The Raynham Planning Board held a regular meeting on Thursday, February 17, 2011, at Raynham Veterans' Memorial Town Hall. Mr. Andrade opened the meeting at 6:05 p. m.
Board members present: Daniel Andrade, Burke Fountain, Chris Gallagher, Henry Ellis, Russell Driscoll
Staff present: Marilyn Whalley, Town Planner; Maureen McKenney, Administrative Assistant; John Schmid, Nitsch Engineering
6:05 p.m. - Roger's Way Extension subdivision plan was presented for endorsement. Revisions to the Town Clerk's signature block were made and plan was signed by Town Clerk. Mr. Gallagher moved to endorse plan entitled “Roger's Way Extension A Definitive Subdivision in Raynham Massachusetts Surveyed for Mill Pond Realty Trust,” dated October 2, 2009, revised through January 27, 2011; second by Mr. Fountain; unanimous vote to approve. The plan was signed.
6:16 p. m. - Invoices were signed. It was noted the Wal-Mart, Route 138, site plan project review account is depleted and in need of funds. The Board agreed to contact Nitsch Engineering for cost estimate of future reviews and then request sufficient funds from applicant to replenish the account and pay outstanding invoices.
6:17 p. m. - Charles Foran, C.H. Babb Co., appeared before the Board with a proposed site plan for a 15,000 square foot addition to the C.H. Babb manufacturing facility on Paramount Drive. Mr. Foran presented informational brochures on the business. He explained a special permit for reduction in parking spaces will be needed for the new plan; a special permit for parking reduction was granted for the original site plan and that parking has been sufficient. Mr. Foran explained additional parking spaces will be added for the new plan but the total required number of parking spaces will not provided. He noted that except for the reduced parking, the site meets or exceeds zoning requirements. Board members agreed they had no major problems with the proposal and would consider the site plan in full
when presented. No action was taken.
6:25 p. m. - Form A Carlton Street: Larry Silva, P. E., Silva Engineering, Bridgewater, MA, presented a proposed Form A plan for land on Carlton Street owned by Joanne Spengler, Trustee, Sandy Hill Nominee Trust. Proper application fee and paperwork were submitted. Mr. Silva explained that Carlton Street is located at the end of Raymond Ave, off South Street East.
Mr. Gallagher said the Board cannot endorse the plan because Carlton Street exists on paper only and is not constructed; he believes subdivision control is needed for the plan. He noted a buildable lot must have frontage on a public way and Carlton Street is not a public way. He noted applicant can propose upgrades to the road.
Mr. Fountain read section 2. C, from the Form A application, noting the plan may meet the standard described, and applicant has provided a recorded plan to back it up. Mr. Gallagher stated the plan does not provide adequate access to the lots. Mr. Fountain noted the Board has 21 days to act on the plan so they need not take action tonight. Mr. Silva agreed to grant an extension of the Board’s time-to-act.
Mr. Silva explained that the existing roadway is flat and gravel based and applicant may consider further improvements. He submitted a copy of the Tearall Road Form A plan that he previously prepared and the Board had approved. He noted the similarities between the plans.
After discussion, it was agreed to contact the Building Commissioner/Zoning Enforcement Officer for his input on the plan. It was also agreed to contact Nitsch Engineering to get an estimate on a site visit. After discussion, Mr. Silva provided extension of the Board's time-to-act to March 24, 2011. The matter was continued to March 3, 2011, 6:10 p. m.
6:53 p. m. - Performance Plus Dog Training site plan public hearing was reconvened. Nyles Zager, P. E., Outback Engineering, Lakeville, MA, and Attorney William Rounds, Taunton, MA, were present on behalf of applicant, Nancy Droukis, also present. Project review correspondence, dated February 3, 2011, was received from Nitsch Engineering. Copy of e-mail correspondence from John Schmid, dated February 17, 2011, was received.
Attorney Rounds briefly explained the plan, noting the site is the last lot on Commercial Street and applicant currently operates the business in Taunton. He noted the use is allowed and the Board will be approving the site plan and hopefully with reasonable conditions to mitigate impact to neighbors. He distributed brochures to the Board that explained applicant's business in detail. Attorney Rounds explained the applicant applied for a kennel license based on the number of dogs on site during the day instead of the number of dogs staying overnight and she guessed high on the estimate. He noted the license has been tabled by the Board of Selectmen and applicant will amend the application with the proper number of dogs.
Attorney Rounds reviewed the brochure for the Board. He noted previous statements that the business would be happening 24/7/365 days is not accurate as only dogs in training will be staying overnight at times and dogs are not left by owners for vacations. He noted that the maximum number of dogs will be determined by the licensing authority but the facility is designed for 15 overnight dogs.
Mr. Ellis questioned the parking availability; Attorney Rounds stated the parking requirements have been met and no relief is needed. He explained that the activities on site are staggered. It was noted the site shuts at 9 p.m. if there are no overnight guests.
Nyles Zager, P.E., reviewed the revised plan. He noted a 10-foot high fence is shown to mitigate sound but there is the possibility the sound could echo off the fence. Mr. Fountain noted a sound-absorbing material is needed. Mr. Zager stated there is natural vegetation to help buffer sound for the nearest neighbor who is 300 to 500 feet away. He suggested arbor vitaes be provided. Mr. Fountain stated applicant needs advice from someone who knows about sound issues.
Attorney Rounds noted applicant appreciates the neighbors' sensitivities but the site is zoned business.
Waiver requests were discussed: Section 4.7, plan stamped by landscape architect – applicant requests waiver from the architect’s stamp, not requesting a waiver from species or size of plantings; Section 4.14, applicant requests waiver to allow scale of 1 inch = 30 feet.
Sec. 4.22 - Noted waiver from photometric plan requirements not needed – a photometric plan is provided. Mr. Fountain questioned if light from the Munro site affects the neighbors. Neighbors in attendance stated yes; Mr. Fountain stated the Board needs to discuss further; Section 4.22 – traffic study has been done
Section 5.1.2 – 3-foot wide landscaping strip around the wall is not provided. Mr. Zager noted applicant is concerned the dogs may destroy the landscape strip. He explained the planter bollards previously discussed are cost prohibitive but applicant may be willing to raise the foundation 30 inches as an alternative to bollards, and that along with the wheel stops and 6-inch vertical curbing will be sufficient. The Board noted their concern is cars accelerating into buildings. Mr. Ellis noted the additional foundation was sufficient for the building but may not be for pedestrians. He noted the issue needs to be addressed.
Section 5.3 – waiver from requirement of 25-foot undisturbed buffer from wetland resource area; Mr. Gallagher noted it is not the Board’s jurisdiction; Section 5.3.22 – waiver from 30-foot buffer zone of existing vegetation between point source discharge of stormwater and wetlands; waiver requested from requirement that no drainage outfall be discharged at an elevation below high water line of wetland, recharge area.
Section 5.4 – waiver from requirement prohibiting parking between building and street layout; Mr. Andrade noted the Board has voiced their concern on that issue and advised applicant to find a satisfactory solution to protect the walkway being shown on the plan.
Section 5.6.2 – waiver from requirement that curbing shall not be bituminous concrete; applicant proposes concrete curb along sidewalk at the building and monolithic bituminous concrete berm elsewhere. Mr. Fountain there will be a lot of unfamiliar traffic in and out of the site, which is a concern.
Waiver from requirement of underground utilities was discussed. It was noted there are overhead poles on the street. Mr. Andrade noted the Board prefers underground utilities. Applicant will decide if utilities will be underground or above ground and advise the Board.
Waiver from requirement to provide bollards; previously discussed.
Waiver from requirement of separation distance between access connections. Mr. Zager noted entrance to Munro is 60 to 90 feet away and applicant does not meet requirement but feels it is not an issue.
Mr. Zager noted the parking waivers may no longer be needed.
Mr. Andrade noted applicant must resolve the issue of parking in front of the building.
Board members agreed they need clarification on the kennel license application from the Board of Health so the Planning Board’s approval does not conflict. Attorney Rounds noted applicant’s kennel license application was returned to her and will not be acted upon until the site is approved. Clarification will be sought on the matter.
Mr. Gallagher stated he saw no big problem, noting most of the dogs will be inside the building. He noted his issues are with the bollards; and, he wants a detail of the relief area enclosure. Mr. Fountain stated he was ok with the indoor use but the problem is the noise from the outdoor use. Mr. Ellis agreed with Mr. Fountain regarding the outdoor exercise area and noise.
Mr. Andrade questioned whether the proposed fencing will make the matter better or worse. He noted arbor vitaes are usually provided for visual screening not for noise screening. He noted parking is no longer an issue.
Mr. Fountain noted the Board needs to discuss lighting. He noted the plan sounds professional but no one can know for certain about the noise. Attorney Rounds stated Ms. Droukis knows noise will not be an issue.
Nancy Droukis addressed the Board. She explained the dogs are outside in groups of 8 to 10 with a trainer, and they will go inside if they bark and do not stop when told. She stated her business is not a kennel or a warehouse for doggie daycare but rather the dogs are being trained for good behavior. She said the dogs will play but there will be no nuisance barking and the site will make no more noise than a child daycare.
Ms. Droukis stated the fence will make the noise echo whereas the sound will dissipate as it goes into the nearby woods. Attorney Rounds agreed the natural vegetation is the best sound barrier. Mr. Fountain advised applicant to get a sound engineer to test the matter; Attorney Rounds agreed to do. Mr. Andrade noted he does not want the fence if it will make the sound worse. Mr. Andrade noted the remaining issues are the noise, bollards for the front parking spots and Mr. Gallagher’s request for overhead coverage for the dog relief area.
Attorney Rounds submitted a list of proposed conditions of approval for the Board to consider.
Attorney Edmund Brennan, Taunton, MA, appeared before the Board as representative for the Piche, McKinnon and Peabody families. He asked why a license is needed if the facility is not a kennel and he stated a concern is the business being a 24/7 operation. Attorney Rounds stated that a license would not be needed if not for the dog’s overnight stays, and the number allowed by the license will be tied to the number of dogs allowed to stay overnight. It was noted the plan now is capped to allow 15 dogs overnight.
Attorney Brennan noted this business is different in scope and intensity than applicant's Taunton business; he cited a January 14, 2011 letter to Alan Perry, BOH agent, noting the letter lays out applicant's planned operations on site. Attorney Brennan questioned what a special event is. Ms. Droukais explained special events are practice competitions that are held in 30-dog increments with an ebb and flow of people, and the events are tailored for the dogs in training. She stated there could be up to 40 cars at the events but it is hard to know for sure. She noted she does not run out of parking at her current site and the only problem is when it snows.
Attorney Brennan suggested conditions of approval could be no outside training allowed, no illumination onto other sites, no shows on site, site closed on Sunday and close at 7 p. m. Saturday. Attorney Brennan stated he recognizes the site is commercial and the use is allowed but the Board does have authority to consider conditions. He noted a big issue is noise from the dogs. Attorney Brennan noted the Conservation Commission has concerns with the proximity of the outside exercise area to the wetland line. He stated the sound is of great concern to his clients. He questioned how the overnight dog visits being limited to dogs in training could be enforced.
Attorney Rounds reviewed the list of proposed conditions he submitted earlier. Mr. Fountain asked if it would be a problem if the business is closed on Sundays. Attorney Rounds stated yes, because evenings and weekends are busy times.
Ms. Whalley suggested the applicant check on soundproofing insulation. Mr. Andrade suggested applicant talk with the Building Commissioner, and Attorney Rounds agreed to do that.
William Piche, 139 Richmond Street, addressed the Board. He stated he is concerned with noise from dogs staying overnight, and he wants to live in peace and quiet. He submitted to the Board photos of surrounding wetlands and wildlife. Mr. Piche thanked the Board for settling the Munro site plan issue.
Attorney Brennan asked for clarification of conditions No. 3 and No. 6 on the list submitted by Attorney Rounds. Attorney Rounds noted group classes have up to 10 dogs being trained by an instructor and the day classes are one on one with dog and trainer.
Attorney Rounds noted the issue of most concern is the noise and applicant will be consulting with Building Commissioner. After discussion, the Board agreed they could reserve the right for additional review of the plan in case future problems arise.
Applicant agreed to consider locating the outdoor exercise area in the front of the building away from the residential area. Mr. Zager explained the wetlands limit the location of the building and exercise area, and applicant is most comfortable with the plan. The Board suggested applicant consult a sound engineer on the noise issue.
The public hearing was continued to March 17, 2011, 6:45 p. m.
8:35 p. m – Ramson Woods – Paul Patneaude, P. E., Taunton, MA, presented a revised plan for Ramson Woods, located off Campbell Court. Project review correspondence, dated February 16, 2011, was received from Nitsch Engineering. Mr. Patneaude noted the preliminary plan for Ramson Woods was recently denied by the Board. He explained changes were made to the plan in the hopes it will better meet regulations. He noted applicant has obtained additional land and the proposed “retreat lot” has been increased to 3.1 acres, and the radii at the cul-de-sac and Campbell Court meet requirements.
Mr. Gallagher noted the 3-acre retreat lot is more in line with what the Board wants. Mr. Ellis asked if variances would be needed for the plan. Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Patneaude discussed the radii. It was agreed the plan now conforms to the zoning setback requirement for a building square on each lot. Mr. Fountain stated the plan looks better now. Mr. Driscoll agreed.
Mr. Patneaude discussed the drainage parcel, noting it serves no purpose. Mr. Gallagher noted the parcel is shown as a “by-right” requirement; Mr. Andrade agreed. Mr. Patneaude noted Nitsch Engineering has cited the need for a drainage report but he feels there is no need for one. Mr. Fountain noted the water table is down ten feet and the soil is sandy.
Mr. Ellis noted waiver requests would be considered only after it is determined no variances are needed for the plan. Board members discussed that a surety bond would be needed for the lots on Campbell Court. It was noted an access easement over Campbell Court is being worked out.
Mr. Ellis noted he was confused with the Nitsch review report, which he found critical, and asked who paid for the report. It was noted there are funds remaining in applicant's project review account. Mr. Ellis expressed concern because an official filing was not made before the plan was sent to Nitsch for review.
No action was taken by the Board on the plan. After discussion, it was agreed that even though the preliminary plan was denied by the Board, the definitive plan can be submitted.
Robert Mastria asked the Board why the earlier plan was denied. Mr. Andrade explained it was because of the size of the back lot, which now is shown having more acreage.
Town Planner update: Mrs. Whalley asked if a Certificate of Action (COA) is needed for the recent minor modification to the Wal-Mart, Route 138, site plan. Board members agreed a COA should be prepared for next meeting; it was noted there were no conditions with the minor modification.
Mrs. Whalley noted John Schmid and Roger Stolte have sent their comments on Kings Estate to the bond insurance company as requested, and she is hoping the work bids will be sent out next week.
Mrs. Whalley noted she attended a FEMA workshop that was held as part of Bristol County Risk Assessment. She noted a mitigation plan may need to be approved by the Town.
Berry Hill Certificate of Action for minor modification to the approved subdivision plan was presented. Mr. Gallagher noted he is abstaining from the matter. Mrs. Whalley suggested the Board could approve it now or on March 17. Mr. Ellis moved to approve the Certificate of Action for Berry Hill Adult Retirement Community, dated February 14, 2011; second by Mr. Fountain; motion passed four in favor; Chris Gallagher abstained.
General Business: Letters to Safeguard Insurance Company calling in the Berry Hill ARC surety bonds were presented. Mrs. Whalley noted the letters were approved by the Board and Town Counsel. Mr. Andrade signed the letters.
Mrs. Whalley noted there is a CHAPPA workshop on March 19th if Board members are interested.
Minutes of February 3, 2011 were received. Mr. Fountain moved to waive the reading and to approve the minutes as submitted; second by Mr. Ellis; motion passed by unanimous vote (5).
Letter dated February 10, 2011 was received from McMahon Transportation Engineers & Planners, regarding proposed Wal Mart, Rte. 138, site driveway. No action was taken.
There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at approximately 9 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Christopher J. Gallagher, Clerk
| 
