2/12/2008 - Meeting Minutes

2/12/2008 - Meeting Minutes

Postby Maria Lajoie » Thu May 08, 2008 8:20 am

The meeting of the Planning Board was called to order on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 7:02 PM.

Present: Richard Vanden Berg (Chairman), Mark Mungeam, Linda Brown, Eben Chesebrough, Roy Swenson, David St. George, Stephen Zisk (Planning/Conservation Agent), William Cundiff (Town Engineer), Lisa Lannon (Recording Secretary).
Absent: Ernest Marks.

Mr. Vanden Berg noted an email from the CMRPC regarding a meeting on Infrastructure Mapping. The meeting will be held in Grafton on Friday, February 22, 2008.
Mr. Cundiff noted that he put together a list of legal expenses as requested by Mr. Chesebrough. The total came to $3,364.15. Neither the Planning Board or Town incurred any expense, it was all 53G.
Mr. Cundiff indicated that his department is working with the Selectmen to establish a road policy quantifying private versus public ways. He noted that at some point this would be coming before the Planning Board for their input.

Mr. Mike Yerka presented the ANR Plan for Martin Road as one single lot. Some discussion held. It was explained that this is an 81X with reduced lot frontage. Mr. St. George made a motion to endorse as presented. Motion seconded by Ms. Brown. Vote unanimous.

Mr. Yerka presented the list of waivers for the Lakewood Estates Subdivision on Wallum Lake Road.
Section III.B.3 – The applicant requests that the Mylar Plan be submitted upon approval. Mr. Swenson made a motion to grant the waiver in Section III.B.3. Mr. St. George seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous.
Section III.B.3.c – Applicant requests a waiver from listing all property owners and addresses within 300’ from the project limits on the plans. Mr. Yerka explained that these names and addresses are included with the application. It involves approximately 150 to 200 names. All the abutters have been notified by mail. Mr. Chesebrough motioned to grant the waiver in Section III.B.3.c. Motion seconded by Ms. Brown. Vote unanimous.
Section III.B.3.n – The applicant is requesting a waiver to conduct soil evaluations on individual lots at the time of their development. Mr. Mungeam questioned if a perk is not obtained on a lot could the lot lines be changed. Mr. Yerka indicated that could be or there could be some type of shared system. It was noted that this is more of a Board of Health issue. Mr. Mungeam noted that this is a Planning Board issue if the lot lines are changed. Mr. Nelson (community member/Shore Road property owner) questioned if this has been waived for previous subdivisions. Mr. Cundiff indicated that it has. Mr. Chesebrough made a motion to grant the waiver of Section III.B.3.n. Motion seconded by Ms. Brown. Vote: Aye – 4, Nay – 2. Motion carried.
Section III.B.4.h – The applicant is requesting to use NGVD 29 instead of NGVD 83. It was noted that there is some contradiction as to which one to use. Some discussion held. Mr. Cundiff indicated that this is not a problem from Engineering point of view and has been done in the past. Mr. Swenson made a motion to grant the waiver of Section III.B.4.h. Seconded by Mr. Chesebrough. Voted unanimously.
Section IV.A.1.c – Applicant requests waiver of access to adjoining land. Mr. Yerka explained that northerly land is developed, westerly land is owned by Mr. Nelson, and southerly is located in Rhode Island and is developed. Mr. Mungeam questioned why there would not be a provision for possible continuation to Shore Road. Much discussion held. The consensus of the Board was to pass on this waiver at this time and that the Board would like to see provision for the possibility of a future road access to Shore Road.
Section IV.A.1.h – Applicant requests waiver from the property line radius of 20’ or more. Mr. Yerka explained that the project has rounding easements on adjacent lots to accommodate 25’ curb radius. Mr. Chesebrough made a motion to grant the waiver of Section IV.A.1.h. Motion seconded by Ms. Brown. Vote unanimous.
Section IV.A.4.a – The applicant requests a waiver from the 500’ long dead end street restriction. The proposed roadway is 2,162.44 feet long including a 68’ cul-de-sac.
Mr. Chesebrough made a motion to grant the waiver of Section IV.A.4.a. Motion seconded by Ms. Brown. Vote: Aye – 3, Nay – 1, Abstained – 1. Motion carried.
Section IV C. – The applicant requests a waiver for the Open Space Requirement. Some discussion held. Mr. Yerka indicated that the owners are willing to meet with the Board to discuss alternatives for open space. Mr. Cundiff noted that the Planning Board has the ability to request that one of the lots be reserved for recreational purposes. However, the Town would have three years to decide on this at which point they would have to compensate for that lot at fair market value. It was the consensus of the Board to wait on this waiver for now.
Section V.B.3.a. – The applicant requests a waiver regarding the use of Granite curb inlets (except at low point locations). Much discussion held. Mr. Mungeam felt that discussions have been held in the past regarding creating standardized specifications. He felt that this falls along this line and is the type of thing that should be done consistently. Ms. Brown made a motion to grant the waiver of Section V.B.3.a. Mr. Mungeam seconded motion. Vote: Aye – 1, Nay – 4. Motion NOT carried.
Section V.B.3.c. – Applicant requests a waiver regarding the use of Granite curb on inside curves where the interior angle is less then 110 degrees. Mr. Yerka explained that the regulations are confusing regarding interior angle of curves. Mr. Chesebrough made a motion to grant the waiver for Section V.B.3.c. Ms. Brown seconded motion. Vote was unanimous.
Section V.D. – Applicant requests one 5’ concrete sidewalk on one side of the roadway only. Some discussion held. Mr. Chesebrough made a motion to grant the waiver for Section V.D. Mr. Mungeam seconded the motion. Vote: Aye – 4, Nay – 1. Motion carried.
Section V.F. – Applicant requests a waiver regarding the planting of roadside trees. Mr. Yerka indicated that most lots would retain a wooded buffer from the road. Much discussion held regarding the control of maintaining a buffer. Ms. Brown made a motion to grant the waiver for Section V.F. Mr. Swenson seconded the motion. Vote: Nay – 5, unanimous to NOT grant the waiver.
It was agreed that Mr. Yerka would come to the March 11 Meeting at 7:30 to review some of these revisions. Mr. Nelson questioned when the revised plan would be ready. He noted that they are in a position where they would like to get a third party review of the revised plan. He noted they would therefore need 2 weeks prior for that. Mr. Yerka noted that they would get the plan as soon as it is ready. It was also noted that the public hearing would more than likely remain open after March 11. Attorney Splain representing Mr. Nelson noted that at the last meeting there was discussion of one 36” pipe and the elimination of the culvert that runs adjacent to Mr. Nelson’s well. He questioned if the revised plan would address this issue. He requested that there be some communication between them prior to the next meeting so that this can be addressed. Mr. Yerka agreed.
Ms. Brown made a motion to extend the public hearing to June 24, 2008.
Mr. Swenson seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous.

Catherine Welch, 43D Coordinator, was present to update the Board on the Chapter 43D language. She indicated that Water and Sewer is moving forward with an additional study based on the 2004 Water Supply Study. It was noted that the water resource protection overlay discussions for 43D only impacts the 43D sites along Route 146. It is not an issue along the Webster line.
EDC initiated this last round of discussions. They are aware that the results of this study may not be completed in time to provide adequate data to make Annual Town Meeting, however, they may have a warrant article language that could come out of these discussions.
A workshop will be held on Thursday, February 21, 2008 to determine what data exists and if there is adequate data available to support any decisions to be made. Additional data does exist in the 1995 master plan. Even though we are ahead of the population projections the growth occurred in areas not served by water. So, therefore, projections are on target. There is a link on the Town website for this plan.
Two things should be considered, process and timing. If enough information becomes available and a specific request to produce a warrant article Town Meeting, keeping in mind that warrant article language is due by March 28, the workshop would have to fine-tune the proposed action items. The EDC has initiated this round of dialog because of their concern of a possible economic hindrance with the overly. It essentially reduces the impervious surface. The restriction on use is not as big of an issue. Mitigation on use is a possibility with the overlay as it is.
They are raising the issue that if the data indicates that the water volume is high but the water quality is such that it is not a feasible site then that may not provide an economic balance and the proposal would be to exempt the area. The specific language for such a proposal does not exist at this time because the EDC as a body does not work with the Bylaw, map or water system. Therefore, Water and Sewer is moving forward with the feasibility study.
Ms. Welch welcomed Board members to come to the workshop. Some discussion was held regarding the time line for Town Meeting. It was noted that the balance of water protection and economic development are both important issues. Therefore, the water analysis is crucial.
Discussion held regarding the Zoning Bylaw changes for 43D. It was noted that the revisions were sent to the Selectmen. Ms. Welch noted that (b) was straight forward and basically just added references to the priority development sites. Article 13 has been moved forward on.
She noted that there are significant issues regarding (a) and (c). After working with Town Counsel, Special Counsel and the Attorney General’s Office, it has been determined that (a) and (c) are not required for eligibility for 43D. Regarding Article 12 (a) it is completely outside of the scope of 43D. If you want to do it you may do so. This involves changes with re-tenanting a building. She noted we are several years off from having buildings on 43D then having re-tenanting.
Eligibility for 43D requires that everything excluding subdivision and building permits, will have to have a decision from a Board, i.e. Planning, Conservation, Board of Health within 180 days plus a 20 to 50 day pre- application review. The Technical Review Team deems it complete.
It was the consensus of the Board that they would like to see the recommendations of the EDC regarding this. Regarding (c), this has the addition of the extra paragraph on site plan review. This discussion should involve Planning Board, ZBA, and Economic Development.
Mr. Cundiff noted that in previous discussions regarding this, the concern was raised to get a committee together to form a general bylaw that would structure this committee and outline how the 43D front-end completeness review would occur. The applicant would have access to it and be able to review what the requirements are. The committee would meet within a certain time frame and there would be formal procedure so that everyone is on the same page. This would take burden off of the staff that would certainly be available as a resource for the committee.

Ms. Brown made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Swenson seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 9:54 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Lannon
Recording Secretary
Maria Lajoie
Maria Lajoie
Posts: 1468
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Community Development Department

Return to 2008 Planning Board Meetings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest