Planning Board
PLANNING BOARD
November 24, 2015
Town Hall
Members Present: William Ritter, David Lindberg, John Michalak, Otto Lies, Tina Stratis, Scott Carlson
Members Not Present: Jeff Head
Staff Present: Pam Harding, Town Planner, Liz Fotos, Recording Secretary
7:00 Meeting Called to order by W. Ritter
STONEY BROOK ESTATES DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION Blair Enterprises- Extension of Time
W. Ritter stated that the public hearing for Stoney Brook Estates was extended to allow for the applicant to work on some engineering and drainage on the property.
P. Harding made note that T. Stratis and S. Carlson missed the previous hearing. She stated that under Mullins Rule both were able to participate in the discussion by reading the meeting minutes that pertained to the subject and signing an affidavit.
T. Stratis and S. Carlson both signed the affidavit.
P. Harding stated that the extension of time was due to property line disputes regarding clearing that needed to be marked by surveyor and drainage issues that were causing erosion on an abutter property. She stated that the applicant submitted revised plans on Friday (November 20, 2015).
P. Harding read I. McCauley’s letter regarding: Rip Rap Swale Detail for Stoney Brook-Engineering Review dated November 23, 2015
We have reviewed the proposed Rip-Rap Swale Detail Plan dated November 12, 2015, submitted by New England Environmental Design, LLC, and submitted for C.B.Blair Enterprises (“the developer”). The proposed plan includes the addition of five check dams along a 20foot long swale that extends beyond the outfall rip-rap area for Drainage Pond #1 located in the back of Teresa Dr. #19 and 27. The following are our comments:
- The addition of check dams to swale helps to increase the hydraulic retention time promoting sedimentation and infiltration. Even though, the proposed rip-rap swale may help increase infiltration at the end of the treatment chain for this pond, we asked the developer to provide a full assessment performed by an engineering firm of the existing conditions of the Drainage Pond #1 to confirm that it is function as per design. We believe that the existing drainage issue can be addressed at the beginning of the treatment chain rather than at the end.
- The detail for the swale shall include filter fabric as well as construction details for its installation.
- The size of the larger vs. smaller rip-rap showing on the detail shall be defined. Rip-rap sizing calculations that meet Standard 1 of the Mass Stormwater Handbook shall be provided.
W. Ritter stated that I. McCauley was recommending additional engineering work. P. Harding agreed.
W. Ritter asked if any members of the public wished to address the Board.
George Kiritsy, Stoney Brook Estates, was present for the developer. He stated that he was in receipt of the letter from I. McCauley and that he will forward it along to the developer and the engineer. He stated that he is certain that they will be able to do what was requested and that he does not believe anything addressed was insurmountable.
W. Ritter asked if any other members of the public wished to speak.
Mike Grant, 7 Teresa Drive was present at the meeting. He stated that he was at the meeting as a follow up regarding the planting of the trees.
W. Ritter asked P. Harding what the status of the trees were.
P. Harding stated that the developer had forwarded a letter and provided a list of 12 lots that opted out of the planting of trees on their properties.
W. Ritter asked if the Town was comfortable with that.
P. Harding stated that there were still lots under construction that have not been addressed. She stated that they should also discuss whether the lots in phase 5 will be getting street trees.
G. Kiritsy stated that the developer will not be requesting a waiver for trees in phase 5 and that they will be planted in a timelier manner. He stated that he had received a 13th opt out yesterday (November 23, 2015) and it was for lot number 31.
W. Ritter replied that he believes the matter will be continued to have engineering work completed for drainage so that will give the applicant plenty of time to get a revised letter with the added resident to P. Harding. He told M. Grant that he thinks there is a consensus that the Board will not request that the trees be planted at this late state.
W. Ritter asked if there were any additional comments from the public or the Board. He stated that he does not believe that the Board can act on the matter until the engineering work gets done. He asked G. Kiritsy what the time frame on the work was.
G. Kiritsy replied that he doesn’t think the amount of work was very significant; he asked for clarification on the first comment.
P. Harding stated that she doesn’t think the floor bays were cleared out and that may have to do with out it is being discharged. She stated they are asking for an engineer to look at it and comment.
G. Kiritsy replied that they will have an engineer look at it. He stated that he suspected that it was the relocation of the outlet. He asked if they find out that it is a matter of diminished capacity because the floor bay was not cleared out would this item be eliminated.
P. Harding replied that she believes that DPW wants the applicant to prove that the system is operating as it is supposed to be.
G. Kiritsy replied that they will go back and assess and then see if more work is needed.
John Woodsmall, DPW Director stated that the intent of the comment is that the certain design flow was supposed to be coming out of the pond and DPW wants to make sure that the flow being observed coming out of the pond matches what was proposed by the applicant.
G. Kiritsy replied that he will have the applicant assess it.
W. Ritter asked P. Harding about the trespass issue. P. Harding replied that she did not believe the survey was complete.
G. Kiritsy replied that the stakes were done in a different area.
W. Ritter asked if they were done in the area that the Board was interested in; he stated it would good to get that done sooner rather than later because of the onset of winter.
G. Kiritsy replied that additionally the exhaust pipe from the pump station had been refitted and they had started removing the silt fences. He stated that they had gotten the engineer out but that he had misunderstood the boundary that they wanted to review so he will be back to re stake the correct part.
G. Kiritsy stated that his client had raised an issue about the fence versus the shrubs around the pond.
Joel Blair, Stoney Brook Estates stated that they had originally requested to opt out of putting a fence in around the pond and put shrubs in instead. He stated he would just as soon put the fence in.
P. Harding replied that the subdivision plan was approved with fencing around the detention pond and the applicant requested a waiver that was granted with the condition that vegetative shrubs be planted for buffering.
W. Ritter stated that the Board had voted for vegetative shrubs.
J. Blair asked how much he was supposed to put in.
W. Ritter replied that he did not believe the Board went into that great of detail about it but that he was sure that P. Harding could make some recommendations as to something that would be appropriate.
W. Ritter asked G. Kiritsy about the timing and if December would be enough time to complete the work that needed to be done. G. Kiritsy replied that he wasn’t sure and did not want to speak on engineering’s behalf.
W. Ritter asked if they would prefer the first meeting in January. G. Kiritsy replied that he believed that would be enough time.
Motion by J. Michalak, seconded by T. Stratis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR STONEY BROOK ESTATES DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION BLAIR ENTERPRISES UNTIL THE JANUARY 12, 2016 PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
INFORMAL DISUCSSION- Greenwood Estates-Road Width
P. Harding stated that Greenwood Estates has submitted an application for a Definitive Subdivision. The Town of Holden’s review resulted in significant comments requiring extensive revisions. The Department of Public Works has requested the Developer reduce toad width from 28’ to 2’ width. The Applicant will be informally discussing the reduction in width of pavement and a waver from sidewalk construction on one side of the street with the Board prior to the Applicant revising the plan.
G. Kiritsy stated that it made the most sense to get the Boards preference regarding the width of pavement going from 28’ to 24’ and having a sidewalk on one side of the way. He stated that the result of these changes would be reducing impervious area by over 48K sq. ft which would have a significant impact on drainage, detention ponds, facilities, and more. He stated by doing this it will benefit future residents and that these changes are better for maintenance by the Town as well. G. Kiritsy stated that if the Board was inclined to consider this reduction the applicant would file a waiver up front and move forward in that manner.
W. Ritter stated that he knew road width was an issue that the Board was going to tackle down the line; he asked J. Woodsmall if the Town’s recommendation was 24’.
J. Woodsmall, DPW replied that they recommended 24’.
P. Harding stated that she spoke to the Fire Chief and that he is in favor of the 24’ road width as long as all the radius’ for the tower truck can be met with a narrower road way.
J. Michalak stated that with respect to the turning radius, he was looking at the sharp turn on the plans. He asked if the fire truck could make that particular turn.
P. Harding replied that they could and see adequately as well. She stated that she had spoken to him about that turn in particular.
O. Lies asked if sidewalks on one side of the development was the next waiver they were discussing.
G. Kiritsy stated that the plans show with two sidewalks and they would be requesting a waiver to eliminate sidewalks on one side.
P. Harding stated that they had submitted a plan that complied and that it was J. Woodsmall’s recommendation to request these two waivers. She stated the applicant was willing to make these changes but it was not something they had submitted from the beginning.
W. Ritter stated that with the additional engineering work that needed to be completed; now would be the time to discuss these items. He stated that this would not be an official vote but that the applicant wanted to see where the Board stood on these matters.
S. Carlson asked what the grades/ angles were. P. Harding replied that it varied.
S. Carlson asked what the most severe one was. P. Harding replied that she wasn’t sure but that it could not go more than 8%.
G. Kiritsy replied that the max grade will be 8% and that even with redesign there will be no waivers related to grade requested.
S. Carlson asked what the turning radius for the fire truck was. J. Woodsmall replied that they have the information but he did not know it off the top of his head.
W. Ritter stated that for reference, 24’ width of pavement is the Oak Hill Subdivision located off Salisbury Street and that 28’ width of pavement was Vista Circle off South Main Street.
W. Ritter stated that he knew road width was something that the Board was going to take up down the line. He stated that he thinks 28’ is too wide but that he did not know if there was a magic number.
J. Michalak stated that he thought Vista Circle was nice with sidewalks on both sides. He stated he was concerned with the sharp turns and he wanted to make sure there were adequate site lines for two cars to pass one another.
W. Ritter stated that they were going to be seeing this for every subdivision that comes up. He asked J. Woodsmall why the 24’.
J. Woodsmall replied that he approached this question from a long term maintenance perspective and a neighborhood safety perspective. He stated that small pavement equals less pavement that the Town would need to plow, treat, and replace in the future. He stated that smaller stormwater runoff would equal smaller drainage systems. He also stated that the speed that cars drive lessons with a narrower road. He stated that in his experience 24’ road width serves the Towns purpose and is overall helpful and recommended.
W. Ritter asked the Board if they had additional concerns or questions.
J. Michalak stated that if they were doing a 24’ road width he would like to see sidewalks on both sides of the street for bike riders, walkers, etc as there wouldn’t be room for them on the street.
O. Lies stated he agreed with J. Michalak. He pointed out that in the newer development there were a lot of landscaping trucks and trailers that that it was something that needed to be considered as well. He stated that the way J. Woodsmall explained it he could support with sidewalks on both sides.
D. Lindberg agreed. T. Stratis agreed.
S. Carlson stated that he would go with the Board regarding sidewalks.
W. Ritter stated that he agreed with the two sidewalks.
J. Woodsmall stated that in this particular subdivision with the number of units that were going in he thinks that it could be good. He stated that the Town would not be plowing the sidewalks and there was no sidewalk bylaw that is enforced so it would be up to the individual homeowner to plow in the winter.
S. Carlson stated that snow removal was a legitimate point. W. Ritter replied that he thinks most people do a good job. He asked the Board if the straw consensus was 24’ road width with sidewalks on both sides.
S. Carlson asked if this development was a case of clear cutting the whole lot or if some of the vegetation would be able to be preserved.
G. Kiritsy replied that he knew the engineer would need to do some significant cuts but that the original numbers were reduced. He stated that there would be a lot of cutting but that originally there were 14-18FT cuts and there was no way to do that without wiping out all the trees but that the cuts were reduced to 8-10FT so the area around them may be able to be preserved.
T. Stratis asked if they were cutting to the end of the lots.
G. Kiritsy replied they typically do not. He stated that typically they clear 25FT around the house for landscaping purposes. He stated sometimes there is more clearing done but that he just does not know how much grading is going to be required for each lot so he could not answer that question. He stated he knew they were preparing those plans currently.
W. Ritter asked if there was anything additional and asked when the Board would see revised plans.
G. Kiritsy replied that the changes were significant so it would probably be a while.
W. Ritter asked if an extension was needed. P. Harding replied that there was no public hearing so an extension was not needed.
APPROVAL NOT REQURIED – Wachusett Street R-1; Thomas and rosemary Heinold
P. Harding passed the plans out for the ANR. She stated the applicant was moving a lot line and no new lots were being created. She stated that the plan is entitled to endorsement.
Motion by O. Lies, seconded by T. Stratis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE ANR WACHUSETT STREET R-1 THOMAS AND ROSEMARY HEINOLD.
MISC.
S. Carlson asked about the school bus exception to the zoning bylaw and why it was being sent to the Planning Board.
P. Harding replied that there is a specific exception in the Zoning Bylaw that allowed school buses to be parked in residential areas.
S. Carlson asked what constituted a commercial vehicle. P. Harding replied there was a size requirement as well as the plates.
S. Carlson asked how commercial vehicles/plates tied into this and if the Town was going to enforce that portion of the bylaw as well.
P. Harding told the Board that the Town has a Zoning Bylaw that prohibited parking of commercial vehicles in residential areas over a certain size except for school buses. She stated that residents in a certain neighborhood have been complaining and that the Town has told them there is nothing that can be done to enforce this as there is an exception for school buses. The neighbors petitioned the Board of Selectmen to remove the exception from the bylaw so the Selectmen referred the item to the Planning Board and they (Planning Board) will hold a public hearing for it. Once the public hearing has been held it can go to Town Meeting and a 2/3 vote will amendthe bylaw.
W. Ritter suggested putting this item on for the December Planning Board meeting agenda so that the Board could discuss the matter; he told the Board that the neighborhood in question was in the Wyoming area. He asked P. Harding to pull out the zoning bylaw section for their review.
S. Carlson asked what the Towns definition of commercial was. P. Harding replied that it was by tonnage.
S. Carlson stated that some towns did not allow you to park lettered vehicles in residential areas so he wanted to know what the Town’s rules were. P. Harding replied that it was done in tonnage and that she did not know off the top of her head.
J. Michalak stated that he would like to know how many people this impacted. P. Harding stated that the woman stated that two other drivers in Holden bring their buses home as well.
O. Lies asked who was planning on attending the December 10, 2015 meeting for CMRPC.
P. Harding replied that S. Carlson was going. W. Ritter asked if any additional members were going to please contact P. Harding
P. Harding replied that she would post the meeting.
NEXT MEETING: December 15, 2015
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by W. Ritter, seconded by O. Lies, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, PURSUANT TO M.G.L. c 30A, SECTION 21(A)(3), TO DISCUSS STRATEGY WITH RESPECT TO LITIGATION, SPECIFICALLY THE GREENSONE PROPERTIES APPEAL OF THE WACHUSETT VALLEY ESTATES SUBDIVISION DENIAL AND RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION. (Ritter: yes; Carlson: yes; Michalak: yes; Lies: yes; Lindberg: yes; Stratis: yes).
The Board met in Executive Session and unanimously adjourned back to regular session by roll call vote to conclude meeting agenda items.
MEETING MINUTES
Motion by J. Michalak, seconded by D. Lindberg, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 27, 2015 PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES BY A VOTE OF 4-0-2. (Stratis: abstain; Carlson: abstain).
OTHER
O. Lies stated that this was the last meeting for D. Lindberg and that he had been a very valuable member of the Planning Board with great knowledge of the town. He stated he hated to see him leave and he questioned why he needed to leave the Board.
P. Harding stated that D. Lindberg had taken a position as Building Commissioner and Code Enforcer and that now he is in the review process and it places a conflict on D. Lindberg being able to serve on the Planning Board.
W. Ritter stated that he could not express how thankful he was to have D. Lindberg serve and that he felt it was a huge benefit to have him working for the Town as well. The Board agreed.
Motion by J. Michalak, seconded by S. Carlson, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE NOVEMBER 24 PLANNING BOARD MEETING AT 8:34PM.
The November 24, 2015 Planning Board minutes were approved on December 15, 2015
APPROVED: ______________