2/27/2007 - Meeting Minutes

2/27/2007 - Meeting Minutes

Postby Maria Lajoie » Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:41 am

The meeting was called to order at 7:01 PM.

Chairman Richard Vanden Berg, Jr., Vice Chairman Ernest R. Marks, Linda Brown, Daniel Heney, Mark Mungeam, Roy Swenson, William Cundiff (Town Engineer), Stephen Zisk (Planning/Conservation Agent), Ann Marie Flanagan (Administrative Secretary)

ABSENT: Joel Rosenkrantz

7:00 DISCUSSION: Meeting Minutes January 17, 2007
• Minutes of meeting were reviewed.
• A MOTION to approve minutes was made by Brown; seconded by Mungeam. AYE: 5; ABSTAIN: 1. MOTION CARRIED.

7:08 DISCUSSION: Subdivision Rules and Regulations
• Discussion of the Rules and Regulations began on page 28, “6.4 Sidewalks” and ended before “6.8 Clean Up.”

6.4 Sidewalks

Five-foot wide sidewalks shall be installed on both sides of the proposed road. The sidewalk shall be constructed of poured concrete, shall have evenly spaced control joints, and shall have an 8-inch gravel base. All sidewalks and ramps shall be in compliance with all American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and applicable Massachusetts regulations.

{Bill Cundiff to add a sentence to address a road coming into a main road.}

6.5 Grass Strips

A minimum five-foot wide grass strip shall be constructed between the road curb and front edge of the sidewalk. This strip shall be loamed with not less than four inches settled depth of good quality, screened loam seeded with lawn seed and rolled. Seeding shall be done at appropriate time of the year and in a manner to insure growth of grass. Seeding and mulching shall be done in accordance with the Massachusetts Standard Specifications for Highways and Bridges.

6.6 Trees
In accordance with Planning Board policy, trees shall be installed at an average spacing of one hundred feet on both sides of proposed roadways. All trees must be hardwoods, one and one-half (1-1/2) to two (2) inches in diameter, ten (10) to twelve (12) feet tall with good straight stems. These trees shall be planted in the five-foot grass strips.
Each tree shall be supported with three (3) 2"x 2" x 4' wooden stakes and shall be fastened at the top with a loop of rubber or suitable fabric hosing.

Any tree planted that does not survive shall be replaced prior to Town Meeting.

6.7 Monuments and Street Signs and Other Pertinences

1) Monuments shall be installed at all street intersections, at all points of change in direction or curvature of streets and at other points, where, in the opinion of the Board, permanent monuments are necessary. Such monuments shall conform to the standard specifications of the Board and shall be set according to such specifications. No permanent monuments shall be installed until all construction, which would destroy or disturb the monuments is completed. Each project shall provide permanent horizontal and vertical control on these or other accessible monuments.

2) The Planning Board requires that traffic control and street name signage be installed along any street or way that leads to a building lot for which a Certificate of Occupancy is being sought, prior to the Building Inspector issuing said certificate. The signage shall be installed in accordance with the a approved subdivision drawings.

3) Central Mailbox Units {Cundiff to provide language for this section}

Proposed Amendments to the Town’s Zoning Bylaws
(Common Driveway Bylaw, Water Resource Protection Overlay District, Floodplain District)

Common Driveway Bylaw
• Ed Taipale of 28 Main Street stated that in his opinion, the notice sent to him was misleading. The proposed changes are significantly different from the Master Plan Proposal as they eliminate the right to serve two lots, eliminate the right to serve four lots with a common driveway and there are many engineering requirements.
• Cundiff made an addition to section 6.3.1 C Definitions, “2. Shared Driveway – A driveway serving two (2) lots shall be allowed by right shall not be jurisdictional under this section of the bylaw.”
• Taipale asked if the bylaw applied to residential only or if it also applied to commercial and industrial.
• Zisk stated that the Fire Chief has expressed concerns in regard to the safety of residential common driveways. The changes made are based on residential issues.
• Brown stated that industrial could be added to the bylaw; it doesn’t have to be strictly residential.
• Scott Medeiros of 64 High Street asked if the intention of section 6.3.3 was to limit the length to five hundred feet (500’).
• Vanden Berg replied that the Fire Chief’s concern was that the driveways were too long.
• Carol Gogolinski from the Master Plan Implementation Committee stated that in her opinion the width of the driveway does not have to be eighteen feet wide (18’) with two-foot (2’) shoulders on either side. She measured the widest trucks to be eight feet, six inches (8’, 6”) wide.
• Marks responded that it is a public safety issue. In an emergency situation, the extra space is needed for fire apparatus to operate (set-up, hoses, etc.)
• Gogolinski stated that the new bylaw changes ask for complex engineering requirements.
• Mungeam responded that the need for increased engineering requirements has become apparent with the problems that have arisen.
• Colin Haire of 37 Southeast Main Street if Section 6.3.3, 3 requires the driveway to be paved.
• Cundiff stated that the Fire Chief prefers durable macadam.
• Haire asked if the regulations pertain to the common driveway only or to the driveways off the common driveway as well.
• Marks stated that although the bylaw addresses only the common driveway, extended driveways off a common driveway that do no meet these requirements poses limits to residents’ safety and emergency accessibility. The concerns are the same.
• Cundiff made clerical changes to section numbers of the bylaw.

Water Resource Overlay Protection
• Dennis Createau of South Street and the Water/Sewer Department wanted to get DEP involved before making any changes to the map.
• Cundiff stated that there were no changes made to the map. They were merely taking information from the hand-drawn 1986 map and transcribing it onto a GIS map.
• Zisk stated that the old map is hand-written and the new GIS map in the same map with the same information.
• Colin Haire of the Water/Sewer Commission stated the Plate 5 map was never fully completed.
• Cundiff stated that the Plate 5 mp was for the town, and the DEP map was for water and wells. The DEP shows existing wells; the town map shows all wells.
• Haire asked why there is a need to rush to the town meeting in May. In his opinion, we should wait and get all the information on one map.
• Gogolinski stated that the economic development study ($50,000) done by Carter Burgis showed that the biggest impediment (to this town) is the aquifer protection bylaw and map. This map goes to town meeting and nothing else will be done for five (5) years.
• Haire stated that there was no correspondence to the water/sewer department about this public hearing.
• Zisk stated that the intention of the new GIS map is not to change the bylaws or boundaries. If this map is not approved at town meeting, they will just keep the paper copy.
• Brown stated that the Town Engineer wants a readable map until a new one is available.
• Haire stated that he fully understands the Planning Board’s need for map clarity. He just wishes that there could have been more communication. This map is holding restrictions that do not apply.
• Cundiff replied that if the map does not get approved, those restrictions would still be there.
• Vanden Berg stated that the Planning Board is inclined to go to Town Meeting with the map since there are no changes made to the existing bylaw. It is an electronically clarified overlay with one added new well not on Plant 5 and some recharge areas. It is identified as a map for clarification.

Flood Plain District Boundaries
• Gogolinski asked if banks would use this map to require more homeowners insurance.
• Cundiff stated that he couldn’t say whether or not this would be true but that there are no regulations over that area.
• Scott Medeiros stated that it is not a flood plain area, only a potential danger area.
• Marks stated that he would like top move to a meeting where all boards can get together to discuss these issues.
• Cundiff stated that the warrants close at the end of March.
• A MOTION to continue the Public Hearing on Tuesday March 13, 2007 at 8:30 pm was made by Swenson; seconded by Heney. VOTE UNANIMOUS.

9:55 REVIEWED MEETING MINUTES OF December 12, 2006
• Minutes of meeting were reviewed and amended.
• A MOTION to approve the minutes as amended was made by Heney; seconded by Marks. AYE: 5. ABSTAIN: 1. MOTION CARRIED.

• Minutes of meeting were reviewed and amended.
• A MOTION to approve minutes as amended was made by Heney; seconded by Marks. VOTE UNANIMOUS.

10:02 DISCUSSION: Whispering Pines
• Zisk stated that there are twelve (12) items that should be addressed and should be taken into account when voting.
• A MOTION to direct Zisk to provide the deeds to Town Council for review was made by Brown; seconded by Mungeam. VOTE UNANIMOUS.

10:12 DISCUSSION: Rosenfeld Concrete
• Cundiff presented the proposed reclamation project plan and requested feedback.
• By CONSENSUS the Planning Board directed Cundiff to contact Rosenfeld Concrete and request a better definition as to where loaming and seeding should occur.

• Cundiff met with FINCOM to present the proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year ($9826.) This budget included the zoning map modification and the regular operating budget. The Master Plan will complete Phase I or the Route 16 Corridor Study, and asks that the Planning Board complete Phase II. This would require an additional $7500 that will be added to the budget. The total operating budget will then be $17,326. $4800 is proposed to come over from Master Plan Committee, which leaves the Planning Board with $2700 over the current operating budget.
• A MOTION to modify the budget as above was made by Heney; seconded by Swenson. VOTE UNANIMOUS.

At 10:25 pm, a MOTION to adjourn the meeting was made by Heney; seconded by Marks. VOTE UNANIMOUS.

Respectfully submitted,
Community Development Department

Ann Marie Flanagan
Administrative Secretary
Maria Lajoie
Maria Lajoie
Posts: 1294
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Community Development Department

Return to 2007 Planning Board Meetings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest