BELLINGHAM PLANNING BOARD

 

 

5 COMMON STREET

BELLINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02019

(508) 966-0991; FAX (508) 966-2317

PlanningBoard@bellinghamma.org

 

August 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes

 

·        Present at the meeting:

Brian J. Sutherland (BJS) Chair

Glenn C. Wojcik (GCW), Vice Chair

David Brown (DB) Secretary

Thomas J. Guerin (TJG),

Roland R. Laprade (RRL),

Stephen Bartha (SB)

 

 

Other officials:  Stacey J. Wetstein, (SJW) Town Planner

      Amy Cook, (AC), Commission on Disabilities

      Mary Chaves, (MC) Coordinator

 

 

 

BJS opened the meeting at 7:00 PM. (prepared by: Mary Chaves)

 

 

RRL Motion to sign minutes of August 10, 2006.

DB: Second.

Vote: 5-0, Approved

 

RRL:  Motion to sign vouchers

DB: Second

Vote: 5-0, Approved

 

 

Bellingham Commons II Informal Discussion

 

Mark Beaudry of Meridian Associates and George Levine, applicant, appeared to review their upcoming submission

 

They reminded the Board that their previous application had been withdrawn due to loss of Board members to vote on their special permit.

 

They have redesigned the egress points after recommendations from the Board and peer review consultant, MDM. There is no longer access close to the Volta Oil site and the intersection at Maple Street.  The 24000 square foot building will remain where it was previously sited and the proposed restaurant is in relatively the same spot as well.  The driveway has been moved across from the Conroy warehouse.  They have widened the driveway to allow left and right turn lanes out of the property... They wanted to make sure the Board had no issue with the direction they were taking before finalizing their plans.

 

TJG stated he felt that the plan seemed to address the Board’s previous objections regarding exiting the property and queuing.  He did have an issue on how vehicles coming from Franklin will enter.  Mr. Beaudry stated they would widen the road and put a left turn lane in with the approval of Mass Highway.  DB questioned the location of the driveway in reference to Conroy’s driveway   BJS told applicant he felt the issues were addressed.  He asked about potential traffic once the back lot was developed.  Mr. Beaudry replied that this would be a self-storage facility with minimal traffic.

Mr. Beaudry requested that the Board allow him to resubmit the project without a new traffic study.  BJS stated that he should make sure that the flow of traffic through and in and out of the site be addressed.

GW suggested he felt their previous mitigation proposal was low and did not address the traffic impact at the town center.

 

Goddard School Informal discussion

 

Michael Myers appeared on behalf of the Maggiore Companies and the Goddard School.  He did not have a plan on hand but wanted to ask the Board for permission to reorient the monument sign more toward Mechanic Street so that it will be in from of the parking lot, not the school.  BJS asked about impact on sight line.  It was determined that since the sign was 20 feet off the road it would not impact the line of sight The Board had no objection to his repositioning the sign but asked him to check with the safety office, Sgt Rolls.

 

Mr. Myers also asked that the front gate of the surround around the dumpster be changed to a PVC fence with screening to prevent damage during waster removal.  BJS suggest he look at a site in town that had worked for the condominium project and may work for them as well.  The Board decided that as long as the area was secured and screed there was no objection to changing the gate material.

 

 

EMC Definitive Subdivision, Maple Street

 

Attorney Chris Toomey .Dan Feeney of Beals and Thomas, Dave Streeter of EMC appeared before the Board for EMC.  BJS asked Dan to review the project history for Stephen Bartha, the newest member of the Board.  Dan gave a synopsis of the history of EMC and the property from the time it was considered as a campus to the present

He pointed out the previously proposed roadway on Maple Street and showed revised plan for Maple Street to accommodate the residents most affected by the subdivision.  A new Maple Street was proposed which would divert traffic away from the front of the homes across from the subdivision and through the middle of the subdivision.  There were access points of this new roadway to allow residents to get to the old section of Maple Street. Dan made a suggestion that they go to the Board of Selectmen and ask that the portion of High Street from the new Maple Street roadway to the existing Maple Street roadway be closed off, forcing vehicles on High Street to access Maple Street through the new roadway.

He also reviewed which residences would access the new maple street and the existing Maple Street.  Both roads would remain accessible until the Town accepted the new roadway.  EMC would then have the access to the old roadway closed off.

 

Steven Hall of High Street was concerned that the new plan did nothing to alleviate the traffic on High Street. The Board advised him that there was little they could do to widen High Street near the subdivision, as the Army Corps of Engineers would not allow changes to the bridge.

 

Anne Meehan of Maple Street complained that she lived next to the site and would not be able to take a right from her driveway with the subdivision due to traffic conditions.  The Board spent some time trying to explain how the new roadways would  work  and how the residents across the roadway would benefit.  They also explained  that EMC had the legal right to develop their property under the laws of Massachusetts and the town.

 

SJW asked the applicant to consider what options they can suggest to help alleviate traffic safety issues on High Street

 

The Board  mentiuoned the comments from the DPW and Dan Feeney  had not had an opportunity to review them as yet.  They will address these comments at the next public hearing.

 

Dan Feeney further stated that they are using the traffic information submitted dutring the MEPA process and should they exceed the use stated, will resubmit another traffic study.

 

The scencic roadway proposal is not ready but they will submit soon and hold the public hearings concurrently.

 

SJW advised the applicant to swnd their new submission to Graves Engineering the peer review consultant.

 

TJG:Motion to continue public hearing for EMC Definitive Subdivision to October 12, 2006 at 7:15 PM.

GCW:: Second.

Vote: 5-0, Approved.

 

TJG:  Motion to accept extension fo decision deadline for EMC Definitive Subdivision to November 10, 2006.

GCW: Second

Vote: 5-0, Approved

 

 

 

 

Woodbury Rodge Definitirve Subdivision and Major Residential Special Permit

 

Michael Moonan of Weston and Sampson appeared for the applicant, David LaChance.  He reviewed the changes to the plans based on the peer review comments and waiver requests granted or denied by the Board.

 

SJW advised the Board that there are a few outstanding issues.  Mr. Moonan had several items he wanted to review with the Board..

 

Comment #27. A 12” pipe running under the road to grade grassy area,  The regulations call for 2 feet of cover. They have proposed one foot of cover, but with a Class  V pipe that can withstand 6000 psi.  The enginners , including the peer review, stated that one foot of cover is sufficient when using a Class V pipe.  Class III is the standard pipe used and does require two feet of cover. The pipe is to keep the water on site an direct to the water quality swale

 

RRL  Motion to grant a waiver to this requirement with the conditiion that  the Class V pipe is notated on the plans at station 12,  plan GR 1

DB: Second

Vote: 5-0, Approved

 

K values on profile comment #32- They have designed roadway to make people drive slowly, but they will post a 15 MPH spped limit on the loop road and 20 MPH on the straight part of the roadway

 

Comment # 55,  The bottom of basin is only 1 foot above mean high water instead of 2 feet.  They would like to keep it at existing grade.  The Board agreed that if it workied at exisiting grade it will work at 1 foot as well.

 

RRL suggested SJW get communiication from Peer review to confirm that this will work for clarificataion  and grant waiver based on that confirmation.

DB: Second.

Vote: 5-0, Approved.

 

Mr. Moonan advised the Board that they had met with the Conservation Coimmission last night  and the hearing was left open pending comments by the Planning Board  to see ifd there will be any major revisions to the plans.  The next meeting is September 13, 2006.

 

 

SJW advised the Board that some preliminary drawings were presented for the Boards to review.  They are looking to achieve architechural integrity  and vary the layouts.

 

RRL:  Motion to continue public hearing for Woodbury RIsge Definitive Subdivision and Major Residential Special Permit  to September 14, 2006 at 7:10 PM.

DB: Second.

Vote: 5-0, Approved.

 

 

 

 

Planners Report

 

SJW briefed the Board  that Tim Jones has withdrawn their request for  a public hearing for a special town meeting for a multi family district.   When they get their signatures for a special town meeting they will resubmit their request for a special town meeting.

 

RRL stated that they did not get on the warrant for the Octiber Town Meeting  which would not require signatures.  No one was sure of the reasoning for this.  SJW further advised that the multi family bylaw was not going to be heard as there is no special town meeting..  RRL asked why it was not on the Octiber Town meeting agenda and SJW replied that it would be either held beofer the May Town meting ot a special town meeting regarding the multi family zoning project.

 

 

MC asked the Board is they would be intersted in a seminar to educate the Board, developers and engineers on Smart Growth methodologies.  RRL and SJW suggested a smeniar style dimilar to the Historic Preservation seminar and invite several speaksers and  other town’s planners and other Town Boards.

 

SJW advised the Board that she had heard from Town Counsel regarding the Guild of St. Agnes roadway and it was deteremined it was not a public roadway and the fact that it has been used over the years does still not make it a public access.  RRL suggested the have a meeting with the property owener and developer to discuss the situation there as the property is dangerous to access from their existing driveway.

 

 

RRL:  Motion to adjourn.

DB: Second.

Vote: 5-0, Approved.

 

 

Minutes Accepted on: ­­­ _____________________         __________________________

(Prepared by: Mary Chaves)

 

___________________________________     ________________________________

Roland R. Laprade                                                   Brian J. Sutherland

 

 

___________________________________     ________________________________

David Brown                                                              Glenn Wojcik

 

 

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Guerin