3/13/12 Planning Board Meeting

3/13/12 Planning Board Meeting

Postby Mary Wright » Thu May 10, 2012 8:07 pm

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2012

A meeting of the Planning Board was held on Tuesday, March 13, 2012. Mr. Marks called the meeting to order at 7:10 PM and announced that the meeting is being recorded and will be available on cable and on the website.

ATTENDANCE
PRESENT: Ernest Marks (Chairman), Derek Brown, Mark Mungeam, Robert Werme, Jr., Michael Zwicker, Tracy Sharkey, Michael Greco (Associate Member), William Cundiff (Town Engineer), Stephen Zisk (Planning/Conservation Agent).
ABSENT: Eben Chesebrough

7:10 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: #SPR 10.0614-01, AMERICAN PRO WIND: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
Mr. Maurice Caparrotta from American Pro Wind sent a memo to the Planning Board to request that the hearing scheduled for today be continued to April 10, 2012.
Mr. Mungeam made a motion to continue the public hearing for American Pro Wind: Application for Site Plan Review to April 10, 2012 at 7:00 PM. Mr. Werme seconded the motion. Vote – unanimous.

7:15 PM PUBLIC HEARING: MARGARET BACON
APPLICATION FOR A MODIFICATION OF A DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN: 106 WEST STREET.
Mr. Marks opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Yerka from Civil Site Engineering joined the meeting. This subdivision plan has been on record since 1976. At one time, it was three cul-de-sacs; this is the remainder. It is the only plan on record and a covenant was reported. The client wants this to become a private way and have lot #22 remain as a single lot for one building and waive the subdivision requirement to a driveway standard. There is no common driveway. Alpha Circle is to remain private.
Mr. Cundiff thinks that a deed restriction permitting the lot to one lot would be appropriate. Mr. Zisk stated that the plan would stay the same. He is still communicating with Town Counsel with what the covenant would be. 81W is the process of amending the existing subdivision. Mr. Zisk clarified that Mr. Yerka is not requesting that the plan from 1976 be amended, just the decision on how the construction standards would be amended and the conditions associated with it.
Mr. David Brothers of 108 West Street asked where lot 22 is in reference to his house. He is to the right of the driveway. Mr. Yerka replied that the house would be placed 170-220 feet from his iron pipe.
Mr. Tyson Brady, Sr. of 86 West Street asked for confirmation that the lot would have only one house lot. Mr. Yerka confirmed. To do anything further, it would have to go back in front of the Planning Board with a subdivision plan to extend the road. Mr. Brady asked if Mr. Gorman had gotten it subdivided. Both Mr. Brothers and Mr. Brady received a letter showing the subdivision with lots staked out. Mr. Yerka said it was not presented to the Board. Mr. Cundiff stated that this is the reason we are working with Town Counsel, to be sure the Town’s interests are protected.
Mr. Cundiff stated that procedurally, the Planning Board would need to endorse something. Mr. Cundiff does not know if the plan or the covenant would need to be endorsed. Mr. Yerka believes the Planning Board’s conditions and the covenant would be attached to the plan. Mr. Cundiff will check with Town Counsel.
Mr. Brown made a motion to continue the Public Hearing: Margaret Bacon, Application for a Modification of a Definitive Subdivision Plan, 106 West Street, until March 27, 2012 at 8:00 PM. Ms. Sharkey seconded the motion. Vote – unanimous.

7:24 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: TOWN OF DOUGLAS
APPLICATION FOR A DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND, “WEST SIDE CONNECTOR ROAD”
Mr. Marks reopened the public hearing. Mr. Michael Weaver of Guerriere & Halnon, Inc. joined the meeting. There are three towns in conjunction trying to get some grant money for a 6600’ industrial connector road. There are approximately 300 acres of land and 170 of those acres are in Douglas. The Northbridge Planning Board has opened and closed their hearing. He has met with the Sutton Planning Board and Sutton Conservation Commission. There were some conservation issues, which have all been addressed. There is a Sutton Planning Board meeting on March 26, 2012. It is a continued hearing.
Mr. Weaver has copies of two letters, one is responding to Mr. Cundiff’s comments and the other is a brief summary addressing some of the concerns of the Water/Sewer Department. Mr. Bob Sullivan, Water/Sewer Systems Manager said everything on-site seems to be sufficient. Off-site, upgrades are needed to the existing system.
In the other letter, Mr. Cundiff raised five comments during the last hearing that Mr. Weaver has addressed as follows: 1) The flood plain by the intersection: He darkened the line which shows they are completely outside the flood plain; 2) Conceptual road striping: He showed that there is space for striping and a turning lane; 3) Traffic control lights, conceptual layout: Some warrants need to be met in order to install traffic lights. Three lights will probably be needed to control the intersection. Most of the traffic will be from the highway. A full traffic study will have to be done. There is space for another turning lane; 4) Storm Water Report: There was no water encountered at the bottom of the basin. There is more than a 5’ separation to the bottom of the basin. There is a question as to whether or not this falls under WRPOD; and 5) Basin drainage: The basins are lined. He gave Mr. Cundiff a copy of the revised drawings.
Mr. Cundiff expanded on the aquifer overlay question. This project is separate from the earth removal work. This project does not trigger the aquifer bylaw. If this project needed a special permit, it would require a 10’ vertical offset. Mr. Zwicker asked once they start to put buildings there, would the offset then be triggered? Mr. Cundiff said no. Each individual project would be responsible for its own. These basins are only designed for the roadway.
Mr. Brown asked how to resolve the requirements of multiple towns if the requirements do not match. Mr. Weaver replied that he is taking the most stringent requirements and carrying them throughout the project.
Mr. Zisk asked Mr. Weaver about the underdrains and the details. Mr. Weaver has a waiver request for eliminating testing for the site. Upon inspection, if underdrains are not needed, they will be taken out. Mr. Zisk asked if the cistern pipe will be capped after they cut through it. Mr. Weaver stated that it would and the wetlands would not be disturbed. Mr. Cundiff stated that if anyone has concerns to bring them forward if not, he would like to close the public hearing.
Mr. Brown stated that bringing in gas lines was talked about at the last meeting. How does that fit in with the deadline? Mr. Cundiff talked to Tennessee Gas and National Grid and both entities would require an extensive process. Each would require a separate station be constructed at a cost of $500,000 each. If a gas line is needed in the future, it could be run adjacent to the roadway. The electrical utilities are all underground.
Mr. Mungeam has no concerns with the project, but looking toward the future he wonders how traffic will impact the current infrastructure. The North Street bridge and Mechanic Street bridge are narrow. The Town will need to address those bridges at some point.
Mr. Mungeam made a motion to close the Public Hearing: Town of Douglas, Application for a Definitive Subdivision Plan of Land, “West Side Connector Road.” Mr. Werme seconded the motion. Vote-Unanimous.
Ms. Sharkey made a motion to approve Town of Douglas, Application for a Definitive Subdivision Plan of Land, “West Side Connector Road.” Mr. Zwicker seconded the motion. Vote-Unanimous.
Mr. Mungeam left the meeting at 7:49 PM.

7:50 PM PUBLIC HEARING: TOWN OF DOUGLAS WATER-SEWER DEPARTMENT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (WRPOD)
Mr. Marks opened the public hearing. Mr. Bob Sullivan, Water/Sewer Systems Manager, joined the meeting. The majority of the changes are in the actual bylaw. A majority are typographical corrections and changes required by the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection). Mr. Sullivan went through all the changes.
Mr. Brown asked why the tertiary recharge area was being deleted. Mr. Sullivan said the new definition makes it clear so that it meshes with the regulations. The tertiary recharge area is not currently protected under the existing bylaw.
Mr. Brown asked if other towns had a say in how the tertiary area is defined. Mr. Sullivan replied that other towns have no say, but they could come to one of our public hearings and voice their concerns. Mr. Zisk stated that the ad for the hearing was given to the adjacent towns.
Zone 2 is replacing the secondary. Mr. Brown asked if that would change the area of the zones. Mr. Sullivan replied that it would not change the Zone 2 because they are only allowed to pump up to the capacity of the wells as they stand. Zone 2 is delineated off the capacity of the wells. If another well were put in that area, DEP wants to see we are protecting all of the Zone 2. A 1986 study shows the potential for eleven well sites. The secondary area is the green area on the map. That area is now being called the DEP Approved Zone 2. Mr. Sullivan eliminated the definition because it is not being used as a secondary. They are still trying to protect potential well site areas.
Colin Haire, the Water/Sewer Commissioner stated that the current map does not meet the DEP requirements because it does not protect the area in the circle because it is not delineated correctly. Town Counsel took the Zone 3 definition out because it is not part of the protection district.
Mr. Brown said that three years ago, the Town Meeting approved Water/Sewer to examine the other eleven potential well sites. He asked if there were there ever a final report. Mr. Sullivan replied that there was, but only one site was looked at. Mr. Haire said $10,000 was spent to investigate one well and there are eleven potential sites.
Mr. Sullivan stated that the Twenty-Year Water Management Act permit expired a couple years ago. In that old permit, they were allowed to withdraw 370,000 gallons per day. The new proposed permit reduces that amount to 290,000 gallons per day. The most they would be allowed to take out would be 360,000 gallons. The West Street and Glenn Street wells have a capacity of roughly 1.2 million gallons/day. The Town has four times more water than they will be allowed to withdraw twenty years from now without withdrawing from any other well sites. The Town uses approximately 240,000 gallons of water every day. At the end of 20 years DEP will only allow 360,000 gallons/day. The area that they are taking out of protection (Charles Street area) would not be suitable for a well. (Mr. Mungeam rejoined the meeting at 8:21 PM).
To address Mr. Brown’s concerns regarding the availability of water in the future, Mr. Sullivan stated that during the dry season last year, which was the driest year in 50 years, the water levels of the aquifer did not drop. The levels ran the same throughout the season.
Mr. Sullivan continued on with the draft. The definition for the secondary is much broader. Mr. Zisk clarified that Mr. Sullivan is splitting the secondary into two definitions: the Zone 2 and the outside areas.
Mr. Sullivan stated that the Water Resource District definition has changed. There is a question as to whether or not the district should include Zone 3 as well. The attorney is uncomfortable about the loose method of delineating future potential well sites. Town Counsel points out and encompasses the 1986 study so that it is known where those potential well sites came from. Mr. Sullivan would like to investigate those areas to see if they are good potential well sites. If they are good sites, buying the land needs to be looked into. Everything green on the map is the Water Resources District. There are eleven potential well sites. Two have been investigated, the other nine are being protected. If the land is in the green area, the bylaw is triggered. For permitting purposes, the same protection and criteria exists whether the bylaw is triggered or not. The attorney changed the wording of the 8.1.5 establishment to make it consistent procedurally with what is actually done.
Ms. Sharkey noticed that under Use Restrictions, #4 should say “Title V requirements”, not “Title 4 requirements”. Mr. Cundiff asked why, under #2, “impervious trigger” was being deleted. Mr. Sullivan said that item had to be in “prohibited”, not under “permitted”. Ms. Sharkey asked, under “Prohibited #10”, what is the difference between “liquid petroleum products” and “liquified petroleum gases”? Mr. Sullivan stated that the wording came from the regulation. Mr. Zwicker stated that a gas line goes through the green area. Mr. Sullivan said he has not studied it to say it is not practical.
Road salt and deicing compounds were added under “prohibited”. Snow cannot be stockpiled in the aquifer area. Mr. Cundiff asked if the vertical offset were being decreased in section 13 under “Prohibited Use”. Mr. Sullivan replied that the 10’ vertical decrease is under special permit. Mr. Sullivan will have copies at the next meeting.
Mr. Mungeam made a motion to continue the public hearing, Town of Douglas Water/Sewer Department: Proposed Amendments to the Water Resource Protection Overlay District to March 27, 2012 at 7:35 PM. Ms. Sharkey seconded the motion. Vote-Unanimous.

DISCUSSION
Mr. Zisk stated that there are some people present who want to talk about the 34 Davis Street decision. Mr. Marks would like to make a decision at the next meeting when there is a full Board.
1. Ross Smith, roadway layout. Mr. Zisk stated that Mr. Smith has filled in some voids in his package. He is on the Town Meeting warrant. Mr. Smith had to come before the Planning Board first before the Board of Selectmen layout hearing. Mr. Smith presented the layout plan. Brown Bear Circle has been eliminated. An emergency road that goes back to South Street has been added. Topcoat of the entire road has been lined up with Aggregate. Eight manholes will be raised. The plans have been certified and were submitted January 26, 2012. Mr. Smith is looking to move forward to the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Cundiff asked if there are signature spots in the plan for the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen. In this case, he suggested not endorsing the plan until the topcoat is done. Mr. Cundiff suggests authorizing Mr. Smith to go forward to the Board of Selectmen for a layout hearing, but withhold endorsement of the plan until the topcoat is done. The Board is fine with that.
Mr. Cundiff recommends that after the pavement is done, the engineer certify that the road is functioning properly from a drainage perspective. Mr. Smith knows he has to raise the cul-de-sac. All the catch basins will be cleaned, maintenance will be done to the retention pond and scuffs cleaned on the curbing. Mr. Cundiff stated that the cul-de-sac is not properly contoured and runoff may be jumping the curb and going overland into the pond. He suggested beefing up the low end of the berm. The landowners want a manicured area between the road and the pond. Mr. Smith will address that.
Mr. Zisk asked that Mr. Smith be sure that there are no impediments to the emergency road. Mr. Smith told that property owner to remove the firewood and chain that were blocking the access to that road.
By consensus, the Board recommends this plan go before the Board of Selectmen for a layout hearing.
Eighteen trees will be planted in early April. The Board approved 2” smaller trees at a previous meeting. Mr. Marks suggested submitting a formal request to plant smaller trees or to not plant any trees at all.
Mr. Zisk presented the layout plans for the four subdivisions. All the neighbors have been notified and are all going before the Board of Selectmen for layout hearing next Tuesday.
By consensus, the Board recommends to move forward to the Board of Selectmen for layout hearings for Pond Street, Spring Street, Towle Court, Colonial Road, Downs Way, Manzi Lane, Cresent Lane, Essex Street, Brookside Drive, Shady II and Smith Hill.
2. Douglas Solar, 9 Brookline Terrace: Mr. Zisk said the attorney is not agreeable with the commitment bond. The attorney wants a cash bond, and she will write up those details and submit them.
3. ZBA Application: Timothy Riffle, 187 Maple Street: Ms. Sharkey presented this application for a variance from a side yard set-back for a pool, a 7’ waiver. The Board has no problems with that. The ZBA Application will be signed-off.

MINUTES: February 28, 2012.
Mr. Zwicker made a motion to approve the February 28, 2012 Planning Board Meeting minutes as amended. Ms. Sharkey seconded the motion. Vote-Unanimous, Mr. Mungeam abstained.

OPEN SESSION
The Earth Removal Special Permit: Pyne Sand & Stone Company will be discussed at the next meeting. Ms. Sharkey asked why were the funds pulled in 2000 for the bond for Mr. Vecchione. Mr. Zisk replied that the Vecchione bond was pulled on South Street due to restoration work. Mr. Cundiff suggested the Board take this up next week. Mr. Cundiff and Mr. Zisk have a site walk scheduled for next Friday with Mr. Lightbown and they will have a report next meeting.
Mr. Cundiff stated that he included a memo about the generator and some correspondence from Les Stevens for the next meeting. Currently there is a 60’ wide roadway right-of-way requirement. Mr. Stevens suggests a 50’ right-of-way. This will be taken up at the next meeting.

9:35 PM. ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Sharkey made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 PM. Mr. Brown seconded the motion. Vote - unanimous.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Wright
Recording Secretary
Mary Wright
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:56 pm

Return to 2012 Planning Board Meetings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron