 |
The Raynham Planning Board meeting of February 26, 2004 opened at 6:34 p.m. with Daniel Andrade, Burke Fountain, Carl Carlson, John Canto and Chris Gallagher present.~ Also present was Town Planner Richard McCarthy, Maureen McKenney, Administrative Assistant and John Schmid, Judith Nitsch Engineering, Inc. (JNEI)
6:35 p.m.:~ Russell Driscoll, Taunton, MA, presented Form A plan for property on Britton Street and Sachem Road.~ The purpose of the plan is to add land from Sachem Road property to the Britton Street property in order to make the Britton Street lot conforming.~ After review and discussion, motion was made to endorse as an Approval Not Required Plan, the “Division of Property Plan of Land in Raynham, MA (Bristol County) owned by Russell F. & Jacqueline A. Driscoll,” drawn by Delano & Associates, Taunton, MA, dated January 9, 2004; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.~ Mr. Carlson endorsed the plan.
6:45 p.m.:~ Christopher Yarworth, Norton, MA, presented Form A plan for lot on Brook Street.~ The purpose of the plan is to change lot lines to accommodate the house to be built~on the lot.~ After review and discussion, motion was made to approve as an Approval Not Required Plan, the “Plan of land on Brook Street, Raynham, MA Prepared for Creative Homes, Inc.,” drawn by Yarworth Engineering, Co., Inc., Norton, MA, dated~February 11, 2004; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.~ Mr. Carlson endorsed the plan.
6:53 p.m.:~ Attorney David Gay, Taunton, MA, appeared before the Board and on behalf of Lawrence Gagnon and Michael Scanlon, Orchard Street, he submitted a request to rezone a portion of the Gagnon and Scanlon properties from Residential A to Business.~ The lots have split Residential A and Business zoning, and the owners want to rezone so the lots will be zoned solely business.~ Attorney Gay asked if the Board would sponsor the rezoning petition.~ After discussion, Board members agreed they were not opposed to the rezoning but since they did not know how the abutters felt about the request, they preferred that the abutters be consulted and that the request be submitted by citizen petition.~ Attorney Gay was agreeable to that.~ ~~
7:05 p.m.:~Amerada Hess Corp. site plan public hearing reconvened.~ Attorney David Gay, present on behalf of the applicant, requested a continuance of the hearing because engineers for Hess Corp. are working with Mass. DPW to resolve several matters related to traffic and signalization at Elm Street West and Broadway.~ After discussion, the hearing was continued to March 11, 2004, 7:30 p.m.
7:12 p.m.:~ Town Planner update - Mr. McCarthy requested the Board schedule a special meeting to discuss a retreat by-law for inclusion on the May Town Meeting warrant.~ Mr. McCarthy informed the Board that the revised subdivision rules and regulations will be ready for their~consideration soon.~ After discussion, Board members agreed to schedule a special meeting on March 11th.
Mr. Fountain brought up the matter of “Special Town Employee” as it relates to himself and other Board members who appear before town boards in private matters.~ He noted that Board members who appear before town boards must be designated as special employees by the Selectmen.~ After discussion, the Board requested that Mr. McCarthy research the matter and advise the Board how to proceed.
7:20 p.m. – Tom Armitage, Quequechan Builders, appeared before the Board to request a reduction in the surety bond being held for completion of Steeplechase Preserve Subdivision.~ Correspondence on the matter, dated February 23, 2004, was received from JNEI.~ During discussion it was noted that surety funds are being held by way of a Tripartite Agreement and the roadway in the subdivision will remain private~~ After discussion, motion was made pursuant to the JNEI Construction Cost Estimate, dated February 23, 2004, to reduce the amount of the bond presently secured by the tripartite agreement for Steeplechase Preserve Subdivision to $590,423.00; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.
7:35 p.m.:~ Minutes of February 12, 2004 were received.~~ Motion was made to approve the minutes as printed; seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.
General Business:~ Invoices were signed (JNEI, Copy-to-Copy) ~After discussion, the Board agreed to request $5,000 from Hess Corp. for replenishment of the site plan project review account.
Letter dated February 25, 2004 was received from Rev. James Tilbe, First Congregational Church of Raynham, requesting refund of application and project fees that were submitted with the site plan for an addition to the church.~ After discussion, Board members agreed they will consider the refund request when the site plan is brought in for endorsement.
7:45 p.m.:~ Carriage Hill subdivision preliminary plan hearing opened.~ Jennifer Turcotte, Outback Engineering, Lakeville, MA, presented the 31-lot plan for review.~ She noted that the lot and road layouts are different than the original Carriage Hill plan, which has lost its zoning protection.~ Review correspondence, dated February 20, 2004, was received from JNEI.~ Ms. Turcotte submitted a proposed list of waiver requests.~ During discussion of the waivers, the Board suggested that for safety and aesthetic reasons, the roadways should not be completely straight.~ It was noted that there is a 20 feet wide right-of-way to a cemetery behind the subdivision land and the right-of-way will be left open for access.~ The cemetery commission will be notified of the public hearing for Carriage Hill Estates.~ Also discussed was the possibility of
lesser number of lots, road width, curbing and sidewalks.~ The Board took no action on the preliminary plan.~
8:15 p.m.:~ Munro Electric site plan public hearing opened.~ Mr. Carlson read the hearing notice.~ Correspondence on the matter was received from JNEI, dated February 26, 2004; Highway Superintendent Roger Stolte, dated February 12, 2004; Town Planner Richard McCarthy, dated February 24, 2004.~ Peter Wolski, P.E., Field Engineering, was present on behalf of the applicant.~ Mr. Gallagher noted that he did engineering work on the original Munro Electric site plan years ago and asked if that presented a conflict for the Board.~ After discussion, Board members agreed there was no conflict for Mr. Gallagher.~ Mr. Wolski submitted a revised site drawing, dated 1/26/04.~ He reviewed the proposed plan for the Board.~ He noted that the wetland filing met with opposition at the Conservation Commission so the plan was revised.~ He explained the
proposed addition to the existing building, noting that there is a wide curb cut planned for large trucks entering the site.
There was discussion of the fact that there are outstanding issues from the original site plan, i.e. insufficient screening and plantings.~ During discussion, it was noted that the original site plan was not compared to the new site plan during review by JNEI.~
Building Commissioner Rod Palmer was present and informed the Board that abutter William Piche had contacted him several times about insufficient screening. ~Mr. Palmer attempted to resolve the matter with Munro Electric but was not successful in part because he had no leverage against Munro Electric.~ Mr. Palmer stated he was present tonight on behalf of the neighbors.~ He noted that often times large trucks park at the site overnight with their motors running, creating a noise disturbance for the neighbors.
Donald McKinnon, 147 Richmond Street, informed the Board that the neighbors were present because of “past performance” and Munro Electric’s lack of compliance with the original plan. He stated that he felt the proposed L-shaped building should be relocated to the other side of the lot to lessen the significant noise that presently comes from the business.~ He suggested that a performance bond should be required of the applicant because of their poor track record.
~
William Piche, 139Richmond Street, spoke to the Board about the history of the site, and several matters, including: the fact that two rows of trees were not planted as promised to him, many large trucks enter the site daily, “junk” has been thrown into the adjacent wetlands, excessive noise emanates from the site, applicant has disregard for the abutters, and surrounding properties are being devalued.~ He stated that the proposed fence shown on the plan as screening is outrageous and he objects to it.~ He agreed with the suggestion that the L-shaped building be reconfigured to the opposite side of the lot.
Susan Peabody, 157 Richmond Street, stated she was against the proposed plan because it encroached on her property.~ She agreed that the building should be reconfigured and that loading and unloading should happen from the Commercial Street side of the building.
Mr. Wolski noted that he had not considered loading/unloading from the front of the building. He asked if it was allowed by zoning and Mr. McCarthy stated yes.~ He explained that there were better mechanisms in place now to ensure compliance with the plan.~ He noted that he had not submitted a list of waiver requests but that JNEI had discovered those necessary during review of the plan.
After further discussion, it was agreed that there are two questions to be answered before the public hearing reconvenes:~ 1.~ comparison of the original plan with the new plan and determining what still needs to be complied with and, 2.~ relocate the parking and truck loading/unloading to the business side of Commerce Way.~ After discussion, public hearing was continued to March 25, 2004, 7:15 p.m.
9:25 p.m.: Rte. 44 Toyota/Mibobden LLC site plan hearing reconvened.~ Tom Pozerski, Hayward-Boynton & Williams appeared and briefly updated the Board on the matter.~ He noted that since the previous hearing, it was determined that there is less site lighting than approved on the original site plan because one row of lights was not installed.~ He noted that arborvitaes were planted on the Toyota site but that trees on an adjacent lot were cut down by that property’s owner.~ He also noted that cars currently located in the gravel area are being moved, fencing and the dumpster will be installed as required, and that vehicles are being unloaded in the back of the lot, as required.~
Mr. Schmid asked that documentation re. the detention pond and runoff accommodation be submitted for his review; Mr. Pozerski agreed to do this.~ Mr. Pozerski also agreed to include on the plan the definition of reconditioning as it is proposed for the site.~ After discussion, the hearing was continued to March 25, 2004, 7:45 p.m.
9:30 p.m.:~ Noblin-Campbell/Commerce Drive site plan hearing reconvened.~ Applicants John Noblin and Frank Campbell were present along with Tom Pozerski, H-B & W.~ Burke Fountain recused himself from the hearing. Mr. Pozerski explained that the plan was revised for Conservation Commission issues but he was not certain if the commission would approve the revised plan.~ Mr. Pozerski submitted two plans, dated February 19, 2004 and February 5, 2004.~ Mr. Noblin asked if the Board would consider approving both plans so they could both be taken to the Conservation Commission.~ John Schmid noted that he has not yet seen the revised plan.
Mr. Noblin noted that he felt he was caught in the middle between the Boards.~ After discussion, Mr. Noblin agreed he would submit to the Board the original proposed plan with the revisions requested by JNEI.~ The public hearing was continued to March 11, 2004, 8 p.m. (Mr. Fountain returned to the Board at 10:14 p.m.)
10:15 p.m.~ Nick Mirrione, Easton, MA, appeared before the Board to discuss Kings Estates, an approved subdivision plan.~ Mr. Gallagher noted that he is an abutter to the subdivision.~ Mr. Mirrione and the Board discussed granite curbing, build-out phasing and drainage.~~ After discussion Board members agreed that a long build-out time for the subdivision would not be in the best interest of the town.~ A date of April 8th was set for a special permit hearing to reduce the phasing requirement for Kings Estates.~ Mr. Mirrione requested that lots 1 and 25 be released now so he could build model homes on the lots. After discussion, Mr. Mirrione was advised that the subdivision plan must be modified before those lots can be released.~ Mr. Mirrione was agreeable to that.~
The Board and Mr. Mirrione discussed Mr. Mirrone’s property on Pine Street.~ Mr. Mirrione is considering a project there and will be attempting to get an easement from an abutter to make the drainage plan feasible. No action was taken.
Mr. Mirrione asked the Board if they would consider resubmitting the over-55 Adult Retirement Community by-law to Town Meeting.~ After discussion, the Board agreed they would not resubmit the ARC by-law to Town Meeting but they would support the by-law if submitted by citizen petition.~~
There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carl Carlson, Clerk
| |
