The Raynham Planning Board held a regular meeting on Thursday, October 7, 2010, at Raynham Veterans' Memorial Town Hall. Chairman Andrade opened the meeting at 6:05 p. m. Board members present: Daniel Andrade, Burke Fountain, Chris Gallagher, Russell Driscoll and Henry Ellis (6:22 p. m.)
Staff present:~ Marilyn Whalley, Town Planner; Maureen McKenney, Administrative Assistant
6:05 p. m. - Roger's Way Extension: Attorney David Gay, Taunton, MA, appeared before the Board to discuss proposed settlement of Roger’s Way Extension litigation. Also present were Attorney Steve Strojny, Karl Wells, Attorney William Manganiello and Michael Rogers. Letter dated September 17, 2010, was received from Attorney Gay.
Attorney Gay noted appeal was taken on the Board's approval with conditions of Roger's Way Extension and litigation is pending, and the judge in the case suggested the parties mediate the matter. He stated he has spoken to Town Counsel Marc Antine on the matter and the parties are close to agreement. Attorney Gay noted a minor change to the plan is proposed and if the Board approves the change, the Land Court case and the Superior Court case will be dismissed.
Attorney Gay noted the only change proposed is to Certificate of Action (COA), Condition #13. He asked it be stricken and replaced with language, which he then read into the record. Attorney Gay agreed to provide the Board with written copy of the proposed language. Attorney Gay noted that repairing the existing asphalt is the issue at hand. Attorney Gay noted Mr. Wells is comfortable with the new proposal.
Mr. Andrade noted the Board is being sued and Town Counsel is not able to be present tonight. Attorney Gay noted there is no liability because the members of the Board are not being sued personally but only in their capacity as a Board. Mr. Andrade stated he is not comfortable without Town Counsel present. Attorney Gay stated Attorney Antine approved of the presentation being made to the Board. Mrs. Whalley informed the Board she spoke to Attorney Antine on the matter and he suggested the Board listen to the presentation and take the matter under advisement.
Mr. Fountain noted he is concerned with the change being made from asphalt to processed gravel. Mr. Andrade noted asphalt was all the Board had required. Attorney Gay agreed. Mr. Gallagher stated if Mr. Rogers can live with the change, so can he. Mr. Andrade noted the original approval had the same condition the Board required for other private ways.
Attorney Strojny noted Mr. Wells owns all property beyond the paved section of the road and he has standing as a direct abutter. He noted Mr. Wells is concerned with further development of the road.
Mr. Andrade noted the proposed change would stop the Town from paving further and not using Roger's Way as a roadway. Attorney Strojny stated they were not trying to do that. Attorney Gay noted the Town has already accepted that the road will not be paved and Conservation Commission wants no more paving along the road. He noted the applicant proposes to pave up to the gate with a material other than asphalt.
Mr. Gallagher noted the Board can take the matter under advisement.
Karl Wells, 169 Katherine's Way, addressed the Board and stated he wants the Board to approve the plan based on the previous plan approved by the Board, that plan having a revision date of June 11, 2005. (Mr. Ellis arrived.) Mr. Andrade suggested the proposals be put in writing and the Board will then consult with Town Counsel.
Mr. Fountain noted he looked at the property this week. In response to a question, Mr. Wells explained condition No. 13 will change by allowing paving up to the point where the gate is now located. He noted the gate was moved to allow access to the driveway. Attorney Gay explained that applicant wants to maintain the area with processed gravel.
Mr. Andrade requested the minutes of previous meetings for this matter be gathered for the next meeting. Attorney Strojny noted the wording of Condition No. 13 is ambiguous. Mr. Andrade said he recalled what was said at the meeting.
Attorney Gay noted that agreeing to the change from asphalt to gravel would save time and money.
Mr. Wells spoke of an ANRAD plan of record that shows existing conditions and should take ambiguities out of the discussion of what should and should not be paved. Mr. Andrade advised Mr. Wells to have his counsel put his arguments in writing and send to the Board.
No action was taken; it was agreed to continue discussion to a later date.
6:30 p. m. – 343 Broadway: Attorney David Gay, Taunton, MA, appeared before the Board along with Bassam Zankul, the owner of service station at corner of King Philip Street and Broadway, to request abbreviated site plan approval process for Mr. Zankul's project.
Attorney Gay explained the Board of Appeals granted a variance and special permit allowing the station's interior to be converted to a convenience store and for construction of a new canopy over the gas pumps. He noted applicant met with Highway Superintendent Roger Stolte, whose comments were incorporated into the plan the ZBA approved. Attorney Gay noted there will be no increase to the building footprint.
It was noted as a result of the Wal-Mart project, there will be lights at the intersection and there is no change to the pumps and traffic flow on site. Attorney Gay stated the only change for the Board to address at site plan is parking and landscaping. He noted the proposed plans comply with Mass. Highway, and applicant used information from the approved Mass Highway plans for the Wal-Mart traffic lights.
Josh Borden, Arthur Borden Associates, addressed the Board and stated the traffic flow on site will improve.
Mr. Fountain questioned if there will be enough parking for the retail use. Attorney Gay explained 11 spaces are required but 12 spaces are being provided.
Mr. Andrade noted there were concerns with the intersection. Attorney Gay and Mr. Borden explained the plan incorporated what Roger Stolte and Mass. Highway each wanted at the intersection. Mr. Borden agreed to make reference to that on the plan. Mr. Andrade said he would like to see Mass Highway’s plan.
Attorney Gay noted neighbors attended Mr. Zankul’s Board of Appeals' hearing and were okay with the plan. After discussion, Board members agreed that because the plans were in conformity with what Mass Highway has approved and the building size is not increasing, abbreviated site plan approval process will be allowed.
6:42 p. m. - Harry McPherson, Broadway, Raynham, appeared before the Board to discuss a possible plan to add area to a non-conforming lot. Mr. Gallagher explained basically what is needed is an ANR plan. It was noted the land in question was an old subdivision approved in 1965. Mr. McPherson noted the land is industrial and he may seek a variance to allow commercial business. Mr. Andrade suggested Mr. McPherson consult an engineer. Mr. Gallagher offered to talk with Mr. McPherson individually.
6:50 p. m. - South Main Street/King Philip Street Open Space Preservation/definitive plan public hearing was opened. Mr. Gallagher read the hearing notice. Correspondence dated October 21, 2010 was received from Nitsch Engineering.
Todd Pilling, P. E., appeared before the Board along with applicants Frank Campbell and John Noblin. Mr. Pilling noted he filed the Form C as required in order to proceed to the goal of the open-space plan. He noted Nitsch Engineering reviewed the plan and the comments received were relative to a definitive conventional plan. Mr. Pilling asked the Board to approve the Form C in conjunction with the open-space plan, which had originally been filed as a Form A.
Mr. Andrade noted the definitive plan had to show the subdivision could be built. Mr. Pilling stated they did not want to build it.
Mr. Fountain stated geometrically everything on the plan works.
Mr. Pilling explained that Conservation Commission did not require redoing the rear wetland line because they do not want any houses in the back of the property.
Mr. Ellis asked if John Schmid was okay with the plan. Mr. Andrade stated, no, and noted Mr. Schmid asked for additional information on the conventional plan. Mr. Schmid has also asked what waivers would be needed on the definitive plan, as part of the process before approving the open-space plan.
Mr. Pilling discussed Mr. Schmid's comments. He stated he is asking that everything be waived on the open-space plan. Mr. Fountain asked if waivers would be needed to build the conventional plan; Mr. Pilling stated “none whatsoever.”
The Board discussed John Schmid's comments of his October 7 e-mail. They agreed they have no concern with comment No. 3; re. comment No. 2, Mr. Gallagher noted the wetland delineation is still valid; re. comment No. 4, valid concern because there are no meets and bounds and the radius need to be labeled; re. comment No. 5, Mr. Pilling told the Board he could do as needed; and, re. comment No. 1, the Board knows the applicant’s intent.
Mr. Andrade asked if Mrs. Whalley had comments. Mrs. Whalley stated John Schmid indicated that he provided what comments he could with the limited time to review the plan, and he also indicated that Mass GIS shows wetlands on the back lot that need further review. Mrs. Whalley noted that to comply with the open-space by-laws, applicant must show that a conventional subdivision can be done and Nitsch questions if the plan shows a true conventional subdivision.
It was noted the back wetland was delineated in 1996. Mr. Gallagher noted the front wetland lines were delineated by an ANRAD plan. John Noblin agreed the wetland flagging was done. Parcel B was discussed. Mr. Pilling noted Parcel B was created to dump wetlands, and Parcel A will be merged with the adjacent lot.
Mrs. Whalley stated John Schmid should review the open-space plan. Mr. Ellis agreed. Mr. Andrade questioned the need to review when road is not being built and b asically the plan is three Form A lots on an existing street. Mr. Gallagher noted typically a cluster plan has full road to review. Mr. Andrade again questioned the need to review, noting the plan is unconventional.
Mr. Andrade asked if Mr. Schmid had other concerns. Mrs. Whalley stated his biggest concern is whether or not the conventional subdivision plan is even possible on a state road. Mr. Pilling stated he could expand the road and cul-de-sac but he had been trying for “simple” with the plan. Mr. Fountain noted the Board could make applicant spend additional time and money with the result being three houses.
After discussion, it was agreed that the discussed information would be added to the plan. Mr. Andrade requested Mr. Schmid inform the Board if the plan is revised to address the comments. The public hearing was continued to October 21, 6 p.m.
7:15 p. m. – McDonald's Rte. 44 and McDonald’s Rte. 138 hearings were tabled to later in the meeting.
7:16 p. m. - Aspen Hollow subdivision: Developer Mark Perron appeared before the Board and requested a reduction of the Aspen Hollow surety bond. Construction Cost Estimate, dated October 6, 2010, was received from Nitsch Engineering. Mr. Perron stated he was okay with the numbers submitted by Nitsch. Mr. Perron submitted copies of correspondence from Mansfield Bank to the Town of Easton as an example of converting a tripartite agreement for cash surety funds. Mr. Perron informed the Board that the tripartite funds securing Aspen Hollow have been converted to a cash account at Mansfield Bank, and the Board can request Mansfield Bank forward the available funds to the Board for them to hold in a passbook account.
After discussion, the Board agreed Town Counsel should be notified they are substituting the tripartite agreement for cash. Mr. Ellis moved in response to the request to reduce the amount of bond being held for Aspen Hollow, in accordance with Nitsch Engineering, October 6, 2010, correspondence, the tri-partite be terminated when the Town of Raynham receives cash or certified check in the amount of $100,081; second by Mr. Fountain.
Mr. Perron stated he was concerned the difference in surety amount would be returned to him. Mr. Gallagher moved to amend the motion whereby the amount of surety to be held is reduced to $100,081; second Mr. Fountain; motion passed by unanimous vote.
Mr. Andrade reminded Mr. Perron the old driveway near the entrance of Aspen Hollow needs to be removed. Mr. Perron agreed. Mrs. Whalley advised that the fill behind the curbing is very exposed. Mr. Perron stated he is in the process of finishing and should be done by Saturday. Mr. Andrade suggested Mr. Perron keep the planning department updated so proper steps can be followed.
7:24 p. m. - Carriage Hill subdivision: Attorney Edmund Brennan, Taunton, MA, appeared before the Board and submitted a copy of Town Meeting warrant article language for acceptance of Carriage Hill Phase I roads. The matter was tabled to later in the meeting.
7:25 p. m. – Nina’s Way: Joe Arruda, Raynham, appeared before the Board with a proposed Form A plan for land on Nina's Way (off Judson Street). Proper fee and application were received. Mr. Gallagher reviewed the plan. In response to question from Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Arruda noted the pins were in and the property surveyed. After discussion, Mr. Gallagher moved to approve plan entitled “Approval Not Required Plan of Land Located Nina’s Way In Raynham, MA Prepared for Mary-Lou Trust,” dated October 4, 2010, prepared by Sitec, Inc.; second by Mr. Fountain; motion passed by unanimous vote (5).
7:30 p. m. – Carriage Hill, Phase II: Attorney Edmund Brennan, Taunton, MA, appeared before the Board along with developer Matt Dacey. Attorney Brennan noted the Certificate of Action for Carriage Hill, Phase II, was before the Board for signing. He explained the waiver reference numbers were incorrectly listed on the plan but have been corrected to properly correspond to current regulations. It was noted the corrected waiver references were approved by Nitsch Engineering. The COA was signed and will be filed with Town Clerk.
Attorney Brennan then discussed Town Meeting acceptance of roads in Carriage Hill Phase I. He noted the warrant article states where the accepted portion of Carriage Hill Drive will end.
Mr. Ellis noted the tax collector indicated taxes are unpaid for certain parcels (Memorandum dated October 4, 2010 received from Treasurer/Collector) and must be paid before recommending. Mr. Dacey noted there were two parcels referenced in the memo and the taxes were paid on the parcel the bank owns. Board members and Attorney Brennan discussed who is responsible for payment of the remaining taxes owed and whether or not road acceptance can be held up for the taxes owed on a lot.
Mrs. Whalley stated she discussed the matter with Town Counsel and he advised that the statute was unclear whether or not the Planning Board can not recommend road acceptance due to nonpayment of taxes but the Town treasurer can recommend at Town Meeting not to accept a road because taxes are owed. She noted to avoid a no vote, the taxes could be paid.
Mr. Fountain moved to recommend acceptance for Phase I Carriage Hill Drive up to Station 14; second by Mr. Ellis; motion passed by unanimous vote (5).
Mr. Andrade advised the project review account for Carriage Hill Phase I has a deficit and needs additional $500. Mr. Dacey agreed to provide. Mr. Andrade noted the items in the Nitsch correspondence need to be done by Town Meeting.
Correspondence dated September 20, 2010, from Brams, Young & Levinson, Waltham, MA, re. Carriage Hill right-of-way issue was received. No action was taken.
7:46 p. m. McDonald's, Rte. 138, site plan, public hearing was reconvened. Alan Micale, P.E., Ayoub Engineering, was present along with Adam Guillmette of McDonald's Construction, traffic engineer Bob Michaud and applicant/operator Lou Provenzano. Mr. Micale informed the Board that the ZBA had approved variances for the new signs and ConsCom has approved the plan. He noted Jack Gillon met with Mass. Highway to discuss traffic signal timing. Copy of e-mail from Mr. Micale, dated October 5, 2010, re. the meeting with Mass DOT was received.
Mr. Micale discussed the proposed signage. He noted the existing corner sign at Carver Street is to be replaced with a larger, left directional, illuminated sign for better direction onto Carver Street. Mr. Ellis asked if a sign can be located somewhere on Broadway to better assist travelers. Mr. Micale agreed to discuss the signage with Building Commissioner Machado and report back to the Board.
There was discussion re. signage that might be used to correct the bad intersection and the no-left turn onto Broadway. Mr. Micale noted he is checking with ConsCom to see if trees can be trimmed to improve visibility. It was agreed that signs double the existing size with red backgrounds may improve visibility.
Bob Michaud spoke to the issue of drive-through business at the site from travelers off Route 495.
Mr. Gallagher suggested more angling on some of the parking spaces. It was agreed a stop sign will be located at the driveway at Carver Street.
Mr. Micale discussed traffic signal timing. He explained Mass Highway is reluctant to change signal timing because of the Town's concern that the signal stay as is today. He stated that support from the Town is needed to change the timing. Mr. Micale noted this could tie up the project because it could take some time.
Mr. Andrade noted he believed the light at the intersection may be programmed when the planned Wal-Mart lights are in. Mr. Andrade requested the police department and fire department see the revised plan with the proposed signage. He stated he is convinced this plan is better now.
Mr. Micale noted Mass Highway has not finalized plans for the signals and they will not entertain a new plan from McDonald's. He stated he is okay with police and fire seeing the revised plan but he is concerned with the plan being tied to the traffic signal. Mr. Andrade stated the Board would be okay with the plan if police and fire are okay with the signal issue. Mr. Micale noted Mr. Provenzano wants to see signal retiming but he does not want the plan held up. Mr. Ellis noted the revised plan is a tremendous improvement.
Mr. Micale noted waiver requests were submitted. Mr. Andrade noted the waivers would be okay if they improved the site.
Mr. Micale noted John Schmid was concerned with where delivery trucks and large vehicles would park. Mr. Micale explained that delivery trucks park in a coned-off area at off-peak hours under staff supervision. After discussion, the Board agreed to leave the truck parking as is.
Item No. 18 on Nitsch correspondence was discussed; agreed it is not related to parking spaces. Drainage was discussed. Mr. Gallagher noted soil testing is not needed and can be waived.
Mrs. Whalley asked if a sidewalk can be put where people cross the site. Mr. Micale said that would be difficult to fit in.
Mr. Micale agreed to draft a Certificate of Action. It was agreed a meeting will be scheduled with Mrs. Whalley, applicant and police and fire departments. It was agreed a directional arrow sign is a “must.”
The Board agreed their consensus without a vote is they liked the plan. Mr. Provenzano thanked the Board for their help on the plan. The public hearing was continued to October 21, 2010, 6:40 p. m.
8:28 p. m. - McDonald's, Rte. 44, site plan public hearing reconvened. Present were Alan Micale, P.E., Ayoub Engineering, along with Adam Guillmette, and Bob Michaud. Mr. Micale informed the Board there will be no addition to the building because it is cost prohibitive. He noted the traffic circulation on site has been improved. He explained that Mr. Michaud met with Mass Highway and it was determined the driveway can only be moved approximately 16 feet because of guardrail restrictions. Mr. Micale explained better signage for exit/entry at Route 44 is planned; the parking area will be restriped and the spaces widened.
Mr. Micale discussed the double drive-through lane with two menu boards. He noted the interior of the restaurant will be reconfigured and parking requirements will be met.
Mr. Michaud spoke about the double drive-through, explaining it could increase customer traffic.
Designated waiting area for drive-through customers was discussed. Mr. Micale showed an area on the plan where this could be designated.
Regarding the left turn out of the site, Mr. Micale stated there is better delineation and the exit area is narrowed. Mr. Michaud discussed the studies done for exiting the site. He noted the nearby traffic signals create a 6 to 10 second gap for cars exiting onto Route 44.
The Nitsch review letter was discussed. Mr. Fountain stated he was okay with the requested waivers. Mr. Micale advised he will submit request for waiver of the drainage study. He explained that impervious area is decreasing at the site; the ConsCon is okay with the plan; and, applicant will get Mass Highway approval for the proposed curb opening. The Board agreed the existing shed can be kept as part of this new site plan. (Mr. Ellis left at 8:50 p.m.).
Mr. Micale submitted an amended waiver request list. The Board agreed the consensus was that the plan was good. Mr. Micale agreed to draft a Certificate of Action for next meeting. The public hearing was continued to October 21, 6:45 p. m.
The 2000 McDonald's, Rte. 44, site plan was discussed. It was noted most issues are done. After discussion, Mr. Gallagher moved to inform the Building Commissioner that all issues with the 2000 McDonald’s Rte. 44 site plan are satisfactorily resolved, once the sump is cleaned out, and an occupancy permit may be issued; second Mr. Fountain; motion passed by unanimous vote (4).
8:58 p. m. - Town Planner update: Mrs. Whalley informed the Board she met with Town Counsel Marc Antine regarding the request to modify the age restriction at Berry Hill and he advised that Federal Fair Housing Act supersedes in the matter. She noted she and Town Counsel looked at the Berry Hill bonds and determined they were active, and Town Counsel approved of sending the Berry Hill Certificate of Action to the bond company's counsel as requested.
Mrs. Whalley stated Town Counsel recommended default of the project and calling in the bond. Mr. Fountain moved to do so; second by Mr. Gallagher for discussion.
Mr. Andrade noted the upcoming public hearing on the age restriction and questioned if the Board should wait. Discussion followed on whose responsibility it is to complete the project. It was noted the club house and pool are not included in the bond. Board members questioned why the bond was being called in for a private project. Mrs. Whalley suggested the Board could ask for Executive Session with Town Counsel.
Mr. Gallagher suggested the Board could stop releasing lots. After discussion, it was agreed Mr. Gallagher, Mrs. Whalley and Mr. Schmid will meet to discuss the site.
After discussion, the motion was withdrawn. The Board will ask Town Counsel for Executive Session.
Mrs. Whalley noted she is meeting with Bond Safeguard regarding King Estates on October 19th. She noted a letter was sent to homeowners in King Estates regarding Mr. Feoderoff and his responsibility in the subdivision.
Mrs. Whalley discussed the study done for the dog track property, noting the consultant suggested it may be time to the rezone the property. Mr. Fountain noted this is the only industrial property left in town. The Board agreed they were uncertain what to do with the zoning especially when the issue of slots is unknown.
The minutes of September 16, 2010 were received. Mr. Fountain moved to waive the reading and approve; second by Mr. Driscoll; unanimous vote to approve (4).
There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Christopher J. Gallagher, Clerk
| 
