The Raynham Planning Board held~its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, October 1, 2015, at Raynham Veterans' Memorial Town Hall. The meeting was opened at 6:09 p.m. by Chairman Andrade.
Board members present:~ Daniel Andrade, Burke Fountain, Russell Driscoll, John Teixeira
Board members not present:~ Christopher Gallagher
Staff present: John Charbonneau, Town Planner; Maureen McKenney, Administrative Assistant
6:09 p.m. – Doe Run subdivision: the public hearing was reconvened.~~Frank Gallagher, P.E., was present along with applicants Marie Smith and Carol Sullivan.~ Also present was Richard Smith.~ Review correspondence dated October 1, 2015, was received from Nitsch Engineering.
Mr. Andrade discussed that there were still a number of outstanding items listed in the letter from Steve Ventresca, P.E., of Nitsch.~ He also noted the plan was still before ConCom.~ He asked Mr. Gallagher why the requested calcs were not provided to Nitsch as noted in comment No. 16.~ Mr. Gallagher explained that he did provide the pre- and post–calcs in his September 1st~response to Nitsch.~ He stated this is the second time Nitsch has asked for the calcs that were already provided.~ Mr. Andrade apologized that that he did not ask Nitsch to attend the meeting to clear up the matter. ~
Mr. Andrade noted that Nitsch had a comment the fencing around the basins but the Board’s regs do not have a standard fencing detail.~~~
Mr. Gallagher discussed that through the review process there was a change, which he showed in his September 1st~response letter, related to the storm water volume mitigation/infiltration system and the infiltration credit, and he assumes Mr. Ventresca did not see the change.~ He explained he doesn’t understand Mr. Ventresca’s comment because the process has evolved and he is now providing infiltration.~~ He stated the infiltration credit issue is not specified in the Planning Board regs.
Mr. Andrade noted the Nitsch comment that a Form M listing any ConCom project comments should be included for review.~ Mr. Gallagher noted that is a DEP and Con Com issue not a Planning Board issue.~ Mr. Andrade asked if Mr. Gallagher was saying this is not an issue; Mr. Gallagher stated ‘correct.’
Mr. Andrade read comment No. 17 regarding rate and volume of runoff.~ Mr. Gallagher stated the review engineer either does not see the information or understand it, and he has no choice now but to address the Board.~ Mr. Andrade noted he is not an engineer.~ Mr. Gallagher questioned what he should do if the consultant refuses to acknowledge the information provided to him.~ He also noted Mr. Ventresca had mentioned a possible condition the Board could impose to help clear up this concern but Mr. Ventresca did not mention the condition in his letter.~
Mr. Andrade read comment No. 18, which related to the drainage calculations.~ Mr. Andrade said he did not know why there were still questions at this stage of the process.~ Mr. Gallagher said he addressed the issue and asked what to do.
Richard Smith addressed the Board and asked when the Board can take something out of an engineer’s hands.~ Mr. Andrade stated the Board generally does not determine drainage calculation issues on their own but relies on their consultant, and it is confusing that both engineers are not agreeing.~ He noted the Board can determine some issues, such as waivers, without input from Nitsch but that is not the case with drainage matters.
Mr. Gallagher pointed out that the July 31st Nitsch letter and the October 1st Nitsch letter have the exact same comments.~ He discussed that he responded to the July 31st letter on September 1st but he feels his comments were ignored.
Mr. Charbonneau stated he thought everything would be okay after talking with Mr. Ventresca today.~ He noted a common thread in the comments is that additional information needs to be provided to Mr. Ventresca.~ Mr. Gallagher noted comment No. 16 m. encapsulated what Mr. Ventresca said by phone today.~ Mr. Gallagher discussed the methodology he used for storm water calculations, specifically relating to TR 55.~ He disagreed with Mr. Ventresca using only impervious lot surface and not roadway surface, and he felt that was asking the applicant to mitigate more than the applicant is bound to.
Mr. Andrade noted this is not the first Raynham subdivision for Nitsch but the bottom line is there are still issues to work out.~ He stated the Board cannot vote and override Nitsch’s opinion on the issue at hand.~ He suggested the applicant satisfy Nitsch’s concerns or the Board would have Mr. Ventresca attend a meeting.~
Mr. Smith asked why the Nitsch letter was dated today.~ Mr. Charbonneau stated it took a while to hear back from Nitsch.~~~~~ ~
Mr. Gallagher stated that if the Board is willing to accept a condition of approval, he is willing to work with Steve Ventresca on the matter.~ Mr. Fountain was not agreeable to that because changes to the plan could be needed.~ It was noted that if the public hearing closed, new information and testimony could not be taken by the Board.~ Mr. Gallagher stated he has been a P.E. for many years and knows that everyone’s concerns have to be satisfied.~
Mr. Andrade apologized that he did not know about the issue before now and is embarrassed by the situation, and if he had known he would have asked Mr. Ventresca to be present tonight.~ He noted Gallagher Engineering has satisfied Nitsch’s concerns before and asked why that is not the case now.~~ He requested there be a meeting before the next public hearing to work out the problem.~ Richard Smith requested that it be done in a timely manner; Mr. Andrade stated it will be.
After discussion it was agreed there will be a meeting Monday, October~5th, at 4 p.m., with both engineers and the town planner present to discuss the items of concern.~ Mr. Teixeira said he will attend the meeting but it was agreed there will not be a Board quorum present.~ The public hearing was continued to October 15th~at 6:05 p.m.
7:00 p.m. – Amendments to Raynham Subdivision Rules and Regulations:~ the public hearing was opened.~ Mr. Driscoll read the hearing notice.~ It was noted that the Board had discussed the proposed amendments at a previous meeting.~ No one present had any comments. Mr. Andrade moved to approve the amendments as presented; second by Mr. Fountain.~ Motion passed unanimously (4-0-0).
7:03 p.m. – Town Planner update:
- Memo dated September 28, 2015, was received from Mr. Charbonneau regarding the fact that the developer at Partridge Lane, Whippoorwill Estates, proceeded with application of the base road pavement without the necessary review and inspection by Nitsch Engineering.~ Mr. Charbonneau’s memo outlined recommendations from Steve Ventresca of Nitsch and Highway Superintendent Ed Buckley on how to proceed considering inspection and review were not done.~
Mr. Andrade asked if Nitsch, the highway superintendent or the town~planner were present when the base was put down.~ Mr. Charbonneau explained that Mr. Ventresca wanted to see the base being put down and then be present when the paving was put down but both courses were done without Nitsch present.~~Mr. Andrade asked if Nitsch is delaying engineers.~ Mr. Charbonneau stated he was not sure this is the case but rather it was a matter of Tibbetts Engineering not getting the compaction tests out to all.
There was discussion on the recommendations from Mr. Ventresca and Mr. Buckley as outlined in the memo.~ Mr. Andrade stated that making an applicant spend $1,000 for testing is not necessary because they know the base is good.~ He stated the Board is not looking for more than usual but if it is found that pavement needs to be redone, it will be. Mr. Charbonneau will follow up on the matter.~
- Discussion on a schedule for Rte. 138 zoning was tabled.~ It will be determined how busy the Board’s December meeting may be before deciding how to schedule the rezoning discussion.
- Shell Station/442 New State Highway:~ the approved site plan is ready for signature and will be signed tonight.~ Also, the Mass DOT permit for the site is done.
- Estate lot by-law:~ Mr. Charbonneau submitted a draft by-law for estate lots.~ He noted the Building Commissioner suggested that wording be added that single-family uses be allowed in districts that allow single family uses. Also included in the by-law is wording that deed restrictions should be required for an estate lot; there should be 50 ft. minimum frontage on an approved way only; access must be from legal frontage; and, access area should be counted as part of the overall lot area.
It was noted the by-law is being designed with residential districts in mind, and the lot area should be kept at minimum of 80,000 sq. ft. for all districts except that five acres will be required for Farm and Forest.~
Mr. Fountain asked Mr. Charbonneau to research whether or not in-law apartments can be allowed on estate lots.~ He noted in-law apartments are a matter for the ZBA and the Board is not looking to prohibit. Mr. Andrade suggested that wording on upland should be consistent with upland use now.~ Mr. Charbonneau will revise the draft by-law.~
- Permitting Guide: Mr. Charbonneau explained he sent the draft document to Town departments for their comments and suggestions for any changes that may be needed.~~~
It was noted the next regular Board meeting will be October 15th~and the Doe Run review meeting will be Monday at 4 p.m. with no Board quorum present.
There was no further business, and the meeting adjourned at approximately 7:30 p.m.~
Russell Driscoll, Clerk