Planning Board
PLANNING BOARD
January 12, 2016
Memorial Hall
Members Present: William Ritter, Otto Lies, Scott Carlson, Tina Stratis, Robert Ricker, Jeff Head
Members Absent: John Michalak
Staff Present: Pam Harding, Town Planner, Liz Fotos, Recording Secretary
W. Ritter called the meeting to order at 7:02PM.
He stated for the record that J. Head read meeting minutes and signed a Mullins Affidavit in order to participate in all matters on the agenda.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
O. Lies nominated W. Ritter as Chairman of the Planning Board; T. Stratis seconded it.
W. Ritter stated that historically, you sit for no more than a two year term as Chairman of the Board and he does not feel the need to sit as Chairman.
S. Carlson stated that with the amount of carry over he believed it would helpful to have W. Ritter sit as Chairman for another year.
Motion by O. Lies, seconded by T. Stratis it was VOTED TO ELECT W. RITTER AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD BY A VOTE OF 5-0-1 (W. Ritter: abstain).
Motion by R. Ricker, seconded by S. Carlson, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ELECT J. MICHALAK AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
Motion by S. Carlson, seconded by J. Head, it was VOTED TO ELECT T. STRATIS AS SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING BOARD BY A VOTE OF 5-0-1 (T. Stratis: abstain).
PUBLIC HEARING- DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION STONEY BROOK ESTATE- Extension of Time
W. Ritter stated that this matter was continued predominately because of a drainage issue.
P. Harding told the Board that they had requested the developer to do an evaluation of the existing conditions of the detention pond and compare them. She stated that they did not have the as built but the elevations were different once they took out the fill. P. Harding stated that the rain event from Sunday (January 10, 2016) there was flow that impacted an abutter’s property. She stated she did not know how complete the as builts were because they were only verbally told to the Town but the developer went and took an unknown amount of silt out of the pond.
W. Ritter asked if the same spot on the abutter’s property was impacted as before. P. Harding stated it was.
George Kiritsy was present for the developer. He stated that the developer had recently excavated the pond and removed some silt and a lot of other material from the pond. He stated it appeared that the pond was not originally built to the lower elevation so they were able to reclaim a lot of capacity in the pond by doing this. He stated that the pond is now built as it was designed.
G. Kiritsy stated that there was a rain event and water was being discharged. He stated that it was outflowing to the pond and discharging in an area as far away from the wetland as it could; unfortunately that point was near an abutter’s property. He stated it flows out and crosses an abutter’s property to the wetlands and they are in the process of assessing the outflow now and to determine the velocity of the water.
G. Kiritsy stated that he does not know if there is a method to check the volume as the volume was going to be what it was. He stated that the pond was fully functional but that the discharge during extreme rain flowed downward. He stated that their engineer is looking at the design construction of a velocity dispatcher or check damn at the end of the outlet. G. Kiritsy said that there is a rocky level spreader at the end of the pipe that they want to expand which will allow for a widening of the discharge. He stated that they are looking to spread the discharge along the area so it is not pouring out of there like a river.
W. Ritter asked if it was not functional.
G. Kiritsy stated that he did not know and that is what they are looking to see; if it is functioning as designed. He stated the design was meant to collect, retain, and release the water. He stated the velocity is what they are assessing right now. G. Kiritsy stated that the primary purpose is the catch sediment and it has all been cleaned out. He stated now they are looking to slow the velocity of the release. He said it was going to release at the same volume because that is what it is designed to do, it is just a matter of the point of discharge and how to spread it so the release is more manageable to the abutter.
G. Kiritsy stated that everything flows down hill and in a tight span of less than 40FT there is a drop in elevation. He stated that they were looking to see how they can spread it so instead of coming out in a channel it comes as a sheet flow.
P. Harding stated that DPW is concerned about the velocity the water is leaving the pond and they want the Planning Board to have a third party engineer look at it.
G. Kiritsy stated that had been broached with his client and he is agreeable with that; he suggested Quinn Engineers.
Keith Prachniak, 462 Bailey Road was present at the meeting. He stated that he owns 80 acres that stretches back and that he had taken a video on Sunday at 12:30PM for the Boards consideration. He stated that he believes some of the calculations done at the beginning of the project were messed up. He stated that they don’t want their back acreage ruined; they put it into Conservation because they like the environment.
K. Prachniak stated that the water goes across 268FT of his property and then enters the wetlands. He stated that 300Ft from where it goes on to his property you are standing in cat and eye tails. He stated that there is a stream on the edge of the property that was marked before this project began 15 years ago and you can still see those markings. He stated that there were no markings for wetlands at that time and he believes that all the water created the wetlands. K. Prachniak stated that he works in construction and they are not allowed to do this. He said that he can’t believe how much water is coming onto his property.
K. Prachniak stated that he gave P. Harding a flash drive with the footage so she could have it as a permanent file. He showed the Board, the developer, and the applicant the video and showed them where the water was going, property lines, and various other markers shown on the video.
R. Ricker stated that he needed to abstain because he was not there for the hearings; but he asked if that precluded him from making comment. W. Ritter replied it did not.
K. Prachniak stated that he has pictures as well as measurements. He stated that he called DEP and they asked where the Town was at with this matter and what they were doing. He stated that DEP asked him to keep them abreast of the situation. He told the Board that last January (2015) they were discussing the same problem; he said it has been over a year and he can’t see how it is legal.
P. Harding shows on the plans where the issues are occurring.
Cle Blair, Stoney Brook Estates was present. He stated there was a point where the water leaves the site and what they do is control it so that it comes off the site at the same velocity. He stated that when they designed it all the waters from the site pre building were going to one location. He stated there was a channel that went through the wetlands from the water that was leaving the site. C. Blair said that when they designed the pond, it was leaving from one location but DCR said not to outlet to the wetlands; they said put the water in a pipe. C. Blair said if you think of the velocity of the water coming down the pipe along the rip rap it was what messed up the analysis of what it was supposed to do.
C. Blair stated that they were trying to get it right. He said they think they can fill the channel with stone and build on the easement. He said that if they have an easement that went further they could filter the water there. He said what they want to do is slow it down; he said that he thinks it is the only thing that they can do without outletting it to where they are no allowed to.
O. Lies pointed to an area on the map and asked what happened in there. C. Blair replied it was drying up. He showed where the water was that was leaving the site.
G. Kiritsy asked where on property K. Prachniak took the video. K. Prachniak showed where the water flowed over the silt fence onto his property.
C. Blair stated it was all going to the same spot; he said if they were allowed to let it out where it was supposed to go they would have been doing exactly what they wanted to do.
G. Kiritsy said that the water wants to go to the wetlands. He stated when the water comes down it is running in a channel and then getting to the wetlands but is now coming across the abutters property to do so.
K. Prachniak asked if they can go underground to get there. C. Blair replied he would love to do that.
K. Prachniak stated he would need to speak with his wife prior to agreeing to anything.
P. Haring said that they are not sure if the pond can handle it.
R. Ricker asked who owned the pond.
G. Kiritsy stated that they (Stoney Brook Estates) owned it.
P. Harding stated that maybe the solution would be to put some of it there but that it really needed to be looked at.
K. Prachniak stated that the wetland is at a much lower elevation then the larger detention basin. He said that he agreed with the developer that there had always been water coming through there. He said that it had been a slow babbling brook but that it never same the volume of water that is now coming through. He said that when he walked there were spots that are now going over logs and rocks and that he had stepped into pot holes up to his knees. He said there were inches and inches of sand that had come from the development.
W. Ritter stated that no one was going to minimize it; it was a real problem.
S. Carlson said DCR won’t let them dump into an existing wetland; he asked who had the say.
C. Blair said that the Board had the say. He said he agreed with P. Harding that the design was done on the computer and now that it has the right volume maybe they need to add additional holes in the bottom. He said what it does is builds up and going through a pipe. He said that maybe additional holes would fit it. C. Blair said that another set of engineering eyes on it would be a good idea.
W. Ritter stated that the developer’s engineers should have run the analysis on it.
J. Head asked how long the detention pond had been in operations. P. Harding replied about a year.
T. Stratis asked how long it took to empty out. C. Blair replied it was pretty empty.
K. Prachniak stated that at 4:00PM the water was still flowing.
P. Harding stated that it by design it was supposed to empty over 48 hours. She stated that it doesn’t hold a lot of water for a great period of time.
R. Ricker asked what would happen if the water went where it was originally supposed to go.
K. Prachniak stated he would be opposed to that; he stated if the water came out of the detention basin it would cut off access to 5 acres of land.
R. Ricker stated that the question was to find our logistically who the Board and engineering answer to.
G. Kiritsy stated that he had a photograph from a few days before the last rain showing that it was bone dry.
P. Harding asked if the watershed protection act was jurisdictional. C. Blair stated that they (DCR) has no say and that he is happy to do whatever it takes to fix it.
G. Kiritsy stated that they need to make sure that fundamentally the pond size is correctly sized.
C. Blair stated that Graves Engineering did a review of it initially. P. Harding responded that she wasn’t sure.
W. Ritter asked P. Harding what her recommendation was.
P. Harding replied that DPW recommended a third party engineering firm to review and compare to the design and come up with a solution. She stated that everyone agrees that the volume and velocity is too much. She said that Mr. Prachniak had been very patient and cooperative and there needed to be a solution.
W. Ritter asked what the time frame was.
P. Harding stated that she would guess at least a month.
S. Carlson confirmed that it could be done in the winter weather. P. Harding replied that she assumed it could be as the test pits had all been completed.
W. Ritter asked who inspected the pond. W. Ritter replied that he and DPW did.
J. Head asked if it needed to be cleared because of construction. P. Harding replied that it was used as a sediment pond during construction.
W. Ritter opened it up for public comment.
G. Kiritsy stated that he would like to have the subdivision established and extended so there is an approved subdivision that is going to be modified. He stated that the extension is a procedural matter and without doing that there is no subdivision. He stated that they have a request for a tri party on the site so they are able to post a bond which will give the Town the financial security needed for the completion of the project.
K. Prachniak asked what is going to prevent the developer from walking away if this was done; what his assurance would be to fix the problem if they are approved at this point.
W. Ritter stated that the Board usually extends to subdivision at a point of time and then has them come back every two years. He stated that what happened in this case was that it expired in the summer and the developer came in for an extension, which is usually a typical matter, but the drainage issue was occurring. He stated that the issue was supposed to be resolved and then the Board would extend the subdivision. W. Ritter stated that they never anticipated having this kind of problem at this phase in the project. He stated the subdivision had already been extended once or twice.
G. Kiritsy stated that they had been extended twice.
W. Ritter replied that the Board thought there would be resolution; he stated no arguably there is a worse drainage issue then anticipated.
P. Harding stated that she things what made it worse was that the top coat was put in and now the catch basins were going into the pond too.
G. Kiritsy stated that he thinks they were all working under the assumption that once they reclaimed the capacity in the pond there would no longer be any issues; that was not what happened.
W. Ritter asked P. Harding what the Town preferred a cash bond or a covenant. P. Harding replied that a cash bond is more helpful but that it did not really matter. She stated that the road is done and about $50,000 worth of work is remaining in sidewalk type things.
G. Kiritsy stated that the developer has people that want to buy and more into the homes.
W. Ritter asked the Board what their thoughts were.
R. Ricker stated he looked at the bond. He said that the detention pond should be covered.
P. Harding replied that there is nothing covering the pond as there is not pond in this phase. She stated the bond was broken into phase; Phase 5 is the cul de sac.
G. Kiritsy stated that they also had the waivers for the street trees.
P. Harding stated that she wanted to keep the public hearing open through the peer review process. She stated that Phase 5 the covenant or release of lots doesn’t impact the review of the drainage and that empty homes sitting there once they are constructed would not benefit the town in any way.
W. Ritter replied that he was worried about dragging this out for a longer period of time. He stated that they have a patient abutter whose patience was going to run out. He stated he wants to do something to make sure that it gets done quickly and efficiently.
G. Kiritsy stated that the developer agreed to pay for the review engineer.
W. Ritter asked if they thought it would be done in a month. P. Harding replied that may be being optimistic.
W. Ritter said they were unsure of what recommendations were going to be made in order to fix the problem.
T. Stratis suggested a months’ time to get an answer about what to do.
P. Harding stated that it could be done under peer review and did not need to go to bid.
T. Stratis confirmed the third party review would take place in a month.
P. Harding replied that she did not know the engineering companies work load and had not contacted anyone to get proposals yet.
W. Ritter asked how many closings were scheduled for the developer.
G. Kiritsy replied there was one scheduled.
C. Blair stated there was one scheduled for closing in two weeks and more a few close behind. He stated they did not expect this to run on as long as it has and that once the engineer work was complete they could sit down, review, and mobilize in a day to do whatever repairs were suggested. He said he wanted this issue resolved.
P. Harding replied the fix could be weather dependent.
W. Ritter asked if there was any Conservation Issues. P. Harding replied that there were and that it was before the Conservation Commission as a report of the violation.
R. Ricker asked if it would be unreasonable to request a solution within six weeks or not allow closings.
G. Kiritsy stated that the pond was built to the right size from what the design engineer dictated. He said that the problem is the outflow. He asked what the solution was to satisfy the abutters, at this point, they were going back to design. G. Kiritsy asked if it was designed correctly at the beginning of the process; they are reviewing and then assessing if the pond is functioning properly.
G. Kiritsy said that they were fortunate that there was a rain event otherwise everyone would have thought it was working properly with the clean out. He said now they know that the water is discharging too fast and they have more data but that at this point the engineers need to take a look.
W. Ritter asked why they needed to wait on the Towns peer review. He stated that the burden is not on the Town to fix the problem or to get engineering done. He stated that it makes it appear that it is the Towns delay when it is under their (developers) obligation to get it fixed. He stated that it was clear from a performance standpoint that whatever was submitted to the Town was not supposed to perform in the way that it was.
C. Blair replied that he met with his engineer yesterday and he does believe that he has a solution. He stated that his solution was to have a bigger channel and wider level spreader. He told the Board that P. Harding and I. McCauley told them to submit it and let someone else review what is submitted.
W. Ritter asked if they can condition the extension on benchmarks.
T. Stratis asked C. Blair if they had tried anything as the issue had been going on for over a year.
C. Blair admitted they were relaxed on clearing out the pond initially; he admitted fault in that capacity but stated that they did clear it out.
P. Harding stated that it was done in two phases, the first time in September/ October.
T. Stratis stated that there was an issue in January; she asked why nothing was done until September.
C. Blair replied the issue was not to this extent. He reiterated that they were at fault and stated that they were going to do everything as quickly as possible to fix it. He stated that he takes responsibility for the past.
T. Stratis asked if they were limited in what they could do with a frozen ground. P. Harding stated they could be.
C. Blair stated that as long as it was not too muddy they could get in there and work. He said they would need to firm up the ground if it was too muddy. He stated that there could be an issue if there was 4 FT of snow. C. Blair stated that in the spring there is going to be an issue, he said that they thought they would watch it and see what happened but the recent storm showed there was an issue.
T. Stratis asked if they were going to channel and disperse the water. She asked if they were sure it was going to work. C. Blair replied that it was trial and error.
P. Harding stated that it could be designed correctly and meet stormwater regulations and not operate as designed. She stated that they design according to standards and calculations and there could be fault when put into the field even if it is built to the plans.
T. Stratis stated that it could be another six months until there was a fix.
P. Harding replied that they were pushing to have Joel Scott Drive accepted at Town Meeting and the Town wouldn’t accept the street.
R. Ricker stated that they should look for a fast peer review engineer and hold up the closings.
J. Head asked if additional security could be held to address the issues.
P. Harding replied that you are supposed to restrict the use of the funds for what it is held for and you cannot hold money to repair.
P. Harding asked how many closings they had until next month. C. Blair replied three or four.
G. Kiritsy asked if they can extend for six months and then come back again.
P. Harding replied that she would rather continue the public hearing.
C. Blair asked if they can sign and extend the public hearing at the same time.
G. Kiritsy stated that the delay was in empting the sediment basin which had silt in it. He stated that they do not clear the pond until they were ready to turn it over for street acceptance. He said when they requested the subdivision extension they cleaned it out and had it back to volume but there is still a different issue. He stated that he thinks it is a matter of having the pond reassessed and then they will submit the proposal.
W. Ritter asked how many missing occupancy permits there were. G. Kiritsy replied six.
C. Blair replied the cul de sac.
W. Ritter asked if all six were under contract. C. Blair replied yes.
W. Ritter asked if all were built. C. Blair replied that one has not been started and the rest were under construction.
T. Straits asked which one were under contract. C. Blair replied #69 was under contract and close behind was #72, 68, and 67.
W. Ritter asked if they could continue the subdivision for three month; make sure this matter gets addressed and allow the developer to do a few closings.
P. Harding replied that she does not believe he needs the extension issued for closings.
G. Kiritsy stated that he thinks an extension for the subdivision is needed.
P. Harding replied that was a lot of work on the Town’s end; she stated to do a new public hearing all abutters would need to be notified.
G. Kiritsy stated that he believes the Town has more leverage if they extend then if the subdivision expires.
W. Ritter asked if they can substitute security and continue the public hearing on the extension and still do the closings.
P. Haring stated she believed they could but that Mr. Kiritsy is saying that they could not.
S. Carlson asked if there was a certain procedure that needed to be done.
P. Harding replied that it was two separate issues; keeping the public hearing open in order to address drainage and then release the covenant and get the money to secure the work instead of having empty homes with no security.
T. Stratis asked if they could release three. P. Harding replied that they could but the Town would still need full security.
W. Ritter asked the Board if they wanted to release three lots and keep the public hearing open for an extension of time and substitute the security.
O. Lies stated he wanted to make it clear that the issue was going to be addressed by someone other than the Town’s engineers.
W. Ritter stated that it was the applicant’s job to do it and the Town will do checks and balances with peer review to check their work and ensure that their solution meets stormwater requirements.
R. Ricker stated that within a months’ time they should be able to come back with a preliminary solution.
W. Ritter asked the Board if the workable consensus of the Board was to release three lots (Lots 69/72/68) for immediate closings, continue the public hearing until February 9, 2016. He stated unrelated to the issue; they will substitute the covenant with a cash bond.
Motion by S. Carlson, seconded by T. Stratis, it was VOTED TO AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF LOTS 68, 69, AND 72 AND ACCEPT THE $45,993.95 TRIPARTY AGREEMENT BY A VOTE OF 5-0-1 (R. Ricker: abstain).
Motion by T. Stratis, seconded by S. Carlson, it was VOTED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DEFINITIE SUBDIVISION STOENY BROOK ESTATES FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FEBRUARY 9, 2016 AT 7:00PM WITH A FILING DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2016 BY A VOTE OF 5-0-1. (R. Ricker: abstain).
W. Ritter stated told everyone that they would be back in front of the Board on February 9, 2016, he stated if there was any additional developments to please contact P. Harding and that they will make the video taken part of the record.
SUBDIVISION BONDING
- Bullard Estates
Motion by J. Heard, seconded by R. Ricker, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO REDUCE THE BOND FROM $102,240.96 TO $38,739.57 TO REFLECT WORK COMPLETED TO DATE.
- St. Mary’s Drive
P. Harding stated that the Board had approved a bond for the entire subdivision of $163,361.22 but there was an error and the actual bond amount was for $156,677.29
Motion by J. Head, seconded by O. Lies, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO REDUCE THE BOND FROM $156677.29 TO $49,112.52 TO REFLECT WORK COMPLETED.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED- 437 Bullard Street- Michael Walsh R-1 Zoning
P. Harding showed the Board the plans; she stated it was an interior lot line that was being removed and the plan is entitled to endorsement.
Motion by O. Lies, seconded by J. Head, it was UNANIMOSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE ANR FOR 437 BULLARD STREET, MICHAEL WALSH R-1 ZONING DISTRICT.
2016 PLANNING BOARD GOALS
P. Harding stated that every January the Board established goals to address throughout the year. She stated the three outstanding goals were:
- Review of Open Space and Residential Design Bylaw
- Update of Subdivision Control Regulations
- Jefferson Village Zoning District.
W. Ritter stated that they needed to schedule a public hearing for the Subdivision Control Regulations.
P. Harding stated that they need to be updated and diagrams were outdated. She stated that they wanted to change the lot with and add some specs that DPW wanted included.
T. Stratis asked if all of this needed to be completed by Town Meeting. P. Harding replied that it did not and that the Board could address these with Public Hearing.
W. Ritter stated that the cluster subdivision and how it is working with the density bonus was probably the first thing they should address.
O. Lies stated that he would like to talk about that and he thinks it should be the Boards first priority. He stated that he thinks the Board is going to see more and more of that.
O. Lies stated that the updated subdivision control regulations are also important as the Board has been seeing numerous road width waivers. He stated that the current DPW Directors view on this matter is very different then his predecessor.
O. Lies stated that they are currently work with CMPRC on Jefferson Mill in order to foster some positive development but he thinks they need to get the warehouse built out in order to move forward with it.
O. Lies stated that in addition to these items, this is the third year that he wanted to add improve communication among the Boards and Town Administration to the list. He stated that he felt that meeting with other committees was important, and felt as though a meeting with ZBA was long overdue.
W. Ritter stated that he thought that the Board had invited them but they did not come. He said that along with communication he knows that last year they spoke about getting the meeting minutes posted in a more timely fashion, he asked if that was being done.
J. Head confirmed they were updated. P. Harding replied that she believed up to November was posted online.
R. Ricker asked logistically how these items would be handled; he asked if they would be put on the agenda. W. Ritter confirmed that they would be.
S. Carlson stated that he would like to have a score card about how many permits were issued in a year.
P. Harding asked him what specific information he would like. S. Carlson replied he wanted to know about new structures and total permits pulled.
P. Harding replied last year there were 76 and the year before 86 new single family homes. She stated that if the Board tells her what specifically they want she can generate a report.
W. Ritter stated that signs were a goal that was completed and passed from last years goals.
O. Lies asked to speak about Open Space. He stated that he agreed with W. Ritter that it should be number one on their list of goals to address. He stated that open space how the Town bylaw is; it now does not work. He stated when this bylaw was developed there was certain visions about what open space developments should look like and that was not happening. He stated at this point, he is seeing this bylaw used by developers to their best advantage with no regard for what the Planning Board had in mind. O. Lies stated that they were putting land aside in a land trust however the developer is getting a great advantage through the formula as an incentive to build in this manner. He stated they were able to build more homes and get a larger density and as a result the Town has less infrastructure; less sewer, roads, sidewalks. O. Lies stated that developers were using building in this manner to cut costs.
O. Lies stated that he did not like it and did not want to see it used again. He stated the Board should see if they were able to suspend the Open Space Bylaw as it is right now until they have reviewed it so no other applications for this type of development could be made.
R. Ricker stated that he did not believe the Board could do that. P. Harding agreed and stated that Town Meeting would have to delete it if that was the will.
O. Lies replied that it was not working.
R. Ricker stated that it was working as written. He stated it was a way to increase density and decrease cost. He stated the Board could not just suspend it.
O. Lies stated that he was not saying the developers were doing anything wrong. S. Carlson stated that the spirit of the program was wrong.
W. Ritter replied that he was not sure that the spirit of the program was wrong. He stated that it was the recommendation of the study and was one of the priorities to pass. He stated that they agreed that what the bylaw is intended to do is to give density bonus and build more homes in a smaller space of land. He stated in return the Town gets open space, walking trails, etc instead of clear cutting the land.
P. Harding stated that DPW doesn’t want to plow or replace parts for all that infrastructure.
T. Stratis asked if lot sizes could be changed. W. Ritter replied that they could be changed at Town Meeting.
O. Lies stated that they should pursue and be ready for Town Meeting.
P. Harding stated they were supposed to have a final product for Town Meeting. P. Harding stated that they needed to look at the other side of the Oaks. She stated that it was his (O. Lies) opinion that it is too dense but there was a greenway that was created that goes back to Worcester. She stated it was identified as a high priority preservation area on the plans and it added a significant chunk of land to the greenway. She stated without this land, there would be a huge gap in the land.
W. Ritter stated the number one priority would be to see if the bylaw needed to be tweaked. He stated the Board may have a difference of opinion and suggested seeing what E. Smith CMRPC came up with as well.
S. Carlson asked if the Board was going to continue to do custom releases. He stated that he understood that this was a unique situation but special cases seemed to keep coming up.
R. Ricker stated that by limiting the developer it would put the pressure on them.
S. Carlson asked if the Board wanted to keep doing special stuff.
W. Ritter replied that he didn’t believe the Board ever had a subdivision that there wasn’t some problem that came up. He stated that they needed to address things as they arose.
W. Ritter stated that it (Stoney Brook drainage issue) was not originally like that. He stated he was curious if it was design, construction, or something else.
P. Harding replied that it may not be either; she said that it may not be operating as it was calculated to perform.
W. Ritter stated that they way want to put some performance based conditions on work. P. Harding replied that I. McCauley had recommended that.
S. Carlson asked if they had any authority to do anything regarding detention ponds; he stated the Town has all these detention ponds with no authority.
P. Harding replied that they create HOA’s.
S. Carlson stated that they are owned by the association so it is up to them to fix them.
R. Ricker stated that if the pond fails, it is owned by the association so they all have to pitch in to remedy the problem; he stated it was part of the title.
T. Stratis asked how frequently they were checked. P. Harding replied that DCR checks them yearly. She stated they created and mapped ponds and contacted all the owners but there is no enforcement mechanism.
COMPLETE STREETS PROGRAM
P. Harding stated that DPW will fill out a proposal. She stated it was mentioned by E. Smith, CMRPC, the Town has to submit a proposal and a Complete Streets Policy needs to be adopted. She stated that DPW is working with CMRPC on it, and they are going to review it and make amendments that will qualify the Town for additional funding. She stated that she will forward the Board the model with the edits once she has it and then they can talk more about it.
O. Lies stated that he went to the meeting too. He stated that it is a great program with a lot of money available that the Town should take advantage of. He asked who should carry this on; DPW, a designated person, the Planning Board? He stated that before it goes on to be formally submitted it needs to go to Town Meeting and be accepted by the Town Meeting, not the Town Manager. O. Lies stated this should be a priority and the Board should plan and file.
P. Harding replied that they do not need a public hearing for this as it was not a zoning bylaw.
O. Lies stated it was his understanding that the Town needed to adopt the Complete Streets Policy.
P. Harding replied it was being handled by I. McCauley, DPW.
O. Lies stated that they can start to work on it in order to meet the deadlines.
W. Ritter asked if I. McCauley was handing it. P. Harding confirmed that she had requested the template and she is working on it.
O. Lies asked if this meant that Holden was participating in the program. P. Harding confirmed that the Town was and that I. McCauley would manage it.
O. Lies asked if the Planning Board could work on it as well. P. Harding replied that she could keep the Board informed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by R. Ricker, seconded by S. Carlson, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 15, 2015 PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES BY A VOTE OF 3-0-2(J. Head: abstain; T. Stratis: abstain).
MISC.
P. Harding stated that Wachusett Valley Estates, a cluster subdivision that was denied, had submitted an amended plan to address issues. She stated that the Board needed to vote that the changes are significant enough for a new public hearing and then they are able to act on a new plan. She stated this was scheduled for January 26, 2016.
NEXT MEETING: January 26, 2016
Motion by T. Stratis, seconded by S. Carlson, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE JANUARY 12, 2016 PLANNING BOARD MEETING AT 8:52PM.
APPROVED: _______________