BELLINGHAM PLANNING BOARD

 

 

5 COMMON STREET

BELLINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02019

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

PlanningBoard@bellinghamma.org

 

December 14, 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

 

 

DB: Motion to sign minutes of October 28, 2006 as amended.

RRL: Second.

Vote: 5-0, Approved.

 

RRL:  Motion to sign vouchers.

DB: Second.

Vote: 5-0, Approved.

 

Woodbury Ridge Plan Signing

 

There was not signing blocks or a consistent place to sign the plans so the Board decided not to sign them until the signing blocks were placed on the plans.

 

Bellingham Commons II Definitive Subdivision Plan Signing

 

SJW presented the Board with the subdivision plans for their signatures.

 

High Ridge Estates update

 

Tim Jones appeared to give the Board an update on his meting with the Conservation Commission.  Regarding the Boy Scout water line, George Holmes will coordinate with the DPW for permits etc and will contact Tim when they need a backhoe and to lay the trench. He stated that Anne Matthews called Tim and told him that they would contact him when they are ready.  Tim will call Don DiMartino tomorrow and get update from him.

 

Tim gave the Conservation Commission an as built on the detention pond and is waiting for letter stating they are accepted and can be fenced,

 

They’ve done 2300 feet of sidewalks and curbing; Phase II is completed. He mentioned to the Board that he would be talking to Don DiMartino to lowering the percentage held for security.

 

 

 

D&N Estates Definitive Subdivision and Major Residential Special Permit

 

Bill Halsing of Land Planning Inc appeared with Laurent Duhamel, the applicant.  The Board has finalized all the details with Graves Engineering, peer review engineers; there is an agreement for an easement with the DPW and that will be signed over after the subdivision is approved.  They plan to tie in the sewer at High Ridge Estates. They have resolved all technical issues with the Conservation Commission but there is an outstanding issue on basic maintenance security to be resolved.

 

One additional waiver was requested regarding the 4345-outtlet pipe from detention basin at different elevation.

 

RRL:  Motion to grant waivers requested.

DB: Second.

Vote: 5-0, Approved.

 

 

RRL: Motion to continue D&N Estates to January 11, 2007 at 7:05 PM.

TJG: Second.

Vote: 5-0, Approved.

 

RRL:  Motion to continue D&N estates special permit for major residential subdivision.

DB: Second.

Vote: 5-0, Approved.

 

RRL: Motion to accept request for an extension for the decision deadline for D&N Estates Definitive Subdivision to January 26, 2007.

TJG: Second.

Vote: 5-0, Approved.

 

RRL: Motion to accept an extension for the decision deadline for D&N Estates Special Permit for major residential subdivision to January 26, 2007.

TJG: Second.

Vote: 5-0, Approved.

 

 

EMC Definitive Subdivision

 

Peter Coppinger, David Streeter and Dan Feeney appeared to discuss the roadway for the definitive subdivision.  MDM Traffic Consultants had reviewed the preferred plan that called for the creation of a “new Maple Street” and the closing of High Street from the “new Maple Street” to the Maple Street, an alternate plan that left High Street open to Maple Street and the original submission with a private subdivision roadway.  MDM stated in their memo that they were unable to suggest one plan over the other or comment on the safety of one vs. the other, as they did not have traffic study numbers.  BJS asked why they were unable to use the traffic counts submitted by EMC with their subdivision application. SJW informed him that that information was based on a single usage and this project had too many unknown variables for that method to use to make a recommendation.

SJW informed the Board that she had asked the Town’s safety officer, Sgt. Lee Rolls, for his comments concerning the roadway design from a safety standpoint.  Sgt Rolls suggested another option for the roadway.  Rather than abandon a portion of Maple Street, he suggested that Maple Street stay open to through traffic and only subdivision traffic and High Street traffic use the new roadway.  Sgt. Rolls said that if the residents had no objection that High Street be made a one-way from Maple Street to the bridge because the road is so narrow there.  He also suggested a horseshoe, which would create a true “T” intersection of Stonehedge Road, Maple Street and the subdivision access road with a traffic signal. He asked that the northerly entrance be put back further to help with the safety issue of the curve in the roadway and mentioned that another signal would optimize the area in terms of safety.  The Board commented that the traffic signalization was not in their jurisdiction and there was no way to know right away if the Commonwealth would allow the installation of signals there.  Dan Feeney of Beals and Thomas also stated that EMC does not own the frontage that Sgt. Rolls was referring to at the suggested northerly access so the road to could extend that far.

The Board discussed the problems of large turning vehicles and the size and approach angles of the roadway as well.  Dan Feeney suggested that they would need to look into the feasibility of striping another lane for turns into the industrial park because of the limitations of space and the requirements of the scenic road bylaw.  The proponent agreed to see if the recommended changes would be possible given the roadway width, their frontage of Maple Street and road design standards.

 

BJS opened discussion up to the floor.

 

Peter Gabriel, Maple Street, commented that truck traffic is best away from the homes and does not want to see the street widened.

Steven Kohler, Stonehedge Road, likes horseshoe plan, but does not feel that a T-junction would be safer.

Andy Sarno, 59 High St, doesn’t feel High St should be closed.

Jim Dunlea wanted to comment to Sgt Rolls and defended his subdivision plan. He stated that his concern was mainly for the residents of Maple Street who would have to deal with the noise and the backs of industrial buildings, as the new development would most likely face their buildings towards the subdivision roadway.

 

Doug Porter of Stonhedge Road said he worries about school bus stops and the truck traffic with the design proposed by Sgt Rolls.  Currently the school bus stop is at the intersection of Stonehedge and Maple Street and with trucks stopping at traffic lights there would be an increase in diesel fumes.  TJG asked Sgt. Rolls who dictated the school bus stops and Sgt. Rolls replied that the police do and that if necessary, they could be moved.

Paul Silvestre, High St, stated his-concern that High Street needs to be widened to be safe.

Chris Meehan, Maple Street, asked about the 2 traffic light configuration.  The Board replied that that falls under the jurisdiction of Mass Highway Department.

Steven Kohler expressed concern about Mr. Meehan’s home and light from traffic on the subdivision roadway.

Krista Falko, High St, is concerned about school busses driving through an industrial park, a sentiment shared by Sgt. Rolls.

Brian Hall, 34 High St, suggested that the board had purposely eliminated High Street from consideration in a traffic study and asked that. Jim Dunlea read from a scoping letter of June 2006, which stated that the North Main Street and High Street intersection would not be counted at this time. BJS replied that a scoping session is required by the bylaws, but that a traffic study was never requested by the Board because the project has not been defined as yet.  At the time of the scooping session it was determined that High Street would not be considered as an egress to the private subdivision roadway so the intersection of High Street and North Main Street was not looked at but the High Street and Maple Street and High and subdivision roadway were part of the scope.  

 

Ann Meehan, Maple Street, expressed her concern for her safety upon entering and exiting her property.

Donna Gardner, High Street resident, liked the idea of making High Street one-way from Old Maple to the bridge and asked about process.  BJS advised her that this would be under the jurisdiction of the Board of Selectmen and that the residents could appeal to them for any changes in the roadway.

 

The Board discussed different scenarios taking into consideration all of the input they have received thus far.  TJG still like the preferred alternative, but was open to suggestions for purposes of safety.

 

The Board discussed the need to provide EMC with direction in the subdivision design.  After hearing from Sgt. Rolls, they first discussed a plan that keeps the existing Maple Street with a T-junction at Stonehedge Road and entrance and exits to a private subdivision roadway on either end of the subdivision.  RRL asked EMC to investigate the feasibility of widening Maple Street to provide a turning lane into the subdivision along with the installation of a traffic light at a “T-intersection” with Stonehedge Road and moving the northerly entrance further north. The intersection should also be wide enough to accommodate the turning of large trucks.

 

The Board reviewed the safety issues regarding the High Street and Maple Street intersection in combination of the two industrial roadway entrances. Sgt. Rolls stated that it would not be safe to have three roadways in that span of Maple Street.  The Board decided that the roadway from the intersection of High Street and the subdivision roadway to Maple Street be closed off and maintained as a walking path. RRL asked if was legal to merge traffic from a public way on to a private way. It was determined that it was not and that the subdivision roadway would have to remain public.

 

 

RRL Motion to direct EMC to prepare plans using the roadway configuration as discussed. Plans should demonstrate a T-junction at Stonehedge Road and two entrance/exit points on Maple Street to be shifted further north...Subdivision roadway to be public road;

DB: Second.

Vote: 5-0, Approved.

 

RRL: Motion to continue Subdivision to January 25, 2006 at 7:15 PM.

DB: Second/

Vote: 5-0, Approved.

 

Lakeview Estates discussion

 

Endre Holosi, of Benchmark Engineering, represented the applicant.  He presented the latest version of the plan for the Board’s review.  They have revised the plan to 60 duplexes.  There will we sixty 2-bedroom and sixty 3-bedroom units

The original submission had less than 10 acres of open space. This submission has approximately 34 acres of open space with 26 acres dry land.  The storm water management system was reviewed briefly.  Mr. Holosi stated that the units are moved away from wetlands creating less of an environmental impact

 

They have not changed the list of mitigation offered with the 164 units.

 

BJS commented that the plan of Nov 9 had been modified based upon the comments given by BJS at the time of the Zoning hearing.

RRL stated that he was opposed to the 40B process as a whole and felt it provided no benefit to the Town.

TJG asked if the project would be phased.  Mr. Holosi stated that it would with the first phase to be the lower section by Silver Lake Road.

SJW asked about façade and architectural features as well as the placement of the buildings.  Mr. Holosi responded that a package had been provided with the floor plans and styles of the proposed units.

 

Donna Johnson15 Lakeview Avenue asked how close the buildings would be to the lot lines

Muriel Cyr, Short Street, asked if there would be any sidewalks installed in th4e existing neighborhoods.

 

Endre Holosi has planned to drive through the area with Sgt. Lee Rolls, police safety officer and Lee will point out the safety concern areas

Kathy Rigosa, Easy St, doesn’t think a sidewalk would be an asset due to lack of available parking spaces.

John Haines asked if the houses would be sold or rented. He was told they would be sold.

 

Planners Report

 

SJW asked that the Board approve an increase for the coordinator position to keep up with the step appropriate to union peers.  No other increases were in the budget

 

RRL: Motion to accept fiscal year 2008 budget as presented,

TJG Second.

Vote: 5-0, Approved.

 

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