The Raynham Planning Board held its regular meeting on Thursday, September 22, 2005, at Raynham Town Hall. Chairman Daniel Andrade opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. with Board members Burke Fountain, John Canto and Henry Ellis present. Also present were Town Planner Richard McCarthy, John Schmid of Judith Nitsch Engineering (JNEI), and Administrative Assistant Maureen McKenney.
6:30 p.m. - Keith Wrigley, 429 South Sreet East, and Gary Wilson of Johnson & Johnson (J & J) were present to update the Board on the status of the noise issue at Mr. Wrigley's property.~ Mr. Wilson explained J & J took measures to lessen the noise level but he was not completely satisfied with the progress and was still working on the problem.~ He explained improvements that were made to lessen noise from dust collectors and after-coolers.~ Correspondence dated September 21, 2005 was received from Tech Engineering regarding noise measurements taken at J & J.~ Mr. Wilson reviewed the report for the Board.~ He assured the Board that J & J will continue to work towards correcting the noise problems.~
Mr. Wrigley informed the Board he was not satisified with the work done to date because the noise is still intrusive on his home.~ He said there were improvements to the noise level at his property line but no improvment to the noise level at his back door.~ He noted the problem has been ongoing for 1 year, 4 months.~ He also noted the lights at the J & J basketball court are still on at night even after he was told they would not be kept on.
Board members and Mr. Wilson discussed alternatives such as constructing a cement wall along the property line.~ Memorandum and Construction Cost Estimated dated September 13, 2005 were received from JNEI.~ Mr. Schmid discussed his correspondence with the Board.~He noted the site lighting is in compliance with the site plan.
After discussion, a vote was taken to accept the $29,398 Construction Cost Estimate amount as surety for the J & J site plan and to require additional $50,000 in noise mitigation; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.~ Mr. Wilson asked if the work cited in the Construction Cost Estimate could be completed instead of posting a bond; Mr. McCarthy answered yes.~ The matter was continued to October 13, 2005, 6:30 p.m.
7:00 p.m. - P.J. Babineau, Outback Engineering, presented a Form A for land on White Street.~ Deficiencies in the plan and application form were noted.~ Mr. Babineau withdrew the plan.~ The application fee was returned.
7:12 p.m. - Tony Esposito, Outback Engineering, submitted a Form A plan for land in Carriage Hill Estates subdivision, off King Street.~ Proper paperwork was submitted.~ During review of the plan, deficiencies were noted.~ Mr. Esposito withdrew the plan.~ The application fee was not returned.~
7:20 p.m. - Nick Mirrione, Easton, MA, appeared before the Board to discuss lot releases at Berry Hill.~ A Construction Cost Estimate, dated September 20, 2005, was received from JNEI.~ Mr. Mirrione explained he wants to have Lots 1 and 36 released in order to construct model houses.~ After discussion, motion was made and seconded to accept the Construction Cost Estimate dated September 20, 2005, prepared by JNEI; motion passed by unanimous vote.~ Mr. Mirrione agreed to prepare covenant documents and to return with the Form J for lot releases.
7:25 p.m. - Public hearing for Roger's Way, a two-lot subdivision off North Main Street, was reconvened.~ Applicant Shawn Cairns appeared before the Board along with Attorney David Gay, Taunton, MA.~ Letter dated August 10, 2005 was received from JNEI and letter dated July 25, 2005, was received from Highway Superintendent Roger Stolte.~ Attorney Gay explained the proposed plan, noting the roadway is owned in fee by Mr. Cairns with a right-of-way to the Town of Raynham and the North Raynham Water District. The roadway also serves as emergency access to the Raynham Jr. high school.
Mr. McCarthy informed the Board that the Conservation Commission would like a gravelled turnaround and a parking area for people using Hewitt's pond.~ Attorney Gay was agreeable to the gravel and the parking area. Mr. McCarthy explained the road will remain private but will be open to the public with the Town controlling the perimeter of Hewitt's Pond. Attorney Gay said he was agreeable to the road being private but open to the public. During discussion, Mr. Andrade suggested the road should be public and maintained by the Town. Attorney Gay stated the applicant is willing to have the road public and upgraded to the standards the Town wants. It was noted there is currently asphalt paving on the road. ~
Erika Ueberbacher, Raynham Conservation Commission Agent, informed the Board a Notice of Intent was filed for project and a hearing is scheduled for October 6th.~ She noted the Commission was leaning towards a gravelled parking area rather than pavement because of the Riverfront Area.
Mr. Stolte's letter was read into the record.~ Mr. Andrade suggested the plan have standards similar to one-lot subdivisions and then become an accepted road. Board members and Attorney Gay discussed whether or not the road should be public or kept private.~ Mr. Fountain suggested Conservation, Planning and Highway Department meet with the applicant and agree to a plan that provided safe public access but not necessarily public ownership. During discussion, it was noted there were outstanding zoning issues and the applicable zoning requirments must be put on the plan.~ After discussion, Board members agreed that except for the issue of the roadway, the plan was acceptable. The hearing was continued to October 27, 2005, 7 p.m.
7:47 p.m. - Public hearing for Lot 5, Forge River Parkway, was opened.~~ Mr. Fountain read the hearing notice.~ The hearing was adjourned to later in the meeting.
7:50 p.m. - Letter dated August 15, 2005, was received from Chris Kalageropoulos, Eurotech Auto, Inc., informing the Board he was withdrawing the site plan for 1900 Broadway.~ Mr. Kalageropoulos requested a full refund of his filing fees.~ After discussion, motion was made to release the balance of the project review fees; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.~ Board members noted that no reduction in filing fees was requested.
7:52 p.m.- Public hearing for North Light Realty Trust, Map 16, Lot 61C, Route 44, site plan was reconvened.~~Correspondence dated September 22, 2005, was received from Bradley McKenzie, P.E., McKenzie Engineering Group, requesting a continuance of the public hearing.~ Attorney Bill Pizzone addressed the Board and informed them he was present representing Coletti Trust/Gotschalk Soccer, an abutter to the site.~
Review correspondence, dated September 6, 2005, was received from JNEI.~ Mr. Schmid informed the Board he reviewed the plan and found it was the best it was going to be for the site.~ Mr. McCarthy informed the Board that the applicant requested the continuance because there was not a full Board present tonight for voting.~ Mr. McCarthy asked the Board to consider tabling the hearing to later in the meeting.~ Attorney Pizzone informed the Board there were building code violations on the Coletti side of this property.~ Motion was then made to table the public hearing; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.~
8:02 p.m. - Public hearing for Lot 5, Forge River Parkway, was reconvened.~ Applicant George Turner was present along with Nyles Zagar, Outback Engineering.~ Mr. Zagar presented the site plan to the Board, noting that a warehouse/storage building will be built on the site, no loading or unloading area is planned and only employee parking will be needed.~ Mr. Turner stated the closest residences will be 500 to 600 feet behind the building and there will be an office area in the front of the building to be rented out.~ Mr. Turner reviewed the building plan with the Board. ~ ~
Review correspondence, dated September 21, 2005, was received from JNEI.~ Mr. Schmid informed the Board the only outstanding issues are the waiver requests.~ He noted the drainage is acceptable but the front of the building is not pleasing aesthetically because there are no windows or doors on the front of the building and no plantings proposed.~ Board members and Mr. Turner discussed constructing a false window.~ Mr. Turner said he preferred no window because it was not needed.~ During discussion, it was noted the site plan regs require a window.
Todd Pechulis, Village Road, told the Board he is concerned with trucks unloading and loading at the site.~ He noted there were traffic issues at Village Road because cars speed through the business park and speed limits and signage are ignored.~ He requested speed bumps be installed.~ Mr. Fountain explained that speed bumps would cause noise and shaking to the houses.
Ann Marie Overstreet, Village Road, told the Board there are serious water issues in the development and she is concerned the water table will rise with the new construction.~ She stated she is also concerned with traffic because there are children in the area, and she felt the workers at Mr. Turner’s business have no regard for the children’s safety.~ She stated she thought a house would be going on the lot, not a business.~ Mr. Fountain noted the existing residences were located in a business zone and the businesses were built before the houses.~
Ms. Overstreet noted part of the problem was that the road was not a public road.~ Mr. McCarthy explained that the road is ready to be accepted.~ He noted the development is zoned business and the houses were allowed through the 40B housing process, which allows zoning overrides.~ Mr. Andrade explained it can take years for a development to be accepted and it is the developer's liability until it is accepted.~ Mr. Fountain suggested the residents call the police for the speeding and traffic problems.
Kerry~(last name unknown), 51 Village Road, stated she was concerned with speeding especially near the bus stop area.~ Mr. Fountain further explained that a 40B development may not be allowed by Town zoning but is allowed by State regulations. Mr. Ellis noted a waiver of the traffic study was requested.~ He suggested the Board consider not granting the request until an agreement on the issues is reached.
Mr. Turner explained the park is zoned business and that he had sued the town to allow a house on the lot but lost the appeal so now he is constructing a business building.~ He noted the owners of the houses in the 40B development signed deed waivers regarding the businesses.~~ He also stated his workers would not be driving through the park at 8 a.m.
Waiver requests were read aloud.~ Mr. Fountain said he wanted a photometric plan submitted. Mr. Canto and Mr. Ellis both felt a traffic study was warranted.~ Erika Uberbacher, Conservation Commission Agent, told the Board the final wetland line for the site was approved, and waiver from Sec. 5.1.3 could be waived if acceptable with the Board.
Parking was discussed.~ It was noted the number of parking spaces will meet zoning requirements only if a waiver to allow handicap parking spaces in front of the building is granted.~ During discussion, Mr. Ellis stated he felt the bollards should be required for safety.~ Mr.Canto agreed bollards should at least be at the corner of the building.~ Mr. Schmid discussed waiver No. 12, noting the site is not buildable without this waiver being granted.
After discussion, Board members agreed they should conduct a site visit.~ Ms. Ueberbacher recommended the corners of the proposed building be staked before the site visit.~ After discussion, the public hearing was continued to October 27, 2005, 8 p.m.~ Mr. Turner signed an Extenstion of Time-To-Act.
8:46 p.m. - North Light Realty, Route 44, site plan public hearing was reconvened.~ Mr. Andrade asked Mr. Schmid why he had earlier said the plan was the best it was going to be.~ Mr. Schmid explained the site has limited area, the proposed project is aggressive, and there are cross easements with abutting sites.~ He noted signage and pavement striping is needed at the site.
A motion was made to not approve the site plan by North Light Realty Trust.~ A motion was made to not approve the requested waivers.~ Mr. Fountain suggested voting on each waiver seperately.~ Motion was made to deny waiver from Sec. 4.15, Development Impact Statement; motion seconded; motion to deny passed by unanimous vote.~ Motion made to deny waiver from Sec. 4.20, signage requirments; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.~~ Board members discussed the fact that knowing the prospective tenant was important for traffic issues and failure to comply with this section of the Rules and Regulations is a reason to deny.~ Waiver request from Section 4.21 was discussed.~ Board members agreed failure to comply with this regulation is another reason to deny the plan.~ Motion was made to deny the plan for the reasons
stated above; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.
Item No. 8 on JNEI letter dated September 6, 2005, was discussed.~ After discussion, motion was made to deny acceptance of the plan because the traffic impact study is not correct regarding the number of vehicles per day; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.
Waiver request from Section 5.4 (#15 on JNEI letter) was discussed.~ Motion was made to approve the request; motion seconded; three votes no and one vote yes.~ Motion was made to deny the waiver request from Sec. 5.4; motion seconded; three votes yes, one vote no.
Item No. 21, re. Sec. 5.8.7, on JNEI letter dated September 6, 2005, was discussed.~ Motion was made to deny if this is a waiver request or if it is not a waiver request, it is a reason to deny the plan; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote. Motion was made to deny the plan for the reasons previously stated; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.~
Mr. Schmid noted the applicant never informed the Board of the proposed tenant at the site, which could impact traffic issues.~ Mr. Fountain stated another reason to deny the plan was the Board was never told who the tenant would be and the likely traffic generated from the tenant.~ Mr. Andrade stated another reason for denial was that designated access and egress were not clearly shown on the plan.~ Motion was made to deny the site plan proposed by North Light Realty Trust for all the reasons stated; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.
The special permit for the drive-through was discussed.~ Motion was made to deny the special permit for the drive-through as the size of the lot and the traffic flow were not safe as shown on the plan and, as stated previously, it was not known what restaurant would be using the drive-through and its traffic impact; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote. (Mr. Ellis left the meeting.)
9:05 p.m. - Public hearing for Sullivan School/Raynham Town Hall site plan was opened.~ Mr. Fountain read the hearing notice.~ Paula Thompson, P.E., Waterman Design Associates, presented the proposed site plan and a list of waiver requirements.~ Ms. Thompson reviewed the site plan for the proposed renovation of the Sullivan School on South Main Street as a new Town Hall.~~ Ms. Thompson discussed the fact that a portion of the site falls within the Riverfront Area and a flood plain area.~ She discussed the parking requirements and noted there have been several discussions with Town Boards and officials about alternatives to pervious pavement in parking areas.~ Ms. Thompson explained that concrete pavers man be used effectively to lessen the amount of pervious area on the site.
Erika Ueberbacher, Conservation Commission Agent, addressed the Board and discussed the Riverfront Area concerns and the 200 feet line of demarcation for the riverfront.~ Mr. Andrade questioned whether or not it would be better for water to run over the pavement to filter through the ground, stating he felt the concrete pavers could present a problem for snowplowing.~ Ms. Ueberbacher stated the Conservation Commission favors the pavers as a way to meet the parking space requirement and an alternative to the pavers is to use pervious pavement but with fewer parking spaces.~
Joseph Bettencourt, Town Hall Building Committee member, discussed parking requirements at both the existing Town Hall and the new Town Hall.~ He noted the feasibility study indicated 80 spaces would be good but he believes the proposed 70 parking spaces at the new Town Hall is adequate.~ Mr. McCarthy noted on-street parking is available if needed at the new Town Hall and public meetings can be moved to a larger venue to accomodate crowds, if necessary.~ Mr. Andrade asked Selectman Donald McKinnon if he felt 70 parking spaces was sufficient; Mr. McKinnon answered yes.~ Mr. Andrade suggested a eliminating 10 parking spaces and having a gravelled area instead of the pavers.~ Ms. Ueberbacher noted that only a 49 parking space plan would work for pervious pavement, which was an alternative the Committee was trying to avoid.
Board members and Mr. Bettencourt discussed the possibility of future expansion.~ Mr. Bettencourt suggested possible footprint addition to the plan to avoid any further disturbance in the future.~ He noted the building is three times the size of the current Town Hall so there will be ample space for needs.
After discussion, Board members agreed 70 parking spaces are required and the issue was whether to use impervious or pervious surface. The use of porous pavement was discussed but it was agreed that was not a good alternative because it must be installed deeper and requires more maintenance.~ Mr. Bettencourt noted that gravelled parking areas were not favored because of snow plowing concerns.~ After discussion, Board members concluded they would accept the type of paving material that Highway Superintendent Roger Stolte felt was best.
Ms. Thompson reviewed the site plan further.~ She noted the site entry was relocated so it aligned with properties across the street. She reviewed the plantings to be used.~ Ms. Ueberbacher stated she had checked the plantings and was satisfied with them.~
Erlinda Rondelli, South Main Street, addressed the Board and stated she had a problem with bugs dropping into her yard from trees on the school site.~ Ms. Ueberbacher informed her some the trees might be removed and replaced.~ John Rondelli, South Main Street, asked if a white vinyl fence could be used instead of a cedar wood fence.~ He stated he had no concerns other than the fence.~ Ms. Ueberbacher stated the vinly fence could yellow and crack.~ After discussion, Board members agareed a cedar wood fence would look better.~
The site lighting plan was reviewed.~ After discussion, it was agreed the lighting plan was compliant.
Mr. Schmid stated there were no added concerns.~ Mr. Andrade read the waiver requests.~ It was noted a waiver from Section 4.21 was being withdrawn.~ Curbing was discussed.~ After discussion, it was agreed the curbing would be as shown on the plan.~ Motion was made to accept the waiver requests as read.~ Mr. Schmid asked why a traffic study was not being required.~ Mr. McCarthy explained that the project was approved at Town Meeting so the voters had spoken.~
Board members discussed one-way vs. two-way site traffic circulation.~ After discussion, it was agreed that if diagonal parking spaces are used, there would not be space for 70 parking spaces.~ After discussion, Board members agreed to have one-way traffic circulation, with entry from the north and exiting from the south of the site.~ Motion was made to approve the waivers from Sec. 4.15; 4.16; 4.2; 4.22; 4.23; 5.4; 5.5; 5.6.2; 5.7.3; 5.7.6, as read and discussed; motion seconded; motion passed on unanimous vote.~
Conditions of approval were discussed.~ During discussion, it was noted a wheelchair ramp is shown on the plan, and there is no need for a dumpster because there is daily trash pickup.~ After discussion, motion was made to approve the plan entitled "Permitting Plans for Town Offices, William Sullivan School in Raynham, Massachusetts, dated July 27, 2005, last revised September 22, 2005; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.~~After discussion, motion was made to add the condition that final plan revisions shall be reviewed by JNEI and subject to their approval or denial; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.
10:00 p.m. - Vittorio Artiano of North Light Realty Trust appeared before the Board to discuss his site plan.~ Mr. Andrade explained the plan was earlier reviewed and was denied and Mr. Artiano will receive a Certificate of Action regarding the Board's action.~ Mr. Artiano explained he requested the hearing be continued because he believed a full Board would not be present to vote.~ Mr. Andrade noted no extension of the Board's time-to-act was granted and it was important to have that.~ Mr. Artiano said he would sign a time-to-act extension; he requested the denial be rescinded.~ Mr. Andrade advised Mr. Artiano he could respond to the Board's action through the proper process.
10:10 p.m. - Public hearing for Welter Medical Building, Paramount Drive, site plan.~ Mr. Fountain read the hearing notice.~ Dr. Ryan Welter and~Daniel Feeney, P.E., of Beals & Thomas were present.~ Mr. Fountain informed the applicant that only three of five Board members were present to vote so a unanimous vote would be needed.~ The applicant agreed to continue with the hearing.~~Mr. Feeney presented the site plan.~ He explained the site is 13.5 acres with 7.5 acres wetlands, 178 parking spaces are planned, which exceeds zoning requirements, the building will be three stories with 37,013 square feet, utility and sewer services will be coming off Paramount Drive.~ Mr. Feeney discussed the drainage system, noting that improvements to the Raynham Woods drainage plan are in the process of being completed.~
Correspondence dated September 13, 2005 from Roger Stolte was discussed. Mr. Feeney noted all issues have been addressed.~ Mr. Schmid noted the stormwater management plan is part of the Raynham Woods drainage plan. Review correspondence dated September 20, 2005, was received from JNEI.~ Board members and John Schmid reviewed the correspondence.~ Curbing was discussed; it was noted granite curbing will be at the entrance and Cape Cod berm is proposed for site.~ Parking and snow removal were discussed.~ After discussion, it was agreed bollards would be placed at the building entrance, a van drop-off areas will be provided, and signage shall indicate deliveries will be to the rear of the building.~
John Schmid noted the plan was well done and he credited Beals & Thomas for their work.~ Waiver requests were read. Conditions of approval were discussed. Applicant agreed to the proposed conditions. Motion was then made to approve requested waivers from Sec. 4.15, 4.2, 4.22, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.6.2; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote. Motion was made to approve the plan with the conditions as discussed “Medical Office Building Raynham Woods Commerce Center in Raynham, MA,” dated August 19, 2005, and revised through September 22, 2005, prepared by Beals and Thomas; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.
10:40 p.m. – Ken Motta, Field Engineering, and Wade Smith, Ira Smith Truck Rental and Repair, appeared before the Board to discuss a proposed site plan for 1900 Broadway. It was noted the previous site plan submitted by Eurotech for this site was withdrawn. Mr. Motta told the Board a parking space requirement waiver and a waiver to allow parking in front of the building would be sought. After discussion, Board members agreed they wanted the required parking spaces designated on the plan for possible future expansion. No action was taken.
10:50 p.m. – Attorney Robert Shelmerdine, Sharon, MA, appeared before the Board to discuss Whippoorwill Estates. Attorney Shelmerdine submitted a request for a reduction in the performance bond for Phase I and II and Phase III at Whippoorwill and a Form J request for release of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 in Phase IV. Construction Cost Estimate, dated September 20, 2005, was received from JNEI. A check for $12,000 mitigation was submitted towards release of the lots. A check for $4,000 for snowplowing was also received.
After discussion, Board members voted to reduce the amount of the performance bond for Whippoorwill Estates by $78,626 for Phase I and II and $378,219 for Phase III; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote. Motion was made to release Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 as requested; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote. The Form J was signed.
There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at approximately 11:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Gallagher, Clerk
| 
