The Raynham Planning Board held a special meeting on Wednesday, March 12, 2008, at Raynham Veteran’s Memorial Town Hall.
Board members present: Daniel Andrade, Burke Fountain, Chris Gallagher, Henry Ellis, John Canto
Staff present: Town Planner Richard McCarthy, John Schmid, Nitsch Engineering
6:10 p.m. – Chairman Andrade called the meeting to order.
6:10 p.m. - Value Stay Hotel Site Plan Public Hearing: The public hearing was reconvened. Attorney David Gay, Taunton, MA, was present as Applicant’s representative.
Mr. Gallagher informed those present that several years ago he represented a different applicant for a variance plan at this site. He noted he did not work for the current applicant. Mr. Andrade asked if anyone had a problem with Mr. Gallagher considering the matter now before the Board. No one responded.
Attorney Gay presented the site plan. He explained the history of the parcel, noting the State took land in this area many years ago for construction of Rte. 495, leaving the parcel without any frontage on Rte. 138 and in the process, they provided access to the locus parcel by way of an easement over Trucchi’s (abutter) land.
Attorney Gay explained the applicant went to the Board of Appeals and received three variances for the plan relative to frontage, sign requirements and building height. Attorney Gay explained the Board of Appeals placed a condition on the three variances that requires the traffic signals at Rte. 495 / Rte. 138 to be operational before the hotel is allowed occupancy. He noted Petitioner has a new application pending before the Board of Appeals requesting their decision be modified by eliminating that condition. eHe note He also noted the project is scheduled to go to the Conservation Commission and they have already met with the Sewer Commission.
Attorney Gay introduced Walter Eutize of Value Place, Epping, New Hampshire, Bob Smith of Liberty Investment, who is the franchisee of this hotel, Art Scarnio of Greenman-Pederson, Mike, applicant’s wetlands consultant, and Chris Tymula of MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
Mr. Ellis asked who owned the property. Attorney Gay noted David Dunham, Raynham, LLC, owned the property. It was noted they have owned it since 2003 and they were aware of the problems with lack of frontage at the time of purchase.
Mr. Andrade pointed out that Board members were aware of the property and its history.
Attorney Gay informed the Board he will be submitting a letter from Mass. Highway.
Mr. Eutize explained the history of the hotel company and how the hotel operates. He noted there is no daily check-in and check-out, and rentals are done on a weekly basis. He noted reservations are required, no off-the highway traffic is accepted, and guests must have proper ID at check-in for safety purposes. There is a no-tolerance policy for guests and if trouble arises, the police are called. Mr. Eutize noted there are several employees on site 24 hours a day. Hee explained the safety policies and procedures in place, noting security tapes are held for 30 days. He also noted police have immediate access to the security cameras if necessary. He noted most guests stay for a period of several weeks.
Mr. Ellis expressed concern that the hotel may not be well kept over a period of time, noting he visited a similar type hotel and it looked a little “sleazy.” He asked Mr. Eutize to comment on the fact that a local paper had stated that the majority of hotel guests would be construction workers. Mr. Eutize said he did not know where that information came from because it is not true.
At Mr. Ellis’ request, Mr. Eutize explained the layout of the rooms, noting the average room is about 290 square feet, has living area and cooking facilities. He noted no more than four are ever allowed in a room. Mr. Ellis asked why a sign large enough to be seen from the highway is needed if guests must be registered in advance. Mr. Eutize explained it takes time to build clientele. He noted the applicant was asked by the Town to move the sign away from Rte. 138, which they did, and due to topography, the additional height then became necessary for visibility.
Mr. Canto asked why Raynham was the right location for this hotel. Mr. Eutize stated the industrial park at the Bay Street area in Taunton offered potential customers; the property itself met their needs; the nearby Rte. 44 industrial business park offers customers.
Mr. Fountain asked if there were meeting rooms or food service. Mr. Eutize stated no. Mr. Fountain questioned the number of cars would be on site and discussed parking requirements.
Art Scarnio of Greenman-Pederson addressed the Board. He discussed the fact that trip generation for an extended stay hotel is lower than a typical hotel. He noted some clients will be dropped off by shuttle at the hotel and will not have their own cars while others will have a car available. Mr. Eutize noted 125 parking spaces are planned.
Mr. Andrade stated that the hotel as explained tonight was different than what he anticipated. He noted the site is similar to a residential subdivision in that people will be commuting in and out of it to their jobs and the traffic issue is now more of a concern to him after listening to the presentation. He noted not having a restaurant on site will mean deliveries being made to the hotel and an increase in traffic in and out to get food. He also noted he is concerned with families possibly living on site long term. Mr. Eutize explained the price increases by $10 per person for everyone over one guest.
Upon further questions from Mr. Andrade, Mr. Eutize noted the hotel is expected to be at 92 percent occupancy once it is fully operational. Mr. Eutize also explained guests can be denied further occupancy if the hotel determines they have been a problem. He stated he believes high school students cannot be denied a room if they have a valid driver’s license and a major credit card.
Bob Smith, Liberty Investment Properties, Maitland, FL, addressed the Board. He noted his company is the franchisee of the hotel and his employees will be operating the hotel. He discussed the cleaning process, he noted the hotel cable TV does not offer x-rated movies, and high standards are maintained. He discussed how hotel locations are chosen, noting traffic, business and people within a certain radius are considered. He noted the hotel office is not open on Sundays but pre-registered guests are allowed in on Sunday and then register the next day.
Mr. Andrade noted there will be traffic generated at peak hours from this site. Mr. Gallagher disagreed, saying their traffic may not be generated at the same peak hours.
Mr. Canto asked if the extended stay hotel would be converted to a regular type hotel if it fails. Mr. Smith explained there are franchise rules that allow that to happen but to-date there have been no failures of these hotels. Mr. Canto noted that unless the Board puts conditions on approval, the site can be used for anything if it fails, subject to zoning. Attorney Gay noted the variance only applies to the extended stay hotel. Mr. Fountain asked applicant for a definition of extended stay to include in their approval.
Mr. Eutize noted they have not had any failures yet but they have actually increased the size of a few of their hotels.
John Schmid, Nitsch Engineering, addressed the Board and stated the storm water design is sufficient and he has no objections to it.
Chris Tymula, P.E., MHF Design Consultants, Inc., addressed the Board. He noted the project has been one year in planning and they have met with Town departments several times. Mr. Tymula noted the site is approximately 5.8 acres. He pointed out the wetland areas on the site, noting the site is relatively flat. He discussed the site access from Rte. 138. He noted the hotel will be 121 rooms in 4 stories, with total of 42,200 square feet; 125 parking spaces will be provided. He discussed the access way width and fire lanes being provided at the request of fire department.
The easement was discussed. It was noted the easement was granted by the State for this property at the time of land taking. It was noted the easement is granted to this parcel and Trucchi’s does not own the easement parcel although their driveway goes through the easement. Attorney Ed Brennan said he understood the State took the easement and it was the State mechanism that provided access to this parcel. Attorney Gay is to provide details of the easement to the Board.
Chris Tymula noted a parking area will be provided on site for a large tractor-trailer truck, at the Town’s request. Mr. Andrade said he had concerns there was only one space provided. Mr. Tymula also discussed the handicap parking area, the dumpster enclosure and signage.
Planters to be used as bollards were discussed.
Secondary access for safety vehicles was discussed. Mr. McCarthy noted the fire chief had wanted a safety access but Mass. Highway will not allow it so the chief agreed not to hold up the project for lack of the secondary access.
John Schmid noted part of the reconstruction of the driveway project violates the Conservation Commission’s 25-foot no touch policy around the wetland area and the applicant will be going before the Commission for approval. Mr. Gallagher noted the building is not near the 100 foot buffer zone, which seems to be a good compromise of the plan.
It was noted the entrance to the site is approximately 24 feet wide and no improvements may be made to it because it is part of an active highway. A landscape area and directional signage will be provided to direct customers to the site. Mr. Schmid noted a waiver will be needed to provide landscaping instead of wheel stops and bollards.
Attorney Ed Brennan, representative of Trucchi’s, addressed the Board regarding the easement. He noted the earlier testimony regarding the easement provided by the State was correct and it is a non-exclusive easement, meaning both the parties who own both properties can use the easement. He noted Trucchi’s would like to coordinate what happens in the entrance. He said Trucchi’s was agreeable to an island and signage being provided in order to better direct hotel customers from the site. Attorney Brennan also discussed concerns with possible runoff from the hotel site to the Trucchi’s site. Mr. Schmid said he would make sure Mr. Brennan’s concerns are addressed when he further reviews the plans.
Attorney Brennan noted Mr. Trucchi has no objection to the hotel project but he is concerned with the signalization and with how traffic will be coordinated across the easement area when entering and exiting the site. He noted Trucchi’s believes signalization of Rte. 495/Rte. 138 intersection is critical to the plan.
Mr. Andrade asked if Mr. Schmid has reviewed a plan showing improvements to be made to the entrance. Applicant agreed to provide a more detailed, blown-up plan for his and the Board’s review. Mr. Fountain suggested input from Trucchi’s attorney on this matter. Attorney Brennan noted Trucchi’s utilizes the services of Silva Engineering and they may contact Silva Engineering, Bridgewater, MA, directly to discuss plans.
Mr. Canto stated he had concerns with site aesthetics from Route 138 and with traffic in the area.
Mr. Fountain stated he had concerns with ingress/egress at the site.
Mr. Gallagher stated he had no problems with the access because it is sufficiently wide.
Mr. Canto questioned if the truck traffic from Trucchi’s would interfere with hotel clients entering and exiting the site. Mr. Tymula noted there will be a stop sign that will require hotel traffic to stop before exiting their driveway onto Rte. 138.
Mr. Fountain stated he also had concerns with the truck traffic.
Attorney Brennan agreed to provide the Board with the number of trucks that exit/enter Trucchi’s site daily.
Mr. Ellis noted a good job was done with the site plan. He stated he believes traffic lights are needed and he questioned if the exit could be right-turn only. Mr. Andrade noted left- and right-turns now occur ata the site and he questioned the turns can be restricted at this point. Mr. Gallagher noted the State is okay with the situation.
Mr. Andrade noted the Board has been adamant with past projects about traffic lights being constructed at this overpass. Discussion followed regarding letters submitted to the Board from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts regarding the signalization of the intersection. It was noted this site is one of the lowest impact uses for the site. Mr. Scarnio discussed the traffic report and the a.m. and p.m. peak hour vehicle trips. He noted the State has indicated by letter from Mr. Bernard McCourt that they are comfortable with the plan and will grant a curb cut permit. Mr. Scarnio noted the hotel guests are not peak hour traffic generators.
Mr. Ellis asked how many trips per day will be generated. Mr. Scarnio said he did not include a daily number in the report because the peak hour numbers were more critical. Mr. Eutize noted there will be about 681 total trips in and out of the site daily.
Attorney Brennan asked if there were sight line issues for a vehicle exiting the site to travel north. Mr. Scarnio stated there were no concerns with that issue but the critical concern was with cars coming off the Rte. 495 ramp and it was determined the stopping and sight distance is more than adequate. He noted all the findings have been reviewed.
Construction of the traffic signal was discussed. Mr. Gallagher noted the site has less impact than most other projects the Board has approved and he himself would not require the condition of the light for the project.
During discussion, it was noted the applicant is agreeable to funding a police detail if it is determined that one is needed during peak traffic hours. Mr. Ellis said if there is a right turn only, with no left, from the site he would go along with the project proceeding without the light.
Mr. Andrade questioned if the right turn only would work because they have not worked with other projects in the past. Mr. Fountain agreed. Attorney Gay noted that would not be fair to Trucchi’s to limit that now and also that the State would not allow that to happen.
Mr. Ellis noted the intersection of Rte. 495/Rte. 138 is the most dangerous intersection in Town. Mr. Andrade said he had concerns with traffic exiting the intersection too. Mr. Ellis suggested the situation should be monitored in the off-hours when there were more likely to be problems.
Mr. Canto said he had concerns with traffic traveling north and turning left to enter the site while traffic was traveling south and turning right into the Exxon Station. Mr. Scarnio discussed the low impact traffic from the project and the adequate sight lines and stopping distances with the posted and observed speeds.
Mr. Gallagher said he had no problem with the project because of the low impact and because the State and traffic experts have agreed.
Mr. Schmid informed the Board he has not reviewed the traffic report. He noted it was not provided and that is usually done at the Planning Board’s request.
Mr. Andrade asked if applicant was agreeable to a condition of approval whereby a police officer detail will be provided if determined necessary until the lights are operational. Applicant was agreeable.
Mr. Fountain asked applicant to provide a more detailed plan of the entrance to show the amount of stacking possible at the Trucchi’s entrance. Applicant agreed.
Steve Dyer, Hall Street, Raynham, NRWD Commissioner, spoke in favor of the project
After further discussion, the public hearing was continued to March 13, 2006 for discussion of another continuance date. Applicant agreed to provide a time-to-act extension.
Respectfully submitted,
Christopher J. Gallagher, Clerk
| 
