Skip Navigation
Photos of Raynham
Raynham, Massachusetts.  Incorporated 1731

This table is used for column layout.


UniPay Online Payment Center


Raynham Town Seal
 
Planning Board minutes October 15, 2015
The Raynham Planning Board held~its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,~October 15, 2015, at Raynham Veterans' Memorial Town Hall.~ The meeting was opened at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Burke Fountain.

Board members present:~ Burke Fountain, Russell Driscoll, John Teixeira

Board members not present:~ Daniel Andrade, Christopher Gallagher

Staff present:~ John Charbonneau, Town Planner; Maureen McKenney, Administrative Assistant

6:00 p.m. – Public hearing for zoning amendment was opened.~ Mr. Driscoll read the hearing notice.~ The proposed amendment, which was submitted by the Building Commissioner, proposes changes to the temporary sign by-law.~ The proposed by-law changes will clarify the definition of a temporary sign; will increase the maximum square footage of a sign from 6 sq. ft. to 20 sq. ft.; and, will increase the number of displays days from 60 to 180 days.~ Mr. Charbonneau noted the number of display days do not have to be consecutive, the sign square footage and display time are more lenient and some regulations that were added may make sites safer to pedestrian and vehicle traffic.

There were no Board questions or input from the public.~ Mr. Fountain voted to recommend approval of the proposed changes to Town Meeting; second by Mr. Driscoll; motion passed 3-0-0.~ It was noted there will be a pre-town meeting one week prior to the November special town meeting and the Building Commissioner can explain the by-law further at that time.

6:05 p.m. – Doe Run subdivision:~ the public hearing was reconvened.~~Frank Gallagher, P.E., was present along with applicants Marie Smith and Carol Sullivan.~ Review correspondence dated October 14, 2015, was received from Nitsch Engineering.

Mr. Gallagher explained that Steve Ventresca of Nitsch Engineering had concerns with some of the drainage calculations, and he met with Mr. Ventresca last week and worked out the final issues of concerns.~ The plan was revised to reflect the changes made, and Nitsch issued their final comment letter on October 14th.~ Mr. Gallagher explained that he and Mr. Ventresca came to terms on the acreage used for drainage calculations, which led to a larger design for one of the storm water basins.

Mr. Gallagher gave an overview of the proposed subdivision, noting that a 22-ft. wide road is proposed rather than 24 ft., requiring a waiver; sloped granite curbing is being proposed rather than vertical except for roundings at the entrance, at intersections and at cul-de-sac entrances, requiring a waiver; some areas in the subdivision will have one sidewalk only, requiring a waiver; Sydney Drive will have sidewalks on both sides; and, there are 27 lots in the subdivision.
Waiver requests from the following sections of Raynham subdivision rules and regulations were discussed:

  • Sec. 6.5 (a), requiring an Environmental Impact Statement:~ applicant shows that vehicle trip generation will be minimal and requests the waiver.~
  • Sec. 7.4.2 (10), requiring soil samples and sieve analysis:~ applicant requests to do the sampling during roadway construction not at submittal and design to avoid duplication of effort and other complications.~ It was noted the Highway Department is okay with the waiver request.~~~ ~~~
  • Sec. 7.4.2 (f), requiring main road having the same name as the subdivision:~ applicant requests to name the main road Sydney Drive rather than using Doe Run.
  • Sec. 7.4. (22), requiring all large trees (18” diameter) be shown on the plan: the plan shows the property tree line and large trees on Pine Street in the area of the water main.~
  • Sec. 7.5.2, requiring that centerlines, points of tangencies, length of tangents, length of curve and radii be shown in red on the plan:~ it was noted the red does not work when recording the plan and with plan duplication.~ Also, the Board recently revised their regulations and eliminated this requirement.
  • Sec. 7.5 (7), requiring a landscape plan:~ applicant has shown street trees and specified the types of trees, and no other landscaping is proposed.~
  • Sec. 8.1, requiring access roads to be 20 feet in width: applicant proposes 20 ft. width from the street to each basin and then narrowing to 10 ft. around the top of the basin berms, which will provide adequate access for maintenance.~~ Mr. Gallagher stated the Highway Department is okay with the waiver request.
  • Sec. 8.9 (h), requiring a property line radius of 20 or 25 feet at street intersections:~~ applicant proposes 25 ft. radius easements be used at north side of the intersection of Pine Street and Sydney Drive.
  • Sec. 8.9 (L), requiring pavement width of 24 feet:~ applicant proposes 22 ft. width. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  • Sec. 9.9 (a), requiring vertical granite curbing on all streets:~ applicant proposes sloped granite curb on both sides of the roadways with vertical granite at throat stones at catch basins and at all intersection radii.~ Mr. Teixeira questioned this waiver request; Mr. Gallagher stated will be less cost.~ Mr. Fountain noted sloped granite will be better with the narrower roads.
  • Sec. 9.10 (a), requiring sidewalks on both sides of the streets:~ applicant proposes sidewalk on one side of Ariana Way, Amanda Circle and Megan Circle to provide adequate pedestrian circulation throughout the subdivision.~ It was noted the sidewalks construction of the sidewalks will be complaint with ADA and Planning Board regulations.
  • Sec. 9.18, requiring that lot grading be shown on the plans:~ applicant notes grading will change with each house and cannot be specified for each lot at this time.~~~~~ ~
  • Typical Cross Section detail shows pavement width of 24 ft. (two 12-ft. lanes), granite curb on both sides of road and 5 ft. sidewalk on both sides.~~ Applicant requests a road width of 22 ft. (two 11-ft. lanes), sloped granite curb on both sides of road and 5 ft. sidewalk on one side of road, as previously discussed.~ Mr. Gallagher explained the details are shown on sheet No. 21.
There were no further questions from the Board.~ Mr. Fountain moved to approve the waiver requests of Mr. Gallagher’s September 1, 2015, letter with the changes as discussed for Sec. 8.9 L, 24 ft. to 22 ft. pavement width and for Sec. 9.9 (a) curbing by adding wording to sheet No. 21.~ Mr. Fountain asked Mr. Charbonneau if the Highway Department and town engineer were okay with the waivers; Mr. Charbonneau stated yes.~

Mr. Driscoll seconded the motion; motion passed 3-0-0.

Mr. Fountain asked if the plan was okay with Conservation Commission.~ Mr. Gallagher explained it was but he asked to keep their hearing open until the Planning Board and Nitsch were okay with the plan, and he will now return to the ConCom with the final plan.

Mr. Fountain asked if Mr. Gallagher had seen the draft Certificate of Action (COA).~ Mr. Gallagher stated he did and that he did not realize there would be an item included in the COA requiring payment towards Pine Street bridge repairs if any became necessary due to construction of the subdivision.~~ Condition No. 29, requiring payment of up to $50,000 for repairs, was read into the record.~ Mr. Fountain noted the Board had discussed that condition throughout the hearings.~ He noted the applicant will be bringing heavy equipment over the culvert/bridge for construction.~ He suggested the applicant look over the bridge with the Highway Superintendent and take pictures of it prior to construction to document its condition.~ Mr. Gallagher noted that if the bridge were damaged by construction equipment, the construction company would be insured.~ Mr. Fountain suggested that wording to that effect be added into contracts.~ Mr. Fountain stated he thinks the bridge is in good shape now.~ Mr. Charbonneau noted it is old and in good shape but is not pristine.~ Mr. Gallagher said he thought the amount of $5,000 towards possible repairs had been mentioned previously, not $50,000.~ The Board noted that it would be the applicant’s responsibility to go after a third party for repairs not the Town’s.~

Mr. Fountain noted the proposed conditions include that easements be provided for the detention basin, a nearby cemetery and the roadways and infrastructure.~ It was agreed the erosion control plan will be reviewed with the Highway Superintendent, and there will be temporary street signs in place during construction.

It was noted the required snow plow and maintenance fees are refundable at the completion of the project provided the Town does not have to plow or maintain the road, but the detention basin fees are not refundable.~

Applicant Marie Smith, Forest Street, asked if the $27,000 is placed in escrow in the event the applicant does not plow and is returned upon completion.~ The Board confirmed it is.~ She asked why the basin fee is not refunded.~ Mr. Fountain stated it is because the Town maintains the basins once the roadways are accepted.~

Mrs. Smith discussed the Pine Street bridge/culvert, noting it is “perfectly fine” now.~ She asked why the applicant will be responsible, noting it is a Town culvert. She questioned what would happen if a car from Courtney Way happened to cause a problem on the bridge.~ Mr. Fountain stated the subdivision will be greatly increasing traffic so the Board is looking to protect the Town.~ Mrs. Smith said she did not agree as she has been in that area for years and nothing has happened.~ She noted Pine Street is a public street and she disagrees with the Board on this matter.~ Mr. Fountain stated he understands Mrs. Smith issue but the cost of any repairs needed because of construction of the subdivision would otherwise have to go to the Town.~~ Mr. Teixeira noted possible costs could be an impact to the Town budget.~

After discussion, Mr. Fountain moved to approve the plan entitled “Doe Run Definitive Subdivision Plan in Raynham, Massachusetts,” dated May 1, 2015, last revised October 6, 2015, prepared by Gallagher Engineering, Foxboro, MA, together with the approved waivers and the general issues set forth in the proposed Certificate of Action; second by Mr. Driscoll.~

The public hearing was closed.~ Motion to approve passed 3-0-0.

General Business:~ Mr. Fountain moved to waive the reading and approve the minutes of September 17, and October 1, 2015; second by Mr. Teixeira.~ Motion passed 3-0-0.

Invoices were signed.

Town Planner update was tabled to next meeting.

There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 7 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


Russell Driscoll, Clerk




 
Town of Raynham 558 South Main St., Raynham, MA 02767
Virtual Towns & Schools Website