The Raynham Planning Board meeting held on October 12, 2006 opened at 6:30 p.m., at Raynham Town Hall, with Board members Daniel Andrade, John Canto and Chris Gallagher present. Also present were Town Planner Richard McCarthy, Administrative Assistant Maureen McKenney and consultant John Schmid of Judith Nitsch Engineering, Inc. (JNEI).
6:30 p.m. - Form A Plan, Prospect Hill Street was presented by Azu Etonu, E.T. Engineering Enterprises, Inc., Bridgewater, MA, for land on Prospect Hill Street owned by Craig and Michelle Randall. Proper application and fees were submitted. Mr. Etonu reviewed the plan for the Board. After discussion, Mr. Gallagher motioned to approve the plan entitled "Plan of Land In Raynham (Bristol County – North District) Owned By Craig A. and Michelle A. Randall, 143 Prospect Hill St. Raynham, MA 02767,” prepared by E.T. Engineering Enterprises, Inc., dated October 4, 2006, as an Approval Not Required Plan; seconded by Mr. Canto; motion passed unanimously with three votes. (Mr. Ellis and Mr. Fountain were not present.) Mr. Gallagher endorsed the plan.
6:40 p.m. - Minor Modification to Berry Hill ARC subdivision plan was presented by Fred Clark, Mirrione Realty Trust, Easton, MA, and Scott Faria, P.E., Gallagher Engineering, Foxboro, MA. Board member Chris Gallagher recused himself from the matter. The proposed modifications to the approved plan were discussed. During discussion, Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Schmid noted that Building Commissioner Rod Palmer would like to review the grading plan for the site. Mr. Faria explained that changes were made to the roadway to accommodate water problems at the site. It was noted that the proposed modifications were discussed with the Board at a prior meeting and the Board was agreeable to the changes. During discussion, it was noted the lots affected by the modifications are Lots 2 through 7 and Lots 30 through 36. Mr. Schmid informed the Board he was agreeable to the modifications. He asked that in the future the applicant inform him when road construction is being done so he can be
present to view the work and keep the Board updated on compliance with the approved plan. Mr. Clark assured the Board he will remind the contractor to keep Mr. Schmid informed. After discussion, a vote on the matter was tabled to later in the meeting.
6:48 p.m. – Public hearing for The Homestead definitive subdivision plan, was reconvened. Mark Tisdelle, P.E., Hayward-Boynton & Williams, was present along with applicant Alice Gonsalves. The Board advised Mr. Tisdelle that only three voting members were present for the hearing. After discussion, Mr. Tisdelle requested the public hearing proceed. Mr. Tisdelle reviewed the plan for the Board, noting that there are six lots, the plan was presented to the Conservation Commission, a preliminary plan for the subdivision was approved by the Planning Board, the roadway will be 600 feet in length, the soils on site are sandy and the perc tests passed. He noted there is a closed drainage system, which was agreeable to the Con Com, there will be roof drains on the houses and the plan will conform to DEP
regulations.
Mr. Andrade noted the plan looked clean-cut. Mr. Tisdelle noted Highway Surveyor Roger Stolte approves of the plan because of drainage easements given to the Town by the applicant when her Form A plans were approved on Mill Street. Mr. Schmid noted the plan is good and there are only minor details to work out. During discussion, it was noted there is no sewer available to the site because of grading issues and Con Com concerns.
Project review correspondence, dated October 12, 2006, was received from JNEI. Mr. Andrade read the waiver requests into the record. During discussion, it was noted the street name, Marseph Way, must be approved by the fire department. Also during discussion, it was noted that Board of Health approval was not received for this subdivision as well as for other subdivision plans. Mr. Canto suggested sending a letter to the Board of Health requesting that they forward their comments for the record for subdivision plans.
John Schmid informed the Board that he wants the option of under drains to be available and he was not in favor of the waiver request for the under drains. After discussion, Board members agreed this could be part of the Certificate of Action.
Mr. Andrade asked if anyone present had comments. Elizabeth Dearing, 200 Mill Street, addressed the Board and questioned how the plan will affect her property. She noted the creek near her house floods and she does not want additional water problems at her property. Mr. Gallagher explained how the drainage system would work and he noted it should reduce the water flow onto Ms. Dearing's property. Mr. Gallagher further explained that the plan went before the Conservation Commission and was in compliance with the 200 feet no-touch zone. The Board noted that by-law the plan cannot increase the flooding on adjacent property.
After further discussion, Board members noted they were agreeable to the standard conditions of approval, to the condition of under-drains, to the proposed road name if approved by the fire chief and
The public hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. Mr. Gallagher motioned to approve the waivers requested per the October 12, 2006 JNEI letter for The Homestead, for Sections 6.0; 7.4.1; 7.4.2.1.a; 7.4.2.1.f; 7.4.11; 7.4.2.14; 7.4.2.24; 9.4, 9.10, and 9.17; Mr. Canto seconded the motion; motion passed by unanimous vote of three in favor (Mr. Ellis and Mr. Fountain not present).
Mr. Gallagher made a motion to approve the definitive subdivision plan entitled "The Homestead Definitive Subdivision of Land in Raynham, MA," prepared by Hayward-Boynton & Williams, Inc., Taunton, MA, dated August 24, 2006, revised through October 12, 2006, with the following conditions: standard Planning Board conditions, the Board reserves the right to require an Underdrain Detail on the Plan if determined to be necessary, and the Raynham Fire Chief must approve the subdivision roadway name; second by Mr. Canto; motion passed on unanimous vote of three in favor. Certificate of Action will be issued.
7:25 p.m. - Public hearing for Awais Farms subdivision plan was reconvened. Request for a continuance of the public hearing was received from applicant. After discussion, the public hearing was continued to December 14, 2006, 7 p.m.
(7:29 p.m. Mr. Fountain arrived.)
7:28 p.m. - Roger's Way subdivision plan: Shawn Cairns, Raynham, MA, appeared before the Board and requested release of his endorsed subdivision plan, Roger's Way. Correspondence, dated October 10, 2006 on the matter was received from Attorney David Gay, Taunton, MA. Mr. McCarthy explained that the plan was approved, endorsed and proper easements received and the acceptance of the easements to the Town is on the October Town Meeting warrant. Mr. McCarthy stated he felt the spirit of the subdivision approval was met so the Board could release the endorsed plan to Mr. Cairns if they were so agreeable.
Mr. Canto questioned what would happen if the related articles did not pass Town Meeting. Board members agreed that would be at the Town's peril. During discussion, it was noted Mr. Cairns attorney, David Gay, is holding the original deed and easement documents. After discussion, Mr. Andrade motioned to release the endorsed plan to Shawn Cairns and upon Town Meeting approval, Attorney Gay will forward to the Planning Board office the Town's copies of the recorded documents and plans; Mr. Fountain seconded; motion passed three in favor with Mr. Canto abstaining.
7:35 p.m. - Metro Ford Mazda site plan modification - Brian Dunn, P.M., Fuss & O'Neill, Lakeville, MA, appeared before the Board with a proposed modification to the Metro Ford Mazda site plan. Project review Memorandum dated October 11, 2006 was received from JNEI.
Mr. Dunn explained the changes to the plan, noting the addition to the building is being modified and, as a result, parking spaces are being added. (7:38 p.m. Henry Ellis arrived.) Mr. Schmid questioned if bollards were added to the plan. Mr. Dunn explained the building has curbing, which serves as a block. He noted the plan is complying with the requirement for bollards where there is glass on the building. He explained there is a 30-inch wall along the front of the building with landscaping and there are walkways around the building.
After discussion, Mr. Andrade motioned to approve the Metro Ford Mazda site plan dated August 5, 2006, revised through September 15, 2006, Sheet C-1.0 to C-11.5, as a minor modification subject to the first 30 inches of the wall being filled with concrete and this being shown on the plan; second by Mr. Fountain; motion passed with five votes in favor. Board members noted the proposed wall would meet code with the steel rods.
7:43 p.m. - Hallman/191 Stony Brook Road repetitive petition public hearing was opened. Mr. Gallagher read the hearing notice. Jonathan Hallman and Tracy Hallman, Stony Brook Road, appeared before Board and explained that they were recently denied a variance by the Board of Appeals for side yard variance to allow construction of an addition to their home. Mr. McCarthy explained that the repetitive petition application was submitted to the Planning Board as required by law so the Hallmans may return to the Board of Appeals with another variance request. Mrs. Hallman explained they will now be seeking a three-foot side yard variance instead of the approximately 7.5 feet previously requested and a one-foot front yard variance. During discussion, it was noted the Planning Board must determine there is a
substantial difference in the variance requests before an applicant can return to the ZBA.
After discussion, Mr. Gallagher motioned to approve the repetitive petition for Jonathan and Tracy Hallman, 191 Stony Brook Road as the Board determined there is substantial reduction in the variance request as represented; second by Mr. Fountain; motion passed with five votes in favor.
7:50 p.m. - Public hearing for 382 South Street East/Wat Newamuntararachutis Temple Site Plan was opened. Mr. Gallagher read the hearing notice. Richard Cook appeared before the Board as Petitioner's representative, along with a woman, identified as the treasurer for the temple to be located on the site. Mr. Cook distributed a letter, dated October 12, 2006, in response to the October 11, 2006 comment review letter from Judith Nitsch Engineering, Inc. Mr. Cook explained that construction of a Buddhist temple is planned on this site in the future but for now the applicant plans to erect a temporary tent to be used for a religious event. He explained the site plan was submitted because the use of the property changed from residential to religious use. Mr. Cook noted the property was purchased in April
and an addition to the existing house was torn down and will be replaced at a later date. He explained that the outbuildings and horse corrals on site will be removed. Mr. Cook further explained that the temple is preparing for a significant one-time, two-day religious event to be held in ten days and the temporary tent is for this event. He noted the existing barn on site will not be used for the event because it is not properly prepared for assembly but it will instead be used for storage. Mr. Cook informed that there will be attendants at the site to assist with parking and there will be a police detail for the event.
Board members questioned why the applicant was before the Board since the event is not open to the public. Mr. McCarthy explained that the change in use of the property triggered the need for site plan approval. Mr. Gallagher noted that if a site plan was approved, the twenty-day appeal period would extend beyond the event date. He stated he felt site plan approval is not needed and it is within the Board's discretion to not require site plan approval.
Mr. McCarthy explained there will be multiple events on the site before the permanent temple is built, and Mr. Cook verified that. Mr. Cook noted the tent will be approximately 40 ft. by 50 ft. and will not be lived in. After discussion, Board members agreed the use of the tent is similar to that of a tent being used at a residence for a party.
Mr. Cook explained that temple officials from Thailand will be visiting the site to bring statues of Buddha so this is a very important one-time event that will be attended by approximately 200 people but at other times there will be approximately 30 to 40 people on site. He noted the tent will come down after the large event and it will not be used for the smaller gatherings but the smaller groups of 30 to 40 people could gather inside the house or in the addition.
Mr. McCarthy advised the Board that the change in use at the site triggers site plan irrespective of the use. John Schmid advised that he, Richard McCarthy, Roger Stolte and Erika Ueberbacher met with the applicant and they decided to proceed on the side of caution and send the plan to the Planning Board for site plan approval. After discussion of whether or not site plan approval was needed for the proposed temporary tent at the site, Mr. Fountain motioned that site plan approval is not required for the use as set forth in the letter from Wat Newamuntararachutis, dated October 12, 2006; motion seconded by Mr. Andrade; motion passed by unanimous five votes. Mr. Andrade then motioned to release the balance of the project review money after the JNEI invoices are paid; second by Mr. Fountain; motion passed by unanimous five
votes. Mr. Fountain motioned to refund $1,000 of the project filing fee; second by Mr. Ellis; motion passed four votes in favor with Mr. Gallagher voting no because he felt all the filing fee should be refunded.
The Board advised the applicant that this action was taken solely for the temporary tent and that a Certificate of Action for site plan approval will be needed when the temple building is constructed.
8:15 p.m. - Public hearing for Bella Estates Condominiums Site Plan was reconvened. Mr. Fountain recused himself and left the table. Review letter, dated October 10, 2006, was received from JNEI. Mr. Schmid informed the Board that comment No. 6 of his letter addressed the buffer along the Smith property and that he has reviewed the changes to the plan and found the buffer to be sufficient.
Attorney Robert Shelmerdine, Sharon, MA, and Bill Buckley, P.E., Bay Colony Engineering, appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Buckley confirmed the buffer issue was reviewed. Mr. Smith, the abutter on Hill Street, informed the Board he discussed the buffer matter with Attorney Shelmerdine today and he is now agreeable to the plan. Attorney Shelmerdine noted the applicant will arrange to provide access to the Smith property in a private arrangement. Mr. Ellis asked John Schmid if the proposed buffer is acceptable. Mr. Schmid suggested walking the site to determine the location of plantings for the buffer and Mr. Buckley agreed to do that.
Mr. Schmid noted that he had requested the stormwater plan be redesigned, and it is okay now, and that the other comments in his review letter were minor. He said he discussed the project with Highway Superintendent Roger Stolte and Mr. Stolte is comfortable with the project and the stormwater design.
Mr. McCarthy advised that an analysis is needed to correct the Hill Street culvert problems and the applicant has agreed to contribute toward that study. Mr. Schmid noted the applicant agreed to hiring a third party to identify problems and possible corrections to be made but he is not sure of the contribution amount. Mr. Andrade advised that he wanted to be sure the issue is followed up on and not just that a financial contribution is made. Mr. McCarthy stated it will be up to the Town to follow up on the matter. He noted the analysis must be unbiased and independent, and he assured the Board the matter will be done with the proper language and detail needed.
Mr. Schmid informed the Board this development has no impact on Hill Street drainage problems. Mr. Ellis asked if the problems on the other side of Hill Street can be corrected and Mr. Schmid stated no, not unless the applicant went beyond his property. During discussion, it was noted there is no municipal sewer on Hill Street. Mr. Buckley informed that a sewer stub will be on site if a tie-in is needed in the future. He noted no stubs were being put on Hill Street but he believed sewer was not coming to Hill Street. Mr. Gallagher noted sewer may be available in the future because of the recent Intra Municipal Agreement. Board members agreed it is not up to them to require sewer for the project.
Mr. Schmid then discussed traffic light warrant requirements. Applicant's traffic consultant, Jack Gillon, Gillon Associates, stated that he agreed with Mr. Schmid that the warrant requirements are not met but that the State indicated they will revisit the Route 44 corridor in the future.
Ann Avellino, 370 Hill Street, informed the Board that she read the Mass. Highway traffic study report. She noted Route 44 has surpassed Route 138 in traffic accidents and fatalities, and she questioned when there would be too much. Mr. Canto noted Route 44 is a State road so the State controls in the situation. Ms. Avellino stated she was very concerned with more cars being added to the road.
Carl Silvia, 683 Hill Street, asked the Board where the site egress is. Mr. Buckley pointed it out on the plan, noting it is 50 feet to the left of the Mastria truck access road and across from between 665 and 675 Hill Street.
Beverly McCoy, 665 Hill Street, questioned what type of access is planned. Mr. Andrade noted the Board will be discussing it.
Mr. Silvia noted there are properties on Hill Street that are under water and he felt there will be an increase in underground water flow to these properties. Mr. Schmid stated that would not happen. He explained the drainage plan, noting it will not increase water to properties across the street and perhaps it may make the situation better.
Cindy Smith, Hill Street, asked about the buffer screening. Mr. Schmid explained the existing buffer will be filled in with plantings for additional screening. During discussion, it was noted that 50 feet is the minimum amount of buffer to be in place. Mr. Schmid noted the facilities may be seen through the screening but that the plantings will be added in the most beneficial areas. It was noted that a wall for soundproofing is not on the plan. Mr. Canto said he previously brought up the issue of sound but a solution has not been seen yet. Mr. Gallagher said he does not see a huge sound issue. Mr. Ellis suggested a condition of approval whereby a sound barrier can be required if needed in the event of excessive noise. Mr. McCarthy stated he would put in a reasonable condition for the sound issue.
Roy Cyr, 600 Hill Street, asked if the traffic on Hill Street could be alleviated because it is a "race track." Mr. Andrade said the Board cannot control that and the Board advised residents to call the police. After further discussion, Mr. Buckley agreed to a stop sign at the entrance to Hill Street.
Mr. Andrade stated he did not like the proposed entrance and he thinks two ways in and out are needed. Mr. McCarthy noted an emergency access is shown on the plan. Mrs. McCoy stated she is concerned with being able to get in and out of her driveway. Mr. Canto noted that if the second access is opened, it should be blocked from neighbors' view.
Mr. Schmid explained that one site entrance was planned because larger projects than this have only one entrance and it was believed that one entrance located closer to Route 44 was best for this site. During discussion, it was noted that cars on Hill Street back up past the gasoline station. Mr. Ellis suggested pulling the entrance back approximately 100 feet from Route 44. Attorney Shelmerdine advised there are engineering aspects to consider. Mr. Buckley explained there is a difficult curve on Hill Street and that 250 feet site distance both ways is needed. Mr. Andrade stated he wants both of the driveways where they are now located but wants them both operational, and Mr. Ellis agreed. Mr. Canto noted the property on the corner of Hill Street and Route 44 may be sold and that should be considered.
After discussion, the public hearing for Bella Estates was continued to November 9, 2006, 7:20 p.m.
(9:18 p.m. Mr. Fountain returned to the Board.)
9:19 p.m. - Coletti's Site Plan Modification was presented by Paul Patneaude, P.E., Earth Services Corp., Taunton, MA. Property owner and applicant Mike Choksi was also present. Review correspondence, dated October 12, 2006, was received from JNEI.
Mr. Patneaude explained the revised site plan to the Board. He explained that the previously approved site plan required the house at 458 No. Main Street to be moved back on the lot but it has been determined that would cost $200,000 or more to accomplish. He further explained that Highway Surveyor Roger Stolte likes the entrance as now proposed for across from White Street.
John Schmid explained that the project now has more flexibility than the previous Mass. Highway plan and that the State has eliminated some parking with the curbing on North Main Street. He stated the plan needs some "touch ups" and that the sidewalk issue is unclear. He also noted bollards are needed to protect the house. Mr. Schmid reviewed his October 12th comment letter, noting that he needs a copy of the original site plan to confirm details.
After discussion about the parking for cars and trucks, it was agreed that the new plan is better than the original plan.
Mr. Ellis advised that he wanted the abutter who expressed concern at the original plan to know about this plan. Mr. Fountain stated he wanted to be sure the screening is the same for the abutter. During discussion of the matter, it was noted the house will not be moving back on the lot as previously planned. During discussion, it was also noted that the original plan showed Cape Cod berm, and the bollards, fences, lighting are the same now as on the original plan.
After discussion, Mr. Ellis motioned to approve the amended site plan dated September 11, 2006, last revised October 10, 2006, for 458 - 470 North Main Street with the condition that the Board's clerk is to sign the further revised plans after receiving approval from JNEI; second by Mr. Andrade; motion passed by unanimous votes (5).
General Business: Copies of October 12, 2006 memos to Richard McCarthy from John Schmid, JNEI, and Highway Superintendent Roger Stolte, regarding the Town acceptance of Finch Farms and Fair Lane Estates, were received. Mr. Schmid advised that Fair Lane Estates is ready for acceptance but he has not received the as-built plans for Finch Farm to review. After discussion, Mr. Fountain made a motion to recommend acceptance of the two roadways subject to concerns in the October 12, 2006 Richard McCarthy and John Schmid memos being met; second by Mr. Ellis; motion passed by four votes, Mr. Gallagher was not present.
John Schmid informed the Board that he did a site inspection for Creative World on Forge River Parkway in response to a request for release of the site plan surety funds. Mr. Schmid advised that all is okay at the site except for a sinkhole in the parking lot. He explained the applicant said the sinkhole was not fixed because it was not on the JNEI punch list of items to be corrected. After discussion, the matter was tabled until the sinkhole is fixed. No funds were released.
Letter dated October 6, 2006 was received from Jeanne M. Quinn, Silvia & Quinn, P. C., requesting release of the surety bond funds for the Silvia & Quinn site plan. Mr. Schmid advised that he will conduct a site inspection for the next Board meeting. The matter was tabled.
There followed a brief discussion about changing the compact car parking space size to that of a full size car because the smaller size space does not seem to be working well. No action was taken.
9:45 p.m. - Attorney Edmund Brennan, Taunton, MA, appeared before the Board to discuss a potential Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) plan for property on Church Street that was the former site of a winery. Mr. Andrade recused himself from the matter and left the table. Attorney Brennan explained the possible subdivision plan, noting there could be 12 TDR lots at the back of the property and six Form A lots at the front of the site. He noted the wetland line is in the process of being reflagged. He explained that the surplus land could be donated to the Town with availabiltiy for public access to the river.
Attorney Brennan noted the plan is preliminary and he is seeking the Board’s input on what will be necessary to present the parcel for a TDR plan. During discussion, Mr. Fountain noted the value of the land is made easier if the land is flat and dry with no wetlands. Mr. Ellis noted the Board would need to know that no waivers from regulations would be needed. Mr. Canto noted the lots must be able to support a building permit.
Attorney Brennan stated that sewer can be brought to the property. It was noted the locus area is in the next phase of sewer development. Board members agreed they would need to see perc tests done if no sewer was available. Attorney Brennan stated they would explore sewer feasibility.
Dan Andrade addressed the Board and discussed the cost of installing sewer to the property. He noted the lots are not sold and this would be the Town's first TDR to protect land. During discussion, it was noted the proper worksheet must be done to determine the value of the land. It was also noted that the lots cannot go to a cluster plan or into a Zone II. Attorney Brennan stated that other than the sewer issue, the property is pretty straightforward.
Mr. Andrade read a letter dated June 27, 2002, from Raynham Town Planner Richard McCarthy, in which Mr. McCarthy explained the need for the Board to determine if the subject land in a TDR is worth protecting. Mr. Andrade explained that there is a large parcel of land that is dry and would be suitable to donate to the Town for their use.
General discussion followed on the issue of sewer and whether or not there is sufficient sewer capacity for this or other developments. After discussion, no action was taken on the TDR presentation.
General Business: Berry Hill ARC plan modification matter was reconvened. Motion was made to approve the requested modifications as previously discussed; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.
Mr. Andrade informed the Board that he will not be at the October 26th meeting. Mr. Fountain noted he will not be at the November 9th meeting.
There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at approximately 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Gallagher, Clerk
| 
