Planning Board

Planning Board Meeting

                  April 18, 2019                      

Board members present:  Christopher Gallagher, Burke Fountain, Daniel Andrade, Russell Driscoll, John Teixeira,

Board members absent:    (all present)

Also present:   Robert Iafrate, Building Commissioner/Planning Coordinator; Maureen McKenney, Administrative Assistant                               

6:04 p.m. – Mr. Gallagher opened the meeting.

Raynham Highway Department, 1555 King Philip Street:  Public hearing was opened for abbreviated site plan for new salt shed.  Mr. Driscoll read the hearing notice.  Ed Buckley, Highway Department Superintendent, was present along with Zachary Wallin, P.E., Weston & Sampson Engineers.

Mr. Gallagher read letter dated April 17, 2019, from Conservation Commission (ConCom) that stated there is no impact from the proposed shed. 

Mr. Wallin explained the plan:  A new, high-arched, gambrel-style shed is proposed; it will be “significantly” bigger than the existing shed; will hold one year’s worth of salt; two canopies are planned; the existing shed is being replaced because it is undersized and structurally damaged; new shed will be in the same location as existing shed.

Mr. Gallagher noted the Board was okay with the plan when it was shown to them at previous meeting to request abbreviated site plan process.  There were no further comments or questions.  Mr. Fountain moved to approve ‘Raynham Highway Department 1555 King Philip St., Raynham, MA 02767, Highway Department Salt Shed Replacement,’ prepared by Weston & Sampson Engineers, Peabody, MA, dated March 29, 2019; second Mr. Teixeira.  Motion passed on unanimous vote (5-0-0).

6:09 p.m. Greystone Estates (corner of Forest and Locust Streets):  Public hearing reconvened.  Chris Gallagher recused himself because his brother is the project engineer; he left the meeting room. 

Frank Gallagher, P.E., Foxboro, MA, appeared before the Board along with applicant Marcus Baptiste, Berkley, MA.  Mr. Gallagher noted they met with the Board one month ago and were sent away with the task to improve the plan.  He has redesigned and met with Mr. Iafrate to discuss.  This plan is not part of the Forest Street Form A approved by the Board months ago.  Three lots are being created now; another filing will seek a special permit for two estate lots. 

Mr. Teixeira asked why the subdivision is coming off Forest Street, not Locust Street.  Mr. Gallagher explained a future estate lot is coming off Forest otherwise they would propose a four lot private subdivision.

Mr. Fountain questioned why Mr. Baptiste doesn’t maximize his land and do a conventional five-lot.  Mr. Gallagher noted a five- or seven-lot plan could work.  Mr. Baptiste explained the cost of three lots with reduced standards versus a seven-lot conventional plan would be a “wash” but the smaller plan has less impact for abutters on Parkwood due to slope of the property; there is no drainage basin because the plan for the three-lots doesn’t fall under Mass. DEP regs, but water will be handled.

Mr. Andrade noted three-lot subdivisions are not by-right; others in town have utilized all their land and have nice subdivisions; he is okay with three lots and no Town maintenance, but it is not by-right; a drainage mechanism is needed; the lots are squeezed; lots are being pork-chopped; the property is being butchered; circumventing subdivision control law.  He questioned if a fourth lot is not being done because of drainage.  Mr. Gallagher stated DEP regs apply to plans of five or more lots.  Mr. Fountain likes the no-cut, no-clearing shown on the plan. 

Mr. Iafrate stated this plan works better than first; has better frontage, is less “pork chop”; the Board can have the drainage reviewed; and, this version is better than previous.  Mr. Fountain noted the water has to be handled.  Soil tests were not done, but test holes could be done.

Mr. Gallagher distributed plan sheet, one of which shows that a 7-lot subdivision would fit.  They are being mindful of the surrounding residences by not maximizing density; there are no wetlands on the property; the upland on each lot averages 1.5 times the zoning requirement; the average lot size is larger than required; the plan proposes a no-cut easement by existing houses; they are trying not to impose on residences; there will be buffers; and, a fence is planned along the entry road.  He noted plan No. 3 of the handouts shows cedar trees being preserved by offsetting the center of the road.  There will be 40 ft. right-of-way with 18 ft. pavement and 2 ft. gravel shoulders so the cedars will not be cleared. 

Mr. Andrade noted the no-touch, no-clear is 30 feet off the back line; a regular subdivision would need buffer, screening and a clearing plan; this is not more than a regular subdivision requires; the property is being chopped up; he is okay with construction but it is up to the Board to make sure it is done to standards; this site is ideal for low-impact development.

Mr. Gallagher explained they are mindful of the abutters and are developing with concern for neighbors; they could absolutely do seven lots here without waivers; and, if the plan is not asking for waivers and meets regulations, the Board must approve.  Mr. Fountain agreed, but the Board needs to decide between three lots with two future lots or seven lots.

David Smith, 864 Locust Street:  Agrees the plan is squeezing the lots; he will become a corner lot with the plan; there will be construction; the entrance should be off Forest Street for the new lots and new people to deal with; they are squeezing the lots because they own 40 feet on Locust Street; a proper road and buffer should be done; opposed to the road squeezed beside his house.

George Alexanian, 846 Locust Street:  Agrees with Mr. Smith; the road is proposed between their two properties; it was quiet in the neighborhood; he likes the natural setting; the road should be off Forest Street.

Marilyn Belanger, 876 Locust Street:  Her property is next to the State forest; she is concerned with access to the woods if there were a fire; the fire chief said a truck couldn’t turn around out there, they would have to back up; the road should go off Forest Street; worried about the woods, a fire and the fire truck access. 

Mr. Fountain requested written approval from the fire department.  Mr. Gallagher noted the plan was distributed to town departments.  Mr. Iafrate said the fire department is okay as long as there is a turnaround the same as on the two other 3-lot subdivisions.  There will be an eight-inch water main and hydrant will be needed.  Mr. Andrade noted they are doing water and sewer, but they should do a legitimate subdivision.

Carol Mulqueeney, 43 Parkwood Drive:  Parkwood neighbors prefer the first plan because Parkwood Drive has drainage issues, they don’t want them worsened; more houses equal more drainage problems; there will be noise and building either way; she is surprised Board is asking for more houses to be built. 

Mr. Andrade noted this plan gives the Board zero insight on drainage; they have control with a regular subdivision; Planning Board job description can be found on Mass.gov; applicant is asking to waive every rule and reg; more information may be needed; five lots versus seven lots takes oversight from the Board.  Mr. Teixeira noted seven-lot plan may help drainage. 

Dave Smith, 10 Parkwood Drive:  Asked why the Board loses control with three lot plan versus five lots.  Mr. Andrade read the waivers being requested, noting the Board could get more information if a full road is developed; three lots are not allowed by right.

Steve Beddia, 9 Parkwood Drive for 28 years:  He felt the impact from the clear cutting at the Forest Street/Parkwood Drive land for the four new homes; there is no buffer now; he can see everything from his backyard now; if seven lots are done, all will be clear cut; he has put in some trees but more would be costly; he understands the Board not wanting to lose control, but the abutter on Locust Street won’t be impacted as much; his property lost $50,000 in value with the loss of the trees; he spoke to Mr. Baptiste’s partner who informed him they would do a drain to dissipate problems; the water table is 9 feet down; many Parkwood houses have pumps; Mr. Levy, a neighbor, asked him to speak against this for him; less is better in the long run; he knows there is impact to Locust Street but they will have a fence and there will be fewer cars.

Mr. Fountain and Mr. Iafrate agreed more soil and drainage information is needed before proceeding.  Mr. Andrade wants proof that applicant can build here; the Board is here to protect; the Form A lots were clear cut because the owner can do what he wants; subdivision gives more regulation.  Mr. Iafrate noted there could be two different impacts with plans; he asked if drainage review is needed.   Mr. Andrade wants applicant to prove which plan is better, five lots or seven lots, or will the impact be the same.

Mr. Gallagher feels this plan pleases as many people as possible; feels this plan tonight is a better plan; disagrees that no oversight will be given as this is a definitive subdivision plan so there is review and control by Board; Nitsch has reviewed the first plan.  Mr. Andrade said Mr. Buckley recommends catch basins every 300 feet but the Board is working on the layout before going forward. Mr. Gallagher noted the estate lots will be a separate special permit done with oversight and review.

Mr. Fountain thinks soil testing is needed to understand where the water is going.  Mr. Andrade suggested testing at the area of the drainage pond and Nitsch can then review.  Mr. Andrade stated the Board didn’t say they liked the plan.  Mr. Fountain said he likes the second plan better but questions where the water is going. Mr. Andrade wants topography shown where houses are going.

Mr. Baptiste said he is looking for comfort level; if the drainage works, is the plan approvable; doesn’t want to waste his time.  Mr. Fountain said they are not wasting time, but they need information; he can go with either plan. 

Mr. Baptiste likes this plan because it has less impact; stated the use of “butchered” in earlier discussion was strong word.  He asked how many votes needed to approve.  Mr. Andrade said he is not against, but applicant needs to show drainage will stay on property; three lots are not done by right; he is only one vote.  Mr. Baptiste asked if he was opposed no matter what.  Mr. Andrade wants proof of what is better; the waivers are similar to what was granted to past three-lot plans, but those plans provided walls and trees that looked beautiful; he will not waive all the trees; and, there would be conditions.  Mr. Baptiste noted he researched so he knows.

Straw vote was taken:  Mr. Driscoll – no strong preference but three-lot layout is a concern.  Mr. Baptiste said that was conscious decision to shorten the road and reduce runoff.  Mr. Andrade commented on his concern with the frontage on Lot 3.

Mr. Fountain would rather less pavement; needs more information; if properly done, five lots are better; drainage is a concern.  Mr. Teixeira prefers seven lots.  Mr. Iafrate noted the plan uses the worst storm event, but it will be reviewed.

Mr. Gallagher noted the Board is asking applicant to design two different subdivisions.  Mr. Baptiste said it is unfortunate for neighbors, but he will try once more.  It was agreed to continue the public hearing to May 2nd, 6 p.m.

(Chris Gallagher returned to the meeting room.)

7:19 p.m. – Harbor Freight/former Benny’s building on Rte. 44:  Dave Taglianetti, Carpionato Group, LLC, appeared before the Board representing the owner who purchased the Benny’s portfolio.  The owner is seeking abbreviated site plan process for renovation of the interior into two units, two-thirds for Harbor Freight and one-third for undetermined tenant.  Phase I improvements include new façade; minor site improvements; modified access; minor utility upgrades, including sewer; same footprint to be used but now for two tenants.  Phase II will be for second tenant.

Mr. Taglianetti showed concept plan for Phase II:  no site access change; new parking orientation; new landscaping, lighting, circulation.  Harbor Freight is hoping to open in July.  

Mr. Iafrate noted that any change to a site entrance triggers site plan approval; this change is minor so it is up to the Board what is needed.  Mr. Andrade feels if tenant changes, there should be bollards provided, noting plans today need waivers for parking in front of glassed building fronts.  Mr. Gallagher agreed.  Mr. Iafrate noted the owner will be back for Phase II improvements.  Mr. Andrade wants assurance of no light spillage from the site and wants bollards provided. 

Mr. Taglianetti noted their corporate office is looking at the issue of bollards, agrees they are a good idea.  He is okay with providing a photometric plan, believes lighting is low now.

Mr. Gallagher moved to leave the approval to Mr. Iafrate at the permit process but being subject to bollards provided and photometric plan provided; second Mr. Fountain.  Unanimous vote (5-0-0.)

7:31 p.m. – Children’s Development Center/366 South Main Street:  Site plan public hearing was opened.  Mr. Driscoll read the hearing notice.  Mr. Gallagher explained the procedure to be followed.  Correspondence received: letter dated March 12, 2019, from MBL Land Development & Permitting, Corp. (MBL), requesting waivers; Site Plan Review letter dated April 18, 2019, from Nitsch Engineering; letter dated April 16, 2109, from Raynham Center Water District.

Mr. Gallagher noted the Board will not go into the Nitsch review until applicant responds back to Nitsch.

Mr. Iafrate explained the owner purchased a vacant house; her daycare facility was denied a building permit; she went to the Board of Appeals and was given relief to construct at the site.  The plan has satisfied most department heads; the fire chief, as of today, is okay with it.  

Tracy Duarte, P.E., and Jerome Dixon, both of MBL, were present on behalf of applicant.  Ms. Duarte explained the plan:  4,600 sq. ft., one-story building; 17 parking spaces provided; storm water handled by parking lot pitch that allows sheet flowing; the improvements do not touch the river; work will not impact the flood zone; Conservation Commission (ConCom) has continued their hearing on the plan. 

Ms. Duarte explained the drainage; sediment forebay, infiltration basin and emergency spillway are provided; plan meets all 10 storm water standards completely.  The site is licensed for up to 53 children, though not all there at once; ten employee parking spaces provided; hours are 6:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. 

Mr. Andrade questioned the storm water going towards the entrance, noting the plan shows water running one side to the other, sheeting the driveway entrance.  Ms. Duarte discussed the low spot as shown; plan was done to avoid drainage structure for low impact.  Mr. Gallagher discussed crowning the middle of driveway; he has concern with sheeting to one point.  Ms. Duarte will look at that, noting Nitsch advised to make sure the opening can handle the 100-year storm.

Two fenced areas with doors are shown at side of the building; and, snow storage area is shown.

Mr. Teixeira asked why the original permit was denied.  Mr. Iafrate stated he thought it was more a business use.  Mr. Andrade noted a for-profit business doesn’t fit in with residential use. 

The grading plan was shown; “gentle slope” provided.  Mr. Fountain asked about a swale.  Ms. Duarte explained applicant wants to save trees and Azu (ConCom) is okay with that.  Mr. Gallagher suggested crowning.  Landscape plan was shown:  arborvitaes are provided; limited screening is being done for one neighbor; some trees will remain; existing abutter fence will stay.  There is 25 ft. minimum screening required, or the Board can adjust that. 

Mr. Iafrate suggested giving applicant time to address the lengthy Nitsch comments; if the design is changed, it will need review; the issues can be addressed.  Mr. Andrade does not want Nitsch to re-do the plan.  Mr. Gallagher suggested going through Nitsch to work out issues.  Ms. Duarte agreed.

Ms. Duarte noted cars do not drop-off, rather they park and people come inside. Mr. Fountain feels the plan needs to prepare if that were to change in the future. Also noted, the fire department wanted a flow analysis done for their trucks.

Sign rendering was discussed. It was noted the Planning Board can’t waive zoning by-law requirements.

Public comments:  Catherine Bryant, 709 South Main Street – The plan is “totally inappropriate”; concern with safety issues at curb cuts; enough parking is needed; building is too large; setting a bad precedent; commercialization of area with a daycare; has the archeological aspect been addressed; there could be ancient graves so a survey should be done.  Mr. Gallagher noted the Board can only address the site plan, historical issues are not their purview.  Ms. Bryant noted if State or Federal funds are involved, that can trigger archeological review.  Mr. Gallagher doesn’t disagree but it’s not the Board’s purview or venue; the Board is looking at safety issues as part of the plan.

Mr. Iafrate agreed to look into the archeological issue.  Mr. Iafrate asked that the access drive be marked for viewing, noting there is a parking waiver requested.

Dave Rodrigues, 398 South Main Street:  Concerned with traffic; dangerous on the busy road; there are long lines when buses stop, causing accidents; more traffic and difficulty will be created.  His residence with the photo studio and the residence with barber shop were exceptions, this is setting a precedent.  Mr. Andrade noted the Board of Appeals approved it, the Board can’t do anything.  Mr. Rodrigues said traffic review should be done.  Mr. Andrade suggested checking with the police regarding the area where applicant is now located.

Jennifer Hunter, 22 Jade Drive:  Never will be more than five cars at once, but usually three; children are a good way to respect archeological aspect of the site; place is needed to keep children safe; daycare is needed.

Owner/applicant Carol Measor informed the Board there is no fixed time schedule, at most, four cars are there at the same time; licensed for 53 children but not all there at once; 42 on most days with some from the same families.

Mr. Gallagher asked if it is more daycare than school, citing Learning Loft.  Mrs. Measor stated preschool, she has set hours.  Mr. Fountain asked about special events with other people.  Mrs. Measor said this year there could be graduation for six children; also, most events are on the weekends outside the daycare.  Mr. Andrade noted some events can be busy and applicant is asking for parking waiver, it could be dangerous on the street.

Unidentified woman, 390 South Main Street:  The fence mentioned earlier is hers; she has drainage concerns because her yard floods; her yard is soppy and wet but not due to flooding from the river.  Mr. Andrade explained there will be no impact from runoff from this site.  She asked if there will be rules for noise, especially during construction.  Mr. Iafrate said construction noise is limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.; noise by-law does not restrict hours of operation.  Mrs. Measor explained she has three babies at 6:30 a.m., most are little later but that could change; sees no problem.   

Mr. Andrade discussed traffic concern.  Mrs. Measor stated safety is first concern.  Mr. Iafrate asked about traffic study.  Ms. Duarte said she just became aware of the need for one today.

Mr. Gallagher moved to continue to May 16th, 6:15 p.m.; second Mr. Driscoll; unanimous (5-0-0).

(8:18 p.m.  Daniel Andrade left the meeting room.)  Five-minute recess was taken.

8:23 p.m.  Meeting reconvened. 

Raynham Preserve East:  Public hearing was reconvened.  Request was received from Lee Castignetti for Long built Homes to continue the hearing.  Mr. Fountain moved to continue to May 2nd at 6:15 p.m.; second Mr. Driscoll.  Unanimous vote (4-0-0).

8:24 p.m. – Raynham Riverwalk Adult Retirement Community (ARC):  Public hearing reconvened.  Ryan Prophett, Esq., Raynham, and Steve Gioiosa, P. E., Sitec Engineering, Dartmouth, were present on behalf of applicant. (Daniel Andrade was not present.) 

Mr. Gallagher explained there are zoning issues involved that cannot be waived by the Planning Board, so an article is scheduled for Annual Town Meeting to rezone a small portion of the property to allow the ARC use, and variances from the Board of Appeals may be needed to allow perimeter that is less than 75 feet in places and to allow the section of main road that is located in the area of residences; these issues must be resolved before the Planning Board can grant a special permit for the ARC.

Mr. Iafrate noted changes have been made to the plan, which the Board needs time to digest and be comfortable with.

Mr. Gioiosa agreed with the approach to the zoning issues.  He feels the letter from the Board’s project consultant, JC Engineering, is easily addressed.  He explained neighbors’ concerns with traffic coming out onto Church Street has been addressed by an alternative plan sheet showing the closing of pavement between the cul-de-sac and Church Street; only emergency vehicles will be allowed access through to Church Street.  Collapsible bollards and a gate with lockbox are shown, and the fire department is okay with both, as stated in letter dated April 18, 2019, from Fire Chief Januse. 

At Mr. Teixeira’s request, neighbors in attendance were shown a copy of the revised plan sheet.  Mr. Gallagher explained the through street was eliminated and boats, RVs only may use Church Street.

Mr. Gioiosa explained that because road pavement width was an issue, Wall Street and Park Street now will be 22 feet wide with one-ft. Cape Cod berms; they are trying to keep the development low-impact but are widening the widths.  Mr. Gallagher doesn’t anticipate a vote tonight but in his opinion, the width should be 22 ft. gutter-to-gutter and the main road 20 ft. with 1 ft. berms; Mr. Gioiosa was okay with that.

Mr. Teixeira stated he is pleased they will not be using Church Street as everyday access; feels it is a nice development.  Mr. Gioiosa noted it is a significant project and will evolve with time.

Mr. Fountain asked if drainage has changed with the plan revisions.  Mr. Gioiosa explained it is now more conventional but still low impact; he has worked with JC Engineering and the flow is balanced; detention basin was added; and, there is no longer porous pavement planned.  Mr. Gallagher discussed breaking up the long sheet flows; Mr. Gioiosa will look at incorporating that into the plan. 

Mr. Gallagher discussed that although the ARC by-laws allow common driveways, the zoning by-laws in general do not so the ARC is not exempt; the issues of RV/boat parking, emergency access and buffer need to go to the Board of Appeals.  Mr. Gioiosa said he will look to Mr. Iafrate for direction on the zoning issues; applicant is waiting for Town Meeting approval on rezoning; they have good direction at this point. 

Attorney Prophett asked the Board to confirm they are comfortable with this revised plan.  Mr. Gallagher stated yes; Mr. Teixeira, Mr. Fountain and Mr. Driscoll all stated yes.

Mr. Fountain noted the time-to-act is May 31st and asked if applicant would extend to September 1st.  No extension was signed. 

Mr. Iafrate noted it is up to him what needs zoning relief, and he hopes that would be accepted so they can move on; he will consider intent of the by-laws; the 75-ft. buffer and RV parking are Board of Appeals issues but any others are his decision.  The Board agreed they were okay with that.  Mr. Iafrate will distribute a zoning punch list; the Board was agreeable.

Brian Wallace, P.E., JC Engineering, Wareham, addressed the Board.  He explained Sitec has shown him the new drainage; removing porous pavement removed several concerns; there was concern with flooding issues on Lots 5 and 6; he needs calcs for the detention basin.

It was agreed JC Engineering and Sitec Engineering are still working together on drainage and other issues.  Conservation Commission is awaiting final review also.

Drew Knappik, 494 Church Street, addressed the Board.  He asked where RV parking was previously located.  Mr. Gallagher explained it was off to the side of the original through street.  Mr. Knappik had concern with RVs and boats exiting onto Church Street.  It was noted only RVs and boats from the development will use the area and exit onto Church Street.  Mr. Knappik asked if the RV area and 75 ft. buffer need Board of Appeals approval.  He was told yes because the Planning Board doesn’t have the power to waive these issues. 

Mr. Knappik asked if the emergency road will be off limits during construction.  Attorney Prophett noted applicant has conceded everyday demands of the neighbors and asked that access be allowed during construction.  Mr. Iafrate said it would make sense for safety reasons and could put a time limit on it.  Mr. Teixeira noted many construction vehicles would be left on site.  Mr. Knappik stated if there are concerns with construction vehicles using Route 44, what about an 80 year old driving a Cadillac.  He asked about trees along the road near Church Street property.  Mr. Gallagher stated landscaping will be incorporated.  Mr. Knappik stated he is not sure people are aware of the Town Meeting article to rezone property on Church Street, which has been recommended by the Board, is related to this development.  He asked if they can “revisit” the issue.  Mr. Gallagher explained there is a little triangular piece of property involved; a two-thirds Town Meeting vote is needed to approve.

It was noted there will be two phases to this project.  John Noblin was present and stated it could take up to five years.

After discussion,  Mr. Gallagher moved to continue the public hearing to May 16th at 6:30 p.m.; it can be rescheduled if needed; second Mr. Teixeira; unanimous vote (4-0-0).

Matthew of 50 Christopher’s Way stated he is more comfortable with this plan than a 40B; traffic from a 40B would be large scale.

General Business:

• Mr. Fountain moved to waive the reading and approve minutes of March 21st; second Mr. Teixeira.  Unanimous to approve (4-0-0). 
   
• Mr. Fountain moved to waive the reading and approve minutes of March 28st; second Mr.  Teixeira.  Unanimous to approve (4-0-0).
• Letter dated March 28, 2019, was received from Jonathan Lynch, Esq., Bacon Flaherty LLC, Randolph, MA, requesting release of Lot 23 on Suzanne Drive.  Mr. Fountain noted if the road is public, the lot release is not needed at this point.  After discussion, the Board signed the Form J as requested.
• Letter dated March 25, 2019, was received from Raynham Woods Commerce Center Trust   informing the Board that development plans by ATG Land Holdings for Lot 22 Commerce Way were approved by the Trust.
• Town Meeting report was signed.  It will be read at Town Meeting.

SRPEDD Update: 

• Annual meeting is May 22nd at Fireside.  The Board voted to approve three tickets to attend.
• After discussion, it was agreed Mr. Teixeira will be the Board’s SRPEDD representative again.
• Improvements on Rte. 138 up to the Rte. 495 interchange will begin in 2021 at cost of $11 million.

There was no further business.  Mr. Gallagher moved to adjourn; second Mr. Teixeira; unanimous vote (4-0-0). 

Meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m.    

Respectfully submitted,

Russell Driscoll, Clerk