Planning Board meeting

Planning Board Meeting

May 2, 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 Coordinattor                   Maureen McKenney, Administrative Assistant                               

6:04 p.m. – Mr. Gallagher opened the meeting and announced it was being video and audio recorded.

Board reorganization:  Mr. Teixeira moved to keep the Board the same as now; second Mr. Fountain.  Mr. Gallagher said he would like another year as chairman; has done a good job this past year; meetings have been civilized.  Mr. Andrade moved to nominate himself as chair, Burke Fountain as vice-chair and Russ Driscoll as clerk.  Mr. Iafrate stated should vote on the first motion.  Mr. Fountain suggested a straw vote.

Mr. Gallagher noted Mr. Andrade did a fine job as chair for 15 years, but it should be varied; he would like to extend his chairmanship; he has been good chair.  Straw vote was taken on first motion:  Mr. Teixeira - keep as now; Mr. Andrade – no; Mr. Gallagher – keep as now; Mr. Fountain – in favor of change; Mr. Gallagher has been fine but his brother is before the Board often and he has to sit out; Mr. Driscoll – has concern with Mr. Gallagher’s brother and Mr. Gallagher not being available; both are fine chairs but he is leaning to change.

Mr. Gallagher noted Mr. Andrade also has vested interests.  He urged members to vote their conscience; weak excuse re. his brother; he has no outside vested interests, developments or financial interests.  Mr. Fountain asked Mr. Andrade if his project that is before the Board is close to closing.  Mr. Andrade said it is close; he owns no other land; he assists Mr. Iafrate with town planner position; he was part of getting Mr. Iafrate that position; he spends much time on research; questioned where Mr. Gallagher’s next job will be.  Mr. Gallagher stated his job is not relevant; he has been before the Board for one lot only; Mr. Andrade has been to the Board for hundreds; he does not miss more meetings than Mr. Andrade. 

Vote was taken on Mr. Teixeira’s motion:  Mr. Teixeira and Mr. Gallagher in favor; Mr. Andrade, Mr. Fountain, Mr. Driscoll opposed.  Motion failed to carry (3-2-0).

Vote was taken on Mr. Andrade’s motion:  Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Andrade and Mr. Fountain in favor; Mr. Teixeira and Mr. Gallagher opposed.  Motion carried (3-2-0).  Mr. Andrade moved that Mr. Teixeira remain as SRPEDD representative; second Mr. Driscoll.  Motion passed unanimously (5-0-0).

6:14 p.m.  Mr. Gallagher announced he would leave the meeting as his brother is on the next project.

Greystone Estates:  The public hearing was reconvened.  Frank Gallagher, P.E., Foxboro, MA, and owner/applicant Marcus Baptiste, Berkley, MA, were present.

Mr. Gallagher explained the plan:  This is the third time the plan was revised for the Board; he has spoken with neighbors and the Planner about this revision; a roadway off Locust Street for three lots is proposed now, and a plan for two estate lots will be submitted later; five test pits were done on the property; groundwater is quite deep – about 12.5 ft.  He discussed where the test pits were dug, the depth of water table and the soil samples.  He noted the 100 year storm event can be contained with the plan; the discharge point will be going onto the State of Mass. property.  If a conventional subdivision were done, there would be denser development and the basin would be in different location.  The road will be private; the storm water basin is on two lots, not separate.  He discussed foundation heights and elevations.

Marcus Baptiste addressed the Board:  He drove to Pamela Way and Church Street/Christopher’s Way.   Pamela Way looks nice and is similar to this plan.  Mr. Andrade noted there are woods behind the Pamela Way houses and the three-lot subdivision off White Street has one lot that is five acres with no future development to happen.  Mr. Andrade was concerned with a piece of property not being transferred and taxes not being paid.  Mr. Baptiste was surprised the issue was not found by the title attorney; he will have his attorney look into it.

Mr. Andrade discussed that the plan has 40 ft. right-of-way when 50 ft. is requirement; he is concerned with waiving all requirements when not starting with the required right-of-way; he believes it wouldn’t be allowed on a conventional plan; he thinks there would be more value in providing a nice entrance off Forest Street.  Mr. Baptiste noted a conventional plan would require more road, wider road width and length, sidewalks, more houses and more trees cut.

Mr. Baptiste noted the Board approved two 3-lot subdivisions with 40 ft. right-of-way – Tomlin Estates and Cornerstone Estates.  Also, Pamela Way is surrounded by wetlands but has the identical uplands as this plan; Church Street/Christopher’s Way has smaller lots but was done by a TDR (Transfer of Development Rights); this plan has the same usable land as the other plans.  He has spoken several times to the neighbors, who have respectful opposition; this latest plan revision was done today after discussion with area residents.  This revision shows two estate lots off Forest Street, three house lots off Forest Street with a hammerhead provided; the road shorter, will be private and will not be congested; a basin can be done; there will be a 30-ft. buffer for Parkwood Drive; this plan is in the spirit of other 3-lot plans and feels it is a “win-win.” 

Mr. Andrade likes this plan better.  It was noted the waiver requests will be the same for this plan as original plan and the road will be 18 ft. wide with 2-ft. shoulders on each side.  Mr. Baptiste noted this is a similar look to Pamela Way; and, there will be a total of five lots including the two future estate lots.

Mr. Iafrate noted the intent of the estate lot by-law was not to have too many driveways near each other; he would recommend one less driveway for the estate lots off Forest Street and recommends considering the 40 feet off Locust Street as one driveway to a house to avoid another entrance off the private road.  Mr. Baptiste noted a fourth lot with its own frontage can share HOA costs.  Mr. Andrade agreed he did not like the three driveways together.  He discussed the idea of doing more low-impact designs with narrower roads and less drainage. He likes this concept better, noting it has plenty of trees and buffer.  Mr. Iafrate wants to digest the plan more for zoning issues.

Upon question from Mr. Fountain, Mr. Baptiste explained that water can be directed so it does not flow to Parkwood; the plan can handle a 100-year storm.  Mr. Gallagher explained that the lots meet frontage and geometric building square requirements.

Mr. Driscoll discussed the possibility of locating a retreat lot access off Locust Street.

Mr. Andrade said he would like a turnaround on the plan; a cul-de-sac would be nice, especially for snow removal. 

Mr. Baptiste explained he is working with the State to donate some of his land because there are State-owned trails encroaching on his land.

Mr. Iafrate wants to see a no-cut buffer zone on the plan and wants to keep the drainage basin on one lot.

David Smith, 864 Locust Street, looked the plan over and stated he was okay with the existing driveway on Locust Street being used to access the estate lot.

Mr. Andrade does not want clear cutting done to the property lines.  Mr. Baptiste will look at that issue.

Steve Beddia, 9 Parkwood Drive, questioned if voting will be done tonight.  He feels this plan helps all.

Chris Murray, 100 Parkwood Drive, asked a question about the drainage.  Mr. Andrade said he wants to see the drainage basin moved onto one lot.  Mr. Murray noted the soil looks good but Parkwood Drive has problems so it will be good if the water can be pitched away.  He thinks this plan looks better. 

Mr. Baptiste noted there will be less water runoff because this plan has less pavement than a conventional plan.

Mr. Teixeira said he appreciated Mr. Baptiste meeting and working with the neighbors.

It was agreed to continue the hearing to May 16th for a status update.

7:10 p.m.  Raynham Preserve subdivision:  Lee Castignetti was present on behalf of owner/applicant, Raynham Investment Realty Trust.  E-mail dated May 1, 2019, was received from Ed Buckley.

Mr. Andrade discussed that this subdivision has been around for a long time.  He has found that Bayberry Road and Ramshead Road, which the new subdivision roads will come from, were never accepted by the Town.  The plan for those roads was approved without a cul-de-sac believing another plan was to happen but a plan by a previous developer never did happen.  Land meant for this plan was granted variances and lots were then built on.  There is approximately $17,000 in an account that was taken by the Town for work on the two roads.

Mr. Andrade is not looking to change this approval for the open-space development but is giving additional information.  He read the minutes from 2006 which stated previous developer Shute had agreed to a limit of 2000 sq .ft. houses but that plan was withdrawn.  Nick Harris then presented a plan to build the old plan with a bridge to circumvent wetlands, and at that time, Mr. Harris said the nearby five acres was out of the picture.  In October 2016, Mr. Castignetti and Mr. Harris presented a plan for 20 lot conventional plan, and at that time, all agreed an open-space plan would be better.  In June 2016, after discussion with Mr. Castignetti, it was agreed the dead-end is not an issue provided it did not exceed the existing dead-end road size.  In July 2016, during discussion of Bayberry Road Extension plan, Mr. Harris had stated no additional property is added to what is shown; Mr. Henderson had stated lot areas were to be the same.  In July 20, 2017, Mr. Castignetti showed plan for 21 lots.   He noted they all agreed the cluster development plan was better with the additional land.  Mr. Andrade questioned how they have 28 lots now when 20 – 21 were approved. 

Mr. Iafrate said they showed 20 – 21 lots but with the additional land-locked piece to be added, Perry’s land, and then they returned with another four lots from Perry’s five acres.

Mr. Castignetti said he came before the Board with a preliminary plan of 24 lots, which was approved, so there must be missing information.  He stated the preliminary application was submitted with 24 lots.  Mr. Andrade asked how they got from 20 – 21 lots to 24 lots.  Mr. Castignetti said he had no idea; that was ancient history and the plan now is correct. 

Mr. Andrade said the Board agreed to stick with the original approval of the dead-end road provided it was not extended.  Mr. Castignetti agreed that was correct.  Mr. Andrade asked if the plan is using additional land over the five acres.  Mr. Castignetti said no and suggested Mr. Andrade check the 2018 preliminary plan.  Mr. Andrade noted Mr. Harris added one lot to the plan to get 22 lots, one for affordable housing, but was told no, so he took the added lot off.  Mr. Andrade stated he agreed the Board approved this plan but he is questioning how they got to 24 lots.  Mr. Castignetti said it could be there were different engineers with different configurations.

Mr. Fountain asked about the Perry land.  Mr. Castignetti said the 24 lots came off the yield plan, Perry land was not part of it.  Mr. Andrade again questioned how they got from 21 lots to 24 lots; the 2017 plan will have to be found to see the difference.  Mr. Castignetti said the land area is the same as before Perry’s land was added; they were approved for 24 lots without the additional land; if the 30-lot approved p0lan is overlayed on this plan, the land is identical.

Evan Watson, P.E., Prime Engineering, addressed the Board, stating there were inefficiencies in the original layout so the plan was redone efficiently to reduce the road length but the perimeter is identical.

Mr. Fountain asked how many lots are on this plan.  He was told there were 24 lots prior to the Perry land so now there are 28 lots with that land added.  Mr. Andrade said he didn’t know they already had a yield plan of 20 lots.  Mr. Watson said it was a different applicant with the 20 lots.  Mr. Andrade stated Mr. Castignetti was involved. He stated this has nothing to do with the Perry land.

Mr. Castignetti suggested Mr. Andrade check to find there is no additional land, it is identical; there is no land ownership cross over; this plan has nothing to do with the 30 lots of Kelleher.  Mr. Andrade said he knows that. 

Mr. Andrade discussed a plan showing a cul-de-sac being located on other property and that was confusing.  He needs to see the original plan.  He will go over the matter to see the four-lot discrepancy, which has nothing to do with Perry land.  He agreed this plan is better but the Board had said applicant could only get what was originally approved. 

Mr. Andrade noted Nitsch questioned if this plan is low-impact, questioning if clear cutting will be done.  Mr. Andrade discussed that grading plans and soil conditions should tell how much clearing should be done.  He does not think cluster plans mean clear-cutting.  Mr. Castignetti said that unless there are ideal soil conditions, there is a trade-off with smaller/20 lot open-space plans, and they can’t save the trees on small lots with driveways.  He suggested the Board could change their regs.  Mr. Andrade said they will have to rethink the issue; they don’t need to stay with 20,000 sq. ft. lots.  Mr. Castignetti feels it is better to preserve larger areas. 

Mr. Andrade feels runoff will be an issue but the basins should be okay.  Mr. Fountain noted there is not a lot of room to work with on the lots, but the clear-cutting is ugly.

Mr. Watson discussed an issue with sewer.  The sewer department granted relief to extend the sewer, which required more fill.  They are proposing to lower the subdivision entirely and have met with ConCom and sewer and are working with them to reduce the road elevation.  He stated the design may change.  He noted they can design one of the basins to have a water feature.  Mr. Andrade spoke of concern with mosquitos.  Mr. Watson said they can design as a habitat for fished and other animals, which results in no mosquitos.

Mr. Andrade noted five or six basins is dangerous, noting white vinyl fence is proposed.  Mr. Watson said that was to demarcate, not prevent access; they do not want a pond.  The type of basin design was discussed.  Mr. Watson noted a waiver will be needed.  Mr. Andrade mentioned concern for mosquitos again.  He noted if the design is not within the regulations, the Board can’t approve.  Mr. Iafrate noted the by-laws allow approval of State-approved methods so the Board has some leeway.

Mr. Watson discussed what was constructed at Bassett Knoll and what is proposed at Raynham Preserve.  Mr. Andrade noted he wants a healthy basin with growth and fish, no mosquitos.  Mr. Castignetti noted there is no comparison between this and Bassett Knoll; Bassett Knoll has more maintenance.  Mr. Watson said he has worked for 10 years with Mr. Castignetti on many wet basins with zero maintenance.  Mr. Andrade said information suggests there is more maintenance.  He noted the State says a wet basin removes more contaminants than a dry basin.

Mr. Driscoll suggested contacting other towns where these basins were done.  Mr. Teixeira suggested viewing them.  It was noted bat houses and swallow houses can also cut mosquitos. 

Mr. Watson said that based on Nitsch, sewer department and the DPW, there will be redesign.  The goal is to create something more environmentally friendly with easier maintenance.  Changes will be presented to Mr. Buckley.

Mr. Andrade will look for the other plan as discussed but all have agreed this plan is better.  He has talked to Mr. Buckley who advised him Bayberry and Ramshead Roads need to be resurfaced and will be looking into getting it done with the money available.

It was agreed the time-to-act will be extended at the May 16th meeting.  The Raynham Preserve East hearing is continued to May 16th, 6:20 p.m.

Sidewalks and curbing at Bassett Knoll were discussed.  E-mail dated May 1, 2019, was received from Ed Buckley.  It was noted Mr. Buckley does not like sloped granite because of installation problems; he prefers vertical granite.  Mr. Fountain noted on narrow roads, the sloped helps with emergency vehicles.  Mr. Andrade would like outside consultant help with this issue for the rules and regulations.

Mr. Castignetti said he met with Ed Buckley on the issue and knows Mr. Buckley prefers vertical but if sloped vertical is done with the right installation, he might be amenable.  Mr. Castignetti it is a wash between the vertical and the sloped done with installation as discussed.  He noted narrow roads could be problematic with vertical curb.  Mr. Andrade said because it’s a family community, vertical granite with the sidewalk and Cape Cod berm on the other side may be better; Mr. Buckley would rather see that.  Mr. Fountain agreed.  Mr. Andrade wants to stay consistent, the Board can’t change with each new highway superintendent.  He would rather the vertical with sidewalk and Cape Cod berm on the other side.

Mr. Iafrate noted Mr. Buckley wants consistency also and prefers vertical.  Patching will be needed if they are doing vertical curbing (at Bassett) but Mr. Buckley will see it is done properly.  Mr. Castignetti said patching will be done properly and acceptable to Mr. Buckley; the berm will be monolithic pour. 

It was noted a waiver was given to Bassett Knoll for sloped granite so a minor modification is needed.  It was agreed by all there will be vertical curbing at the sidewalk side with Cape Cod berm on the other side.

Mr. Iafrate explained that according to the original approval, $75,000 payment is due in lieu of sidewalk on both sides and drainage work at both entrances must be done; neither has happened yet.  He is working on drainage particulars with Mr. Buckley.  Mr. Andrade noted the $75,000 will be used for Locust Street, and Mr. Buckley will work with developer on the vertical granite and on the drainage.

Mr. Castignetti was not aware the $75,000 payment was not made and asked until June 30th to submit. 

The Board agreed was agreeable to June 30th. 

Mr. Fountain noted a minor modification will be needed for the vertical curb.  He asked if the curbing and payment could be done by June 30th date.  Mr. Castignetti will work on it.

Tearall Road - Form A plan:  Plan was presented for applicant/owner Barnett Bornstein, who was not present.

Mr. Fountain asked if the Town Clerk has verified that Tearall Road is a public way.  Mr. Iafrate said he doesn’t think it will be public until road improvements are made.  Mr. Andrade noted a road improvement plan must be done. It was agreed a bond will be needed before lots on the plan are released if road work is not completed.  It was agreed to proceed with the Form A plan as part of the road improvement plan.

Mr. Fountain moved to approve as an Approval Not Required plan, the plan entitled “Plan of Land Site: Assessor’s Map 12, Lot 239K 869 Locust Street Raynham, Massachusetts Prepared For: Barnett Bornstein,” by Silva Engineering Associates, P.C., Bridgewater, MA, dated 3/8/19; second Mr. Driscoll; motion passed unanimously 4-0-0.  Mr. Driscoll signed the plan.

General Business:  Mr. Fountain moved to waive the reading and approve the minutes of April 4, 2019; second Mr. Teixeira.  Motion passed unanimously (4-0-0).

Planner Update: 

• Mr. Iafrate will revisit the issue of having SRPEDD assist with updating the Board’s rules and regulations.  Mr. Teixeira noted the Selectmen are using some of the SRPEDD hours for updating the Master Plan so if the Board wants to keep their SRPEDD hours, they need to let the Selectmen know.  Mr. Andrade said the Board has other funds they can use if needed.  Mr. Teixeira noted SRPEDD is booked but he will talk to them.  Mr. Fountain thinks the 20 SRPEDD hours should be enough for the rules and regulations.  Mr. Andrade discussed there is $100,000 that was submitted by Ron Turowetz, and Mr. Turowetz agreed the Board could use the funds as they see fit.

SRPEDD Update:

• The governor has authorized the first phase of the South Coast rail.  The cost of $1.047 billion will be funded by the State.  As part of the rail plan, the Middleboro station will be relocated because the lots are full and more parking is needed. The first stage will begin in 2022.

General Business:  Mr. Andrade thanked the Board members for their vote of confidence earlier.  He will keep all informed so they will all be on the same page.  Mr. Teixeira noted his vote was not one of no- confidence.

There was no further business.  Mr. Andrade moved to adjourn; second Mr. Driscoll.  Motion passed unanimously (4-0-0).

Respectfully submitted,

Russell Driscoll, Clerk