March 25, 2008
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: |
Doug Moglin, Chairman |
|
Roz Terry, Vice Chairman |
|
Bob Johnson |
|
Cal Chunglo |
ABSENT: |
Richard Utzinger, Associate |
|
Sam Santaniello |
OTHER: |
Marcus Phelps, Town Planner |
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Moglin.
TOWN PLANNER’S REPORT: 7:00 p.m.
1. Reviewed the preliminary subdivision plan for South Loomis Street and prepared an Information Memo for the Planning Board.
2. Received the peer review on Williamsburg Estates from Baystate Environmental Consultants (BEC). Steve D’Amrosio will attend the March 25 Planning Board hearing continuation on this project to discuss the review.
3. Drafted three Articles for the zone changes proposed by the Planning Board and sent them to Town Counsel for review and submission to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion on the May 20 Annual Town Meeting Warrant.
4. Received an invitation from Karl Stinehart, CAO, to attend Connect City telephone emergency notification training on April 3 at 9:30 AM.
5. Met with Cartographic Associates representatives in Town Hall on March 20 to discuss the low-level digital ortho-photographic coverage. Questions remain to be answered and a sample of the coverage will be provided.
6. Received a request from the Local Emergency Management Department for information from the Planning Board on preparations to continue operations in case of a disaster, i.e. alternate meeting site, protection of records, etc.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: 7:10 pm.
Betty West of 48 Rosewood Lane submitted a petition signed by residents of Rosewood Estates opposing the commercial extension. We think that it is an invasion of Rosewood’s peace and quiet and will reduce property values. Why should we have stores near us?
Joe Smith of 52 Rosewood Lane expressed a concern that the Planning Board is not listening to the people who asked not to have the property across from Rosewood developed commercial. Then the Board turned around and passed it. This is a good residential area. He does not think it is fair that the Planning Board wants to put commercial businesses in the area after residents asked them not to.
Mr. Moglin said regardless of the Planning Board’s recommendation the zone change will appear on the Town Meeting Warrant. The Board can offer on of three recommendations to Town meeting, a positive recommendation, a negative recommendation or no recommendation. It will require a 2/3 vote to pass at the Town Meeting. If the Planning Board gave a negative recommendation to the Town it would bar the applicant from coming back with the same request for two years. With a positive recommendation and a negative vote from the Town Meeting they can reapply in less than 2 years.
Joe Smith of 52 Rosewood Lane said that he cannot understand how the Board could approve the zone change when so many people were against it. He also felt there was not enough time given to prepare and understand the zone change. Mrs. Terry reminded him that it was posted on the web site, all abutters received a letter inviting them to attend the public meeting and the notice was published in the local newspaper twice. Mr. Johnson said that there are other people in Town that have a difference of opinion. Mr. Smith said it is the democratic way. The majority wins. Mrs. Terry reminded him that it will be the majority of 2/3 at the Town Meeting. Mr. Johnson said that the things you heard last week that could happen won’t necessarily happen. Business restricted means that it comes back to the Planning Board and they decide if it something
that works with what we have already approved. We are not going to let something happen that will not work with your space. We are not going to let a loading dock be 10 feet from your front door. Mr. Smith replied that over time generally these promises are difficult to manage. Mr. Johnson replied that government sometimes does not work. He stated “I can only tell you what I am going to try to do to help, but I am not going to shut the world down.” Mr. Smith said that there is plenty of space from the center of town to the fruit stand. Why bring commercial to a residential area. The discussion continued.
Beverly Faulds of 24 Rosewood Lane said that they are not objecting to the condominiums that were recommended. What they are objecting to is changing that whole middle area which could be used for more seniors.
Betty West of 48 Rosewood Lane said that drainage is a problem and asked what the Board is going to do about that. Mr. Chunglo replied that Rosewood already creates water problems for their neighbors.
APPOINTMENTS:
7:25 p.m. - South Loomis Street Preliminary Subdivision Plan
Mr. Rob Levesque of Levesque Associates represented ABU Development and three land owners: Brenda Brown, Calvin Arnold and Richard Utzinger. Mr. Levesque presented a preliminary subdivision plan for properties owned by these land owners. A flexible residential development plan will include a 33 lot subdivision; from the rear of the property there is about 4,400 feet of road. There is plenty of open space provided. In that open space there are a number of resource areas that they would like to avoid. There is also an endangered species there that they plan to avoid. They propose to do this as a Low Impact Development and plan to work with the Conservation Commission to stay away from Resource Areas. They will be required to cross a stream near the frontage.
Mr. Phelps prepared a two page information memo for the Board. The Flexible Design has two flag lots which conform to the by-laws as far a frontage is concerned. The size of the lot and cul-de-sac is conforming. From an aerial photograph of the area it looks like there is a motorcycle race track included in the open space. Mr. Rob Levesque said that it is located on the Brown property. Mr. Phelps asked if there was to be any rehabilitation there. Mr. Rob Levesque replied, yes. There is no structure there. It is all just grading and has not been used for 3 or 4 years. Mr. Phelps commented that there are two residences on South Loomis that each have a driveway that crosses the stream and you are adding a third. Mr. Levesque stated that there would be a third driveway. Are you going to incorporate either of those lots into the development? Mr. Phelps said that there is a 50 foot buffer and an open space lot about 1.7 acres. The 50 foot buffer is not common ownership. Mr. Levesque will
bring the plan back to the Board April 22, 2008.
7:40 p.m. Williamsburg Estates Public Hearing Continued
Mr. Moglin said that the Board received the third party peer review from Bay State Environmental Consultants, Inc. Steve D’Ambrosio was present to represent the company. Marc Shute the consultant was present. He said that he did not have any problem with any except two minor and one major. The first is that you want houses and driveways shown on the plan. The second is the requirement of three test wells. And the third one is the Williamsburg Estate road width. They reviewed the definition of a Collector Street. Mr. Neece said that they would have to go with the definition of a Collector Road. Mr. Shute said that it is determined by the Planning Board and whether it is intended to carry traffic from Hillside Road to Sunnyside. Mr. Moglin said the Board discussed this last week. We have two options: Any street that carries or is
designed to carry through traffic between parts of collector streets in Southwick or between Southwick and other Towns or local streets used solely for access between abutting lots. A subdivision street shall be classified for the purpose to establishing the applicable design and construction standards according to the definitions, The Board shall determine the classification in all doubtful cases. This connects two streets. By definition it is a collector street. Mr. Shute said that other subdivisions have been built with 50 foot wide right-of-way. He cited examples of Pine Knoll , Pine Knoll II,Pine Knoll III, Patriots Way and Lexington Circle. Mr. Moglin said that all those mentioned were a remand from land court. The board did not have any authority to review the remand plans, and that the plan were reviewed under earlier versions of the Subdivision Rules. Mr. Moglin also stated that the preliminary process is primarily to choose whether the plan will be Conventional
or Flexible. The Board does not get into drainage calculation or strict adherence to every by-law at the preliminary. Mr. Shute said that if the road had to changed to a 60 foot width it would mean a major redesign of the project. The Peer reviewer said that the Board needs to decide whether the road is a collector road or not. The Board decided that it was a collector street. Mr. Shute said that if the Board makes it a Collector street they will be increasing the traffic speed. They also designed a winding road to cut down the speed of the traffic. Mr. Johnson asked what the road width was on Meadow Lane. Mr. Chunglo said that it was 60 foot wide right-of-way with 30 foot paved surface. Mr. Neece of the Southwick DPW said that they have no objection to a 50 foot road right-of-way. It will not hamper maintenance. They discussed placement of underground electric lines, fire hydrants and sidewalks.
Mr. Moglin said if the plan was a flexible plan there would be a site plan review for each lot. Since this is a Conventional plan it is not a Special Permit. Once you have definitive sub division approval you are done with this Board. Mr. DePalma said that they still have to apply for a driveway permit. Mr. Moglin replied that the problem is that the intent of the by-law is to try to head off problems. Mr. D’Ambrosio said that making separate site plans review helpful is basically drainage and where the water goes and whether site development of one particular lot is going to impact another lot. To ask for it up front is impossible to do. To have a site plan review for DPW’s use when driveway permits were issued. Mr. Moglin asked if the plan shows the topography of the finished grade of the project? Mr. Shute replied that
only the road shows grading. Mrs. Terry asked if the Board had the authority to require site plan for the grading be provided. Mr. Moglin said that it is a burden but wondered if there is a way to do this other than putting on a condition. Mrs. Terry proposed that the Board put in a condition in the decision that states that the applicant is required to provide a grading site plan for a building permit and driveway permit. This will allow the DPW to look at it but it would not have to come before the Planning Board again. Mr. Neece said you would want to make that condition so then DPW could require a change of the grading if it was appropriate. Mrs. Terry said that a condition could be put on the site plan so that when the lots are sold it would be seen. Mr. Shute said that he could put a restriction on the deed. When the lawyer does a title search on the lot and the person buying the lot knows that this has to be done. Mrs. Terry said that any specific conditions on the lot should
be in the deed. Mr. Phelps asked Marc if he was going to review the vertical curves on #13. Mr. Shute replied yes it would be done. Mr. Shute said that he will take the peer review comments and they will address every one. He would need a decision on the width of the pavement since it will affect some of the changes on the peer review. Mr. Moglin said that the Board would make that decision before the end of the meeting. Mr. Moglin asked when he could return. Mr. Shute requested an extension until April 29, 2008. The Public Hearing will be continued on April 29 at 7:15 p.m.
Timothy Lakata of 10 Meadow Lane submitted: - ATTACHMENT 1
Steve D’Ambrosio asked if the curve radius going to change? Mr. Shute replied that they would not change if the 50’ road width is fine. If they have to go to 60’ wide the center line of radius will change. Mr. Moglin said that the size of the road dictates the driving speed posted.
Jeff Parentela of 1 Stagecoach Road said he has an issue with the speed limit. He is also concerned that too many trees will be cut and change the look of the area. He asked the Planning Board to be careful in making decisions on the width of the road. Mr. Moglin said that Planning Board is struggling with the width of the road. The 50’ road would reduce the speed of traffic. The 60’ pavement will increase the rate of travel. The Board has to decide tonight. The by-law states that the road has to be 60’ because it is a connector road. Or do we go with the 60’ width and put stop signs every 12’ as proposed calming measures. I feel these are counterproductive. People tend to blow through them. What is the best thing to do for safety. The island will remain as a way to discourage through traffic. Mr. Moglin
expressed concern that widening the road would push the houses further back on the lots and closer to existing buildings. Mr. Shute replied that these lots a 60,000 sq feet. Mr. DePalma said that there is 155 acres for 40 lots so there will be many trees left.
Robert Cagliostro of 717 College Highway expressed concern about the drainage of water. He said that there is already a drainage problem. He asked how this would be addressed. Mr. Shute replied that water would be contained on the site both pre and post construction. The Board reviewed the plan with Mr. D’Ambrosio. Mrs. Terry said that they cannot increase the amount of water leaving their site. Mr. D’Ambrosio said that the water runoff post development on Mr. Cagliostro’ property would be less than present.
Mr. Shute requested a figure for the cost of sidewalk development for the sidewalk fund. A discussion followed. Mr. DePalma said that he would submit three quotes for the construction of a sidewalk for the Board to use as a guide to establish a realistic cost for the sidewalk fund.
Mr. Phelps asked if Mr. Shute would send all his responses to Bay State’s peer review to him. Mr. Phelps will then forward those to Bay State Environmentalist Consultants, Inc.
Mr. Moglin read a letter from D. L. Bean on the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) requirements and then concluding that said that this definitive subdivision, the proponent, Ralph DePalma, does not need any agency permits because all the permits are at the local level and no MEPA involvement is required. See ATTACHMENT A
Mr. David Hall of 65 Sunnyside Road said that the 60’ right of way would create a hardship for the residents of Meadow Lane. Meadow Lane was designed as a collector street.
Mr. Moglin said that there was a gentleman at the last hearing that asked if this project would trigger a traffic study. After a review of the bylaws, one is not required. The other question that came up was regarding the selection of the peer reviewer. Mr. Moglin asked that it be noted for the minutes that Bay State Environmental Consultants, Inc is a subsidiary of GZA, located in Norwood Massachusetts. There was a request that we get a consulting firm from the eastern part of the state which we did. It was not by design but it did happen.
The Public Hearing will continue on April 29 at 7:15 p.m.
9:00 p.m. Estate Lots Special Permits Decisions
264 South Longyard Road
264 South Longyard Road needed a decision on the 9% grade on the driveway. Mr. Shute was asked for a distance on the paved driveway. Mr. Shute said that it will be hard surfaced for the first 360 feet from South Longyard Road.
Williamsburg Estates
The discussion followed whether to require the road to be 50 feet wide or 60 feet wide. Mr. Johnson said that we have a rule that says a connector street is to be 60 feet wide. Where do we go from here? Mr. Moglin said that he has no objection to following the rule as long as it does not increase the traffic speeds in the area. The rule also states that the Board shall determine the classification in all doubtful cases. By definition it is a collector street. If it is in the best interest of the Town that we would allow him to request a waiver to take the right of way down to 50 feet. We are not going to deny the plan because the road is not 60 feet wide. We will give him the opportunity to bring in a plan with the road width changed to 60 feet. Marc does need to come back with all the drainage traps, especially the catch
basins under the road. Mr. Neece said that it is not allowed but he can ask for a waiver. This will become a Town road. Mrs. Terry said that if the Board increases the right-of- way some of the lots may not be big enough. The Board reviewed the plans and continued to discuss the road. The Board decided to continue the discussion. No decision was made.
Being no further business to be brought before the Board, A MOTION was made by Mr. Johnson, SECONDED by Mr. Chunglo to adjourn at 9:35 p.m. Vote was unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Preston
Recording Secretary
ATTACHMENT A can be read at the Office of the Town Clerk’s
ATTACHMENT 1
Timothy Lakata
---Original Message-----
From: Timothy Lakata [e-mail address removed]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:55 PM
Subject: A solution for all
To the Southwick Town Planning Board:
On Tuesday, 12 Feb 2008, the Southwick Town Planning
Board held a town meeting to discuss the proposed
Subdivision of "Williamsburg Estates." At the end of
the meeting I proposed a solution to the board and
they requested I submit the idea via e-mail due to the
fact that both sides were not represented. Therefore,
I am submitting my proposal to be entered into record.
Due to excessive road gradient, the proposed
subdivision requires a waiver from the town planning
Board to construct a "Public" road. I request that the
Town Planning Board deny the waiver request and
require the developers of Williamsburg Estates
subdivision make it a gated community and declare the
road "private" and not allow it to be connected to
Meadow Lane. This would alleviate the major complaint
that the residents of "The Woods at Sunnyside Ranch"
have with creating a "Cut through." If the subdivision
is gated and private, then the town planning board
would have the option of granting the road gradient
waiver.
In the end, the residents of "The Woods" are happy and
Mr. Depalma gets to build his development per his
proposed plan.
Thank you for time
Sincerely Yours
Major Timothy M. Lakata
10 Meadow Lane
Southwick, MA 01077
(413)569-2433 Home
(860)997-1585 Cell
e-mail address removed
| 
