APPROVED
TOWN OF
PLANNING BOARD WORK SESSION
The Chairman, Paddy Culbert called the meeting to order at
The acting Secretary, Ms. Gael Ouellette, called the roll:
|
PRESENT: |
Paddy Culbert, Peter McNamara, Bill Scanzani (arrived after the meeting had commenced), Henry DeLuca, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Selectmen Representative Hal Lynde (arrived after the meeting commenced), Alternate Bob Yarmo (arrived after the meeting commenced), Planning Director Will D’Andrea |
|
ABSENT: |
Alternate Raymond Brunelle |
ADMINISTRATIVE
Map 4
Mr. D’Andrea said there had been some discussion at prior Planning Board meetings regarding the request for bond reduction. The owner/developer had requested to meet with the Board regarding discussions that had occurred in the field.
Neither the owner/developer nor their representative was present for a discussion with the Board.
The Board date specified the discussion to the
OLD BUSINESS
Map 11 Lot 93 -
Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC - Dutton Road - Proposed Elderly Housing
for Site Plan Review and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for
continued consideration
Ms. Ouellette stepped down.
Mr. Dave Brouillet of Herbert Associates, representing the
applicant, presented the plan the Board.
He noted that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was delivered to
the Planning Department on
Mr. Lynde arrived and stepped down.
Mr. Brouillet said the wetland impact would be approximately 500SF. He said since the time of submission (May, 2003) all studies had been done and they had met with the Town’s engineer to address the comments/concerns about the drainage analysis. He requested that the Board provide direction.
Mr. Culbert said the Board could discuss the proposed, but would take no action until the plan was reviewed by peer review. Mr. Brouillet said if the Board desired, the applicant could submit a request for extension. He suggested the possibility of a joint meeting between the Board and the Conservation Commission to obtain consistent recommendations.
Mr. Yarmo arrived.
Mr. Brouillet noted that the commission didn’t support the
minimum expiated dredge and fill permit and would therefore be required to file
the long form. It was Mr. Brouillet’s
opinion that the wetland permit would not be difficult to obtain from the
state. Mr. Yarmo understood that there
was a 500SF fill, but the Conservation Commission was concerned with the
removal of the WCD around the wetlands.
He said half the proposed road was contained in the WCD. He said the commission could review the EIA
at their
Mr. Culbert suggested that the letter of extension be
submitted, have Conservation Commission review the EIA and have peer review of
the plan by the
Mr. Brouillet pointed out that there were provisions in the subdivision regulations (under special permit) for a use of a roadway to be within the WCD.
The plan was date specified to the
There was a brief discussion regarding a (second opinion) letter received by the Board from Town Counsel and if there could legally be a generalized discussion with the applicant. Attorney Michael Donovan, representing interested parties asked that the information would also be shared publicly. After further consideration to release the letter received by Town Counsel, Mr. DeLuca, Mr. McNamara, Mr. D’Andrea and Mr. Yarmo were in favor of releasing Town Counsel’s second opinion letter to the public. Ms. Bousa was not in favor of releasing the letter.
Mr. Yarmo said the plan would be included on the
Ms. Ouellette and Mr. Lynde returned to the Board.
Map 6
Mr. Dave Brouillet of Herbert Associates, representing the
applicant, presented the plan to the Board.
He said the plan was for a five-lot subdivision. He said the original plan proposed the road
to continue from the end of
Mr. Culbert asked what the length of the cul-de-sac would be. The exact measurement was unknown, but Mr. Brouillet believed that the length was longer than the regulations. He asked for clarification from the Board since conflicting information was received by the Conservation Commission, to which plan was preferred, either a five-lot subdivision with no wetland impact, or a connected road with a wetland impact. Mr. Culbert noted that the Conservation Commission is an advisory board and the Planning Board is a regulatory board.
Mr. D’Andrea asked how the road length calculations were being determined. Mr. Brouillet said the length of the road was determined to be approximately 2000ft. to the end of the existing cul-de-sac.
Mr. Yarmo reviewed the recommendations of the Conservation Commission, which were based on site specific, protecting the environment and consider not making the connection.
Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental Services who composed the EIA (which was reviewed by the Louis-Berger Group) believed that there would be a detriment to the wetlands if the connection were made. He discussed which areas were recommended for placement in permanent protection. He said there was an area of fill that should be removed because it acted as almost a constriction of the water flow through the western area of the parcel.
Mr. Greg Wood, Louis-Berger Group (peer review) provided a brief overview of the site and concurred that the area was environmentally sensitive. He noted that Beaver Brook was very significant. He said the wetland impact was important due to the wildlife corridor since it was the only forested area. It could be presumed that the corridor area would become even more important over time. Mr. Wood said one concern was the size and design of the crossing. He went on to discuss the current situation with beaver habitation. He said there may be a way to cross the wetland that would have less of an impact, such as lower downstream where there was a natural valley, but there would be no way to tie back directly to the right-of-way. Mr. Wood (agreeing with the findings of TFMoran) said due to the encroachment into the wetland and WCD, it would be prudent to have some sort of water quality set up to treat the runoff from the road before it impacted the wetlands.
Mr. Lynde didn’t feel the proposed plan met the criteria for plans the Board wanted to approve due to: 1) exceeded cul-de-sac length limit; 2) option for through road not viable because of wetlands impact and surrounding roads not able to handle increased traffic.
Ms. Ouellette asked if the applicant was willing to revise
the cul-de-sac so it would meet the length regulations. Mr. Brouillet said a cul-de-sac could be
drawn from
Mr. Culbert wanted to know what crossing alternatives were
available. Mr. Wood said if the impact
couldn’t be avoided there may be ways to make the crossing less impacting on
the environment. He discussed the items
that would be reviewed to reduce the impact. He noted that there would always
be a problem with the beavers and said there was a potential for it to get
worse. Mr. Culbert wanted to know if box
culverts would make the water on
PUBLIC INPUT
The owner of
Cal, a resident on
Mr. Rich Liardo,
Ms. Corrine Howard,
Ms. Dianne Andrews,
Ms. Susan Tierney, Thomas Avenue, said there had been a change in the water table due to the development in the Irene Drive/Scotland Avenue area and wanted to know if there would be additional changes in water flow due to more development. She didn’t feel that beavers were the cause of the change in water flow.
Ms. Alicia Hennessey,
The discussion was brought back to the Board and the following concerns were discussed: 1) sensitivity of the area; 2) no value to crossing the wetland; 3) length of cul-de-sac exceeding regulations; 4) abutters comments/feedback regarding connection; 5) obligation of developer to meet regulations.
It was Mr. Brouillet’s understanding that the Board would
not support a connection to
Mr. Brouillet requested an extension so the plan could be revised. A letter would be submitted.
Mr. Scanzani arrived.
Map 6 Lot 179 -
128 Realty Corporation -
Mr. Dave Brouillet of Herbert Associates representing the
applicant presented the plan to the Board.
He said the proposed was an update from the last plan presented. He said at the advice of their wetland
scientist, due to soil types and the attempt to avoid a sensitive area, the
road had been moved slightly to the north.
He said the plan had not yet been reviewed by the Conservation
Commission and requested that the plan be continued to the
Mr. Greg Wood, Louis-Berger Group (peer review) said they had received the EIA on Saturday. He said it appeared that the presented plan didn’t match the plan contained in the EIA. Mr. Brouillet said they hadn’t submitted updated plans with the presented scenario. He said they would forward the updated plans to Louis-Berger.
Mr. Scanzani asked how much wetland would need to be crossed. Mr. Brouillet said they were proposing an oversized box culvert (20ft. w x 5ft. h) and a down swale system with a crossing of approximately 350 linear feet. He said it would be wide enough to encompass the whole stream. He said they were not intending to back up any flow, even in the 100-year flood plane. He said there would be a mitigation area in the lower portion of the parcel.
Mr. Yarmo recalled some discussion regarding the crossing being further down the parcel at the minimum impact area. Mr. Brouillet said the alignment had changed. Initially there were two crossings proposed, but per the recommendation of the board and the wetland scientist the crossing had been moved. There was a brief discussion regarding a prior meeting in which the Stateline Market’s (Ray’s) access onto the new road was reviewed.
Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental Services discussed the soil mapping and showed the areas that had deep organic deposits which would be detrimental for a road to go through. He showed the other areas of the parcel that would have great impact and explained that where the proposed road was located in an area that would have the least impact.
Mr. Culbert confirmed that the plan would be shown to the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Lynde asked if there were any restrictions to crossing a 100-year flood plane. Mr. Culbert was not aware of any restrictions.
Mr. Brouillet asked the Board their feeling on the entrance. Mr. Culbert said he would not support a southern entrance. Mr. Brouillet noted that the store (Ray’s Stateline Market) was on a separate parcel.
Ms. Bousa asked if the EIA would be forwarded for environmental peer review. Mr. Culbert answered yes.
The plan was date specified to the
Map 4
Mr. Dave Brouillet of Herbert Associates representing the
applicant presented the plan to the Board.
He said the plan was an extension of an existing right-of-way off of
Mr. Culbert asked for the total length of the
cul-de-sac. Mr. Brouillet said the total
length from
Mr. Yarmo said that the Conservation Commission had recommended that the treatment swale be moved out of the WCD and wanted to know if there was an issue. Mr. Brouillet said some buffer could be provided, but it could not be removed entirely.
Mr. McNamara asked for the length of the shared driveway compared to separate driveways. Mr. Brouillet said the shared driveway was approximately 1600ft with a 10% slope, separate driveways would be approximately the same length, but would have a profile slope of 12%-14%.
The Board discussed the issue of shared driveways and it was noted that the Board had not approved a shared driveway in a very long time. Mr. Brouillet noted that the regulations had provisions for shared driveways with the presentation of certain documents.
Attorney Paul DeCarolis, representing the applicant said that the ordinance permitted shared driveways at the discretion of the Board. One requirement is that the land owner submit a declaration /release of liability to the Town including maintenance of the roadway, to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds; also the property owners would need to record (at the Registry of Deeds) a declaration (covenant) which states how the maintenance of the roadway would be administrated. He offered to draft and submit a copy of the documents. Mr. Culbert noted that the regulations stated that ‘common driveways shall not be utilized’; he went on to say that a waiver would needed for a shared driveway.
There was a question about the frontage and if the lots would have adequate footage. It was later noted that the lots met the frontage; a bound appeared to be missing on the plan.
PUBLIC INPUT
Ms. Joanne Hilbert, owner of the property to the east of the proposed wanted to know what would happen if the roads were not maintained. She was concerned with runoff. Mr. Culbert provided a brief history of the proposed plan and noted that any problems with the maintenance would be a civil matter.
Mr. Scanzani discussed the driveway and said that the steepness and length was longer than what would be allowed for a road. He questioned how the driveway would be constructed unless there was drainage in place due to the road cuts that would need to be made. He said he wouldn’t approve a road with the proposed conditions, and would not approve the driveway(s). Mr. McNamara was not in favor of the length and grade of the driveway.
Ms. Bousa asked for the proposed width of the driveway. Mr. Brouillet said the width of the driveway was proposed at 10ft with 2ft shoulders on each side and drainage ditches. He said that the width would be increased and passing zones could be added. He said that the design for the driveway was keeping with the regulations for a roadway. Emergency vehicle access was discussed.
Mr. Scanzani reiterated that he would not vote in favor of a driveway that was 1600ft long with 10% grading. Mr. DeLuca said he would not vote in favor of a shared driveway. Mr. McNamara and Ms. Ouellette also would not vote in favor of the proposed driveway. Mr. Lynde suggested that the driveway be reviewed similar to that of a road, therefore taking drainage into consideration and having a plan presented. Mr. Brouillet said that the plan could be revised to show two driveways. He believed his client had been proactive by meeting with the Fire Chief to ensure that access concerns were addressed. He said both the Fire Chief and the Conservation Commission preferred a shared driveway, but he would revise the plan for two driveways, at the recommendation of the Planning Board. He said that they could also incorporate areas for vehicles to pass.
Ms. Bousa said she had no problem with the front two lots, but because of safety issues would not be in favor of the back two lots regardless of the driveway configuration(s). Mr. Scanzani, Mr. McNamara and Ms. Ouellette agreed. Mr. Brouillet asked if the Board was prepared to vote. Attorney DeCarolis asked that the Board take their vote based upon two driveways. Mr. Culbert answered no. Attorney DeCarolis requested that the applicant be allowed to revise the plan to show two driveways for presentation to the Board. Mr. Culbert noted that four Board members were not in favor of the back two lots due to the safety issue, steepness and length. Mr. Brouillet said he wanted to know what the regulations state so the plan could be revised accordingly. Mr. D’Andrea said that there were no specific length, or grade requirements, but per section 11.02 and 11.05 of the regulations general principles of safety are outlined and should be addressed. He said the Board should also have the opportunity to review the grading plan and impacts associated with the construction of the driveway(s). Mr. Scanzani further discussed the length, slope, drainage and emergency vehicle access. He was not in favor of the proposed. Mr. Culbert reiterated that the Board viewed the slope as a safety issue.
Mr. Brouillet asked that the plan be continued to the next meeting so they could have the opportunity to revise the plans and work with Dufresne-Henry to address their concerns/comments.
Mr. DeLuca discussed his concerns with plowing the driveway and wanted to know if there were areas to remove snow and still have a safe passage area. He said it would be difficult for a plow to work its way up the hill, due to the grading, if there was a good amount of snow to remove and no place to put it. Mr. Brouillet discussed the width of the road and believed that there would be adequate room for the removal of snow.
Mr. Culbert asked if there were alternate locations for the houses on the back lots. Mr. Brouillet said the proposed location was the most suitable based on the topography of the parcel.
The plan was date specified to the
NEW BUSINESS
Map 12
Mr. Scanzani 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 correspondence from abutters.
Mr. Dave Brouillet of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant presented the plan to the Board. He discussed the configuration of the lot and said the applicant was seeking a two-lot subdivision. He said that a variance had been granted (Case #2234 - October 2002) by the Board of Adjustment for insufficient frontage. Mr. McNamara said there was a condition to the variance approval that there would be no further subdivision. He went on to review the October 2002 minutes of the Board of Adjustment in which it was noted that the variance for frontage was not granting two non-conforming lots. Mr. Denis Duquette of Old Gage Hill Road (applicant), explained that the lot was already non-conforming and based upon the Simplex case granting a variance would not create two non-conforming lots from a conforming lot. Mr. D’Andrea read a portion of section 11.04 in the subdivision regulations which addressed back lot standards. Mr. McNamara questioned if the plan should be reviewed by the Conservation Commission based upon a conversation by the Board of Adjustment regarding wetlands on the property. It was the feeling of the Board that the plan would not need Conservation review.
PUBLIC INPUT
Ms. Lisa Audy,
Ms. Bousa was unclear where the driveway would be located on
Mr. Culbert confirmed with the applicant that the shed would
be razed. Mr. Duquette answered
yes. Mr. Culbert said it would be added
to the approval process.
|
MOTION: |
(Scanzani/McNamara) To accept the plan for consideration. |
|
VOTE: |
(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. |
|
MOTION: |
(Scanzani/McNamara) To approve the plan subject to: 1) existing shed to be removed; 2) verify site distance for driveway is adequate; 3) note to be added to plan which stipulate no further subdivision of the lot per the Board of Adjustment variance approval of Case #2234; 4) add state subdivision approval number to the plan; 5) WCD no-cut zone signs to be posted along the WCD border. |
|
VOTE: |
(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. |
Mr. Lynde confirmed that the plans would not be signed until the conditions for approval were met. Mr. Culbert answered yes.
Map 5
Mr. Scanzani 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 correspondence from
abutters.
Mr. Matt Hamor of Meisner Brem Corporation representing the applicant presented the plan to the Board. He said the owners currently resided in a home on ML 5-89. He explained that the applicant would like to utilize the Town right-of-way to access the property for the development/subdivision of the current lot into six individual lots. He said the cul-de-sac would be approximately 860 linear feet. Mr. Hamor said two waivers would be requested: 1) minimum 100ft. distance from the right-of-way line - requesting 3% for 75ft and then grading will transition; 2) maximum grade of 10% - plan proposes grade of 12% along the entrance and continuing up into the subdivision. With the increased grading, five to six feet of the retaining wall could be eliminated. The proposed maximum height of the retaining wall was 10ft - 12ft on each side. Mr. Hamor said that the drainage would be controlled through a catch basin/drain man hole system to be directed into a detention facility.
Mr. Culbert asked what distance the 3% road grade would run. Mr. Hamor said the 3% would continue for approximately 75ft. and then transition into the vertical curve for the 12% roadway. He said a structural engineering firm had been retained to design the retaining walls, and pictures of which could be found on the last two sheets of the plan.
Mr. Scanzani discussed the road height and elevation and asked for the height of the retaining walls. Mr. Hamor said the retaining walls would be approximately 10ft - 12ft. in height. Mr. Scanzani asked if there would be guardrails on top of the retaining walls. Mr. Hamor said they were thinking about proposing a fence.
Mr. Lynde asked if there were regulations that allowed retaining walls in lieu of side slopes. Mr. Scanzani answered no. Mr. Hamor was not aware that a waiver was needed for side slopes, but would submit a request if needed. Mr. Culbert wanted to know what length the retaining wall would be. Mr. Hamor said the retaining walls would continue along the right-of-way and the slopes from then on would be 3-1. Mr. Lynde wanted to know how far the retaining wall would be constructed from the right-of-way edge. Mr. Hamor said the wall would approximately 6ft from the right-of-way edge.
Mr. D’Andrea said he had reviewed the application and found that it was ready to be accepted for consideration by the Board.
PUBLIC INPUT
Ms. Sandra Crawford,
Mr. Lynde explained that during the sale of the property between Fred Houle and Alfio Torrisi, Mr. Houle wanted permission to access the lot. Initially a 10ft. width was granted, but it was then changed to 30ft. with a 10ft. buffer on each side so the neighbors wouldn’t be disturbed. He said when the right-of-way was approved, the agreement with Mr. Houle allowed for a 30ft width, with a 10ft. buffer, which in the Selectmen’s view has been violated. Mr. Lynde said Mr. Torrisi (the current owner) was directed to meet with the Planning Board regarding the use of the right-of-way. It was reiterated that the agreement with the Town was for a 30ft. right-of-way with a 10ft. buffer over Town owned property. Permission was not granted to build a retaining wall.
Mr. Hamor said that a conceptual plan had been presented to the Board and one of the issues was the work being done within the right-of-way. He said they went through the exercise of meeting with Town Administrator Tom Gaydos and asked that Attorney Troissi speak to the issues. Mr. Lynde said the position of the Selectmen was that the agreement with Mr. Houle for 30ft. had been violated and should be corrected. It was agreed that Mr. Torrisi had the right to come before the Planning Board to request an approval of a subdivision using the full 50ft. width. He said depending on the action of the Board, there would still be an issue with the use of 30ft.
Mr. Al Dubois,
Ms. Cheryle Dubois,
Ms. Gayle Plouffe,
Mr. Culbert said he wanted to know when the property was cleared, if an Intent to Cut was filed with the Town and if proper siltation fencing installed.
Attorney James Troissi of
Ms. Bousa wanted to know at the time the right-of-way was
dedicated (in the 1970’s), if the Town dedicated the 50ft. right-of-way with
25ft. intersection radii at
Ms. Bousa asked if any of the surrounding parcels would be landlocked due to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Hamor said the abutting parcels had frontage onto a roadway above the proposed subdivision. Mr. Hamor took note of the request to further review.
Mr. Culbert believed one of the serious issues was the 12ft.
retaining wall because the Town regulations would not be met for 3-1
slopes. He said through testimony given
there appeared to be clearing without a permit, which lead to siltation
problems. He said if that was the case
the situation should be corrected immediately.
Mr. McNamara was concerned with the design of the road and noted that
the Board had denied a plan on
It was noted that regardless of the Board’s decision, the Selectmen could enforce the original agreement with the owner. A current problem with abutting property, due to prior construction, is considered a civil matter.
Mr. McNamara wanted to know if there was an impact to the regulations or Planning Board’s decision based upon the uncertainty of the entrance. Mr. D’Andrea believed that the issue could be addressed through the review process. He said the entrance issue should be resolved.
The Board discussed what actions they could take. The following motions were made.
|
MOTION: |
(Scanzani/DeLuca) To accept the plan for consideration. |
|
VOTE: |
(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
MOTION: |
(McNamara/DeLuca) To accept, for consideration, the waiver request for road construction of more than 10% road grade. |
|
VOTE: |
(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
MOTION: |
(Scanzani/DeLuca) To accept, for consideration, the waiver request for the roadway design at 3% grade for 100ft. at intersection 4.6. |
|
VOTE: |
(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
MOTION: |
(Scanzani/DeLuca) To accept, for consideration, the waiver request of the 3-1 side slope to 0% for 250 linear feet. |
|
VOTE: |
(6 - 1 - 0) The motion carries. Ms. Bousa voted no. |
Once the waivers were accepted for consideration, the Board took the following motions:
|
MOTION: |
(Scanzani/McNamara) To deny the waiver request for the road grade to be at 12% . |
|
VOTE: |
(7 - 0 - 0) Through an affirmative vote, the motion carried to deny the waiver request. |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
MOTION: |
(Scanzani/DeLuca) To deny the waiver request for the 3% minimum grade at the intersection. |
|
VOTE: |
(7 - 0 - 0)Through an affirmative vote, the motion carried to deny the waiver request |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
MOTION: |
(Scanzani/Ouellette) To deny the waiver request of the slope to be at 0%. |
|
VOTE: |
(7 - 0 - 0)Through an affirmative vote, the motion carried to deny the waiver request |
Mr. Culbert said the plans would be forwarded to the engineer for review.
MINUTES
|
MOTION: |
(McNamara/Lynde) To approve the |
|
VOTE: |
(5 - 0 - 2) The motion carried. Mr. Scanzani and Ms. Bousa abstained. |
DATE SPECIFIED
PLANS
Map 4
Map 11 Lot 93 - Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC - Dutton Road - Proposed Elderly Housing for Site Plan Review and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing
Map 6
Map 4
DISCUSSION
Mr. Lynde informed that the two warrant articles that the Board requested (1-GIS; 2-Assistant Planner) were brought to the Selectmen, but received no support and would therefore not be included on the Town ballot.
Mr. Lynde said comments for submitted plans should not come from the Fire Chief, but should be forwarded in writing from the Technical Review Committee through Mr. D’Andrea.
There was a brief conversation regarding the Conservation Commission making recommendations to applicants. It was noted that applicants make changes at their own risk.
ADJOURNMENT
|
MOTION: |
(DeLuca/McNamara) To adjourn the meeting. |
|
VOTE: |
(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. |
The meeting was adjourned at approximately
Respectfully submitted,
Charity A. L. Willis
Recording Secretary