The Raynham Planning Board held its regular meeting on May 11, 2006, at Raynham Town Hall.~ The meeting opened at 6:35 p.m. with Burke Fountain, John Canto and Chris Gallagher present.~ Also present were Town Planner Richard McCarthy, John Schmid of Judith Nitsch Engineering, Inc. (JNEI) and Administrative Assistant Maureen McKenney.
6:35 p.m. - Byron's Way modified subdivision plan was presented for reendorsement because the Town Clerk's signature block had been taken off the previously endorsed plan.~ After discussion, it was noted that proof of recording of this plan must be submitted to the Planning Board office before the previously approved refund of filing fees can be processed.~ The plan was endorsed.
General Business:~ John Canto informed the Board he will not be present at the May 25, 2006 meeting.~ Burke Fountain informed the Board he will not be voting on the upcoming George Estates subdivision plan.
Town Planner update:~ Mr. McCarthy noted the Community Preservation Act (CPA) is on the warrant at the upcoming Annual Town Meeting.~ He discussed the CPA act in general, noting that 100% matching funds are available now but they will dwindle in the future, the CPA can be dissolved by community vote after five years, the CPA must pass both the Town Meeting and the ballot to be adopted, the Town will be attempting to enact the CPA with a 3% surcharge, matching the funds are received from Registry of Deed fees that are put into one statewide fund.~ Mr. McCarthy noted he will speak in favor of the CPA at the Town Meeting.~ He also noted the Board is split on the adoption of the CPA.
General Business:~ Minutes of April 27, 2006 were received.~ Motion was made to waive the reading and approve the minutes; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.
Finch Farm Condominium site plan was discussed.~ John Schmid informed the Board he did a site visit and determined there are outstanding issues from the November 28, 2005 JNEI punchlist of items to be completed.~ He noted developer Michael Thiel is not able to do the work at this time and there is approximately $5,200 worth of work to be done.~ Mr. McCarthy noted there is approximately $25,000 left in the bond account.~ Mr. Canto suggested the Board could partially reduce the bond.~ The matter was tabled.
Memorandum from JNEI, dated~May 3, 2006, was received regarding Aspen Hollow subdivision.~ No action was taken.~
Board members continued discussion on Finch Farm Condominiums.~ Mr. Fountain stated all work should be completed before any reduction of surety funds.~ No action was taken on the matter.
7:00 p.m. - Public hearing for Ryan Drive subdivision was opened.~ Motion was made and seconded to waive reading of the public hearing notice; motion passed by unanimous vote.~ Joe Harnois, P.E., Coneco Engineers and Scientists, Bridgewater, MA, appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicant.~ Mr. Harnois reviewed the plan, explaining that a curve in the existing road is to be removed and the road will be straightened out.~ He noted the curve in the roadway was put on the original plan in order to save a nearby barn but the barn will be taken down in the near future.~
Project review correspondence, dated May 9, 2006, was received from JNEI.~ John Schmid asked Mr. Harnois when the existing road will be completed.~ Mr. Schmid noted the existing binder on the roadway is broken up and he thinks the requested waivers are not warranted.~ He asked if the roadway will be public or private.~ Mr. Harnois said the road will be private. Correspondence dated May 8, 2006 was received from Highway Superintendent Roger Stolte. Mr. Stolte noted he had no comments if the subdivision is to be privately maintained.
Mr. Fountain noted the road is open to the public even if it is privately owned so it must be made safe and he agreed that not all the requested waivers should be granted.~ Mr. Harnois explained most of the waivers are being requested because no new utilities are being installed and the proposed drainage plan consists of moving two catch basins because of the road being straightened out.~ He noted there will be sidewalks on Rte. 138.~ He also noted the land is Land Court property.
Mr. Gallagher noted the intent of the plan could be taken care of with an easement without a subdivision plan if the road is to be private.~ Mr. Fountain questioned when the subdivision will be completed.~ Mr. Harnois stated that when the existing building space is 70% full, the applicants will begin constructing a new building.~ (Mr. Ellis arrived at 7:10 p.m.)
Mr. Gallagher stated he felt the proposed plan was fairly minor and did not need to meet the present regulations.~ Mr. Fountain felt because the public will use the road even though it will be privately owned, public safety must be considered.~ Mr. Harnois explained the plan was submitted just to straighten the road and to lock in the current zoning.~ Mr. Fountain said it was okay with the road being straightened but if new buildings are constructed, the applicant must return to the Planning Board for road improvements.
There was discussion about the uses at the site and about the site entrance.~ John Schmid suggested that improvements to the site entrance could be made a condition of approval.~ Mr. Gallagher suggested no building permits be issued until improvements are made to the entrance.~
Mr. Canto asked if the past issue with the surety bond is settled.~ During discussion, it was noted the original subdivsion plan was before the Board twenty years ago and the surety bond for the subdivion is old.~ It was also noted there was recently a question of the ownership of the roadway and whether or not the proper owner was listed on the surety bond.~ Mr. Harnois told the Board that the applicant is willing to provide new bonding for the original subdivision as well as for the new subdivision.~ Mr. McCarthy suggested a covenant could be placed on the lots as additional surety.~ Mr. Harnois stated he could not speak for the owners about that.~
After discussion, Board members agreed they want improvements made to the site entrance.~ They also agreed that the road must be made safe because the public will be using it.~ John Schmid stated he was concerned that applicants were requesting a waiver that would allow inspection of only the work associated with this new plan and would include previous road work done at the subdivsion.
After discussion, Board members agreed the outstanding bond issue must be resolved.~ The public hearing was continued to May 25, 2006, 6:45 p.m.
7:36 p.m. - Joseph Harnois, P.E., Coneco Engineers and Scientists, presented 95 Ryan Drive site plan minor modification.~ He explained that the plan shows some grading at the site eliminated and the chain link fence along the property line is eliminated.
John Schmid informed the Board that he did a site walk and he did not see any significant grade changes and he is not sure of the necessity of the fence.
Mr. Ellis stated he needed further information on the plan.~ After discussion, Board members agreed they needed a letter from JNEI regarding the site conditions and the fence.~ The matter was continued to May 25, 2006, 6:50 p.m.~
7:40 p.m. - Joe Harnois, P.E., Coneco Engineers, Bridgewater, MA, presented a mylar copy of a Land Court Form A plan for Ryan Drive that was previously approved by the Board.~ Board members reviewed the mylar copy with the previously approved Form A and found them to be the same except for a minor change made in Land Court.~ The mylar was signed.~ Mr. Harnois agreed to provide three paper copies of the signed mylar.
General Discussion:~ Mr. McCarthy noted there were no major Town Meeting articles for the Board.~He noted the new by-law that was submitted for an Office Development District II was found to be lacking but perhaps just the permitted use section of the by-law could be adopted.
Dave McRae, Prospect Hill Street, was present and spoke to the Board about the Office Development District II by-law.~ He questioned why the by-law could not be adopted and then "work backward" to adopt the details of the by-law.~ He noted the proposed by-law was submitted by citizens' petition.~
Mr. Fountain questioned if Mr. McRae wanted to set up the zoning district now and then later determine the lot size, setbacks, etc.~ Mr. McRae said they should start with the idea submitted and the work out the details.~ Mr. Fountain explained that if the by-law were passed, a developer could come before the Town the next day and do what he wanted if there were no restrictions in place.~
Mr. Gallagher explained that a by-law must be written completely and if there are no designations regarding lot size or setbacks, a person could do anything they wanted.~ He noted the proposed article is not ready.~ He explained that a proposed article cannot be substantially changed once it is submitted and only minor changes can be made to it.~ He noted it would be illegal to make more restrictive changes to a by-law once submitted to Town Meeting.
Mr. McCarthy explained it would be better for someone to come to the Planning Board to rework the article so it can be submitted for approval.~ He noted it is important that it be done properly for all the affected property owners. No action was taken.
There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Gallagher, Clerk
| 
