, there is another stone wal~ which will also be removed and replaced. Mr. DeMassi asked how old the stone walls are; Mr. Sullivan said the first wall is approximately 40 years old, the other was reconstructed 40-50 years ago by the resident. Mr. Sullivan said while they were looking at the relocation of the two stone walls, the neighbors across the street, in the area where the Electric Department installed new telephone poles, told him they have sight distance issues with an existing stone wall adjacent to their driveways. He said he has checked that and there is a sight distance issue. He said the wall is a pile of large boulders extending 3 ~ to 4 feet; he said it is probably the oldest of the walls in the area. Mr. Sullivan said Officer Lawson has also visited the site and agrees there is a sight distance issue with this wall. Mr. Sullivan said the wall is partly in the public way and partly on private property. He said the neighbors have given the town written permission to go on their properties to remove the wall. Department Bead Comments The clerk read the letter from Jewell Street residents regarding the sight distance issue. r- PubUc Comment Bob Servais, Jewell Street, said the wall they would like to have removed is really a pile of stone and has no aesthetic value. Leonard Flynn, 102 Jewell Street, said this is a scenic road and the Planning Board has a long history of protecting stone walls. He suggested that rather than removing the wall, it could be topped and the vegetative growth on top of the wall could be controlled, which he said is really the sight distance issue. He said the wall isn't over four feet tall. Martha Dellaporta, 98 Jewell Street, said the sight distance has been made worse since the installation of the new telephone poles and the removal of the wall would help. She asked if she could remove the portions of the wall on her property. Mr. Flynn said the stone wall is completely within the right-of-way of Jewell Street. Howard Asner, 94 Jewell Street, said he would like the wall removed so they can see to get in and out of their driveway. Phil Finer, 100 Jewell Street, asked about the catch basins. Mr. Sullivan pointed out the locations of the catch basins and said they would remain in the same locations. Board Comment Mr. Holmes said the sight distance could be checked after the vegetation is cleared to determine if there really is a problem. r-- Mr. Jenkins said he sees this as two issues; the two walls to be relocated and the one wall ,-- to be removed. He said he didn't want Mr. Sullivan's main request, for the relocation of two walls, to become bogged down with the removal issue. He said the board may need additional information about the removal to be able to come to a determination tonight. Mr. DeMassi said he agrees with Mr. Jenkins. He said the drainage issue obviously needs to be resolved but he would like more information on the sight lines with regard to the removal. Mr. Armstrong agreed there are two issues and said he is concerned about the wall removal issue, and whether the board has jurisdiction over the wall, because the plan submitted shows most ofthe wall outside the right-of-way. Mr. Burke said if it is outside the right-of-way, it is not subject to the scenic road by-law. Mr. Burke said he agreed there are two issues; one is the reconstruction of the drainage to go along with the reconstruction of Jewell Street, and said based on Mr. Sullivan's presentation, the board could make a determination on the relocation issue. He said the second issue, the removal, speaks to the issue of public interest, as the scenic road by-law is intended to protect the town's interests. He suggested separating the two issues and perhaps having the vegetation on and around the stone wall cleaned up, then looking at sight distance. He agreed that if the wall lies outside the right-of..way the board has no jurisdiction over its aheration. r- Mr. Jenkins said he would like to hear from Officer Lawson in writing about the sight distance issue following the removal of the vegetation before coming to any conclusions. Mr. Annino asked about the pipe being relocated; Mr. Sullivan said there is a ditch coming from the woods, flowing into that pipe, which ties into an existing catch basin. Mr. Annino asked if the wall could just be rebuih lower rather than simply removing it. Mr. Sullivan said that would be possible. He said the wall is in the line of sight of the driveways, and said he had visited the site with Officer Lawson, who agreed it was a problern. He said it is not just the vegetation, but the wall itself hinders sight distance. He said if the upper course of stones were removed, the technical sight distance problem would be eliminated. Mr. Sullivan asked that the board separate the issues and take two votes, one for the relocation of the two walls and one for the removal. Mr. Annino asked where the new telephone poles are located; Mr. Sullivan showed the board their locations on the plan. Mr. DeMassi asked if there bad been any interest in removing the wall before the poles were installed. Mr. Servais said there bad been, and there had been severaIlarge trees removed for sight distance issues. Mr. Flynn said residents have been using those driveways for many years, and he bas never heard any sight distance complaints. ,-- - Mark Coo14 DPW Highway Division, explained they would have to install a berm to prevent erosion on Jewell Street. He said they had planned to remove that wall for the installation, which will not be done because the poles are now in the way. Mrs. Dellaporta said the stone wall bas always been a sight distance issue, and it has been made worse because of the new poles. Mr. Servais said when the road is reconstructed and made smoother, people will drive faster than they already do, making it more dangerous. Mr. Finer said the walls always blocked sight distance to some degree, but the poles have exacerbated the problem. Motion: To vote separately on the two issues (DeMassi-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSE Motion: To approve the scenic road application for the removal and reconstruction of the two stone walls for the reconstruction of Jewell Street (DeMassi-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To send the Board of Selectmen as Light Commissioners a letter (copy Gary Babin) requesting review of the telephone poles, citing Lance's sight issues and resident's concerns (DeMassi- Armstrong) r- Mr. Sullivan said the only discussion he has had with Officer Lawson was about the walls. Mr. Burke suggested the motion should be about the walls, perhaps asking DPW to clean them up to determine whether it would help sight distance and investigate whether lowering the wall would help. Mr. DeMassi said he thought the residents could have been maintaining the vegetation on the wall. Mr. Annino asked ifDPW would be willing to clean up the vegetation; Mr. Cook said he would be. Mr. Sullivan suggesting baving DPW remove the vegetation and lowering the wall to about two feet by removing the top boulders. Mr. Holmes asked if the property line could be determined; Mr. Sullivan said the town would not do that. He said the town has the residents' permission to enter their properties for the removal of the wall. Mr. Armstrong said he thought the interim solution was a good one. Mr. Cook said the boulders in that wall are very large and suggested they could be moved around to create a shorter, more attractive wall. He said he wouldn't have a problem working with the neighbors to remove the large boulders, using them as a base and rebuilding the wall with smaller rocks. Mrs. Dellaporta said she wouldn't have a problem with that. Mr. Cook said he would like to get the road paved before winter and asked if part of the wall were removed, could it be rebuih in the spring. ,,--. Table previous motion r- Motion: To ask DPW to trim the vegetation on and around the stone wall and ask Officer Lawson and Mr. Sullivan to look at the sight lines and determine which stones need to be removed from the top; ask DPW to remove those boulders as may be necessary to level the wall and bring in what stone is necessary to reconstrnct it to he agreed~upon height. The reconstruction can be done in the spring of2005 if necessary (Armstrong-Holmes) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Armstrong-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES Mr. DeMassi withdrew his previous motion. Mr. Jenkins presented the board with copies of several articles from the Wall Street Journal about bix box stores, parking requirements for restaurants and Wal Mart. Motion: To adjourn at 9:30 p.rn. (Armstong-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES Next meeting: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 at 7:30 p.rn. r- ~(ck~~ Si ture of Clerk . !5 eft) ~(J/\ & /7JJJ Lj Date of Approval ( / -"