Planning Board, November 25, 2014
PLANNING BOARD
November 25, 2014
TOWN HALL MEMORIAL HALL
Members Present: William Ritter, Tina Stratis, Jeff Head, Otto Lies, John Michalak, Scott Carlson, David Lindberg
Staff Present: Pam Harding, Town Planner, Elizabeth Fotos, Recording Secretary
7:00PM Meeting called to order by W. Ritter
Public Hearing Definitive Subdivision – Special Permit Wachusett Valley Estates- Greenstone Properties, 325 Bullard Street
W. Ritter told the Board that O. Lies had missed the meeting on October 14, 2014. He stated that it was the first meeting on this matter than O. Lies had missed. O. Lies read the meeting minutes and signed the certification stating that he had done so. W. Ritter told the public that having done this O. Lies was able to participate in the public hearing under the Mullin’s Rule. The signed affidavit was given to P. Harding.
W. Ritter asked the Town for their comments on the engineering notes provided to the Board prior to the meeting. P. Harding told the Board that the majority of the comments were from John Woodsmall, Director of the DPW regarding the drainage. P. Harding explained that there were some changes based on the change in designation from a Zone A and that the applicant had worked with the DEP in order to remove the Zone A designation.
O. Lies stated that he had read the minutes and asked for clarification on the Zone AP. Harding replied that Zone A is a drinking water restriction. She stated that the only way to get the designation removed was to go through Department of Environmental Protect (DEP). In. this case DEP and the Conservation Commission reviewed; finding no tributary was in existence within the wetlands, DEP removed the designation.
O. Lies asked who originally put the designation on the land. P. Harding replied the DEP.
W. Ritter confirmed that the Zone A designation was removed. He then asked why there were so many drainage issues on the property.
P. Harding stated that the applicant did not meet a lot of the drainage requirements. P. Harding stated that the applicant stated that he has not worked within a drinking water supply and was unaware of the stringent requirements.
J. Woodsmall, Director DEP stated that he approached the drainage question from a compliance standpoint with regards to the DEP, Stormwater Standards and the DPW handbook and looked at the overall design. He stated that much of what was submitted did not comply with the guidelines and standards present. J. Woodsmall stated there were issues ranging from poor planning, not enough information to verify field conditions, making assumptions on infiltrative basis and using sediment forebays. He stated that the applicant had a bioretention basin and then had an impermeable barrier at the bottom but counted it towards infiltration. He stated that he had provided the Board with all the concerns the DPW had regarding the drainage.
W. Ritter asked what Graves Engineering comments were on the matter. They stated they had similar comments to the Town.
J. Woodsmall stated he did not think there was anything that was not solvable he added that there was a recently completed review of the pump station and that while there were a few comments the design was in overall good shape.
J. Olson, Greenstone Properties was present at the meeting. He stated that he had not received the information on the pump station yet. He also stated that he had a meeting with J. Woodsmall, Director DPW on December 1, 2014 and that they were going to address all of the issues that the DPW had commented on.
W. Ritter asked if there were any comments from the public; no comments were made.
W. Ritter told the applicant that he was not happy with the amount of time, effort, and resources that the Town had allocated on the engineering of these plans. He stated the Town’s role should be to review plans submitted by the developer, not redoing deficient plans.
W. Ritter asked the Board if they had any questions.
S. Carlson asked where they stood with the second exit. J. Olson replied that they had completed a new plan and that the pavement was moved in the right of way and lot 38 was adjusted. He stated that P. Harding had those plans.
S. Carlson asked if it met the minimum 125 FT requirements. P. Harding replied that it required a waiver.
J. Woodsmall stated that the Town’s standards are ambiguous as to how they are to be measured; edge of pavement, edge of right of way etc. S. Carlson asked if the road would be considered low volume. J. Woodsmall replied it would.
W. Ritter reminded the developer that the Board had asked them to submit plans that addressed the abutters/ neighbors that were concerned with the stormwater issues. J. Olson replied that those plans were in the process.
J. Woodsmall stated that the ANR plan did not show with sufficient detail the shifting of the roadway and they would not be able to see that until the subdivision plans were submitted.
P. Harding replied that the ANR for Lot 38 Bullard was on the agenda for today (November 25, 2014).
W. Ritter asked about the drainage on the property. J. Woodsmall replied that the impact of the ANR lots should be included and that his comments addressed all of that, impacts to the abutters interior to the subdivision could not be assessed until the ANR lots were accounted for.
W. Ritter replied that they have to go back with regards to the two existing homes. P .Harding stated that the Board needed to discuss the right of way as it was approved. She stated that it was submitted as an ANR and that it was approvable but the Town did not have revised subdivision plans to review the new road layout to determine if the new lot lines for Lot 38 were sufficiently revised. She stated that if they transfer ownership and they have an issue with the ROW then it is a hardship the developer has brought on himself.
O. Lies stated that having read through all the information provided he felt as though this was one of the most deficient plans that Board had received. He asked how much more time the Board was willing to spend on this.
W. Ritter asked the developer what was the reason for not including the ANR. J. Olson replied that it was done in that manner in order to avoid the wetlands.
W. Ritter replied that he was worried about the drainage for the two existing homes.
J. Woodsmall replied that while they are two separate ANR lots, they are in the development. He stated that they are actually phases of the same constructions and cannot be examined in isolation. He stated that the post development impacts on those lots needed to be considered.
P. Harding confirmed that the lot in question was lot 38 and that it was buildable.
J. Olson stated that the main reason that they were doing an adjustment for lot 38 was to get the 75FT street separation that was required.
W. Ritter asked what the time frame on the subdivision expiration was. P. Harding replied that it was currently on extension. W. Ritter asked the Board how they would like to proceed.
P. Harding stated that they needed a decision by December 9, 2014.
J. Olson stated that he believed that with one more extension of time everything would be completed within the DPW’s guidelines.
T. Stratis asked what the options were. S. Carlson asked what would happen if the Board denied. P. Harding replied that they would not be able to move forward with their application for a year under the Special Permit; however they could submit another application addressing the reasons for denial.
S. Carlson stated that this development could be built conventionally; that the cluster building was something that was being offered and the Board was trying to be helpful but to what extent.
O. Lied asked if this was denied today, could a conventional plan be submitted immediately. P. Harding replied yes.
J. Olson replied that they were a week away from completing the requirements that were requested. He asked for one more week to do so.
S. Carlson stated that with regards to the cluster zone, the rules are known and too many of them were not adhered to.
P. Harding replied that she did not believe that the issues would be any different if the applicant applied as a conventional zone. She stated she believed the drainage issues would be there either way and that it was not in the Town’s interest to have the applicant file as a conventional.
W. Ritter asked what the status of the Conservation Commission was. P. Harding replied that they had the hearing December 3, 2014 and that the peer review comments were in the Boards packets. She stated that they will need revised plans as well and that they were probably looking at a January 6th timeline for Conservation Commission.
W. Ritter asked if an extension was granted what time period would be needed. P. Harding replied that the Town would need a few weeks as well.
W. Ritter asked J. Woodsmall if he was comfortable that the issues presented were resolvable. J. Woodsmall replied yes.
S. Carlson asked what kind of work would be needed to take care of the retention pond. J. Woodsmall replied that it was a real issue that was going to have to be dealt with in the near future. He stated that the private homeowners associations were there but not a sustainable model. He stated that there were a number of acceptable measures that needed to be taken with regards to the storm water standards and that it was something that would need to be addressed in the near future.
W. Ritter asked if it was the same issue with conventional zoning. J. Woodsmall replied that it would happen with either.
J. Head asked if there was going to be anything that the developer was going to have issues with complying with. J. Woodsmall replied that he did not think there would be issues.
W. Ritter stated that the developer was asking for written request for a time extension for the February 10, 2015 public hearing. W. Ritter stated that if a motion is made, deadlines needed to be added so that this did not occur again. W. Ritter asked the Town when the Town would need the information submitted if an extension was granted.
J. Woodsmall replied that they would need everything submitted by the middle of December.
Motion by J. Head, seconded by D. Lindberg, it was VOTED TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR WACHUSETT VALLEY ESTATES; GREENSTONE PROPERTIES FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON FEBRUARY 10, 2015 WITH A DECISION TO BE FILED BY FEBRUARY 20, 2015 WITH ALL REVISED PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN BY DECEMBER 15, 2014 BY A VOTE OF 6-1. (T. Stratis: no).
Approval Not Required Lot 38 Bullard Street Greenstone Properties
The Board reviewed the plans from P. Harding. She stated that Lot 38 was in the corner and that they did not have the road design for the egress that could alter the alignment.
W. Ritter stated that it had sufficient frontage.
O. Lies asked if this revision was made by the request of the DPW. P. Harding replied that it was a requirement in the subdivision, however it was unknown if DPW was satisfied with it as they do not have the plans.
W. Ritter stated that if the road was redesigned the Board would need new plans submitted. J. Woodsmall stated that DPW did not request the change but stated that it was one way that it was approvable. He stated that until they saw a new road design and right of way layout he is unsure if it is sufficient.
W. Ritter stated that the ANR was entitled to endorsement because there was sufficient frontage.
Motion by O. Lies, seconded by J. Head, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE ANR FOR LOT 38 BULLARD STREET/ GREENSTONE PROPERTIES.
Bond Reduction
Bullard Estates Casa Builders
P. Harding stated that this matter would be continued to the next meeting.
Review of Open Space and Residential Design ByLaw
W. Ritter suggested moving this matter to the next meeting; Tuesday December 16, 2014. He stated that while the matter was discussed at a prior meeting, O. Lies was not present and this is a matter that he wished to discuss as well.
S. Carlson asked how the Board would approach the road issues that have not been defined.
P. Harding stated that it was on the list of things to discuss with the Board and once the water main issues were addressed the DPW wanted to update the subdivision control regulations.
O. Lies asked if DPW should be involved in the meeting as well. W. Ritter replied that they can be invited to discuss the matter.
Approval of Minutes
Motion by O. Lies, seconded by D. Lindberg, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE JULY 15, 2014 PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES BY A VOTE OF 4-0-3(S. Carlson: abstain; T. Stratis: abstain; J. Head: abstain).
Motion by J. Michalak, seconded by T. Stratis, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES BY A VOTE OF 6-0-1(D. Lindberg: abstain).
Motion by S. Carlson, seconded by J. Michalak, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 28, 2014 PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES BY A VOTE OF 4-0-3 (T. Stratis: abstain; J. Head: abstain; O. Lies: abstain).
Other Business
W. Ritter asked the Board if they had any other matters to discuss.
J. Michalak stated that at the end of October he had attended the states Moving Together Conference, which was a bike and pedestrian conference. He stated that one of the sessions was asking questions on the state sidewalk master plan. He asked if the Town had worked on the sidewalk plans and if there was a sidewalk master plan. He stated that West Boylston had just received grant money to do work on their sidewalks and perhaps if there was a master plan for the Town those funds could be available to the Town as well.
J. Michalak also stated that there was another conference; DCR trails conference. He asked if the Town had plans on the trails and how they interconnect.
W. Ritter replied that there is a Holden plan. P. Harding stated that she does not believe that there is a comprehensive one.
J. Michalak replied one of the concerns is that developers could develop on those paths if there was no master plan.
O. Lies stated that he attended a meeting for the CMRPC last Thursday (November 20, 2014). He stated that there was a question as to budget cuts that were being implemented but fortunately the cuts were within the capacity that they could handle ($3000). He stated that the application will be sent out in the middle of December for the technical assistance projects and that use of the funds were not limited to planning. He stated that the sidewalk master plan that J. Michalak suggested could be of interest or the funds could be used for a different project.
D. Lindberg asked if the Board could receive an outline detailing the year end summary for building permits and construction projects for the year. P. Harding replied that she would obtain it in January.
S. Carlson asked if the Towns numbers would be greater than 150. P. Harding replied that she did not think so.
T. Stratis asked what the cap was. P. Harding replied 200 over 2 years. W. Ritter stated that the Town has not been near the cap in a long time. He stated that the Board should review that.
T. Stratis asked if the Town would ever decrease the permits. P. Harding replied that there is a Town Bylaw that limits the growth and to change the number it would have to be presented and passed in Town Meeting.
P. Harding stated that there was a limit in percentages in lot sizes within subdivisions as well.
The board discussed this information as it pertained to Wachusett Valley Estates and their subdivisions
NEXT MEETING: December 16, 2014.
Motion by O. Lies, seconded by D. Lindberg, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE NOVMBER 25, 2014 PLANNING BOARD MEETING AT 8:15PM.
The November 25, 2014 Planning Board meeting minutes were approved on December 16, 2014
APPROVED: _____________________ __
Pamela Harding, Town Planner