Planning Board Meeting Minutes
PLANNING BOARD
October 27, 2015
Town Hall
Members Present: William Ritter, David Lindberg, Jeffrey Head, John Michalak, Otto Lies
Members Not Present: Tina Stratis, Scott Carlson
Staff Present: Pam Harding, Town Planner; Liz Fotos, Recording Secretary
LOCATION SITE VISIT- JEFFERSON VILLAGE AREA- Vicinity of 1665 Main Street To Review Village District Bylaw (5:30)
The Planning Board met at 1665 Main Street to conduct a site visit of the Jefferson Village area. A draft of the “Village Overlay” area is identified on the map P. Harding provided for the Board. The Board met at the small parking area in between 1655 Mains Street (Jefferson Jewelers) and before Jefferson Mill at 1665 Main Street on a small paved area directly of Main Street.
7:00PM Meeting Called to order by W. Ritter
PUBLIC HEARING TOWN HALL- Town Hall- STONEY BROOK ESTATES DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION Blair Enterprises- Extension of Time
W. Ritter read the public hearing notice into record.
W. Ritter told the public that during a public hearing the developer will speak to the matter before the Board and then he will open it up to public comment. He told the public that if there was anyone wishing to speak to please state their name and address for the record.
George Kiritsy, Stoney Brook Estates was present on behalf of the developer. He stated that he knew the Board was familiar with this site and that it was a subdivision that was approved almost ten years ago. He stated that the site has been under construction for almost a decade and it is almost complete. G. Kiritsystated that the primary road has been developed and they are requesting an application for extension in order to complete the project and turn it over to the Town.
G. Kiritsy stated that a significant portion of the punch list that DPW had provided to the developer has been completed and they are hopeful that a large portion can be taken over by the Town as a public way. G. Kiritsy stated that in addition to the list that he had received there were also some issues that were being dealt with regarding drainage structures and facilities and those were being remediated and reengineered. He stated the issue that they were dealing with was the discharge to the basin; and the point of discharge was where they had the issue. He told the Board that the level spreaders and downgrades needed to be enlarged to support the check dams but that it was all being addressed with the Conservation Commission and DPW.
G. Kiritsy stated that relative to most of the work on this list; it is punch list items that they will complete and then petition to the Town to accept the roadways. He stated they were requesting that the Board gives the extension of time to the developer to allow them to finish and bring the roadways to fruition.
W. Ritter asked out of the 75 homes how many were sold with occupancy issued.
C. Blair replied they had 7 left out of 78.
W. Ritter asked how many were under construction.
C. Blair replied 5.
W. Ritter asked P. Harding if there were any issues from the Town.
P. Harding replied that G. Kiritsy had spoken to the drainage issues that they were working on. She stated that the water was scoring a pathway on an abutters property and depositing silt into a wetlands.
P. Haring stated that there was another issue with an abutter on Bailey Road. She stated that the applicant has cleared onto abutting property in the vicinity of lots 25-30 and lots 44-41. She requested that the Board require survey bounds be located at the property boundary and determine if any remediation is necessary.
Daniel Hazen, DPW was present. He stated that they were working with the developer to remedy the situation. He stated that where the discharge is draining onto an abutters property they are trying to come up with a solution to slow the water down coming out of the detention pond.
W. Ritter asked if there were additional Town issues.
P. Harding replied that a few detention pond repairs were needed that were included on the punch list and the developer was aware of them.
W. Ritter asked the public for any questions or comments.
Shawn Surrette, 7 Candlewood Drive addressed the Board. He stated that the issue that he wished to address was with regards to the planting of trees and the number of trees that was required to be planted. S. Surrette stated that he had already planted grass, installed an electric fence, and a sprinkler system and that to dig up his yard and put a tree in would cause significant damage to his property.
W. Ritter asked S. Surrette his lot number.
S. Surrette replied he was at lot 75 at the corner of 31.
Michael Grant, 7 Teresa Drive was present at the meeting to address the Board. He stated that he had similar issues to S. Surrette with the installation of an irrigation system and that his wife and himself would rather not plant trees in the front yard.
Shawn Lafeoris, 19 Teresa Drive, Lot 29 stated that he would elect not to have the trees planted on his lot as well. He stated that the property has been established to his liking and he does not want the trees. He stated that he does not have a lot of frontage and that the trees that they want to plant are rather large. He also stated that he wishes to waive the fence installation around the detention pond.
W. Ritter stated for the record that he had received an email from S. Lafeoris; he read the letter for the record.
W. Ritter stated that in the letter the homeowner stated that he did not wish to have trees planted and that the builder told him that he needed to contact the Town if he wanted to opt out of the trees.
W. Ritter stated that the email that preceded S. Lafeoris’ email was from Joe Blair, Blair Builders:
“Hi Shawn, this email is to inform you that they are making me put trees in every yard. If you don’t want them call P. Harding otherwise you will come home and find trees planted and holes in your beautiful green grass…..”
W. Ritter stated for the record that P. Harding was not making anyone plant trees. He stated that the subdivision plan included trees in the front yard and the developer opted not to plant the trees earlier and is now running around saying that the Town is making the developer plant them. W. Ritter stated that the developer never asked for a tree waiver and it was part of their (Blair’s) obligation to put them in.
W. Ritter stated that it was not fair to say that P. Harding is requiring this of the builder. He asked the developer if he agreed that the email was inappropriate.
C. Blair agreed with W. Ritter.
W. Ritter stated that it is not the Planning Board’s issue, it is the developers issue. He stated that the developer did not put trees in, did not consult with the homeowner and is not working with them before the made improvements/ additions to their yards.
S. Lafeoris, stated that when they purchased the home, trees were never mentioned or presented to him. He stated that the developer told him that the Town was requiring it. He stated that if the builder had mentioned it at an appropriate time he may have chosen a different lot or done something differently.
W. Ritter replied that maybe they would have just picked a tree.
S. Lafeoris agreed and stated that an ornamental tree rather than a huge shade tree may have worked. He stated that it is a concern to him and that a tree was never presented at any point.
C. Blair stated that he had built between 200-300 homes in Town alone and this is the first time they had ever had anyone complain about planting of trees. He stated that they started to plant the trees and then felt the backlash from homeowners about them.
C. Blair stated that instead of feeling the backlash of planting on the properties they went around and asked if the homeowner wanted trees or not. He said for those that didn’t (26) they left them alone and came to the Planning Board meeting to see if they needed to be planted.
W. Ritter stated that the backlash should be with the developer not the Town Officer. He stated that the trees should not be a surprise to anyone and that they needed to be there ten years ago when the subdivision was approved.
C. Blair replied that he agreed and he is not denying it. He stated it is common practice to wait until you are done to plant trees but it just so happened that some of these people don’t want them. He stated that in all his years of building this had never happened. C. Blair apologized to the Board and to P. Harding. He stated that J. Blair did not handle it right and he asked how they settled it from here.
P. Harding stated that the Town did state that the Board did issue a general opinion that the trees could be planted anywhere in the front yard but that there did need to be two per lot.
W. Ritter stated that he thought that the spot the developer was choosing without regard to houses, walkways, driveways, etc was done in an effort to upset the homeowner even more and make the Town look unreasonable.
C. Blair replied that they were letting the homeowners choose where they would go. He again apologized for how it was handled and asked to figure out what to do with the last few homeowners that did not want the trees.
S. Lafeoris asked the Town to have a little leeway for the last few trees in the development. He stated that he would rather not have the trees on his lot. He also stated that J. Blair directed him to speak to P. Harding about the fence around the detention pond. He stated that they did not want that either.
W. Ritter replied that the fence is usually a requirement for public safety reasons especially in developments like theirs where small children may prevalent.
S. Lafeoris replied that either way (about the fence) he asked to have the remaining trees waived.
W. Ritter asked about the drainage problems.
G. Kiritsy replied that it was regarding detention pond 2.
C. Blair stated that they were looking at an alternative. He stated that they had a big rain storm and the water came up the detention pond and into the river. He stated they want to put big rocks to take the velocity out of the water and then add a level spreader at the end. He stated that they needed to take the energy out of the water towards the end.
W. Ritter asked what Lot that was next to.
P. Harding replied Lot 29 and Lot 30. She stated that DPW would like record of maintenance for the sewer pump station and exhaust and that they had been asking for that for a while.
W. Ritter asked how quickly the issues were going to be resolved.
C. Blair replied a few weeks.
G. Kiritsy stated that they were still in the engineering process.
C. Blair replied that they were working on it.
W. Ritter asked about the encroachment issues on the abutters land.
G. Kiritsy stated that they will mark them.
P. Harding replied that she believed there were property markers out there but that J. Blair was the one who did them and they show encroachment. She requested that the Board require survey bounds be located at the property boundary and determine if any remediation is necessary.
G. Kiritsy replied that was a private issue and they will deal with it.
P. Harding replied that the abutter is concerned that it would continue with future homeowners and while he does not want remediation he does want to make sure its corrected going forward.
G. Kiritsy stated that the detention pond and the drainage would require engineering but the other stuff is punch list items that can be dealt with quickly. He stated that there wasn’t anything on the list that was significant.
He stated that there was a hydrant that needed to be relocated and they will do that.
W. Ritter stated that the drainage issue is not a punch list item; that it is a serious issue.
G. Kiritsy agreed and stated that it couldn’t be addressed further without engineering which is what they are working on. He stated where it is coming out the discharge point from the pond is such that it is not adequately slowing down and directing the water. He stated that after it turns through the level spreader it should slow and isn’t so that needs to be reexamined and made wider and deeper and put in check dams or plunge pools to fix it.
W. Ritter asked the Board for any questions or comments.
O. Lies asked what the Boards feelings on the trees were. He stated this was a new issue the Board had never heard; usually people wanted trees planted. He stated that he understood where the homeowners were going from and that he felt as though they could be a little flexible for the sake of resolution.
W. Ritter replied that he could see the homeowner’s side but that he did not agree with the developer. He suggested having the developer draft a letter to the people who did not want trees. He stated that the Board/ Town needed to know which lots and homeowners did not want the trees but that they needed to accurately convey to those people what happened; not to push the blame off on the Town.
O. Lies agreed and stated that they would need something in writing.
W. Ritter stated that if an extension is granted, the developer would need to submit a written request for a tree waiver. He stated that he would be inclined to grant a waiver now that everything was complete on these properties. He stated that he did believe if these trees were originally there people would have accepted them. He stated that going forward something different could be done.
G. Kiritsy stated that he could draft a letter and send it out as a condition of the extension.
P. Harding stated that she would like to see engineering plans to remediate the drainage issues before the Board officially closes the public hearing. She stated that DPW would need to review the proposal and if they need conditions they wouldn’t have the ability to do so if the public hearing was closed.
W. Ritter stated that he does believe the drainage needs to be resolved.
P. Harding replied that she would like time frames as well because of some of the outstanding items were long standing.
G. Kiritsy stated that perhaps at the next public hearing he could have the names of the property owners that wished to opt out.
W. Ritter replied that the letter should include that the Town was not responsible.
W. Ritter suggested continuing the public hearing to the November 24, 2015 Planning Board Meeting.
P. Harding asked for the property bounds to be marked prior to the public hearing.
W. Ritter agreed. He thanked the public for coming out to the meeting.
Motion by O. Lies, seconded by J. Head, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR STONEY BROOK ESTATES DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISIN, BLAIR ENTERPRISE EXTENSION OF TIME TO THE NOVEMBER 24, 2015 MEETING AND PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO HAVE THE PROPERTY MARKED, A DRAFT LETTER REGARDING THE TREES, AND WORK WITH ENGINEERING ON THE DRAINAGE ISSUES ADDRESSED.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by D. Lindberg, seconded by O. Lies, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 18, 2015 PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES BY A VOTE OF 4-0-1 (J. Michalak: abstain).
MISC.
P. Harding stated that at the last meeting Oak Hill presented a letter of credit and they would like to change that to a cash security instead. She asked for the Board to revote on that.
Motion by J. Head, seconded by J. Michalak, it was UNANIMOULY VOTED TO APPROVE A CASH SECURITY RATHER THAN A LETTER OF CREDIT FOR THE OAK HILL SUBDIVISION.
Red Tail Estates: P. Harding stated that the signature appeal has expired so they can sign the mylar.
W. Ritter asked if the driveway and pump station were done.
P. Harding replied that the pump station was done and has been adequately pressure tested along with other engineering aspects tested. She stated they also peer tested the culvert.
J. Michalak asked the thoughts on the Location Site Visit- Jefferson Village Area. He asked what the next steps would be and asked if the Board was all trying to envision a village build up at that location.
P. Harding replied that E. Smith, CMRPC would analyze the possibilities of that location under the model bylaw and present back to the Board.
J. Michalak asked the Boards thoughts. He asked about sidewalks at that location as well as it was a state owned roadway.
W. Ritter agreed that there should be some sidewalks. He stated that commercial space with some residential use in the back could work. He stated that mixed use was probably the most economical and that he would like to see it stay part residential / part business.
O. Lies stated that he was interested in the walk through as he generally only drives the area. He stated that J. Michalaks comments about sidewalks were good ones and that as you walk through the condos you have a different picture of the location. He stated that maybe the non attractiveness of Main Street was having an impact on businesses there. He stated that he thinks that a village bylaw and sidewalks should be considered and he mentioned that the state has money available in a program called “Complete Streets” that the Town should look into to see if they qualify.
P. Harding replied that it was a state highway so MA Highway would have to do it.
O. Lies stated that it was a preannouncement and that he would forward more details once he got them.
J. Michalak stated that he thinks the Town needs to have a “Complete Streets Policy” in place to take advantage of the program.
W. Ritter replied that O. Lies had a great point about the condo’s looking great and being maintained. He stated that you could see how nice it could be there.
O. Lies bought up the overhead utilities and how Main Street looked much better/ different without them. He stated it was a big improvement to Main Street when they went underground.
Next Meeting: November 24, 2015
Motion by O. Lies, seconded by D. Lindberg, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE OCTOBER 27, 2015 PLANNING BOARD MEETING AT 7:52PM.
The October 27, 2015 meeting minutes were approved on November 24, 2015.