The Raynham Planning Board held a meeting on July 8, 2004, at Raynham Town Hall.~ Present were Daniel Andrade, Burke Fountain, Carl Carlson and John Canto.~ Also present were Maureen McKenney, Administrative Assistant, and John Schmid, Judith Nitsch Engineering, Inc.
~
6:30 p.m. - Mr. Andrade opened the meeting.~ He extended the Board's sincere sympathy and condolences to Town Planner Richard McCarthy on the recent loss of his wife.~ He also extended sympathy to the family of Myles Alpheri of Easton, MA, Mr. Andrade’s family friend who passed away this week.
~
6:31 p.m. - Wal-Mart preliminary subdivision plan hearing opened.~ Present on behalf of the applicant were Attorney Robert Tuchmann, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr and~John Cuzak, P.E., Bohler Engineering.~ Attorney Tuchmann submitted a comment review letter, dated July 8, 2004, in response to JNEI letter dated July 1, 2004.~ Mr. Andrade informed those present that all who wished to speak could but the proceedings would remain civil.~
~
Attorney Tuchmann explained the proposed subdivision plan creates two lots on Broadway properties currently owned by William Murby and Prospect Leasing.~ He reviewed the plan briefly, explaining the preliminary plan is submitted for lot layouts and for comments before the definitive subdivision plan is submitted.~ Mr. Andrade pointed out there is no building indicated on the plan.~ Attorney Tuchmann agreed there was no building shown on the plan and stated that a Wal-Mart is proposed for the site.~ Attorney Tuchmann discussed the proposed cul-de-sac, noting Wal-Mart would install one or two sidewalks along the entrance, at the Board's preference.~ He also briefly discussed the detention basin.
~
Review correspondence dated July 1, 2004 was received from JNEI.~ Mr. Schmid asked Attorney Tuchmann several questions about the process for submitting the preliminary and definitive subdivision plans so he could gain a better understanding of the legal process and to better understand when JNEI should "hone in" on relevant issues such as waivers, right-of-way and other site plan details.~ He noted he reviewed the plan only as a preliminary subdivision plan.~ After discussion, it was agreed that site plan approval would be the time to discuss specific details such as waivers, traffic, site lighting, sidewalks, etc.~ There was discussion about the lot layouts.~ Attorney Tuchmann noted the lot lines on the subdivision plan could be moved in order to meet zoning setbacks if needed.~ He noted the subdivision plans were submitted for
zoning protection for the parcels.~ Mr. Andrade explained to those present that tonight's hearing was for land issues only and not for specifics on the proposed Wal-Mart.~
~
John Schmid reviewed the JNEI correspondence for the Board.~ There was discussion between Mr. Schmid, the Board and Mr. Cuzak regarding whether or not a wet detention basin or a dry detention basin would be best.~ Mr. Schmid noted Conservation Commission preferred wet basins.~ After discussion, the Board agreed to send a letter to Conservation asking for their comments on the issue of wet basins versus dry basins.~ Mr. Schmid continued review of his comment letter.~ He noted the 15% maximum impervious coverage of a lot would be an issue of concern.~ Attorney Tuchmann stated the proposed Wal-Mart building would create 65% impervious coverage.~ It was agreed that would be an issue for the Board of Appeals.~ Mr. Cuzak briefly discussed the water table at the site, noting that it varied throughout the lot.~ Mr. Schmid stated he needed the soil
test results for review.~ He also noted if the applicant filed all Board submissions simultaneously, it would make the review process easier for all involved.~ Mr. Schmid asked Attorney Tuchmann if he would consider incorporating the new subdivision regulations the Board is proposing; Attorney Tuchmann responded "sure."
~
Attorney Tuchmann informed the Board a traffic study has been done.~ There was discussion of a possible access to the Wal-Mart site through the existing Market Basket site.~ Attorney Tuchmann noted the applicant is considering the matter.~ Mr. Andrade discussed possibilities of a development similar to Paramount Woods
with a single access road.~ After discussion, Board members agreed that historically they do not take action on preliminary subdivision plans.
Mr. Andrade asked if there were comments from others present and the following people responded:~ (1.)~ Rich Catania, Ward Street, questioned the amount of impervious surface.~ Mr. Schmid explained that issue.~ (2.)~Rick Ciliberto, 38 Reagan Circle, asked if traffic lights would be installed at King Philip Street.~ Mr. Andrade noted that was a rumor but a traffic study is now being done to address traffic issues.~ He stated the proposed
Wal-Mart project could help with improvements for the Town.~ (3.)~Sherrie Ross asked if the traffic study was done when school buses were running because the school buses should be of great concern.~ She stated the Town does not need two Wal-Marts. (4.)~Laraine Nickerson, First Street, asked if Wal-Mart would be open 24 hours.~ Attorney Tuchmann stated~he did not know.~ (5.) Arnie Lopes, First Street, asked why the State was not involved with the traffic issues.~ It was~explained that the State has been involved in hearings with the applicant.~ (6.) Denise Singer, Regan Circle, asked Attorney Tuchmann why Wal-Mart was coming when it was clear they were not wanted.~ She questioned the integrity of the company founder's statements of Wal-Mart not coming to a town where they were not wanted.~ Attorney Tuchmann stated he respected what was said
but it was felt that Wal-Mart was responding to the community's shopping needs.~ He noted the proposed location would draw 40% of its business from Taunton area residents.~ He noted the broader picture was the fact that other stores closed because they could not make economic sense of the business, and the proposed use is a permitted use.~ Mrs. Singer noted she submitted a petition with 140 signatures asking Wal-Mart not to locate at the Broadway site.~ Mr. Fountain felt a petition with 140 signatures was not a majority of~residents and he questioned if the proposed Wal-Mart or 5,000 cars plus from a business park would be better.~ (7.) Michael Flanagan, Raynham, noted that if the proposed Wal-Mart were built in Taunton on Rte. 138, Raynham would still have the traffic problems to deal with.~ Mrs. Ross noted she was concerned with the wells being located nearby.~ Mr. Andrade reminded those present that tonight's hearing was for the preliminary roadway plan only.~
~
Attorney Tuchmann informed the Board the ENF was filed with the State and the MEPA process had begun.~ He noted it had been published in local papers that the information was ready.~ It was also noted that information was available at SRPEDD.~ Board members agreed that tonight's hearing was the beginning of many steps that will allow opportunity for comments and concerns.~
~
William Cote, 417 Broadway, noted there was a unanimous vote at Town Meeting to rezone this area of Broadway.~
~
The hearing then concluded with no action being taken by the Board.
~
7:37 p.m. - Tom Pozerski, Hayward-Boynton & Williams, presented the Route 44 Toyota/Mibobden site plan for endorsement.~~ After brief discussion, the plan was endorsed.~
~
7:42 p.m. -~Jamie Bissonette, Hayward-Boynton & Williams, presented a preliminary subdivision plan for Byron's Way.~ Mr. Bissonette explained that a zoning variance was granted to the applicants and they are now proposing three lots off Robinson Street, one of which is for their existing house.~ He noted the lots have sewer and water stubs in place and soil tests have been done and the water table is high.~ John Schmid noted he did not review the plan.~
~
Correspondence dated July 8, 2004 was received from Town Planner Richard McCarthy.~ He suggested the Board continue the hearing so he could schedule a review meeting with the applicant and town departments.~ He also suggested that JNEI review the plan.~ Correspondence was received from Highway Superintendent Roger Stolte, dated July 8, 2004.~ Mr. Bissonette agreed to review Mr. Stolte's letter and address his concerns with drainage.~ Mr. Fountain stated he was concerned with the water issue and he wanted to be certain the plan met Town standards.~ After discussion, it was agreed that John Schmid will do a site visit.~ After discussion, the hearing concluded and the Board took no action on the plan.~
~
7:55 p.m. - Mr. Andrade informed those present that a request for continuance was received from Field Engineering on behalf of Munro Electric site plan.~ It was noted the time-to-act is July 22, 2004, and Board
members agreed they were concerned with the time-to-act lapsing before action is taken.~ After discussion, it
was agreed that an extension of the time-to-act would be needed or a special meeting would be held before July 22nd to act on the plan.~ A motion was made to request a three-month extension of time-to-act and if the
extension is not received, a special meeting will be scheduled for July 15, 2004, 6 p.m., at Gilmore Hall but if the extension is granted, the public hearing will be continued to August 12, 2004, 7 p.m., at Town Hall; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.~
~
8:05 p.m. - White Street preliminary subdivision plan hearing was opened.~ Applicant Steven Joyce was present along with Paul Patenaude and Karen Patenaude of Earth Services.~~ Mr. Patenaude presented a conceptual layout for a conventional subdivision plan as a prerequisite to an open-space subdivision plan.~ He noted the conventional plan meets the necessary standards.~ Correspondence on the matter was received from Town Planner Richard McCarthy, dated, July 8, 2004, JNEI, dated June 22, 2004, and Roger Stolte, dated July 8, 2004.~ Mr. McCarthy suggested the Board continue the hearing until a design review meeting can be held.~ Mr. Schmid noted he believed the Town Planner wanted more variety in the layout of the open-space lots.
~
Mr. Canto questioned whether or not the lots within the power line easement were buildable.~ Mr. Schmid noted that a house could not be constructed on the easement but a house could be located further back on the lot.~ Karen Patenaude told the Board they have determined the houses will fit on the lots and meet zoning.~ Mr. Schmid noted he has not seen the plan.~ There was discussion of access to the open space.~ Mr. Schmid noted the cluster layout better suited the applicant rather than the Town.~ After discussion, Mr. Fountain suggested a letter be sought from the Building Commissioner indicating whether or not a building permit would be issued on the two lots within the easement area.~ Applicant agreed to obtain the letter.~ It was agreed if the Building Commissioner indicated he would issue building permits on the lots in question, the
matter would be settled.~ After further discussion, the hearing was continued to July 22, 2004, 7:30 p.m. for further discussion of the open space plan.~ In response to a question from Mr. Patenaude, the Board noted Highway Supt. Roger Stolte prefers vertical granite curbing and the Board is usually agreeable to one sidewalk.
~
8:20 p.m. - David Belanger, scheduled for a discussion of a rezoning proposal, was not present.~ The matter was not discussed.
~
8:21 p.m. - General Business: minutes of May 27, 2004 were received.~ Motion was made to accept the minutes; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.~ Minutes of June 24, 2004 were received.~ Motion was made to accept the minutes; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.
~
The Board discussed a JNEI Memorandum dated July 8, 2004 re. Kings Estates.~ John Schmid explained there are silts underlying the soil at the site, which creates a clay-like muck.~ He noted he did a site visit with the developer and it was agreed that an under-drain system should be installed to rectify the problem.~ He suggested the Board approve the new under-drain system as a minor modification.~~ Mr. Mirrione was present, and he informed the Board he was agreeable to the change.~ After discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Mirrione will submit documentation stating he and the Board verbally agreed to the minor modification as described in the July 8th JNEI correspondence.~ Mr. Mirrione will return on July 22nd with the modified plan.
~
8:27 p.m. - 416 Broadway/Dr. Chuang site plan was submitted for endorsement.~ Applicant was not present.~ Correspondence dated July 6, 2004 was received from Dr. Chuang stating he believed there was an error in the Certificate of Action regarding his requested waiver from monolithic Cape Cod berm.~ After discussion, the Board requested JNEI review the matter.~ After further discussion, Board members endorsed the site plan.
~
8:30 p.m. - Berry Hill Adult Retirement Community (ARC) preliminary subdivision plan hearing was opened. Mr. Andrade announced he received a letter from Town Counsel recommending he not participate in the hearing until further review is done on the issue of whether or not Mr. Andrade has a conflict of interest because his brother does electrical contracting work for the applicant.~ Mr. Andrade left the meeting.~
~
Correspondence was received from Town Planner Richard McCarthy, dated July 8, 2004, from Highway Superintendent Roger Stolte, dated July 8, 2004.~
Applicant Nick Mirrione, Easton, MA, and Scott Faria of Gallagher Engineering, Foxboro, MA, were present.
Mr. Faria presented the proposed ARC plan, noting the 21 + acres located at the corner of Pleasant and Pine
Streets are zoned industrial. Mr. Fountain explained that the applicant must prove the number of lots available by conventional standards before being allowed to proceed with an ARC plan.~ Mr. Faria reviewed the proposed plan, noting that sewer would be brought down Pleasant Street. He noted the lots meet industrial zone requirements and he agreed to meet with the Town Planner to discuss lot compliance.~ He discussed drainage, noting that some groundwater observation was done and the water was at the 3 - 4 feet level at the detention basin area.~ He informed the Board he could not get Mass. Highway approval for the drainage until the Planning Board approves the plan.~ He also explained there will be common driveways, a fact which will be written into property owners' deeds.~
~
Wayne Arms, 425 Pine Street, stated he felt the detention basin was not 75 feet from the adjacent property, as required in an ARC.~ Mr. Faria stated the basin is considered a utility therefore it need not be 75 feet from the property line.~ Mr. Arms disagreed.~ After discussion, it was agreed JNEI would review the matter.~ Mr. Arms continued, noting the plan does not meet the Board's subdivision regulations, the area will be clear-cut and fill will be brought in for drainage.~ He requested the Board not vote on the plan until it is reviewed.~
John Schmid said he will review the plan when he receives it.
~
Michael Mazzolini, 155 Pine Street, informed the Board he discussed the basin issue with the Town Planner and he felt it was not considered a utility.~ He noted no perc tests have been done, therefore, the Board could not make a judgment on the plan.~~He noted discharge onto his property is against regulations.~ He agreed that land will be clear-cut and the Board should not consider the plan.~ Mr. Fountain noted the plan is only in the preliminary stage.
~
Mr. Mazzolini asked who would take responsibility for the serious issues with the plan.~ He noted he discussed this property with several engineers who informed him the land was not buildable.~ He stated the plan was a "disaster" and asked the Board to help the residents.~ He also noted he felt the ARC issue was "political."~~ Upon question from Mr. Carlson, Mr. Mazzolini noted that residential/industrial lots of three-acres would be better suited to the area.~ He also noted noise was a concern to the area residents if the area is clear-cut.
~
Scott Faria stated there was no political momentum to the plan. He noted percs were irrelevant because sewer was planned.~ He agreed with John Schmid that perc tests were needed in the basins.~ Mr. Faria stated the site would be clear-cut and 3 - 4 feet fill brought in.~ He noted if the basin needed to be relocated beyond 75 feet, it would be, and the 75 feet buffer would be a natural state.
~
Developer Nick Mirrione noted the land would be clear-cut if an industrial project was proposed.~ He noted landscaping would be done and there will be a sound barrier at the rear of the development.~
~
Mr. Arms informed the Board that the land has failed several percs.~ He again asked the Board not to vote on the plan.~ Mr. Fountain noted the Board was not even close to that yet.
~
Kim Mazzolini, 155 Pine Street, asked if the 75 feet buffer would not be cut.~ Mr. Fountain answered, yes.~ John Schmid noted that if the buffer were found to be too light, the Board could ask the applicant to add to it.
~
Mr. Faria read from the regulations regarding a structure being located in an easement.~ Mr. Schmid noted that was a minor issue.
~
Chris Barnicle, 10 Heather Hills, Bridgewater, asked if drainage would flow onto his land.~ Mr. Faria stated there will be no street drainage and no runoff.~
~
Mr. Mazzolini asked if the Board guaranteed there would be no runoff onto his property.~ Mr. Fountain answered, no.
~
After discussion, it was agreed that John Schmid would review the plan.~ Mr. Schmid suggested a
representative of the Board accompany the applicant when he meets with Mass. DPW because the final plan will be based on the storm water discharge system allowed by DPW.~ After discussion, Mr. Mirrione signed an
extension of time-to-act and agreed to send the preliminary plan to JNEI for review.
~
There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at approximately 9:25 p.m.
~
Respectfully submitted,
~
Raynham Planning Board
Carl Carlson, Clerk~~
~
|