BELLINGHAM
(508) 966-0991;
FAX (508) 966-2317
PlanningBoard@bellinghamma.org
October 26, 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.
RRL: Motion to sign minutes of October 12, 2006.
DB: Second.
Vote: 5-0, Approved.
RRL: Motion to sign vouchers.
DB: Second.
Vote: 5-0, Approved.
FW Webb Decision Discussion
Doug Hartnett of Cubulis Associate represented the
applicant. The plan has been revised according to the discussion at the last
meeting. The drainage had been
clarified.
TJG: Motion to sign
decision for F.W. Webb Distribution
Center Development Plan Review.
RRL: Second.
Vote: 5-0, Approved.
Thundermist
Car Wash Development Plan Review a d Special Permit for Drive Through
Ronald Lussier appeared before the Board and stated that he
was in agreement with the decision. RRL
suggested that the decision be altered to reflect that he will connect to the
Pulaski Boulevard Sewer System.
Mr. Lussier had submitted updated plans and documentation
regarding the contamination clean up of the property.
Wayne Poitros, Arthur Street, asked if the no left turn sign
was on the plans. BJS advised that it was.
RRL: Motion to sign
decision for Thundermist Car Wash Development Plan Review.
DB Second.
Vote: 5-0. Approved.
RRL: Motion to sign
Thundermist car wash special permit for drive through decision as amended.
DB Second.
Vote: 5-0, Approved.
Bellingham
Commons II Development Plan Review and Special Permit for Drive Through
Mark Beaudry, Meridian Associates, appeared with George
Levine, the proponent. The subdivision
hearing was closed at the last hearing and a subdivision approval had been
drafted. At the last meeting a dialogue
was begun regarding mitigation. Mr.
Beaudry questioned whether the Board wanted to review the subdivision decision
first or begin with the mitigation discussion.
It was decided to move forward with the subdivision decision since no
mitigation discussion was necessary for the subdivision itself. An agreement
with Van Lumber for ongoing maintenance of the joint drainage basin was
presented to the Board. RRL suggested
that this document become part of the decision as an addendum. Some minor corrections were made to the
language of the decision.
RRL: Motion to sign
decision for Bellingham Commons II definitive subdivision as amended with
addendum.
DB Second.
Vote: 5-0,Approved.
Moving forward with the mitigation discussion, Mr. Beaudry
reviewed some figures he had put together comparing other projects in the area
and the mitigation agreed to with these projects. They looked at the traffic studies and
calculated their proposal based on the percentage of traffic from their site
through the intersection. They broke the project down in three different ways
based on the three possible uses of the small building in front. The first was a fast food restaurant with a
drive through window, second was a bank with a drive through and the third a
small retail unit. All calculations
included the 22,000 square foot retail center and the 66,000 square foot self
storage area.
Based on intensity of use, he proposed $40,000 for
restaurant with drive through, $30,000.00 for a bank with a drive through and
$20,000.00 for retail space. The
proponent is also planning to donate the lighting and netting at the golf range
to the town for recreational uses and estimated the value to be approximately
$15,000.00-$25,000.00. Mr. Levine
offered to pay all the mitigation at the time of getting road opening permit
from Mass Highway and asked that any monies due him based on the type of
operation be credited towards other fees related to the project. RRL stated that although this was a good idea
in theory, there was the risk that the funds may not be available to Mr. Levine
should they be spent. A suggestion that
$20,000.00 is paid upon pulling the permit with Mass Highway and the rest upon
pulling a building permit was made as at that time the type of business would
be identified.
GCW was much opposed to the suggested mitigation. He stated that he felt it was much too low
for the impact to an already failing intersection as well as the destination
traffic that the site would draw. RRL
pointed out that they had made a mistake with Volta Oil and their mitigation
amount had been too low and that he didn’t feel it was fair to charge this
proponent more. GCW questioned the
impact on the next intersection at Blackstone St. Mr. Beaudry replied that that was also
calculated into their proposal and that the level of service did not change
from a build to a no build situation as that intersection has already been
updated.
RRL: Motion to draft
favorable decision for the Bellingham Commons II Development Plan Review. Decision to include the three proposed
mitigation numbers based on use with $20,000.00 to be paid upon obtaining Mass
Highway permit.
TJG: Second.
Vote 4-1, Approved (GCW Opposed).
RRL: Motion to draft
favorable decision for Bellingham Commons II Special Permit for a drive through
with mitigation as discussed.
DB: Second
Vote: 4-1, Approved (GCW Opposed).
RRL: Motion to accept request for extension of decision
deadline for Bellingham Commons II Definitive Subdivision to November 10, 2006.
DB: Second.
Vote: 5-0, Approved.
RRL: Motion to accept request for extension of decision
deadline for Bellingham Commons II Special Permit for Drive Through to November
10, 2006.
DB: Second
Vote: 5-0, Approved.
EMC
Definitive Subdivision
Bellingham resident, Jim Dunlea, asked for time to make a
public statement regarding the EMC proposal.
He presented a PowerPoint presentation outlining some of the concerns
felt by the residents of High Street concerning the new Maple Street Proposal
and the project in general. The
presentation was given to the Planning Department to be added to the public
record. He argued that the proposal was less safe
RRL asked if there were any residents of Maple Street that
wished to respond. Doug Porter of
Stonehedge disagreed with Mr. Dunlea and felt that the road change would be
beneficial to the Maple Street abutters.
Jim Meehan asked about what the impact of this change did to the value
of his property,
Mr. Dunlea made a final point that the residents of Maple
Street would be facing the read of building, dumpsters etc and that the
buildings would most likely be built facing the new roadway.
Chris Toomey, Dave Street and Chris Feeney reviewed a plan
they developed after meeting with Brian Hall of High Street to see if there
were a better approach to roadway for everyone’s sake.
Mr.
Hall insisted that this plan was a better option, but the Board questioned the
safety and practicality of the plan. It
was agreed that MDM peer review traffic consultants would review the options
and report to the Board.
RRL: Motion to go back to the original plan presented by
EMC.
DB: Second.
Discussion
TJG disagreed and stated he felt that the new Maple Street
was a much better option. SB agreed with
TJG.
Mr. Meehan, of Maple Street, was concerned about the impact
to his property. SJW advised Mr. Meehan
that the time to discuss mitigation to abutters has not come up as yet and that
the Board would be discussing that subject once a roadway was agreed upon.
Anne Meehan is concerned about making a safe left turn from
her property on to Maple Street.
RRL asked that the chair move on the motion
Vote: 5-0, Denied.
RRL: Motion to go
forward with the new Maple Street Plan.
DB Second.
Discussion: RRL, TJG,
GCW, SB and DB agreed that this was the best solution. BJS felt that the plan should be revised and
incorporate some of the alternative plan and suggestions by Brian Hall with
turn restrictions and crossing of new maple street was a viable option.
Chris Toomey suggested that this may constitute a traffic
hazard and asked if a traffic engineer had reviewed it. BJS stated that it had not been reviewed but
agreed that this would be the next logical step.
Residents were mixed on the closing of High Street from Old
to new maple streets. Some did not want
to see the road abandoned.
The Board and EMC representatives agreed to have a MDM
review the plans and comment.
TJG felt that the Board had enough information to vote on
the subdivision roadway design. He
stated that he felt the alternative plan was unsafe with traffic crossing new
maple street to traverse High St.
Chris Meehan felt that the alternate plan was better for
controlling truck traffic on High St.
RRL withdrew his motion until feedback was received.
TJG withdrew his second but motioned to vote on the plan
now.
There was no second
RRL
stated he felt that the Board was remiss in not being able to give the
applicant resolution this meeting.
Rich Ramella High St asked if the Board was leaning towards
the alternate plan.
Cecile Barrett 58 High Street commented that trucks do
traverse High Street and her car was damaged in passing a truck on High Street.
There was more discussion on what plans would be reviewed.
It was agreed that the “New Maple Street” plan and the alternate plan for opening
High Street were to be reviewed
SJW advised that MDM had quoted $3500.00 to review up to 5
plans.
Dave Streeter agreed to have the plans reviewed with the
cost to be no more than $3500.00.
RRL: Motion to continue public hearing to Dec 14 2006 at 7:30
PM.
DB Second.
Vote: 5-0, Approved.
Planners
Report
BJS brought Board up to date on Lakeview Estates
hearing. There is new representation for
the applicant, Endre Holosi. BJS stated
he believed the proposed plan is “light years ahead” of their original
submission. They are changing their
proposal to 60 duplexes, cul-de-sac and loop roads. They plan on coming before the various boards
to discuss their new plans. BJS asked MC
to put them on the agenda for 11.9.06. SJW stated that the agenda was too full
and they would like to schedule them before the Board on December 14, 2006 at
7:45 PM.
Dunkin Donuts Noise Mitigation
SJW advised the Board on her plans for the Dunkin Donuts
noise mitigation. She has drafted a
letter to be sent to residents of Hartford Ave and Depot Street and some Grove
Street and Box Pond Road.
She suggested that a letter be sent stating that if they
were interested in being considered for noise mitigation funds they should
contact the Planning office. Once they
know how many people are interested they will have an idea of how distribution
guidelines will be developed and types of noise mitigation allowable.
Appropriate forms of noise mitigation were discussed and included air
conditioning, landscaping barrier, windows, solid fencing and possibly
insulation and siding
Once the guidelines are set, another letter will be sent
advising the residents of a public hearing.
There will be a definitive time period to apply for funds. The initial
letter will state that we are opening up the floor to receive letters of
interest. The second letter will give instructions to the residents who
responded
She suggested to options for disbursement of the funds.
Option 1-Residents provide a receipt for completed work and
the types of noise mitigation be spelled out.
Option 2 requires no proof of work and the monies are
distributed.
She suggested that the first round of responses be within 90
days of receipt of registered letter.
GCW suggested that people provide with intention of doing
them work themselves are given time to get the work done.
The Board agreed that option 1 was more suitable and
discussed options for the most equitable ways to distribute the funds. SJW suggested that the letter state how much
many were available and how many people would be eligible to apply. TJG wanted
it stated that some, all or none of the monies spent would be reimbursed and
that the determination would be made during the public hearing process.
Grumpy’s Parking Lot
BJS asked SJW if the Building Inspector had contacted her
regarding Grumpy’s. She told him that he
had been in the office today with the owner of Grumpy’s. He had purchased the
adjacent residential/business parcel and was extending their parking lot into
the business-zoned portion of that parcel.
They have also paved the gravel spaces and made an exit to the street
form the extended paved area. She told
the Board that after reviewing their parking she scheduled them for a site plan
review before the Board.
66 Mendon Street
BJS then asked about 66 Mendon Street and the driveway that
was coming from the property on to Brook Street. She stated that she had been on leave during
this public hearing and did not realize that no driveway was permitted there. She will advise the Building Inspector.
RRL: Motion to
adjourn.
TJG: Second.
Vote 5-0, Approved.
Minutes Accepted on:
____________________________________________________________
(date) (prepared
by: Mary Chaves)
____________________________________________________________
Roland R. Laprade Brian
J. Sutherland
____________________________________________________________
David Brown Glenn
Wojcik
_____________________________________
Thomas J. Guerin