The Raynham Planning Board held a regular meeting on Thursday, February 3, 2011, at Raynham Veterans' Memorial Town Hall.
Board members present: Daniel Andrade, Burke Fountain, Chris Gallagher, Russell Driscoll; Henry Ellis (at 6:25 p.m.)
Staff present: Marilyn Whalley, Town Planner; Maureen McKenney, Administrative Assistant; John Schmid, Nitsch Engineering
6:04 p.m. - Mr. Andrade opened the meeting.
6:05 p.m. - Central Dodge site plan – Correspondence dated January 24, 2011 was received from Edward Albert, General Manager, requesting release of the Central Dodge surety bond. Mr. Albert was present and stated the outstanding issues on the site plan are completed. Mrs. Whalley informed the Board she conducted a site visit and it went well. She submitted recent and past photos she took at the site. E-mail correspondence dated November 29, 2010 was received from John Schmid.
Mr. Fountain asked where the dealership is unloading their cars. Mr. Albert stated at the rear of the building. Mr. Fountain asked who is unloading at the Bernie & Phyl's parking area; Mr. Albert did not know.
Mr. Gallagher moved to release the remaining surety funds for Central Dodge; second by Mr. Driscoll; passed by unanimous vote (4-0).
6:08 p. m. - South Main Street/King Philip Street open-space subdivision plan was presented for endorsement. It was noted the Certificate of Action is now on the front page of the plan. Mr. Gallagher moved to endorse the plan entitled “Definitive Open Space Preservation Subdivision of Land in Raynham, Massachusetts, Prepared For King Philip Realty Trust,” revised date October 25, 2010; second by Mr. Driscoll; motion passed by unanimous vote (4-0). The plan was signed.
While the open-space plan was being signed, Mr. Andrade informed the Board he recently spoke with the Fire Chief about the width of subdivision roads and the fact that some of the privately-owned subdivisions that have narrower widths are not being plowed properly, which caused concern for emergency access. Mr. Andrade said he advised the Chief to talk to the Highway Superintendent and determine if funds are being held for a particular subdivision so the Town can do additional plowing if needed.
John Noblin, Raynham, MA, addressed the Board and explained he has an approved site plan for garages on King Philip Street and all but two of the garages are constructed. He plans to relocate the remaining two buildings elsewhere on site and the relocation will not impact traffic or access for emergency vehicles. He noted no blacktop will be changed. After discussion, the Board suggested Mr. Noblin file a request for a minor modification to his approved site plan and the Board will consider the request.
6:21 p.m. - Roger's Way Extension subdivision plan was presented for endorsement. Michael Rogers was present. Correspondence dated January 20, 2011 was received from Attorney David T. Gay. The Board informed Mr. Rogers that the Town Clerk was not able to sign the plan because the language in the signature block needs to be clarified due to a past appeal of the project. After discussion, it was agreed Mr. Fountain will work on new language for the signature block and the plan will be returned to Town Clerk. The matter was tabled to the next meeting. (6:25 p. m. - Mr. Ellis arrived)
6:26 p. m. - Berry Hill Adult Retirement Community (ARC) – Letter dated January 31, 2011 was received from Vincent N. Cragin, Esquire, requesting the Board go forward on the matter of the Berry Hill bonds that were called in by the Board. Mr. Andrade noted the Board had requested a letter from the bank involved in the project stating the bank agreed to cover the costs to complete the project that may be in excess of the bond amount before the Board would proceed further.
Mr. Fountain suggested discussing Attorney Cragin’s letter with Town Counsel before taking action. It was noted the bond has been called but letters to the insurance company informing them the bond has been called have not yet been sent. After discussion, it was agreed to consult with Town Counsel on the matter and to have the letters to the bond company ready for the next Board meeting.
Letter dated January 31, 2011 was received from Vincent N. Cragin, Esquire, requesting continuance of the Berry Hill ARC public hearing. Mr. Ellis moved to continue the public hearing on Berry Hill, at applicant's request, to March 17, 2011, 6:30 p.m.; second by Mr. Fountain; motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Gallagher abstaining due to his brother's involvement in the plan. The request to continue was signed.
6:33 p. m. - Wal-Mart, Route 138, site plan: Matt Smith, P.E., Bohler Engineering, presented a revised copy of the approved site plan. He noted the revised plan was reviewed by Nitsch Engineering as requested by the Board. Correspondence dated December 30, 2010 was received from Nitsch Engineering regarding review of the revised plan. Correspondence dated December 20, 2011, from Bohler Engineering to Nitsch Engineering was received.
Mr. Smith reviewed the revised plan for the Board, noting the largest modification is that the building size was reduced from 208,622 square feet to 192,729 square feet. He explained the building width is the same but the back of the store was reduced in size when the automotive area was eliminated. He noted the front parking area is similar to the original plan. He explained that double left-turn lanes into the site were added at the direction of Mass. DOT to maximize the green signal time on Broadway.
Mr. Smith discussed a cross access with the Lopes property has been added to the plan. He discussed the new driveway opening along the interior driveway that may be used by Lopes trucks as access/egress from their property to the Route 138 light at peak times. Mr. Andrade expressed concern that Lopes trucks could take left and right turns two at a time, one at the light and one from their direct access road. He stated he is not comfortable that is a minor modification to the plan. Mr. Schmid noted he has not looked at the Rte 138 signal plan as that is done by Mass. Highway.
Mr. Fountain noted the automotive section was cut from the store and asked if a grocery section was part of the plan. Mr. Smith said the grocery section is not being built at this time but is subject to further review.
Mr. Fountain asked if cars would be leaving the site by the driveway entrance near the store or the entrance closer to Route 138. Mr. Smith said people are inclined to exit near Route 138 in order to get away from the pedestrians crossing to and from the store.
Mr. Schmid cited the Wal-Mart 2005 Certificate of Action, page 4, Section a., Access, regarding the proposed dual access. He suggested providing a gate at the access point to limit use. Mr. Ellis noted this would discourage truck use. Mr. Schmid agreed. Mr. Andrade said he is concerned with the Lopes’ trucks having two access/egress options within 50 – 100 feet of each other because of the possibility of two large trucks accessing Rte. 138 at the same time.
Mr. Andrade noted the Board needs to decide if the proposed modification is minor. Mr. Smith stated applicant will find an answer to get a minor modification and will work with the Board.
Mr. Schmid noted the plan reduces impact, has less runoff and less potential for contamination. He noted that if the Lopes issue is of concern to the Board, a solution is needed. Mr. Fountain stated he would like all the trucks to exit at the Rte. 138 light but the Lopes property is not within the Board’s jurisdiction.
Mr. Gallagher said he thinks the plan is a minor modification. He noted a gate would not stay in place long so it would be a waste of money. Mr. Andrade stated the issue is more about the Lopes trucks not the Wal-Mart trucks accessing their site. Mr. Gallagher noted trucks have no trouble at the Paramount Drive site.
Mr. Andrade questioned if they could not allow the Lopes trucks to cross over and use the Wal-Mart access.
Mr. Smith stated that talking to Nitsch about the plan has worked well and there is still a lot of work to complete the plan. He asked if it was acceptable to the Board to start the full blown plans and continue to work with Nitsch and then return to the Board.
Mr. Gallagher moved to deem the Wal-Mart plan presented as a minor modification; second by Mr. Fountain; motion passed by unanimous vote. Mr. Schmid stated the traffic department at Nitsch can look at the plan.
7:05 p. m. - Performance Plus Dog Training site plan and special permit public hearing was opened. Mr. Gallagher read the hearing notice. Nyles Zager, P. E., Outback Engineering, Middleborough, MA, was present. Project review letter, dated February 3, 2011, was received from Nitsch Engineering.
Mr. Schmid informed the Board that fairly minor items and the waiver requests are what remain to be addressed. Mr. Zager submitted a revised plan (02/02/11) that addressed Nitsch's comments; John Schmid stated his February 3rd letter reflects the revised drawings.
Mr. Zager discussed the plan, noting that: a 10,625 sq. ft. building will be built on the vacant site; parking areas will be in the front and right side of building; the facility is for dog training and boarding; the parking was calculated based on retail use; the use requires 43 parking spaces and 38 are provided; parking needs will be for 30 customers maximum at one time.
Attorney William Rounds, Taunton, MA, addressed the Board as applicant’s representative. He explained there will be some overnight boarding on site on occasion and at those times staff will be present. Mr. Zager explained the site's focus is training and the dogs staying overnight are only those being trained. He noted the Building Commissioner determined that retail use should be used to calculate parking; the Board and Mr. Schmid agreed that was reasonable.
Mr. Zager discussed the pen area in the back that will be used for the dogs to exercise and relieve themselves. He noted the dogs will be trained indoors and will not be out for long periods of time. Attorney Rounds noted when the dogs are outside, they will be with staff. He explained the waste will be collected and taken off site by truck. He noted no state license is needed for the facility but a license from the Raynham Board of Health is needed. Mr. Schmid said he had asked Mr. Zager to talk to the Board of Health about the plan because he is not familiar with their requirements.
Mr. Ellis asked about the noise level of the dogs. Attorney Rounds explained the dogs will not be out in large groups and will be accompanied by staff. He noted the dogs are being trained not to bark inappropriately; he agreed that a condition on this issue could be part of a Certificate of Action if the plan is approved. Mr. Ellis asked about soundproofing the building interior. Mr. Zager noted an architect would need to address that issue. Attorney Rounds said they will work on it and get specifics for next meeting.
Mr. Gallagher questioned the issue of sewerage and discharge. Mr. Zager explained the concrete pads are covered and will not collect storm water. He noted a Notice of Intent will be filed with Conservation Commission. During discussion of the drainage, Mr. Zager noted the original subdivision was designed for maximum buildout. He discussed the basin and recharge. Mr. Gallagher agreed with Mr. Zager's points about the design. Mr. Zager noted only minimal surface water is being discharged to the ditch in the rear and most of the storm water flow is being directed towards the Commercial Street drainage system.
Mr. Zager stated two photometric plans are provided – one for building-mounted lights and one for less building lights with post lights provided, and applicant is amenable to what the Board prefers. Mr. Zager noted a waiver request is sought to not provide a landscape architect plan. He discussed the types and number of trees shown on the plan. Snow storage area was discussed; Mr. Zager noted it can be relocated if necessary.
John Schmid discussed the waiver requests: landscaping plan – six trees provided; scale of the plan is acceptable; two photometric plans provided and it is up to the Board to chose one but Nitsch favors the plan that impacts the abutters and roadway less; Nitsch has no problem with waiver from traffic impact study; the landscaping strip around the building is not provided and the Board should consider the look of the building. He suggested a landscaping strip would improve aesthetics. It was noted the site is zoned industrial.
Mr. Schmid suggested an earthen berm at the rear be provided to mitigate the potential of waste flowing towards the wetlands. He noted the fencing will be chain link with slats; no loading dock will be provided; there will be a 32 ft. x 13 ft. product retail area; and, there will be precast concrete curbs abutting the sidewalk, monolithic bituminous in the parking lot and granite at the roundings. Mr. Schmid had no issue with the separation between driveways. He discussed the parking count.
Mr. Schmid noted the reduced amount of granite curbing will cost less to construct, and the Board has considered it in the past. He noted granite is provided at the roundings as required, and he is okay with the curbing.
Mr. Fountain asked if a loading dock can be put in later if needed for a new tenant; Mr. Zager answered yes. Board members discussed the 7.5 feet compact parking spaces. They agreed they would like full size parking spaces even if one space is lost. The need for bollards was discussed. It was agreed the plan should provide aesthetically pleasing bollards between the parking spaces for protection at the front of the building.
It was noted that soil tests were done but not witnessed by Nitsch; Mr. Schmid requested additional tests so he can witness them, and he requested monitoring wells be used in the future if tests were done without witnesses. Mr. Schmid questioned what the status of the BOH, ConCom, police and fire on the plan.
Mr. Fountain asked about the width of the aisle; Mr. Zager said it was standard 24 foot aisle.
Attorney Edmund Brennan, Taunton, MA, addressed the Board as representative for several abutters to the site. He explained the abutters recognize the use is allowed by zoning but they ask the Board to consider the noise potential and the dog waste handling. He noted the Piche house is closest to the site and the outdoor dog area, and before the next meeting it will be determined exactly how close the Piche house is to the property line. Attorney Brennan noted it appears to be a 24/7 operation and although the zoning allows the use, it does not give a blank check to applicant. He asked the Board to consider traffic to be generated, parking, drainage and to give consideration to a sound barrier between the site and the abutters' homes.
Attorney Brennan read from the application filed with the Board of Health, which indicated the hours will be 7 a. m. to 9 p. m., seven days a week. He stated the use will be relatively intense and he asked the Board to consider that when attaching possible conditions. Attorney Brennan read from the kennel license application regarding the average number of dogs that could be on site and staying overnight and asked the Board to consider the potential impact to the neighbors.
Bill Piche, Richmond Street, addressed the Board. He stated he likes dogs but is concerned with the project being in his backyard 24 hours a day.
Attorney Brennan noted the concerns are more about sound than visual as well as concern with a possible 24/7 operation. He agreed to draft a list of the abutters' concerns and present to the Board. Mr. Fountain asked Attorney Brennan if he thought the Board could say no to the project. Attorney Brennan explained that language in Section 5.6 of the zoning by-laws and in the site plan regs could possibly give the Board authority to say no. Mr. Fountain noted any business creates some noise and pollution and the Board cannot say no but they can put restrictions on a plan. He noted he is concerned more than 38 parking spaces might be needed.
Mr. Andrade stated he was concerned that what applicant states in their kennel license application was not what the Board heard tonight. Attorney Rounds explained that in the kennel license application, the absolute maximum was applied for but that was unlikely to happen. Mr. Andrade noted the business could change in the future and asked if applicant was willing to put restrictions on the number of dogs allowed. Attorney Rounds said they are okay with proposing restrictions that applicant can abide by.
Mr. Ellis asked if there is a similar business in the area the Board can visit. Attorney Rounds said this business now operates in a smaller facility on Lord Alfred Boulevard in Taunton without the overnight visits.
Mr. Gallagher noted the dogs will not be tied up outside but will be out with staff to exercise and for bathroom breaks and the training will be done inside.
Mr. Andrade suggested the applicant put together additional information on the business and a list of conditions that would be acceptable; Attorney Rounds agreed. Attorney Rounds then explained that, according to applicant, Ms. Droukis, the dogs are leashed going to and from the building and in the exercise/break area they are attended but not leashed.
Mr. Ellis questioned if 10 dogs outside would not be barking, creating a noise problem; Attorney Rounds agreed to consider that and include it in the information to be provided.
Board members agreed the parking will have to be further addressed. They questioned if more parking spaces could be provided so special permit may not be needed and advised applicant to provide more information. Mr. Andrade noted noise issues are always a concern with abutting residential properties. Mr. Fountain noted inside noise could be okay but applicant needs to prove there will not be outside noise.
Mr. Schmid noted that concerns have been expressed and it is up to the applicant to address them.
The interior layout of the building was discussed. Mr. Ellis questioned if interior soundproofing is needed.
After discussion, the public hearing was continued to February 17, 2011, 6:15 p. m.
8:25 p. m. - Mastria/Campbell Court (Ramson Woods) public hearing was reconvened. Attorney Matthew Costa, Taunton, MA, was present along with Paul Patneaude, P.E., and Rick Mastria. Project review letter dated December 2, 2010 was received from Nitsch Engineering.
Mr. Andrade noted the Board had previously requested the applicant research the issue of right of access over a private way (Campbell Court). Attorney Costa informed that applicant has negotiated an easement allowing the three lots access over Campbell Court and out to Pleasant Street. The easement has been agreed upon but not yet recorded. It was agreed that proof of right to access could be a condition if the plan is approved.
Mr. Patneaude presented a revised plan that addressed Nitsch’s comments. He noted Nitsch reviewed the plan initially but has not yet seen the revised plan. Mr. Patneaude noted the radii were added and test pits done.
Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Ellis both stated they had issue with the third lot because the plan could not be built without waivers and adding a third lot is too much. Mr. Gallagher noted Nitsch’s review letter states that if a drainage parcel is created, the plan would be reduced to two lots. Mr. Ellis noted the point is that no “retreat” lot is allowed if waivers are needed and this plan needs waivers. The Board agreed that the issue of access over Campbell Court has been addressed but the issue is now whether to allow two lots or three lots.
The turnaround was discussed. Mr. Patneuade noted it has been moved from its original location and both police and fire have reviewed it and have no issues.
Mr. Patneaude noted there was no drainage to be done on the project and the Board had suggested that an area be delineated for conceptual purposes. Mr. Patneaude noted the Board had suggested the curbing along the property line radii would not be necessary because there road is more like a driveway. Mr. Gallagher stated the thought was that if the plan can be built conventionally, then waivers would be considered but waivers are being requested because the plan cannot be built conventionally.
Mr. Andrade noted the waivers are generally looked at after the review and if the plan has been shown it can be built. Mr. Ellis stated the point is that retreat lots are not allowed if an applicant has to get any waivers to allow a lot of any type. He noted the plan definitely has at least three waivers needed.
Board members agreed the issue of access is resolved and the issue now is whether to allow two or three lots.
It was noted the test pits were not witnessed by Nitsch. Mr. Gallagher noted the soil is good; Mr. Patneaude agreed.
Mr. Fountain stated he wants the Board to get specific on what they will or will not entertain before applicants spend money on a plan. Mr. Andrade noted that since the first meeting it was said that if a plan can be done by right without waivers, waivers could come after that. He noted there is no separate drainage lot, the radii requirement cannot be met and the cul-de-sac is not the right size so the plan cannot be done by right.
It was noted the plan is preliminary and action is not needed but will be helpful towards letting applicant know whether or not to proceed with the plan. Mr. Andrade asked applicant if he wanted to withdraw the plan.
Mr. Patneaude asked if the radii at the property line would be acceptable if done by a designated easement for roadway purposes as opposed to a property line. Mr. Gallagher noted that would be a waiver; Mr. Andrade agreed.
The size of the cul-de-sac was discussed. Mr. Patneaude noted he copied the cul-de-sac radii used on a project on Elm Street East that was approved. Mr. Patneaude noted a cul-de-sac provides for adequate turning and the size of this cul-de-sac is the same as the previous project which has a larger land area.
Mr. Andrade asked if applicant wanted to withdraw the plan and resubmit as two Form A lots or get direction from the Board. It was agreed to vote on the plan. Mr. Gallagher moved to deny Ramson Woods preliminary plan as a three-lot subdivision; second by Mr. Ellis; motion to deny passed by unanimous vote (5-0).
General Business: Mr. Ellis suggested the Board members read the Wal-Mart Certificate of Action in advance of next meeting with Wal-Mart. Board members agreed.
Attorney Timothy J. Reppucci, Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP, was present and requested a copy of the Wal-Mart COA and any other information provided to the Board tonight. He was given a copy of the COA. Mr. Gallagher asked for a contact person so he can discuss Sewer Department issues on another matter. Attorney agreed to provide Mr. Gallagher with a contact name.
Minutes of January 20, 2011 were received. Mr. Fountain moved to waive the reading and approve as submitted; second by Mr. Gallagher; motion passed by unanimous vote (5-0).
General Business: Carriage Hill Estates, Phase I – Letter, dated January 5, 2011, was received from Brams, Young & Levinson, Waltham, MA, requesting release of Norwood Cooperative Bank from the Carriage Hill, Phase I, tripartite agreement. Project Cost Estimate, dated February 1, 2011, was received from Nitsch Engineering. Mrs. Whalley explained that Town Counsel advised a tripartite agreement cannot be used for surety if only two parties are involved. The Board discussed holding back the amount suggested by Nitsch Engineering for the remaining items in Phase I, including the trees.
After discussion, Mr. Ellis moved that upon receipt of the amount of $40,576, as reflected in Nitsch correspondence dated February 1, 2011, to be provided by cash or other performance security allowed by law and approved by Town Counsel, the Board will release the tripartite agreement; second by Mr. Fountain; motion passed by unanimous vote.
Town Planner update: Mrs. Whalley told the Board she talked to Safety Insurance Company regarding the King Estates bonds and they informed her they have not sent the project out to bid yet. She noted Nitsch Engineering has sent Safety the information they requested. No action was taken by the Board.
There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 8:53 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Christopher J. Gallagher, Clerk
| 
