Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-15 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesCommunity Planning & Development Commission Meeting Sept. 15, 1986 Page I A meeting of the Community Planning and Development Commission convened in Room 16, Municipal Building at 7:30 P.M. Present were Chairman Howard, Secretary Goodemote, Board Members Ensminger and Jenks and Assistant Superintendent for Engineering - William A. Redford. Also present from the Engineering Division was Mr. Michael Taddeo. It was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to approve the minutes of the September 2, 1986 meeting as written. The Commission discussed the submission of articles for the November Town Meeting Warrant. Chairman Howard felt that the Commission should submit an Article to change the name of the Planning Board to the Community Planning and Development Commission and consider submitting a report to Town Meeting that would inform them of what we have done and are thinking of doing to set the stage for what we might want to do in the spring. Chairman Howard reported that Commission Member Griset has asked that we defer the informal discussion on Site Plan Review until our next meeting at which time he can make a full report. The Commission reconvened the public hearing an Maplewood Estates at 7:50 P.M. Mr. Redford stated I met with the applicants Engineer and a number of other individuals last Thursday in an informal sense and went over the hydraulic calculations and indicated my problems specifically with them. I also gave them some informal direction of my opinion of this I Commission's leaning that theyw ere not satisfied with the information and the presentation to date. The Commission had some concerns with the applicant, developer and engineer in responding to staff recommendations, in particular, the retention area, its hydraulics, the downstream abuttors concerns and the extension of the roadway to the property line. E Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Sept. 15, 1986 Page 2 My three basic options offered to them were: 1. Withdraw without prejudice (there. are issues I do not see as insurmountable). 2. Ask for an extension of time and be very specific in the reason for granting the Commission an extension specifically to prepare the plans showing a fully constructed roadway to the property line and coming back with revised hydraulics. This is, in my opinion, the best option. 3. Present the information as it stands, and hope for a positive ruling or at least a conditional approval. I informed them that the Commission had not taken any formal action, Mr. Redford added I believe that the Town would be best served by having the roadway extended to the property line and a conditional approval based on the subsequent filing of satisfactory hydraulic calculations, but this really does not allow the abutting and potentially affected homeowners downstream a period of public review and participation in the process. Mr. John Paulson, Engineer for the applicant, stated as I stated at our last hearing, we felt that the extension of the road was not viable. It creates yet another retention pond requirement. We are not convinced it is viable to put this on the lot because of the drainage factors. We have now decided to come in and look for a conditional approval based on the revised drainage calculations. Mr. Goodemote stated I went through the calculations and I don't see a thorough discussion of that area with or without a roadway and the benefit of not having a roadway in terms of runoff, I also have a problem however, the Board had expressed disatisfaction, and it was my opinion !! that the probability of a conditional approval was not high. Mr. Redford added I believe that the Town would be best served by having the roadway extended to the property line and a conditional approval based on the subsequent filing of satisfactory hydraulic calculations, but this really does not allow the abutting and potentially affected homeowners downstream a period of public review and participation in the process. Mr. John Paulson, Engineer for the applicant, stated as I stated at our last hearing, we felt that the extension of the road was not viable. It creates yet another retention pond requirement. We are not convinced it is viable to put this on the lot because of the drainage factors. We have now decided to come in and look for a conditional approval based on the revised drainage calculations. Mr. Goodemote stated I went through the calculations and I don't see a thorough discussion of that area with or without a roadway and the benefit of not having a roadway in terms of runoff, I also have a problem Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Sept. 15, 1986 Page 3 Mr. Redford reported Mr. Gromyko of Van Nord en Road has contacted the Conservation Commission regarding the impounding of water seasonally. The Conservation Administrator did nut rule out an Order of Conditions because it is land subject to possible flooding. Mr. Goodemote stated I am not particularly opposed to detention facilities, my problem is the extension of the roadway. I am unconvinced that it is necessary to stop the road halfway through. Ms. Jenks stated I think we talked about some of these issues the last time in theory. It appears that we have left to come before us what we call marginal land. I am concerned as far as this Commission and the precedent we set as to what our record is for the development of marginal ' lands. I feel it is incumbent upon the applicant to show us how they are complying with this. Chairman Howard stated in the case of major flaws I think rather than using the vehicle of a conditional approval, the Commission should consider a disapproval. Mr. Ensminger stated I think we should speak strongly in this matter and would certainly back the disapproval. Has there been any further communication from the Board of Health since the June 9 letter? Mr. Redford replied I spoke with a member of the Board today and at this point they are not changing their decision. The Health Inspector feels that the retention area does not have any sloping and if there are not certain drainage characteristics there would be slight impounding of ' water. Mr. Goodemote stated I have some serious problems with the design including a cement wall, I do not think this is a proper design, there is no opportunity for wetlands revegetation. k Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Sept. 15, 1986 Page 4 Mr. Redford stated one of the reasons I believe the applicant went to vertical walls is the concern of future maintenance by the Department of Public Works. Mr. Douglass L. Darker of 36 Forest Street stated he would recommend that the list of concerns of the Department be passed out to the abuttors at the hearing as it is very difficult to be able to know what is going on. The retention pond appears to be a problem. You have 5 -10 Zoning in that neighborhood. Mrs. Hutchinson of 26 Forest Street stated the new road would be directly across from my house and any drainage problems would affect my corner. It was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 that the Commission ' disapprove the Definitive Filing entitled "Maplewood Estates" - Wildwood Lane for the following reasons: 1. Applicant has not submitted any agreements for easement on the Johnson Lot, Section 4.A; 2. Plan does not show existing buildings, Section 4.8.14; 3. Plan does not show existing sill elevation and basement floor elevation, Section 4.8.20; 4. Plan does not provide a temporary dead end turn around street to the adjacent property line (to the north), Section 5.8.4; S. Plan does not provide the new street entering opposite the existing roadway (Wadsworth), Section S.8.8; 1 6. Plan does not provide 20 foot sight easement on Johnston lot, Section 5.8 Easements.3; 7. No structural detail is shown for proper detention pond wall, Section S.C.1; IJ Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Sept. 15, 1986 Page 5 8. Drainage pipes lack 4 foot of cover, Section 5.C.2.i; 9. No electric, telephone, or gas utilities are shown, Section 5.H.3.a; 10. The plan has not been approved by the Board of Health, Section 7.B; 11. Satisfactory drainage calculations have not been submitted for review and action, Section 5.C.1, S.C.2.a, 5.C.3 and 4.c; 12. The submitted Environmental Impact and Evaluation Statement lacks construction description, Section 4.c.l.d. The Commission next discussed the pending sale of the Community ' Center. Mr. Goodemote stated the charge of this Commission, and the Planning Board and Industrial Development Committee before it, is to be involved in planning, and quite frankly, I am struck that there is a lot of reactive language in the Zoning By -laws. Chairman Howard stated one of the concerns of the abuttors is a serious concern with the parking at the Community Center. The way it is laid out now is that the parking is right over to the property line which is right up against the abuttor with no buffer in between. Looking at the regulations, there are no requirements for a buffer under municipal reuse. Mr. Goodemote stated I am very concerned with the lack of input we have on use change having to do with reuse or rezoning. Ms. Jenks stated I feel very strongly that Chairman Howard should appear before the Selectmen and express our interest in being part of any discussion. I also think that with the new Town Manager there will be a better process of cooperation and we hopefully can find a way to meet with him quickly. ` Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Sept. IS, 1986 Page 6 IMr. Redford advised the Commission that the League of Women Voters is planning a reception for the Town Manager and perhaps that would be the appropriate time to meet with him. Mr. Ensminger stated I have made copies of the Homart proposal to the Town. I would like to call your attention to one particular part of this proposal, outlined in the offer to purchase is an incentive clause for future development rights. The Commission next had an informal discussion on areas of consideration for Zoning By -Law changes. Ms. Jenks explained her written list of 12 items of concern. She stated I sense areas of priority as far as Route 28 and the signage. This week alone there are three different things going on in Town. I am trying to figure out ways of taking a look at the downtown area. It appears we have a lot of certain types of businesses, and less of others. There could be different kinds of business zones in Town. Mr. Goodemote stated I tend to agree with Molly. My biggest interest is to try and get a handle on the business areas in Town. I would like to take a look at what we have in terms of Business Areas, A, B and C, I can't find any differences between them. Ms. Jenks stated I am aware of many people in Town who are displeased with Route 28. I would like to see us take an assessment of what we have, the number of businesses and the number of types of businesses. Now do we do that? Mr. Redford stated he would contact the Assessors and see what I ' they have, I think you should also look at the density. Ms. Jenks stated I think we should hold a public hearing to get input from the business people and concerned citizens of the Town, or perhaps a questionnaire could be sent out. Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Sept. 15, 1986 Page 7 IChairman Howard capsulized the approach as follows; 1. Data Collection Phase - Matrix and survey along Route 28. 2. Questionnaire or solicitation of written comment. 3. Public Hearing. After further discussion, it was moved, seconded and voted 4;0 to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. I II r ,r,tIl uully su milted, ary`