April 29, 2008
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: |
Doug Moglin, Chairman |
|
Roz Terry, Vice Chairman |
|
Bob Johnson |
|
Sam Santaniello |
|
Cal Chunglo |
|
Richard Utzinger, Associate |
|
|
ABSENT: |
Sam Santaniello |
|
Richard Utzinger, Associate |
|
|
OTHER: |
Marcus Phelps, Town Planner |
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mrs. Terry.
TOWN PLANNER'S REPORT: 7:00 p.m.
1. Participated in a tour of the proposed Williamsburg Estates subdivision on Saturday, April 26 along with members of the Planning Board, Conservation Commission and Historical Commission.
2. Prepared explanations for the Annual Town Meeting zone change Warrant Articles that are being requested by the Planning Board.
3. Prepared packets of background information on sign bylaw and the off-street parking bylaw including samples from Belchertown, Easthampton and Westfield.
4. Reviewed the Valley Vision 2 Smart Growth Toolkit and printed out the Smart Growth Community checklist that was prepared for Southwick.
5. Denis Gaido, Dennis Clark and I met with John Foley, commercial realtor, on April 23. He represents a client who intends to construct a new retail pharmacy building and a dental office at 691 College Highway north of the Tractor Supply Company site. This project will be in a Business Restricted zone and require a Special Permit and Site Plan Approval.
6. Dick Grannells, Denis Gaido, Dennis Clark and I met with Kevin Jennings, commercial realtor, and Eagle Bridge Capital representatives on April 28 to discuss development of properties located at the NW corner of the intersection of College Highway and Vining Hill Road for a retail pharmacy and an additional retail or office use. This project will be in a Business zone and require a Site Plan Review.
7. Received a 9-page document from Baystate Environmental Consultants (BEC) commenting on the response submitted by D.L. Bean to the peer review submitted by BSE of the Definitive Subdivision Plan for Williamsburg Estates. This information was provided to Marc Shute for further action.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: 7:10 p.m.
There were no public comments. The meeting was delayed until 7:35 p.m.
APPOINTMENTS:
7:35 p.m. Williamsburg Estates Public Hearing Continued
Mrs Terry relegated the meeting to Mr. Moglin. Mr. Moglin re-opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Moglin read a letter submitted by the Historical Commission. See ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Moglin read a letter submitted by the Conservation Commission. See ATTACHMENT B
Mr. Moglin stated that the Planning Board did post a public meeting of a walk of the Williamsburg Estate property on Saturday, May 26. Three Planning Board members, two Historical Commission members, two Conservation Commission members and some community members joined the walk. They walked along the Mouse Hill Road piece to the top and circled back across the field and then up off of Meadow Lane and walked in approximately on e quarter of a mile. Mr. Phelps and Mr. Chunglo continued on to Sterrett Drive.
Mr. Phelps said that Mr. D'Ambrosio of Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc, was in attendance representing the peer reviewer. He had a response to comments letter to Mr. Shute's response. Mr. Phelps said that this was technical response and was available if anyone wanted to read it.
David Hall submitted an engineer's report that he requested from John D. Plant. See ATTACHMENT 1.
Mr. Shute said that there are pre-treatment and sediment traps prior to anything getting into the leaching cells. He said that if they are in the street they will get clogged and if they are not in the street they will not get clogged.
Arthur Bashin of 37 Wynnfield Circle said that they have water problems at Wynnfield Circle.
Richard Whittaker of 15 Wynnfield Circle asked about leach fields. He said that they are expecting to pay between $300, 000 to $500,000 for 41 units to fix the leach field on the property. The units are only two and a half years old.
Mr. Phelps presented an aerial photograph of the area from 1980 with no development of Hickory Lane. Mr. Moglin asked Barbara MacEwan, Historical Commission, to look at Mouse Hill Road. Mr. Moglin said that it appears that the old Mouse Hill Road ran down the center of two rows of hickory trees. She agreed. He said from what they can see now is that the northern side of hickory trees are gone. The Southern side remains. The former Mouse Hill Road is now a stream. He asked if that was correct and Barbara said yes as far as she knows.
Mr. Moglin asked Mr. Shute of D.L.Bean, if he had seen the new Baystate Environmental report. He received this morning. Mr. Phelps said that it was a good opportunity to discuss the item while Mr. D'Ambrosio was present. Mr. Shute came forward to address the items on the report.
Item #1. Regarding Bench marks - Requires 2 bench marks for every 5 acres. He has shown 17 bench marks on the plan. The recommendation from Bay State was 31 benchmarks. The difference between the 17 and 31 would be lost. Mrs. Terry asked Jeff Neece, of DPW if he has an opinion on the number of benchmarks. He said he would like to give an opinion later. He did say that the bench marks are for the people who are building the development. They have limited use for DPW. He thought the 17 were enough to complete the project.
Item #2 & Item #3. Complied with the recommendation.
Item #4. Mr. Shute said that they will incorporate a tree plan on the grading plan.
Item #5. - Regarding Light Poles - BSE proposed suggested a location and quantity of light poles. He said he would go into Meadow lane look at their lighting, space the lighting the same as they have and install lights on alternating sides of the streets. BSE suggested staggering the light and not have them on one side of the street, which has been done.
Item #6 - Regarding Plan Format - Mr. Shute put approval not required but can change it to Approved.
Item #7 to #12 - Complied with the recommendation.
Item #13 - Regarding K Factors -They changed the vertical curve of the three vertical curves to meet the K factor and will change all the vertical curves to equal the 25.
Item #14 & #15. Complied with the recommendation
Item #16 - Regarding Street Grade - Mr. Shute requested a waiver. Mr. D'Ambrosio said that what he has requested does not reflect what is actually being proposed. There are portions of the subdivision that is graded at 10% but it is in the horizontal curve. That does not match the language in the waiver request. Mr. Shute will change the wording on the waiver to reflect the proposed conditions.
Item # 8 & #19 - Complied with the recommendation.
Item #20 - Needs to be changed and moved closer to the cut area rather than in the fill area. Mr. Shute agreed.
Item #21-Complied with the recommendation.
Item #22 - Regarding Catch Basins - Mr. Shute said that BSE recommended at an additional catch basin to collect a small amount of water. He felt that it was an insignificant amount of water. Mr. D'Ambrosio said that it is their opinion that any water that any opportunity that the applicant has to redirect storm water away from the leaching basins that they should do so within reason. He said that there were two issues, peak flow and volume of water. Any time you can direct water away from the leeching basins you are better off. Mrs. Terry said that if you having the possibility of drainage issues already you take every opportunity you have to redirect water.
Item #23 - Complied with recommendation.
Item #24 - Regarding Storm Water Infiltration - Mr. Moglin asked if the gradation done at the actual location of the leeching cells. Mr. Shute responded yes and that they did three soil samples and dropped them off at Allied Testing. Mr. Shute said that the sample came from about 10 to 12 feet deep. Mr. D'Ambrosio said that the soil tested is assumed to be representative of all the soil in that area and that is not always the case. There is another level of soil sample that could be done. Concerns were expressed about the ledge in the area. Mr. D'Ambrosio said that they would get a profile of the ledge if a series of soil borings of 20 feet. The leeching basins are only going to be as good as the soil they are sitting in. Mr. Neece said that there are different types of tests. Mr. Shute said that they performed tests according to
Allied Testing Guidelines. Mr. Moglin asked Mr. D'Ambrosio what type of testing he would recommend. He replied that he would recommend that they adhere to the Massachusetts Storm Water Handbook outlines. Mr. Moglin asked Mr. Shute if it was a difficult test to perform and he replied no. Mr. Shute said they would do that and all of item #24. Mr. D'Ambrosio also suggested that the applicant install piezometers and monitor them. This is the time of year you would get high water. It is an extra layer of precaution. Mr. Shute replied that the problem with that is only a year or two studies. He said that a Soil Evaluator is looking at the water level for the last million years. Mr. Shute said that he would be willing to pay the Town of Southwick to hire a Soil Evaluator. He said that he would schedule it. A discussion followed about calculations of infiltration systems. Mr. Shute was asked if he calculated using the sides of the leeching basins. Mr. Shute relied yes. Mr. D'Ambrosio
suggested that he calculate on only the bottom of the leeching basins since Storm Water Management only allows for infiltration on the bottom of the structure. Mr. Phelps asked if that meant that the leeching basins would be made larger. Mr. Shute replied that it meant that they would put in more. Mr. Phelps said that some work need to be done and BSE will respond. Mr. Shute said that the detention basins and the leeching cells will be the responsibilities of the Home Owners Association. The Town will not be responsible for their maintenance. This will be included in the Covenants of the Home Owners Association. Mr. Moglin said that the Board is being very conservative with the leeching cells because they have a propensity to be problematic. The Board wants to take every precaution that can be taken. Mr. D'Ambrosio asked when the water goes off property where does it drain to? Mr. Shute said that he would reply to that.
#25 - Regarding Recording of the Plans.
A discussion followed to place on the plans an indication that lots 20 to 24 roof runoff and driveway runoff are directed into the storm water management system in the road.
Mr. Shute was asked for an extension.
The Hearing will be continued on Tuesday, May 27 at 7:30 p.m.
8:50 p.m. 20 Depot Street Informal Discussion
Rob Lévesque of Lévesque Associates representing Fleet Bank and the Phelps Family Trust presenting a revised plan for 20 Depot Street. The revised plan shows accurate grades. They found steeper slopes on either side so they reduced the unit count from 65 to 53. That is subject to change if more units can be reasonably added. This is not a subdivision but they are treating the road grade design requirements as though it were a subdivision. Their intention is to create a roadway that is aesthetically pleasing and safe. They have had meetings with the Barbara MacEwan and the Historical Commission to discuss the existing structure. The structures include the studio, a barn, a shed, milk spring house and a 5 hole out house. They are developing a conservation restriction. The buildings will need to be moved with the exception of
the outhouse to accommodate the road. Mrs. MacEwan said that the homestead is registered with the national historic registry. The biggest struggle in the design is to accommodate the storm water and accommodate the existing structure. There is a cut coming off of Depot Street. They are accommodating the storm water in a basin away from the road. Mr. Chunglo said that there is a banking that goes into Depot Court. Rob Lévesque said that the zone is R20A; the plan is to be age restricted. There will be from three unite to stand alone units. There is planned a 30 foot separation between buildings. Mr. Phelps said that traffic would be a concern. The main entrance would be off Depot Street for the sign but the residence should be able to us Southwick Hill Road. Mr. Moglin said to preserve the building as much as possible. It is possible to use the building as a unit or a club house.
9:20 p.m. Amberleaf Subdivision Lot #1 Site Plan Review
Mr. Sylvain Thibault presented a site plan for lot #1. The Board reviewed the plans.
A MOTION was made by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Chunglo to grant a site plan review for lot #1 on Amberleaf Subdivision. The vote was unanimous.
9:25 p.m. Amberleaf Subdivision Bond Release
Mr. Sylvain Thibault requested that the Town release the bond of $34,000 for the Amberleaf Subdivision and to accept the road as a Town road. Mr. Moglin read a statement from Mr. Neece, of DPW, that said that he had inspected the road at Amberleaf and it was fine. Mr. Moglin also stated that the Conservation Commission informed him that all the conservation restrictions were recorded.
A MOTION was made by Mrs. Terry and seconded by Mr. Chunglo to release the bond of $14,000. The vote was unanimous.
A MOTION was made by Mrs. Terry and seconded by Mr. Chunglo to release the maintenance bond of $20,000. The vote was unanimous.
A MOTION was made by Mrs. Terry and seconded by Mr. Chunglo to send Amberleaf Way to Town meeting for road acceptance. The vote was unanimous
Being no further business to be brought before the Board, A MOTION was made by Mr. Johnson, SECONDED by Mr. Chunglo to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. Vote was unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Preston
Recording Secretary
ATTACHMENT A
Historical Commission
Southwick Planning Board
454 College Highway
Southwick, MA 01077
April 29, 2008
RE: Williamsburg Estates Proposed 40 Lot Subdivision
The Historical Commission wishes to present for the Planning Board's consideration its concerns in connection with the proposed subdivision.
The Mouse Hill Road area of the proposed development is one of Southwick's special places; a place, which not only defines the character of this community but also reflects its past. These special places are fragile historic resources and need to be protected when the preservation opportunities are presented to protect them. Such an opportunity is available as the planning of this subdivision is developed.
An integrated approach regarding the planning of this development will bring together the various issues that need to be addressed and provide a framework for a subdivision that reflects good landplaning that will not adversely affect the heritage landscape which Southwick residents' value.
One of the distinctive characteristics of this heritage landscape is historic Mouse Hill Road, which was a town road from 1776 until 1892, and before that an Indian trail. Another distinctive physical aspect is the hickory trees that grow along the historic Mouse Hill Road, which in recent years has become Mouse Hill Lane. The Historical Commission feels that these trees should be incorporated into a conservation restriction that becomes part of the subdivision plan.
The Historical Commission also feels that the plans for open space should reflect the preservation of this landscape for the citizens of Southwick to enjoy into the future as they have done in the past. Once these fragile resources are lost, they cannot be brought back. We hope the Planning Board will seize this opportunity to preserve the integrity of the Mouse Hill Road landscape with its scenic characteristics as well as its natural and cultural resources.
Sincerely,
Barbara MacEwan
Chair, Southwick Historical Commission
ATTACHMENT B
Conservation Commission
April 29, 2008
Southwick Planning Board
Attn: Doug Moglin / Chair
Thank you for inviting the Conservation Commission to your meeting/site visit Saturday for the proposed Williamsburg subdivision. The site visit confirmed our need for additional information and review on the project.
Two of the wavers requested of the Planning Board by the applicant are directly related to each other and the adjacent wetlands. The grade that is the subject of the 8% grade waver now supports the sheet flow of water that flows into a wetland. When this grade is paved for the road all of the Stormwater that is a sheet flow now will be directed into storm drains that deposit the Stormwater into leaching basins.
The subject of the subsurface leaching waver will allow the Stormwater from this 10% road grade to dispose into leaching basins rather than a detention basin.
The two waivers for this steep area have not been addressed to our satisfaction at this time for functionality. The Commission is requesting that the methodology be reviewed in detail and proof is provided that drainage and leaching basins will support Stormwater control standards. As of the present time an Operation and Maintenance Plan has not been provided for any of the structures for review by the Town.
During the site visit it was also observed that there is ledge on the other side of the hill that has not been addressed satisfactorily.
Thank you for addressing our concerns.
Dennis Clark,
Coordinator for the Commission
ATTACHMENT 1
David Hall
Can be read at the Town Clerks Office.
| 
