Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Brd Min_131996PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 3, 1996 PRESENT: Chairman French Clerk Sullivan �� �� PLANNERS: Dolan, Flynn 1. Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. 2. Correspondence 1 r 1. List of street submitted for acceptance 1996 Town Meeting. Mr. Burke informed the board the warrant will close February 1, 1996. 2. Minutes November 28, 1995 and November 29, 1995 Motion: To approve both sets of minutes as written (Dolan - Sullivan) All in favor. PASSES 3. Memo from Dan Clifford RE: Surety Amount - Canterbury Estates M Phase C Motion: To set the bond at $93,000 (Sullivan - Dolan) All in favor. PASSES 4. Memo from Dan Clifford RE: Partial Release of Surety - Jameson Farm Motion: To release $3,000 (Sullivan - Flynn) All in favor. PASSES 5. Memo from Dan Clifford RE: Partial Release of Surety - Carlton Estates Motion: To release $13,050 (Flynn- Sullivan) All in favor. PASSES 6. Memo from Dan Clifford RE: Partial Release of Surety - Stearns Hill Estates Motion: To release $10,110.84 (Sullivan - Flynn) All in favor. PASSES 7. Memo from Shaun Burke RE: Capital Improvements Committee members �C'j n' r Ft,(,,, «.i re, ci 4 o 8. Let r From��anrlingoard tooar oelectmen`)2 Reap`po5mfinent of Bernie Dolan 9. Letter from Board of Selectmen to Bernie Dolan RE: Reappointment 10. Letter from Attorney Mangiaratti RE: Webb Place parking 11. Memo from Andy Gazzolo RE: Town Meeting Articles . 12. Letter and Form I from Folkman and Zola Builders RE: Eastfield Village Motion: To sign the Eastfield Village plan (Sullivan - Dolan) All in favor. PASSES 13. Memo from Mr. Burke RE: stop sign at corner of Cottage/Rock Streets 14. Letter from EOEA RE: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail 15. ZBA decisions - Town of Mansfield - Granted; 195 Brown Avenue - Granted 16. FY 1996 -97 Budget 3. Public Hearing - Wayfield The clerk read new correspondence from the Fire and Police Departments, the Town Engineer, and the Supplemental Drainage Report. David Grant, Tilton Associates, representing Kevin Delaney, discussed the comments and explained the changes to the plan, including showing the curb cuts, connecting the water main as the Water Department had requested, adding a light pole, noting Lot 1 is a non - conforming, non - buildable lot on all sheets, showing the house to be moved to Lot 2, adding a grate over the end of the outfall pipe, showing the 20 foot wide easement for a possible utility connection, and a new detention basin. Concerning drainage, Fred Pfishner said they had done test holes witnessed by Scott Leite and a falling head permeability test for the 10 -year storm in the area of the basin. The basin has been expanded with three times the original volume, and is wider and deeper. Mr. Pfishner said they could install a fence S or stone wall around the basin. He explained.the groundwater elevation is one to one and a half feet higher than he had thought, and the outlet structure had been modified and the detail sent to the Town Engineer. Mr. Pfishner explained they had had a retention basin with recharge during the storm, but decided not to use that method; under the new analysis there would be no recharge during a storm to decrease the rate of water flowing off site. He said the basin will retain water with the outlet 1.7 feet above the bottom of the basin and will seep out through the bottom of the basin without going into the wetland or off site. Mr. Pfishner estimated three hours for the basin to dry out after the 10 year storm event. Mr. Pfishner explained during a storm larger than the 10 year, the basin will act as a detention basin, and during a smaller storm, there is an area at the back of the lots which flows into the wetland, with the flow equal to or less than the current flow. Regarding the retention basin, Mr. Pfishner said the site is not in the water protection district, so it could be said the requirement that the bottom of the basin be three feet above the groundwater level does not apply in this case. Public Comment Sandra Levine, 20 Walnut Street, asked about recharge soil. Mr. Grant explained the soil in the area is not conducive to recharge because it is fine glacial till. Mrs. Levine asked what would happen when the water in the retention basin freezes. Mr. Pfishner said if there were high ground water and a frost, then a melt, there would be additional water flowing on the site, just as happens now. Mrs. Levine asked how much of the abutting lots are dedicated to wetlands. Mr. Grant said the wetland is approximately 12,000 square feet over the two lots, which are both oversized. Mrs. Levine was concerned about the mosquito problem the homeowners would have and about the safety of children living in the houses, and asked if the board would consider making the area common land and moving the houses further away from the wetland. Mr. Burke said the land could be deeded to a homeonwer's association, but a true residential compound cannot be done in the Residential 2 zone. Mrs. Levine said the house nearest the wetland is only 6 -7 feet from high groundwater. Mr. Grant said the houses can be moved around to get them away from the wetlands. Mrs. Levine asked why Lot 1 is non - buildable. Mr. Grant explained it does not meet the lot width requirement, but said the other lots conform to that requirement. He said they would probably deed some of Lot 1 to the abutter prior to the end of the 20 -day appeal period. Mr. Burke said for the applicant could do a residential compound with a private driveway, a zoning change would be required, along with a new plan and a special permit. He also suggested one or both of the houses near the wetland could be removed. Mr. Grant said they had already reduced the density from nine houses to seven. Board Comment Planner Flynn asked if the site is poorly drained. Mr. Pfishner said it is well - drained. Planner Flynn asked to see the wetland /upland calculations for each lot on the plan. Mr. Burke explained each lot has to have 17,000 square feet of upland in the zone with sewer. Planner Flynn also said she wanted to see final comments from the Town Engineer before voting, and added she was not inclined to grant any of the waivers. Clerk Sullivan said with the latest calculations, the basin is still a retention basin, and if so, they would need a waiver to allow that type. Mr. Pfishner agreed, but said the way he read that requirement, only retention basins are allowed in the water protection district and it has to be three feet above the water table. Mr. Burke agreed that retention is the only thing that can be done in the water protection district, but added if a standard exists for retention, it should be applied uniformly. Clerk Sullivan was concerned about the basin being in front yards and asked the maximum pending elevation of the 100 - year storm be put on the plan. Clerk Sullivan was concerned about the amount of large trees on the site and suggested creating stone tree wells to save as many as possible. Mr. Delaney said he would be conscientious about saving trees and placing the houses. Planner Dolan said he would like to see the Town Engineer's comments before voting and asked if the applicant would be willing to give the board an extension for its decision deadline. Mr. Burke said the by -laiv calls for a2-1 slope in the basin, but this proposal is for a_l slope, and asked that a detail of the wall be shown on the plan. Mr. Burke was concerned about the basin being so close to the road and suggested a stone wall around the basin. Mr. Delaney said he could do that with some of the stones from the stone walls on site. Mr. Burke was also concerned about the reserve strip on Lot 7. He suggested the developer get together with the abutter before the next meeting and let the board know exactly what will be done with that piece of land. Mr. Delaney said the abutter would be getting that strip of land, but an agreement is not yet in writing. Clerk Sullivan. said conveyance of that strip could be made a condition of approval. Mr. Burke said cleaning up the wetland; if the Conservation Commission gives permission to remove trash, leaves, branches, etc., may help increase capacity and prevent runoff to abutters. Mr. Grant said they would be willing to clean up the wetland. Mr. Delaney said if he could find out exactly what the board wants done, he would be willing to continue the hearing until January 17 with an extension for final decision to January 24, 1996. Planner Dolan said he had no problem with the waivers, since the Police and Fire Departments had no problems. Clerk Sullivan said the reduced cul -de -sac width would be a benefit for the basin size. Mr. Burke said there should be a detail of the wall around the basin shown on the plan. Planner Flynn said she would not vote for any of the waivers and suggested the board discuss a change to the Subdivision Regulations if the rest of the board thinks these waivers are appropriate. She was also concerned that the retention basin is not curvelinear in shape and asked that the final action deadline be January 26, 1996. Chairman French said he is in favor of the cul -de -sac waiver because it would reduce drainage. He also mentioned the basin is not curvilinear. Motion: To continue the public hearing until January 17, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. with an extension in the Planning Board's final action date until January 26, 1996 pending agreement to this by the applicant. (Dolan - Sullivan) All in favor. PASSES The applicant presented the board with a signed request to continue the public hearing until January 17, 1996 and extend the deadline for decision until January 26, 1996. 4. Around The Table Planner Flynn asked that a Subdivision Rules and Regulations amendment discussion be added to the agenda, especially for discussion of retention basins. 5. Adjournment Motion: To adjourn at 10:15 P.M. (Dolan - Sullivan) All in favor. PASSES Date of next meeting: Wednesday, January 17, 1996 at 7:00 P.M. �� �,� A airL �_ j -J 2-g (�:) ` Signature of Clete — Date of Approval