APPROVED
TOWN OF
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
The Chairman, Bill Scanzani called the meeting to orde=
r at
The Secretary, Gael Ouellette, called the roll:
|
PRESENT: |
Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Gael Ouellette, Paddy Culbert, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Alternate Ken Dunne, Planning Director Will D’Andrea |
|
ABSENT: |
Robin Bousa, Christine Medeiros |
Mr. Scanzani informed that Mr. Yarmo would vot= e in Ms. Bousa’s absence.
Mr. Scanzani reviewed the agenda items and announced which items were postponed. (see below for specific dates).
NEW
BUSINESS
Ma=
p 3
Mr. Culbert recused himself.
Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters aloud. There w= ere no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.
Mr. Mark Jacobs a Wetland/Soil Scientist prese= nted the application on behalf of MJ Grainger Engineering and Mr. Peter Buonarosa. He said there had = been a modification to the previously approved subdivision plan and provided the B= oard with the revised plan. He sai= d at the request of MJ Grainger, he prepared a report (and supplied such to the Board) which investigated the lot and re-identified wetlands and determine = the presence/absence of Bird Foot Violets, that were determined to be on the si= te during the original approval. Mr. Jacobs said they returned to the site in May and had encountered violets (9= occurrences), but were not Bird Foot, but rather Northern Blue Violets. As part of Mr. Jacobs report, photographs and structure/growth habits of the two species were outlined; it appeared that the Bird Foot Violet was erroneously identified on the origin= al subdivision. With this inform= ation, MJ Grainger had designed an alternate location for the driveway access to t= he parcel that would be more suitable and safe. Mr. Jacobs said he recommended tha= t the drawing depict some erosion/siltation control barriers to occur prior to an= d be maintained during construction. He said they were unable to confirm the presence of poorly drained soils that = were originally identified to the interior of the wetland boundary.
Mr. Yarmo questioned when the original subdivi= sion was done and who did the original wetlands review. Mr. Jacobs was unsure when the ori= ginal subdivision was done, but believed the original practitioner was Gove Environmental. Mr. Yarmo aske= d how different the new driveway would be compared to the old. Mr. Jacobs said the current drivew= ay had a 20%-25% grade, and the proposed would be no greater than 12%.
Mr. McNamara asked how the lot could have been approved with the possibility of a 25% graded driveway. Mr. D’Andrea said when the original subdivision plan was approved, that grade was the natural contour = of the lot; a Certificate of Occupancy had not yet been issued because of the severity of the grade. He said there was no grade requirement at the time the subdivision plan was approve= d, which he believed was done pre-2000. Mr. Jacobs believed the driveway was placed there because it was the only alignment that would permit access with no disturbance of the protecti= ve zone established around the Bird Foot Violet. He said he had been hired to deter= mine if there was any separation between the Bird Foot Violet community and the wetland. Mr. McNamara asked if there was any driveway access on the property that would be less than 12%.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Jacobs there possibly was, but= noted he wasn’t the engineer. He said a driveway may be able to be designed that was less severe than propos= ed, however if may require entry into the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’). Mr. McNa= mara asked what distance the 12% grade went.&nb= sp; Mr. Jacobs said approximately 50ft.-60ft. of the driveway.
Mr. Scanzani noted that the current Subdivision Regulations would apply. A wa= iver would be needed for the steepness. <= /span>
Mr. Scanzani said the Board had used Gove
Environmental to identify wetlands, vegetation etc. and was hesitant to see
where the original plan was in error.
He asked if the Board wanted an additional independent review of the
site prior to making a decision.
Mr. Jacobs said the wetland boundary was largely the same; the bound=
ary
he mapped indicated only poorly drained soils, the original boundary (done =
by
Gove) identified a thin margin of poorly drained soils around the perimeter=
of
a very poorly drained soil map unit that he didn’t believe existed.
Mr. Yarmo confirmed that the boundaries were s= ame, the classification was different. Mr. Jacobs believed the boundary was largely the same, however they didn’t find any poorly drained soils to the interior of the boundary.= Mr. Yarmo said it was still a wetl= and that needed protection. He wa= nted to know if it was possible that the endangered species hadn’t arrived yet. Mr. Jacobs said he waited until May to conduct the investigation because the violets should have been up. He noted that the flower = would be relatively the same, however the leaf structure was quite different. Mr. Yarmo asked if the area would support the endangered species. Mr. Jacob said it was conceivable; if it was there it should be manifesting itself. Mr. Yarmo said he wan= ted to know how much square footage was initially protected and how much it would = be encroached upon with the proposed plan.&nb= sp; He agreed that an independent source should review. Mr. Jacobs said they only had a protective radius that put around the area. He showed the area in which they observed the specimens and said the proposed work would occur 10ft.-15ft. f= rom that point.
Mr. McNamara also agreed that the Board should have an independent review of the area.&nb= sp; He asked if the Board could review the original Environmental Report. Mr. D’Andrea sa= id he would try to find the document.
Mr. Scanzani said if the independent view point matched the proposed plan; the no-cut zone could be removed from the plan.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
There was a consensus from the Board to have an additional review of the site. Mr. D’Andrea said Louis-Berger could be asked to do the review. Mr. Jacobs asked if it would be po= ssible for the reviewer co-ordinate with them.&nb= sp; Mr. Scanzani answered yes.
Mr. Culbert returned to the Board.
The plan was date specified to the
Ma=
p 29
This was postponed to the
Ma=
p 36
Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters aloud.
There were no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a
problem with notification. The file did not contain any written corresponde=
nce
from abutters.
Mr. Jonathan Ring of Jones & Beach Enginee= ring, Inc. and Mr. Mark West of West Environmental presented the plan to the Board. He said the conceptual= plan had come before the Board in 2001 as well as one year ago as a 21-lot conceptual plan. He said sinc= e last year’s meeting they had completed most of the survey and performed so= me more wetland investigation work, redesigned to eliminate some lots to provi= de more conservation land (55% would be placed into conservation land); connectivity established with a through-road; pedestrian access to Town own= ed parcel through lots 19 and 21; shared driveways shown for lots 4 & 5 an= d 6 & 7 to minimize and reduce Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) impacts; and wildlife corridors had also been expanded. Mr. Ring said a preliminary drainage design was being worked on with the Town Planner and M= r. Craig Wood of Louis-Berger (Town environmental consultant). They were working to keep an open drainage swale system to minimize the need for detention ponds and catch ba= sins and instead have berms and swales to control and treat storm water before it was discharged into the wetlands. Mr. Ring said they would work with Mr. Dan Cyr to ensure careful wood cutting operations.
Mr. Ring said there were certain items they wo= uld like the Board to comment on: 1) 15KSF buildable areas –lots 8 & = 11 have irregular shapes; 2) if common driveways for lots 3 & 4 and 6 &= ; 7 and driveway easement for lot 11 (across lot 12) are acceptable; 3) well ra= dius on lot 21 is outside of the 15-foot buildable setback; 4) sidewalk waiver w= ould be requested to minimize the amount of impervious surface.
Mr. West addressed the Board and noted he was retained after the site had been delineated and some soil mapping had been done. He said he began in the winter by doing an evaluation of higher, versus lower value wetlands as wel= l as potential vernal pools. In the spring, they did a complete vernal pool survey/assessment at which point the layout was done. Mr. West sho= wed on the plan, where the vernal pools were located. With the revised layout, all the v= ernal pools were able to be placed in conservation land, except for one. Mr. West said they met with Mr. Wo= od (Louis-Berger – Town environmental consultant) and reviewed the photo logs and maps= of wetlands. He discussed the ty= pes of wetlands contained on the site. He said they had one meeting with the Conservation Commission, but would still= be meeting with them and walking the site.&nb= sp;
Mr. Yarmo (Planning Board alternate and Conservation Commission member) said the Conservation Commission saw the conceptual plan a couple months ago and noted they had walked the site a co= uple years ago. He suggested that = the Board do a site walk because it was quite wet. He said the commission was concern= ed about the cumulative effect of the all the WCD crossings and isolating the wetlands that were hydrologically connected, which he hoped would be addres= sed in the Environmental Impact Analysis (‘EIS’). Mr. Yarmo asked if the ‘green-hatched’ area shown on the plan would qualify as a prime wetland. Mr. West said it was significant, but wouldn’t be able to make that judgment until the oth= er wetlands in the Town were reviewed; the EIS would address many of the issues.
Mr. Scanzani didn’t have too much trouble with the lot shapes. Regardin= g the well radiuses and the 15-foot setbacks, Mr. Scanzani didn’t feel the Board would have a problem, as long as the wells were entirely contained on= the lots; if the radius went over, the well would have to be re-drilled.
Mr. Danevich said because of the size of the proposed subdivision, the Board would insist that a full EIA and traffic im= pact study be completed prior to submission.&nb= sp; He also said the WCD crossings should be minimized, where possible.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He suggested opening up a couple l= ots to provide a buffer to the 75-foot well radiuses. He said certain lots contained the building envelopes within the property boundary setbacks and the lot didn’t appear to be large enough to support the 15KSF area (and natur= al expansion). He was concerned = with the close proximity of house placement.&nb= sp; He was interested in having a Town right-of-way for access onto Town property. Mr. Danevich said t= he septic placement on lot 17 was not acceptable in the event of failure, it may be forced to move into the well radius. He said the Board had not implemented or supported shared driveways = for numerous reasons and suggested that the driveways be separated with a green strip. He noted concerns with= lots 11 & 17 and the placement of the well and septic, which needed separation.
Mr. McNamara asked that the applicant take particular care regarding the placement of the 15KSF so buyers didn’t encroach into the WCD and had some room to use their lots. He asked what the total square foo= tage wetland impact area was. Mr. = Ring said note #2 on the plan indicated 18,400SF of total wetland impact. They were working with Mr. West to reduce further by trying to pull the wetlands areas of the lots.
Mr. Scanzani asked if there was currently acce=
ss
to
Mr. Scanzani asked for an explanation of the amphibian tunnel. Mr. West explained that they may want to have confirmed movement before installing a tunnel. He discussed the area= and the latest technology. There = would be further discussion with Mr. Wood (Louis-Berger). At this point, nothing was finalized. Mr. Scanzani said = in order for the Board to move forward, more definitive plans would be needed = for the Town Engineer to review.
Mr. Culbert questioned if an Economic Study was included in the list Mr. Danevich provided. Mr. Danevich said the following stu= dies would be needed: 1) Traffic; 2) Environmental; 3) WCD; 3) Economic.
Mr. Culbert wanted further explanation of the amphibian tunnel and how it would be maintained. Mr. West said the box would be approximately 4ft.x4ft. covered by a grate which would have to be checked s= o it didn’t get blocked. He = said it was relatively new technology and would be further discussed with Louis-Berger, Wetlands Bureau and the Conservation Commission.
There was no public input.
Mr. Ring requested clarification of the well radius. Mr. Scanzani said the intent of the Well Ordinance was that the well radius be contained complete= ly on the lot. Mr. Ring said they would be modified and moved around.
Mr. Ring asked if the driveway easement on lot= 12 for lot 11 was acceptable. Mr. Culbert didn’t believe the Board had approved a driveway across anoth= er person’s land. Mr. Yarmo recalled the Board had approved shared driveways. Mr. D’Andrea said the Subdiv= ision Regulations allowed shared driveways with the appropriate notations on the plan, waivers, releases and indemnifications. Mr. Scanzani believed most of the = shared driveways could be done with the green space as suggested by Mr. Danevich.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
Ma=
p 24
Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters aloud.
There were no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a
problem with notification. The file did not contain any written corresponde=
nce
from abutters.
Mr. Charles Wickwire, for the applicant, said = the subdivision had been approved last year and the work on the property was do= ne on their property (i.e. replace septic system) and by the time all the work= was done it was late in the fall. The property is now for sale, but because the one-year point was approaching, t= hey requested an extension. Mr. Scanzani confirmed that no changes to the original plan had occurred.
Mr. McNamara asked if there had been any chang= e to the property. Mr. Wickwire sa= id there was no change except slight clearing in order to facilitate the septic change. There were no substan= tial changes to the grading.
There was no public input.
|
MOTION:<= o:p> |
(Danevich/McNamara) To accept the= plan for consideration. |
|
VOTE: |
(6-0-0) The motion carri=
ed. |
|
MOTION:<= o:p> |
(Danevich/Culbert) To approve the= subdivision approval extension request for six months. |
|
VOTE: |
(6-0-0) The motion carri=
ed. |
OLD
BUSINESS
Ma=
p 7
Lot 9-136-48 Taris, Kathleen
– 19 May Lane – Amend Subdivision plan and grant a waiver from
Section 11.14.B to allow both the replanting within the WCD and to allow a
portion of the WCD for residential uses.
Ms. Kathleen Taris and Mr. Eric Castrucci, 19 =
May
Lane, met with the Board to discuss their request. Ms. Taris said they were seeking a
waiver to the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) restriction=
so
they could: 1) replant what was taken during the development of their house,
and 2) mow what’s remaining.
She said Mr. D’Andrea requested (under the Board’s
recommendation from the
Ms. Taris noted that the map before the Board =
was
the sewer/septic design plan that had been updated by Gove Environmental
(signed by Mr. Luke Hurley on
Ms. Taris said at the last meeting the Board s=
aid
they could not make a decision because there was a pending (court) trial, w=
hich
unfortunately put them in a position where they could not prove damages in
court regardless of liability. She
said they were advised, and settled the case for no money so they could come
back to the Board, clear up the deed and sell, if desired in the future.
Mr. McNamara asked if the court case was dismi= ssed prior to trial. Ms. Taris sai= d they went to a pre-trial conference and settled at that time. Mr. McNamara questioned if there w= ere any stipulations or agreements in the settlement. Ms. Taris answered yes and said she would show a copy of the document. <= /span>Mr. McNamara was troubled that there was ample proof that prior to purchase the applicant knew the situation with regard to restrictions and relative close= ness of the wetland in the back property. He said without judging at this point, he would not vote for the req= uest unless it could be shown that the proposed would be better (environmentally) than what was currently at the site. He said in his view, the applicant knew the situation prior to purchase. Ms. Taris said she = was told they had 50-feet and had grave concerns when they found out about the conservation vernal pool and was told it was a poor drainage area. She said because they could not wa= lk their lot due to the vegetation, they walked on someone else’s proper= ty to view the poor drainage area. When the land was cleared, Ms. Taris believed they had the 50-feet t= hey were told about. She said it = was naivety on her part, but didn’t think the builder was lying. She said they found out they had a 12-foot backyard when they went to pull a pool permit. Mr. McNamara said the recorded plan showed a legal wetland easement. Mr. Castrucci said the proposed plan would help the current situation.
Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the backyard area = was currently grass and the applicant was not proposing to build within the 50-= foot WCD. Ms. Taris said they had = ample space on the other side of their driveway if they wanted to build. She said they had no problem signi= ng the plan and would be more than forthcoming if they wanted to sell in the future. Mr. Scanzani reviewed= the proposed and said the applicant was looking to protect the edge of wet better by planting trees (per Gove recommendation) and placing a wild flower mix along the wildlife corridor; the WCD area would remain natural grass. Ms. Taris said they would like to = mow the area. She was trying to b= etter a situation she didn’t cause.
Mr. Yarmo said he was not present during the f= irst meeting and asked for an explanation of the history. Ms. Taris provided Mr. Yarmo with a summary and ended by saying the yard was cleared after the purchase and sal= es agreement was signed. Mr. McN= amara suggested that Mr. Yarmo review the minutes from the last meeting because t= here were a lot of contested factual issues.&nb= sp; Mr. Yarmo said this may have been prevented if the WCD signs were pu= t up prior to a building permit being issued.&n= bsp; Ms. Taris said the green WCD signs were placed on the remaining trees.
Mr. Scanzani said it appeared that the plantin= g recommendations by Gove to protect the poorly drained soil made sense. He recommended that a note be plac= ed on the plan that indicated building would not be allowed in the WCD, however s= ome green area in the WCD would be allowed.&nb= sp;
Mr. Culbert asked how much of the WCD the
applicant wanted to maintain as green space. Ms. Taris said it was difficult to
determine and believed it was approximately 30-feet. Mr. Culbert questioned if the appl=
icant
was requesting to utilize 60% of the WCD by cutting grass and fertilizing.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Ms. Taris said they were only aski=
ng to
cut, not fertilize. Mr. Castr=
ucci
said grass was natural to the area in which they were requesting to cut.
Mr. McNamara asked to view the Order of Dismis= sal (from the applicant’s recent court case). Ms. Taris provided a copy for review.
Mr. Yarmo asked if the applicant was considere= d to be in violation of their deed. Ms. Taris answered yes. Mr. D’Andrea said they were considered to be in violation of the subdivis= ion plan due to encroachment of the WCD. Mr. Yarmo asked if it would complicate or prevent sale of the house = at a later date. Mr. D’Andre= a said the WCD showed up as a no-cut area on the plan, which in turn, if cut would= be a violation to the property per the Subdivision Regulations.
Mr. Scanzani discussed the situation and said =
in
his opinion the Board should allow an area to be cut (30-feet from the back=
of
the house– which would be 15-feet from the deck); the rest of the WCD
should continue to grow naturally.
He felt it nothing was done the poorly drained area would not be pro=
tected. Mr. Yarmo agreed that something sh=
ould
be done for protection. He as=
ked if
the WCD was on the deed. Mr.
Scanzani said the WCD wouldn’t change. He said the question was if the
applicant would be given with additional space, and at the same time protect
the wetland through recommendations by Gove Environmental. He said based on the plan the house
didn’t appear to be in the place it was originally proposed to be.
Mr. Scanzani noted that no structure was plann= ed for the WCD. Ms. Ouellette wa= nted it to be spelled out in no uncertain terms. Mr. Castrucci said they would be h= appy to sign anything to that affect; they had no intention of doing that. Ms. Taris said they had no objecti= on to signing anything.
Mr. McNamara believed that the deed indicated = that the area was ‘no-cut, no-disturb’ and questioned if the Board c= ould order something that was contrary to it.&n= bsp; Mr. D’Andrea said he had not reviewed the deed; the plan would show no-cut area for the WCD. Mr. Yarmo said he wanted to see steps by the Town to ensure that a similar situation didn’t occur again. Mr. Scanzani said he would like to allow the applicant to cut 25-feet beyond the deck and 25-feet beyond the pool and allow the other 25-feet to grown naturally (with the plantings as recommended by Gove Environmental).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Culbert questioned how the cut= area would be determined (i.e. length of the property, or length of the WCD).
PUBLIC INPUT
Mr. Dave Hennessey,
Neither Mr. Scanzani nor Mr. Danevich felt it = was necessary for Conservation Commission review, but the Board felt otherwise,= so the plan was referred.
It was Ms. Taris’ understanding that the vernal pool was conservation and that the WCD was zoning that could either = be enforced, or not enforces and was not considered conservation. Mr. McNamara said the Board had the right to send anything to the Conservation Commission for an advisory opinion. Mr. Yarmo said the o= nly area that required the buffer was surrounding the vernal pool. Mr. Castrucci appreciated the dili= gence of the Board and said he wished that the diligence had been done prior to t= he land being cleared. Ms. Taris= said the situation had cost them a lot of time and money in the effort to rectify the situation.
Mr. Yarmo asked if adding the WCD to the deed would help address the issue. Ms. Ouellette read a portion of the deed aloud and noted that locations of wetlands, wildlife corridors etc. were not included. Ms. Taris said she had many vernal= pools and wildlife corridors on her property.
Mr. Scanzani recalled that the house was propo= sed to be located at the back of the lot (dry area). Ms. Taris said she had a copy of t= he Board minutes (from the original subdivision) that indicated the house was supposed to be in a designated setback area. However, the builder came to the B= oard and requested some ‘leeway’ regarding the house placement in the event of septic problems. She understood from Gove Environmental that there were no problems with the sep= tic, but the house was moved to the front of the lot anyway. Mr. Scanzani said the house placem= ent itself was not a problem because it didn’t encroach on anything. He said the Board was being asked = to make a situation better and didn’t feel it should be prolonged.
There was further discussion regarding the proposed and if the Board should walk the site prior to making a decision.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
|
MOTION:<= o:p> |
(McNamara/Culbert) To refer the m= atter to the Conservation Commission for an advisory opinion. |
|
VOTE: |
( |
Mr. Yarmo noted that the Conservation Commissi=
on
would be meeting
The application was date specified to the
Ma=
p 30
Lot 11-97-2
This item had to go before the Board of Adjust=
ment
and would be rescheduled for the (Thursday)
Ma=
p 41
This item had to go before the Board of Adjust=
ment
and would be rescheduled for the (Thursday)
Ma=
p 15
& 22 Lot 8-86, 8-88 & 89
Pelham Estates, Inc. – Tina Avenue/Balcom Road – Proposed
23-Lot Subdivision for review
As mutually agreed to by the developer and the
Chairman, this was postponed until the
Ma=
p 39
Engineering review required. This was postponed to the
Ma=
p 29
Site Specific needed for review. This was postponed to the
MINUTES
|
MOTION:<= o:p> |
(McNamara/Ouellette)
To approve the |
|
VOTE: |
(5-0-1) The motion carri=
ed. Mr. Culbert abstained. |
DATE SPECIFIED PLANS
Map 29
Map 7
Map 15 & 22 Lot 8-86, 8-88 & 89 Pelham Estates, Inc. – Tina Avenue/Balcom Road – Proposed 23-Lot Subdivision for review
Map 39
Map 29
Map 3
Map 30 Lot 11-97-2
Map 41
ADJOURNMEN=
T
|
MOTION:<= o:p> |
(McNam=
ara/Culbert)
To adjourn the meeting. |
|
VOTE: |
(6-0-0) The motion carri=
ed. |
The meeting was adjourned at approximately
&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Respectfully submitted,
&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Charity A. L. Willis
&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Recording Secretary
|
PAGE=
|
Town of
Planning
Board Meeting/June 6, 2005 =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Page
86
&nbs=
p; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp;
Page 78