Town of Raynham, MA - Planning Board Minutes September 9, 2004

The Raynham Planning Board held a meeting on Thursday, September 9, 2004, at Raynham Town Hall.~ The meeting opened at 6:34 p.m. with Board members Dan Andrade, Burke Fountain, Carl Carlson and Chris Gallagher present.~ Also present were Town Planner Richard McCarthy, Administrative Assistant Maureen McKenney and John Schmid of Judith Nitsch Engineering, Inc. (JNEI).

6:35 p.m. - Peter Bournazian, Scott Drive, presented a Form A plan.~ Mr. Bornazian explained the purpose of the plan was to change lot lines at 89 Scott Drive in order to accomodate a pool cabana on his property.~ (Mr. Canto arrived at 6:38 p.m.) During review of the plan, it was noted the pool on Mr. Bornazian's property is not shown on the plan.~ Mr. Fountain requested that a plan showing the pool be submitted to the Board.~ After discussion, motion was made to approve the plan entitled "Plan of Land In Raynham, Massachusetts Prepared For Peter A. Bournazian," prepared by Hayward-Boynton & Williams, Inc., dated August 18, 2004; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.~ The plan was endorsed.

6:45 p.m. - Amerada Hess site plans were presented for endorsement.~ Attorney David Gay was present for the applicant.~ Letter dated August 23, 2004 was received from Roger Stolte indicating his issues with drainage have been addressed. After brief discussion, the original site plan was endorsed.~ The modified site plan was then endorsed.~

General Business:~ Copy of JNEI memo dated August 31, 2004 was received re. concerns with Phase I Binder at King Estates.~ Mr. Schmid noted he sent an e-mail to the applicant's engineer notifying him of the concerns.~ After discussion, Board members agreed Mr. Schmid should inspect the work when completed.~

Correspondence dated August 31, 2004 was received from Linda Rose and William Rose, King Street, regarding concerns they have with Carriage Hill subdivision located across the street from their house.~ After discussion, Mr. McCarthy agreed to forward the correspondence to the developers of Carriage Hill.

7:00 p.m. - Public hearing for Greyhound Package Store site plan was opened.~ Mr. Carlson read the hearing notice.~ Bob Rogers, P.E., of Tibbetts Engineering was present to discuss the plan.~ Applicant Michael Plentus was present along with Leo Hudane of N.E. Construction.~ Mr. Rogers reviewed the plan for the addition that will be used as a redemption center and storage area.~ Mr. Rogers discussed drainage, landscaping and parking.~ He noted no change to signage is planned; no change to the retail portion of the building is planned;~ the water-dispensing machine will be relocated on the lot.~ Board~members and Mr. Rogers discussed parking for trucks.~ Mr. Rogers noted there is no dedicated area for trucks to park.

Mr. Hudane submitted a rendering of the new addition and reviewed it for the Board.~ He explained there is no loading dock and the side door will be for loading/unloading and front doors are also oversized for loading and unloading.~ Mr. Rogers explained that a loading area could not be located in the rear of the building because it would create drainage problems due to the small size of the site.~

JNEI correspondence dated September 9, 2004 was discussed.~~ Mr. Schmid noted the site was tight but there were no major concerns with truck deliveries.~ He stated there was no easement that would allow access to this site through the adjacent lot even though customers cut through the adjacent lot.~

Mr. Paneteri, owner of adjacent 686 Broadway, spoke to the Board about concerns he has with drivers crossing over his lot to reach the package store.~ He stated he was not opposed to the project but he saw an increased risk with the addition and felt that now was the time to address the problem.~~ Mr. Andrade noted drivers also cut through Greyound parking lot to reach the plaza.~ Mr. Schmid suggested a speed bump to slow down cars in the parking lots.~ Striping was also suggested to define parking areas.~

Police Chief Peter King asked if an access around the back of the building could be provided for police and fire vehicles that need to reach the back woods.~ Mr. Rogers stated that could not be done without ruining the drainage.~ Chief King also stated he does not like trucks parked in front of the building because it creates sight distance problems.~ After discussion, it was agreed that 5 feet paved walkway and 5 feet stablized H-20 area would be added to the rear of the building.~ It was also agreed that a striped no-parking area would be added to the front of the building as well as the speed bump.

Waivers were discussed.~ Mr. Rogers agreed to submit a letter to the Board regarding the front of the building withstanding impact from a car.~ After discussion, it was agreed no bollards would be added to the front but the existing one will remain.~ Granite curbing was discussed.~ After discussion, motion was made to approve the waivers as read and amended to require granite curbing to the point of tangency with the front driveway; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.~

Conditions of approval were discussed.~ After discussion, motion was made to approve the site plan entitled "Greyhound Liquors in Raynham, Massachusetts for Building Addition 54' x 32'," last revised September 7, 2004,” with following conditions: 5 feet walkway and 5 feet stabilized walkway, no-parking striping and speed bump all to be added to plan, no outside storage is allowed without further Board approval and granite curbing continue to point of tangency with driveway; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.

7:56 p.m. - Munro Electric site plan public hearing was reconvened.~ Peter Wolski, P.E., Field Engineering, was present for the applicant.~ Mr. Andrade informed Mr. Wolski that the review account is $1,468 in arrears and must be brought up to date.~ It was noted the time-to-act on the plan is September 29, 2004 so the applicant will need to submit another extension.~

Mr. Wolski explained that because of habitat wetland issues raised by other people, the applicant now wishes to construct a new, smaller building on the adjacent corner lot seperate from this project, and the existing building will be left as it is.~ Mr. Andrade asked if the problems on the existing site will be brought into compliance with the originally approved site plan.~He stated if the current site plan is withdrawn, a letter will be sent to the applicant advising him to correct the existing problems or further action will be taken.~

Mr. Wolski explained the new project will be a new site plan submittal. He asked if the Board would consider waiving the fees for the new submittal. Board members discussed whether or not they would waive the fees.~ Mr. Andrade stated he was against waiving the fees because of the deficiencies at the existing site.~ Mr. Gallagher stated he could not entertain that idea unless all old issues were taken care of at the existing building.~ Mr. Wolski noted they were abandoning the present project because the wetland problems could not be solved.~ He stated the new project would meet regulations except for a possible few waivers.

Mr. Schmid asked if the Board would waive fees if the existing site were corrected within 60 days.~ Mr. Andrade answered no.~ After discussion, it was agreed that JNEI would review the present site for outstanding issues and that deficiencies must be corrected before the plan was allowed to be withdrawn.~ Board members agreed a new building on a new lot meant a new application.~ After discussion, it was agreed applicant must submit $1,468 to bring the review account current and $1,500 for future review fees.~ The public hearng was continued to September 23, 2004.~ It was agreed the Planning Board or its agents would do no further reviews until the review account is current.

8:14 p.m. - Public hearing for 611 Center Street daycare center site plan was reconvened.~ A request for continuance dated September 9, 2004 was received from Todd Pilling, P.E.~~ Police Chief Peter King was present.~ He informed the Board he could not be at the September 23rd Board meeting but the Board knew of his concerns from the previous meeting.~ The Board agreed to keep Chief King updated.~ After discussion, the public hearing was continued to September 23, 2004, 7:30 p.m.~~

8:15 p.m. - Gatsby Gardens site plan public hearing.~ Builder Dick Kelly was present as agent for the applicant.~ He requested a continuance of the public hearing.~ He signed an extension of the Board's time-to-act.~ After discussion, the public hearing was continued to October 14, 2004, 7:30 p.m.~ No testimony was taken.

8:18 p.m. - Daniel Smith, Hayward-Boynton & Williams, Taunton, MA, presented a proposed modification to the approved D'Angelo's/Route 138 site plan.~ Proposed modifications include a new exit drive to allow a right turn out onto Broadway, relocation of the no left-turn sign and pavement markings in the parking lot to direct traffic flow on the site.~ Mr. Smith explained that prospective tenants at the plaza believe the site will work better if right turns are allowed onto Broadway.~ He noted Mass. Highway has not yet approved the new design but the preliminary discussions with them were favorable.~~

Mr. Carlson stated the Board approved the entrance for right turn in only to prevent southbound traffic from entering the site.~ Mr. McCarthy stated the proposed right turn out would alleviate some traffic from going through the Broadway/Carver Street intersection, which he felt would be better.~

Tim Grady, representing the site's owner, explained that the island with the pole would be staying as is.~ He also explained that signage on the site would not work to stop people from taking wrong turns and that people were already cutting through the lot to avoid the light at the intersection.~ Mr. Smith explained that Mass. Highway has ordered the owner of the adjacent lot to relocate their driveway, which is currently on D'Angelo's property, onto their own property.

Mr. Gallagher stated he liked the idea of the right turn out but felt the design was poor.~ He suggested moving the driveway to get a better design.~ After discussion, Board members agreed that any change in the design must be better defined and must be done safely.~ They agreed they liked the right turn out but did not like the idea of left turn in from Broadway.~ They suggested the applicant work with the abutter to improve the driveway area.~ After discussion, the proposed modification was withdrawn.

8:40 p.m. - Rockland Trust site plan modification was presented by David Shedd, P.E., Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.~ Applicants Jack Gamache and Mike Juliano of Raynham Plaza LLC were present.~ Upon question from Mr. Fountain, Mr. Shedd said he had no written denial from Mass. Highway for the design the Board previously approved but rather the design was "geometrically" disapproved.~ There was discussion of the fact that someone at Mass. Highway had erased the approved design from the plan.~

Mr. Andrade noted the initial goal at the site was to move the entrance after getting new traffic lights and the present entrance being only temporary.~ He noted $30,000 is being held in escrow for 24 months for light design and permitting. Mr. Shedd explained the applicants have done all they can for now and the substantial change will come when the existing restaurant is demolished in two years.~ Mr. Juliano explained they are working to get the permit approved timed with the expiration of the restaurant lease.~

There was discussion of whether or not additional surety was needed from applicants.~ During discussion, Mr. Shedd noted the entrance is still right in and right out, with an island.~ Mr. Gamache explained they did not want to proceed with the state permitting process for the modified entrance without a Board consensus of approval.~ Mr. Shedd noted the new lights are acknowledged in the current State permit for the modified entrance.~ Mr. Shedd asked the Board for an extension of the two-year time frame in the Certificate of Action.~

There was discussion of the modified entrance design.~ During discussion, John Schmid suggested "rumble strips" for the entrance to slow incoming traffic. Mr. Juliano noted it was in the best interest of all that the Board extend the two-year time frame so the applicant could continue the process for the new lights.~ He asked the Board not to "demotivate" them by sticking to the two-year time frame.~ The Board disagreed the two-year time frame would demotivate because they all want to work toward the installation of new entrance and traffic lights.~ During discussion, Mr. Carlson asked applicants to submit written status reports on their work with the State for permitting the new traffic light.~ It was agreed the Board could be copied on applicants' correspondence with Mass. Highway.~ After discussion, Board members agreed to leave the two-year time frame for permitting and design as it is.

After discussion, motion was made to accept the modification presented by Mass. Highway Department with the condition that the Planning Board be notified of working conditions with Mass. Highway regarding the traffic light.~ After discussion, it was agreed that the site entrance must be completed before the bank is open for business.~ After discussion, motion was made to amend the previous motion by adding language requiring paving treatment/rumble strip being added to the entrance to slow incoming traffic; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.

9:15 p.m. - Minutes of August 12, 2004 were received.~ Reading was waived.~ Motion was made to approve the minutes as amended; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.~~ Minutes of August 26, 2004 were received.~ Reading was waived.~ Motion was made to approve the minutes as printed; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.