Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Brd Min_4191995PLANNING BOARD IvIINUfES APRIL 19, PRESENT: Chairman French, Clerk Sullivan PLANNERS: Bonda, Dolan, Flynn Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development 1. Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. 2. Public Hearing continued - Back Bay Circle The clerk read new correspondence from Attorney MangiarattL the Engineering Department, and a dismissal of Hope Street Realty Trust vs. Planning Board Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates explained revisions to the plan. Because of a frontage question, one lot was eliminated, bringing the total to four. Abutters who had been left off the plan were added, and a turnaround easement was added on Keefe Street. Test holes were done with Board of Health adjustments, a retaining wall was added, the existing house was shown, the drain manhole and connection were repositioned, and two catch basins through the stone swale were added. Engineering had requested some geometry changes, which were shown on the plan, as well as the sewer realignment and laterals, a guard rail at the detention area, and the existing hydrant. Public Comment Attorney Edward Roster, representing abutters Sliney and Blandori, distributed a memo addressing issues differing from the previous plan to this one, saying the plan had changed substantially and was therefore a different plan. He said he disagreed with a letter from Town Counsel Robert Mangiaratti, saying his clients abut the streets shown on the plan, are therefore owners of those streets, and the plan shows land the applicants do not own, which is grounds for denial. Attorney Edward Valenzola, representing the applicant, said it was not the board's function to question Town Counsel's opinions and the property owners have the right to make improvements to their land and Keefe Street. He said changes had been made to the plan dealing with department head comments from previous public hearings, adding Arenstam vs. Tyngsboro says the developer cannot make modifications to the plan after a denial - the case did not, say changes could not be made at all. Attorney Roster said the way he read the case, the seven month time frame between the preliminary and the definitive should be enough time to correct any problems. Mr. Markinson, an abutter, said he was afraid the development would impact negatively on him, because his house sits right on the road. Mr. Cronin, an abuttor, said the current dead -end street is a safe place for children, and he was concerned with the additional traffic intersecting roads would bring. Board Comment Planner Bonda asked if the lots had enough upland area. Mr. Burke had been concerned about Lot 5 (now Lot 4), but said it and the other lots conformed. Clerk Sullivan asked if the Engineering Department had received the information it had requested. Mr. Trowbridge said it had, but he had not seen a review of it. Clerk Sullivan asked if the drainage report included drainage calculations and was told it did. Chairman French asked if the turnaround easement should be in the shape of a cul -de- sac rather than a T shape. Mr. Trowbridge told him the state allows either and explained he used a T due to space considerations. He said the turnaround would be paved with 30 foot corner rounding easements. Mr. Burke noted the area within the easement is used in the calculation of the lot's upland. Mr. Burke suggested the board deal with whether the plan as revised is significantly different from the original so as to result in a whole new plan requiring a new advertisement and public hearing. He said there were no changes proposed in the layout of the streets, but the number of lots had changed. He said he was concerned with the permanent turnaround being an easement on a lot. If the board chooses to deal with the second plan, it has to decide flit conforms to Section 6.4. Planner Flynn was of the opinion the second plan is substantively different from the original the board had been working on and she did not feel it appropriate to comment on the revised plan. Clerk Sullivan asked if all the correct abutters had been notified and was told they had been. Attorney Valanzola said his client needed the board to vote on the amended plan and asked how the board would decide which plan they would consider. Chairman French explained the board would discuss it with Mr. Burke, who may talk with Town Counsel. Planner Flynn said the board should use its own judgment, not base its decision on what an attorney says. Motion: To continue the public hearing until May 17, 1995 at 8:30 P.M. with an extension in the Planning Board's deadline for decision until June 17, 1995 in order to give the board time to review the plans and the changes made. (Dolan- Sullivan) Four in favor. One opposed. PASSES 3. Public Hearing Continued - Woodland Park The clerk read new correspondence from the Engineering Department, Attorney Kelley, Tod and Deborah Snyder, Mr. Burke, and a new drainage report. Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering, submitted revised drainage and traffic studies. Public Comment Jeff Sienna, 364 South Main Street, asked about water flowing toward S. Main Street post - development and whose back yards would be effected. Mr. Maloon explained the water flows that way now. Mr. Sienna inquired about a berm or drain to keep water out of those yards. Mr. Maloon said they were reducing the flow in that direction, adding he had considered a sub - drain, but the elevation was too low. Dan Haley, 22 Danielle Lane, wanted assurances the water being taken from S. Main and Fruit Streets wouldn't flow into Mansfield Manor. Mr. Maloon said it would go through that area into the brook via the street drainage system, which will carry the runoff from the front of the new homes to the drainage area and into the brook. Tom Graney, 21 Beech Street asked if this was the same plan as originally submitted. Mr. Maloon answered it was, showing the profiles and his attempt to reduce the flow of water. He added the shape of the detention area, the roadway layout and number of lots are the same. Deborah Snyder, 29 Fruit Street, said traffic from 45 additional homes will produce more traffic than Mr. Maloon predicts. Joan Graney, 21 Beech Street asked why Edgewood Street couldn't be opened, explaining the ABC streets have poor sight distance, especially Beech and Chestnut, making Aspen the only exit the neighborhood uses. Attorney Kelley explained his client does not own all of Edgewood Street, just the southerly half to the center line, while someone else owns the northerly half. Mr. Burke suggested the developer may have the right to construct the rest of that paper street. Mr. Maloon responded he could get the radius on one side, but not the other. Judy Knight, an attorney, said the Arenstam case relates to this plan. Chairman French said the board had to decide if the changes made to the plan are substantial or not. Jim Habeeb, 26 Danielle Lane said the board has the legal opportunity with the Arenstam case to deny the plan. He said it would benefit the town and neighbors to come up with a plan to satisfy both the neighbors and developers. He also asked if the drainage system would be able to handle the water. Chairman French said the proposal is a standard way of managing stormwater. Mr. Maloon explained he would be reducing the water runoff by catching and putting it into the drainage areas. Mr. Habeeb was concerned about the Back Bay Brook being able to handle the extra water. Chairman French said based on Mr. Maloon's study and the Town Engineer, the flooding to the brook won't be increased, so there will be no net increase to the carrying level. Mr. Habeeb asked about the size of the drainage area. Mr. Maloon explained it would be five feet with a four to one slope, and would be private property on one of the lots. Mr. Sienna said putting berms on the backs of the S. Main Street lots would keep some of the flow where the water originates, and asked about the board making that a condition. Mr. Maloon said he could do a leaching trench to put the surface water into the ground, but if the problem is with the groundwater, that would be adding to it. Norm Parks, 396 South Main Street, said the revised drainage area would require a revised drain pipe and changed topography. He asked who would maintain the pipe. Mr. Maloon explained the developer would maintain it until the road becomes a public way, then the town would, because it runs down Fruit Street, not on lots. Chairman French said they would have the Town Engineer answer that in his review. Betty O'Connor, 27 Chestnut Street, was concerned about stories of coal mines under the site. Mr. Burke said he had also heard the stories, but was not aware of mines. Bill Madan asked if any waivers had been requested. Mr. Maloon said he had requested waivers for pvc rather than concrete pipe because pvc allows a flatter grade with the same amount of water carried. Board Comment Planner Flynn asked about the sight distance at Chestnut Street. Mr. Maloon said it met the regulations. She also asked about the open space lots; Mr. Maloon said lots 10 and 11 were open space, with 2 1/2 acres total. Clerk Sullivan said three acres of open space would be required. Planner Bonda told Mr. Maloon she was not satisfied with the traffic study and suggested he revisit the traffic issue. Planner Dolan was concerned about the drainage basin being fenced. Mr. Maloon said fences around detention basins were not normally required. Clerk Sullivan asked how long water would stay in the basin. Mr. Maloon said the water from the site alone would remain 12 -18 hours, but he designed it to hold longer because of the peak flow coming down the brook from downtown. He said after a big storm, the water could stay a couple of days. Mr. Burke would like to see a traffic distribution at several points of access and at different times and was concerned about the water in neighboring yards. Mr. Ivlaloon said he could do a berm along the back of those lots. Planner Flynn would like to see the detention basin in a more curvilinear shape. Chairman French said there were several outstanding issues that needed to be solved in order to bring the issue to a close. These include traffic distribution, present and future queuing times, opening Edgewood Street, drainage and a berm along the back of the property lines, review of the drainage by the Town Engineer and its effects on the abutters and the Back Bay Brook, the curvilinear detention basin, and additional open space. Mr. French added if Mr. Maloon sees any other issues he should address them. Mr. Habeeb asked if the board was willing to take a position on whether the plan had changed significantly. In a straw vote, the board agreed the plan had not undergone substantive changes from the original submission. Motion: To continue the public hearing to May 24, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. with an extension of the Planning Board's deadline for decision until June 30, 1995. (Sullivan - Bonda) All in favor. PASSES 4. Site Plan Review - Parldng Facility South Main Street - Karl Clemmey The clerk read staff comments. Ken McKenzie, Dunn - McKenzie Engineering, presented a plan for the site on Route 140, which he said was 80 percent vegetation - free. The site will include 197 parking spaces with a barn for maintenance equipment. The building will be served by water and electric. Mr. McKenzie went over Mr. Burke's comments, showing the use of bituminous cape cod berm and a swale to catch runoff from the top of the site. He said there is access around the site for cars and emergency vehicles, along with a sidewalk, and showed flow patterns. The handicapped spaces are near the building, but Mr. McKenzie said they could be moved closer to the entrance. He said the state did not want a crosswalk across Route 140. He showed flood lights on the building, which he said would not effect the traffic on Route 140. A new curb cut permit has been issued by the state for this use. Board Comment Planner Flynn asked how far the lot would be from the Great Woods entrance. Mr. McKenzie said it was 565 feet, and would not be adding any additional cars, the same Great Woods traffic would just be parking elsewhere. Planner Bonda asked about trash removal. Mr. McKenzie said they would use barrels and store them inside the building. Planner Bonda also asked if collecting parking fees would back traffic up on Route 140. Mr. Clemmey explained he would be collecting the fees in the back of the lot. Clerk Sullivan asked about conformance with landscaping and screening requirements. Mr. Clemmey said the plan was filed before the requirement. Mr. Burke said Section 4.3.3 requires landscaping of any new structure with 10 or more spaces. Planner Flynn said she would like the handicapped spaces closer to the entrance, though the code says the spaces should be near the building. Motion: To send a positive recommendation to the Building Inspector on the site plan incorporating all department head comments and that the detention basin be more curvilinear, the dumpster be maintained within the building, the handicapped spaces be moved closer to the entrance, work at the curb cut be in compliance with Mass Highway, and the traffic be in compliance with the traffic management plan. (Flynn - Dolan) All in favor. PASSES 5. Correspondence 1. Special Permit - Classic Court Motion: To sign the Special Permit (Sullivan - Bonda) All in favor. PASSES 2. Memos from Dan Clifford RE: surety Balcom H and III 3. Memo from Shaun Burke to Dan Clifford RE: surety Balcom II and III 4. Letter from Shaun Burke to Remus Realty Trust RE: Balcom II and III Ron Bon-vie, Remus Realty Trust, said he was willing to add the difference between the required slope granite curbing and the bituminous concrete curbing used in the completed portion of the subdivision, Balcom I. Mr. Burke said a waiver was requested for the Balcom I portion, but never granted. Clerk Sullivan said he would be receptive to a waiver request for the other two phases. Mr. Burke said a request should be in writing and a healing shouldn't be necessary. Clerk Sullivan suggested the board ask Ralph Maloon to figure out the difference in cost between the two types of curbing, have Dan Clifford check it, then get back to Mr. Bonvie, who may request a waiver at that time. 5. Letter from Attorney Mangiaratti to Attorney Edmund Brennan RE: Golden Hill Homes vs. Mansfield Planning Board dismissal 6. Letter from Shaun Burke to Jack Smith RE: Hodges Brook Estates 7. Letter from Jack Smith to Shaun Burke RE: Hodges Brook Estates 8. Letter from Shaun Burke to Remus Realty Trust RE: Massapoag Booster Pumps 9. Letter from Shaun Burke to Remus Realty Trust RE: Massapoag drainage area 10. Memo from Shaun Burke to Jay Zola/Bob MacLacklin RE: Stearns Hill sidewalks 11. Letter from Attorney Joe Fidler RE: Jameson Farm Right -of -Way 12. Memo from Shaun Burke to William Williams RE: Jameson Farm Right- Of-Way 13. Letter from Atty J.Thrasher to Bill Williams RE: 5th Amendment Violations 14. Memo from William Williams to Lorilee Fish RE: Railroad Bed 15. Memo from Shaun Burke RE: Flag Lots 16. Memo from Shaun Burke to William Williams RE: Surplus State Land 17. Copy of memo from Tim Higgins, Foxboro Planning Director RE: Form A 18. Letter from Frank Bennett to Shaun Burke RE: Gilbert Street Bridge 19. ZBA applications for finding - 216 Willow Street and 328 Elm Street 20. ZBA applications for variance - Lot 1, Old Ehn Street, 377 Chauncy Street 22. Minutes April 5, 1995 6. Around the Table The board discussed meeting weekly instead of going back to an every other week schedule. Chairman French asked if the board should be revisiting the Master Plan now, with the train station issue unsettled. Mr. Burke suggested a strategic growth management plan in the meantime. 7. Adjournment Motion: To adjourn at 12:05 A.M. (Sullivan - Flynn) All in favor. PASSES Date of next. meeting: May 3, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. 1 � Signature of Clerk Date of AppFoval