Town of Raynham, MA - April 10, 2003 Minutes

The Raynham Planning Board meeting of April 10, 2003 was called to order at 6:30 p.m., at Town Hall, with Henry Ellis, Burke Fountain, Carl Carlson, John Canto and Daniel Andrade present.~ Also present were Town Planner Richard McCarthy, Administrative Assistant Maureen McKenney and John Schmid of Judith Nitsch Engineering, Inc.~

6:30 p.m. - Attorney David Frenette, Brockton, MA, appeared before the Board with a Form J for the release of Lot 4 in Pondview Estates.~ He requested a bond reduction from $460,000 to $100,000.~ The current bond will expire on April 13 and must be replaced.~ JNEI correspondence dated April 7, 2003 estimated the value of the remaining roadwork at Pondview Estates to be $58,003.~ Correspondence dated April 10, 2003 from Town Counsel Marc Antine stated that a new bond would be acceptable if it is in the same form as the old bond.~~ After discussion, a motion was made to allow a reduction in the bond for Pondview Estates from $460,000 to $100,000 and to release Lot 4, as the last lot being held, with the Form J being held in escrow until the bond is received in hand; motion seconded; unanimous vote to approve.

Correspondence dated March 28, 2003 was received from the Board of Selectmen requesting a recommendation of Katherine’s Way and Titicut Road (Pondview Estates) as Town ways.~ Mr. Schmid noted that the work estimate of $58,003 still stood and that there were only a few items left to complete the road.~ After discussion, a vote on the matter was tabled to April 24th to give the developer time to finish all work.

6:45 p.m.~ Al Endrunias, Easton, MA, appeared before the Board to request a Form J lot release of Lot 44, King Philip Estates, Britton Street.~ Board members discussed the condition of the roadways.~ Mr. Canto noted that he recently viewed the roads and they looked acceptable.~ A motion was then made to release Lot 44 of King Philip Estates, Britton Street; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.

6:53 p.m.~ Fred Lincoln, owner of Dunkin' Donuts Rte. 138, appeared before the Board and requested a temporary occupancy permit for the site.~ He explained that the site was finished with the exception of some small plantings that have not taken after several attempts.~ Mr. McCarthy informed the Board that he viewed the site and he felt there was no need for the plantings because of the stockade fence in place.~ Mr. Fountain noted that the Board had assured the neighbors that there would be plantings and a fence along the property line.~ Mr. Lincoln indicated that he felt the neighbors would not be happy without the plantings but that it was becoming costly to keep replacing them.~ After discussion, Board members agreed that the neighbor should be notified and advised of the situation.~ The matter was continued for further discussion on April 24th, 6:45 p.m.

7:05 p.m.~ Doug Currie, Raynham, MA, presented the Currie Glass site plan for endorsement.~ He explained that a new developer will build on the site according to the approved footprint and will return to the Board later with a modified plan to add a greenhouse.~ John Schmid informed the Board that the drainage calcs for the site were acceptable.~ The new developers were present and Mr. Fountain advised them that the Board will look closely at any modified plan and will look closely at parking for the site.~ After discussion, the plan was endorsed with Dan Andrade abstaining.

7:10 p.m.~ David Kelly, P.E., Braintree, MA, and Richard Halverson, Campanelli Co., appeared before the Board with a minor modification to the Preferred Freezer site plan.~ Mr. Kelly noted that the new building is a prototype for other buildings and that changes are continually being made to it.~ He explained that the building footprint will not change but that parking spaces will be added for overnight vans and a paved driveway will be located around the building.~ JNEI review correspondence dated April 8, 2003 was received.~ Mr. Halverson noted that the ConCom has approved the modified plan.~ After review and discussion of the modified plan, a motion was made to approve the plan entitled~“Site Development Plans for Preferred Freezer Services, Raynham, MA,” drawn by Kelly Engineering Group, last revised April 1,2003, with the condition that a locked chain gate shall be installed at the northwest end of the existing parking lot; motion seconded; unanimous vote to approve.~

7:23 p.m. Garcia Dental site plan public hearing opened.~ Mr. Carlson read the hearing notice.~ Present for the applicant were John Bensley of Beals & Thomas, Dix Shevalier, Shevalier Associates, Carl Gauthier, Paramount Development and John Garcia.~ Correspondence dated April 10, 2003 was received from JNEI.~ Mr. Bensley reviewed the plan for the Board, discussing the proposed drainage and parking.~ John Schmid informed the Board that all issues except for signs had been addressed.~ Mr. Shevalier presented a drawing of the building elevation, noting that the building will be 6,000 square feet.~ Board members discussed lighting with Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Bensley.~ It was noted that the lighting will be the same as the lighting at 175 Paramount Drive.~ Waiver requests were discussed.~ Board members agreed they had no problem with the waivers.~ No vote was taken and the hearing was continued to April 24,2003.

7:40 p.m.~ Public hearing for North Raynham Water District (NRWD) site plan was opened.~ Mr. Carlson read the hearing notice.~ George Bellamy, NRWD, appeared before the Board with a request to waive the $500 submittal fee.~ A motion was made to waive the submittal fee for the NRWD site plan; motion seconded; unanimous vote to approve.~ Victor Olson and Kate Thiverge of Dufresne-Henry presented the site plan and reviewed it for the Board.~ The proposed concrete tank and pump station were discussed.~ The noise level generated from operation of the pump station was discussed.~ Mr. Olson explained that the concrete will insulate the noise and that there will be no open grates on the building facing Wilbur Street.~

In response to a question from Mr. Carlson, Mr. Bellamy noted that there will not be cell towers on the tank.~ Lighting was discussed.~ Mr. Olson stated that wall paks with a motion detector will be on the pump station.~ Mr. Olson and Ms. Thiverge discussed emergency procedures for tank overflow, noting that the tanks will be inspected regularly.~ Mr. Bellamy noted that no tank has overflowed in Raynham.~

Board members and Mr. Bellamy further discussed the issue of noise reduction.~ Mr. Bellamy noted that noise reduction had been a priority with the District from the beginning and that shrubs will be planted around the site to muffle any noise.~ After discussion, Board members agreed that approval could be conditioned to address noise risk.~ The issue of shadowing from the tank was discussed.~ Mr. Bellamy noted that shadowing should not be an issue except at sunset.~ Rod Palmer, Wilbur Street, addressed the Board.~ He asked if the diesel generator would be started weekly to exercise it.~ Mr. Olson noted that it would be on a timer to start weekly.~

During discussion, it was noted that the tank was exempt from zoning setbacks and that any further lighting at the site would require site plan modification.~ There were no further comments or questions from those present and the public hearing was closed at 8:15 p.m.~ A motion was made to approve the waivers as requested by NRWD; motion seconded; unanimous vote to approve.~ A motion was then made to approve the site plan entitled "Contract Drawings for Construction of Water Storage Tank," drawn by Dufresne-Henry, dated March 31, 2003, last revised April 4, 2003, with conditions as discussed; motion seconded; unanimous vote to approve.~ A Certificate of Action will be issued.~

8:22 p.m. Landolfi/George-Elm Street East subdivision plan public hearing reconvened.~ John Canto recused himself from the hearing and left the room.~ Attorney Edmund Brennan, Taunton, MA, appeared on behalf of Mr. George and updated the Board on the revised plan.~ He noted that two lots had been created to satisfy subdivision regulations but that no dwelling would be built on Lot 2A.~ Board members approved of the language indicating that on the plan.~ Review correspondence dated April 8, 2003 was received from JNEI.~ John Schmid informed the Board that all issues had been addressed.

Peter Oldridge, Elm Street East, addressed the Board and expressed concerns that trucks could be brought onto the new dwelling site for the owner's construction trade.~ After discussion of the matter, Attorney Brennan stated that the owner will comply with zoning regulations for the lot and that if there were any violations it would be a zoning enforcement matter.

Mr. Oldrige stated that he felt the rules were being "skirted" by the applicant especially in light of the opinion received from Town Counsel regarding one-lot subdivisions.~ After discussion, Board members agreed that the new lot lines brought the plan into compliance with subdivision regulations.~ Mr. Ellis noted that the Board was adopting a tougher stance on allowing one-lot subdivisions but that this applicant had been before the Board prior to that decision.~ He also noted that the applicant had agreed to waive 40B possibilities for this land with the submittal of the subdivision plan.~ Board members agreed that this plan was a better alternative to a six- or seven-lot subdivision.

After further discussion and review of the plan, Mr. Oldridge stated he felt the location of the house was changed and he questioned why.~ Tami George, Norton, MA, explained that the engineer had originally located the house on the plan without consulting his clients and that they had changed it to suit them better.~ It was noted that the house location must meet zoning requirements.~ After discussion, a motion was made to accept the 16 waiver requests for the definitive plan as submitted; motion seconded; Mr. Ellis, Mr. Carlson and Mr. Andrade in favor, Mr. Fountain opposed.~ Mr. Canto not present.

8:47 p.m. Mr. Canto reentered the meeting.~ Board members discussed the H-20 load factor for the turnaround.~ Mr. Fountain asked John Schmid if the plan could be built without waivers being granted; Mr. Schmidt responded no.~ The public hearing closed at 8:50 p.m.~ A motion was made to approve the plan entitled "Definitive Subdivision Plan In Raynham, MA, Owned by Fred Landolfi By Earth Services Corporation, P.O. Box 196, Raynham, MA 02767," dated November 29, 2002, revised April 2, 2003, with conditions of acceptance; motion seconded.~ A brief discussion followed.~ A vote was taken and the motion to approve the plan passed with Mr. Ellis, Mr. Carlson, Mr. Andrade in favor and Mr. Fountain opposed.~ Mr. Canto abstained.

8:55 p.m.~ Payne Farm/Finch Farm II public hearing reconvened.~ Dan Aguiar of Sitec Engineering, Atty. John Jacobi, and applicant Ron Turowetz were present.~ Mr. Ellis noted that the remaining issues to be settled were mitigation and the homeowner's association.~ It was noted that no response had been received from Town Counsel regarding the homeowner's association.~ Attorney Jacobi discussed the restrictive covenant/

homeowner's association matter.~ Mr. Ellis noted that he was not comfortable settling on the matter without Town Counsel opinion.~ Attorney Jacobi noted that deeding the open space to a homeowner's association would be the best way to avoid open access to the wetlands behind the subdivision and to avoid problems with the EOEA.~ Abutter Richard Amirault spoke and stated he also preferred there was no open access to the wetlands.~ After discussion, Board members agreed that the open space would be deeded to a homeowner's association and that Attorney Jacobi would draft the document in conformance with the Whippoorwill Estates homeowner's association.~ After further discussion, the hearing was continued to a special meeting on April 15, 2003, 6:00 p.m., at Gilmore Hall.~ Mr. Amirault informed the Board that he had sent a letter to Sitec Engineering and that he would like his requests in that letter to be part of conditions of approval.~ Attorney Jacobi agreed to look at the letter.~~William Cain, Leonard Street, had a question about restrictions with the Homeowners’ Association.

9:15 p.m.~ Chris Gallagher, P.E., submitted a Form A plan to create four lots off Thrasher Street.~ Mr. Fountain recused himself from the matter.~ After review of the plan, motion was made to approve as a Form A plan the "Plan of Land Assessors Map 6A, Plot 9 Off Thrasher Street in Raynham, Bristol County, MA," drawn by Gallagher Engineering, dated March 25, 2003; motion seconded; Discussion followed regarding Parcel A on the plan being non-buildable; motion was amended to approve the plan with Parcel A being a non-buildable lot; amended motion seconded; motion passed four votes in favor, Mr. Fountain abstaining.~ Plan was endorsed.

9:25 p.m.~ Chris Gallagher, P.E., submitted a Form A plan for land on Church Street.~ He reviewed the plan with Board members.~ During discussion, it was noted that there were unpaid taxes on the property.~ Mr. Gallagher informed the Board that he spoke with the tax collector who indicated she was agreeable to the Form A being approved so that the land could be sold and the taxes paid.~ Nora Scannell, 585 Locust Street, informed the Board that the land was being sold and that taxes would be paid.~ After discussion, a motion was made to approve as a Form A plan the "Plan of Land For No. 181 Church Street Map 18, Plots 36-4 & 36-4B Raynham, Bristol County, Massachusetts," drawn by Gallagher Engineering, dated April 10, 2003 and to hold the plan in escrow until an approval letter is received from the Tax Collector; motion seconded; motion passed on unanimous vote.~ Plan endorsed and held in escrow.

9:40 p.m.~ Public hearing to rezone Residential D District on Broadway to Business District was opened.~~Mr. Carlson read the public hearing notice.~ Motion was made to waive further reading of the public hearing notices for proposed zoning amendments; motion seconded; motion passed on unanimous vote.~ Discussion followed regarding the Broadway rezoning.~ David Hutchinson addressed the Board and stated that he and William Ferrier of Broadway had submitted the citizens' petition to rezone.~ He noted that in an earlier attempt by Mr. Ferrier to obtain a zoning variance for his Broadway property, a letter had been sent from Burke Fountain and the Planning Board stating that they felt the best use for Broadway was business.~ Town Planner Richard McCarthy spoke to the issue of the rezoning and explained the uses allowed by Residential D and the uses allowed by Business.~ Karen Duarte, Britton Circle, asked if there would be any commercial restrictions.~ Mr. Ellis noted that the depth of the lots would be 200 feet, which could restrict businesses from locating there.

Mr. Ellis called for anyone favorable to the rezoning to Business District and the following spoke in favor: Kathleen Kenney, 301 Broadway; John Miller, 283 Broadway; William Ferrier, 416 Broadway; Carol Sullivan, Raynham; Nancy McCarthy, 362 Broadway; David Leonard, 301 Broadway.

Mr. Ellis called for anyone opposed to the rezoning to Business District and the following spoke in opposition: Christine Lane, 167 Britton Circle; Karen Duarte, 151 Britton Circle; Christine Williamson, 428 Broadway; Kathy Chappell, 441 Broadway; Bill Chappell, 441 Broadway; William Cote, 417 Broadway.

Kathleen Kenney, 301 Broadway, stated that she understood the feelings of those opposed although she now supported the rezoning.~ Christine Lane noted that if the area was rezoned she felt lots would be combined to allow for the location of bigger buildings.~ She asked what the Master Plan called for.~ Mr. McCarthy talked about the Master Plan.~ He noted that the 2,000 sq. ft. limit of the Residential D district was not cost effective for businesses.~ In response to a question from Mr. Cote, Mr. McCarthy stated that he had changed his view on the Residential D District through the Master Plan process.~ Mr. Hutchinson noted that the rezoning was being done through citizen petition and not by the Town Planner.

During discussion by the Board members, Mr. Andrade stated that he supports rezoning to Business or an increase in size restrictions for Residential D district.~ He stated any zoning change should follow lot lines to avoid 200 feet depth limits.~ Mr. Fountain stated that in the long-term the area should be business but that if residents were opposed then this was not the time to rezone and that for now the Residential D District should be reworked.

Mr. Carlson agreed that the 200 feet depth limits were a problem and the area should remain Residential D for now.~ Mr. Canto stated that the Residential D District should be given more time to work and that the 200 feet depth limits were not good for businesses other than strip malls.~ He stated he was not in favor or rezoning at this time.~ Mr. Ellis noted that the Board has not had enough time to analyze the matter.~ He stated he was against retail business along Broadway because it was not in the best interest of the Town and he also felt the Residential D District should be expanded.

John Miller and Karen Duarte spoke again and questioned what would happen if this rezoning attempt failed.~ Mr. Ellis explained that the same petition request could not be brought back for two years.~ He noted that the Board would look at the issue again in the future.~ The public hearing closed at 10:42 p.m.~ A motion was made that the Board recommend against approval of the zoning change at Town Meeting; motion seconded; motion passed on unanimous vote.

10:46 p.m.~ Public hearing on amendment to Raynham Zoning By-laws, Section 5.1, to add language allowing land taken by the Town of Raynham, Raynham Center Water District or North Raynham Water District through eminent domain or otherwise to be deemed in conformity with Section 5.1 requirements.~ It was noted that Town Counsel submitted the amendment.~ After discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the amendment at Town Meeting; motion seconded; motion passed on unanimous vote.

Public hearing for amendment to Raynham Zoning By-laws, Article 10, to add definition of Cul-de-sac.~ After discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the amendment at Town Meeting; motion seconded; motion passed on unanimous vote.

Public hearing for amendment to Raynham Zoning By-laws, Sec. 7.4, to amend language relating to lot size and frontage requirements for parcels on Route 44 that are part of the Designated Development District.~ The Board explained that they thought the parcels would be better served by the proposed reductions in lot size and frontage requirements because they were cut off from the Raynham Woods Designated Development District by wetlands.~ After discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the amendment at Town Meeting; motion seconded; motion passed on unanimous vote.

Public hearing for amendment to Raynham Zoning By-laws, Section 14.3, Open Space Preservation, frontage requirements.~ It was explained that this amendment applied only to open space developments.~ Jim Thompson, King Street, asked if it applied to existing cul-de-sacs.~ The Board stated no, it would apply in the future only to cul-de-sacs in cluster subdivisions.~ After discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the amendment to Town Meeting; motion seconded; motion passed on unanimous vote.

Public hearing for Raynham Zoning By-laws, Section 17.5, Transfer of Development Rights, frontage requirements.~ It was explained that this amendment also only applied to Open Space developments.~ After discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the amendment to Town Meeting; motion seconded; motion passed on unanimous vote.~

Public hearing for amendment to Raynham Zoning By-laws, Sec. 5.1, to add dimensional requirements for Light Industrial District.~ After discussion, Board members agreed that the public hearings for zoning amendments scheduled for 8:55 p.m. (Sec. 5.1), 9:00 p.m. (Sec. 3.1), 9:05 p.m. (Sec. 4.8) and 9:20 p.m. (Raynham Zoning Map amendment) relating to the proposed rezoning from Residential A to Light Industrial on Gardiner Street and King Philip Street would be discussed and voted on together.

Alice Gonsalves, 272 Mill Street, addressed the Board.~ She expressed concern that the tax rate would increase if the area was rezoned to light industrial and that the rezoning would cut down on her family's options for their property.~ She explained that she did not want her property included with the other properties in the rezoning to light industrial and she asked that an amendment be made to the article that would keep her property out of the new district.~ During discussion, Mr. McCarthy stated that Ms. Gonsalves' property would lose subdivision rights if rezoned.~ Mr. Ellis noted that any amendment to exclude the Gonsalves property must be done at Town Meeting.~ Mr. McCarthy noted that the Board had previously discussed the Gonsalves property and had decided to leave those parcels in the new district but that excluding them now from the new district would not be destructive and might actually protect Mill Street residents.~ Mr. Ellis stated that he was agreeable to taking the Gonsalves properties out of the proposed district.

James Williams, 225 Mill Street, spoke in favor of excluding the Gonsalves properties because they were separated from the Gardiner Street properties by wetlands and it would be best for Mill Street if they were excluded.~ After further discussion, Board members agreed they had the authority to amend the proposed amendment at the hearing.~ A motion was made to recommend approval at Town Meeting of zoning amendments as published for 8:55 p.m. (Sec. 5.1), 9:00 p.m. (Sec. 3.1), 9:05 p.m. (Sec. 4.8), and 9:20 p.m. (Raynham Zoning Map amendment), relating to the rezoning from Residential A to Light Industrial on Gardiner Street/King Philip Street; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.~ A motion was then made to recommend to Town Meeting that the Gonsalves property be deleted from the proposed rezoning of Gardiner Street/King Philip Street area from Residential A to Light Industrial; motion seconded; motion passed on unanimous vote.~

Public hearing for amendment to Raynham Zoning By-laws, Sec. 6.6.4, Permits and Fees, to delete language regarding lighted signs.~ After discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the amendment at Town Meeting; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.

Public hearing for amendment to Raynham Zoning By-laws, Sec. 13.2.b, Projects Requiring Site Plan Approval, by adding language regarding parking spaces, relocation of building entrance and/or relocation of site entrance.~ After discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the amendment at Town Meeting; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.

11:10 p.m.~ Public hearing to amend Raynham Zoning By-laws by adding Article 18, Adult Retirement Community (ARC) By-law, and amendments to Raynham Zoning By-laws, Sec. 4.1.1; Sec. 4.1.2; Sec. 4.1.3; Sec. 4.2; and Sec. 4.3, all as published relative to Adult Retirement Community by-law.~ Mr. Ellis asked that those present address the proposed by-law in general and not be site specific.~ He explained that the by-law would allow ARC by special permit only and that ARC dwellings would be stick construction or modular and would not be mobile homes.~

Bill Sale, 426 King Street, asked for an overview of the by-law.~ Mr. McCarthy reviewed the proposed by-law, noting that it was proposed for all zoning districts except for Farm and Forest and Designated Development.~ He noted that there would be a cap on number of units by percentage of Town population and that 10% of units in an ARC would be affordable units.~ Marie Smith, Forest Street, spoke to the issue of over-55 restrictions, noting that only one person within an ARC unit must be over 55 and in response to question from Ed Brennan, King Street, she noted that restrictions were State regulated.

Nick Mirrione, Easton, MA, spoke about the need for ARC communities and noted that similar communities he developed in Easton are selling out.~ In response to questions from Jim Thompson, King Street, Board members noted that attorneys had informed them that residents under the age of 18 were not allowed in ARC.~

Paula Mountain, 585 Locust St. and Nora Scannell, 585 Locust Street expressed concerns with the small lot sizes as proposed and the congested development that would result.~ Board members explained that the ARC developments would be allowed by special permit and that the Board had great discretion in regulating their development.

Marc Allen, King Street, expressed concern with upholding the age restriction.~ Hank Cromby, 918 King Street, expressed concern with the small lot size.~ During discussion, Board members noted that an ARC would be well buffered from the street.

Chris Gallagher, 35 Gallagher Place, spoke against the small lot size being allowed in Residential A Districts because the smaller lots would be out of character.~ He suggested that Residential A District be amended out of the by-law.~ Ed Brennan agreed that the ARC concept was good but not in a Residential A District.~ Mr. Ellis noted that an ARC would not burden the school system

Board members discussed the phasing aspect of the by-law.~ It was also noted that input on the ARC had been received from the Fire Chief.~ Nick Mirrione stated that the ARC provided a lifestyle choice for people wanting to down size.~ He noted he had projects in Easton on Rte. 106 and Bay Road if people wanted to view them.

Henry Cromby, King Street, spoke against ARC in Residential A.~ Terry DenBesten, 399 Locust Street, expressed concerns with the effect of an ARC on his existing farm.~ Mr. Ellis noted there would be no effect to properties already in existence.~ Nora Scannell questioned if a project was already "in the works."~ Board members stated that neither Mr. Mirrione nor any other developer has submitted an ARC proposal.~

After discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval to Town Meeting of all proposed articles related to the Adult Retirement Community by-law:~ Article 18, Adult Retirement Community and amendments to Raynham Zoning By-laws, Sec. 4.1.1; Sec. 4.1.2; Sec. 4.1.3; Sec. 4.2; and Sec. 4.3, all as published relative to Adult Retirement Community by-law; motion seconded; motion passed on unanimous vote.