HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-12 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes OFRF9�'� Town of Reading Y .
r , IWt
16 Lowell Street TOWN N CLERK
- •. ;c a:a
Reading, MA 01867-2683 r A D �G, Pi t'\S S'
Phone: 781-942-6612Fax: 71-942-9071
qq
,639dINCOR4��P� Email:Jdelios@ i 2011
.reading.ma.us 1L- 52
JUN 7 P
Community Planning and Development Commission
CPDC MINUTES
Meeting Dated: July 12, 2010
Location: Selectmen's Meeting Room Time: 7:30 PM
Members Present: John Weston(JW), Chairman; Secretary; Joseph Patterson(JP), David Tuttle(DT),
and Nicholas Safina(NS).
Associate Members Present: George Katsoufis (GK)
Also Present: Jean Delios (JD), Town Planner; and Michael Schloth(MS), Recording Secretary.
Mr. Mac Cerullo, 29 Perkins Avenue
Ms. Tina Brzezenski, 60 Terrace Park
Mr. Prakash Badola, Kumon Learning Center, 670 Main Street
Mr. Andrew Puopolo, East Coast Sign Company(ECSC), 125 North Street, Stoneham, MA
There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM.
Public Comment
None.
Request for Signage Certificate of Appropriateness
279 Salem Street,REI
Andrew Puopolo of East Coast Sign Company was present.No one from REI was present.
NS moved the Board approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the signage
proposed for 279 Salem Street,REI as shown in the submitted plans revised July 12, 2010.Approval
was conditioned on the following.
1. The two existing wall signs will be removed.
2. The only lights will be the new fluorescent lights shown in the plans.
DT seconded and the motion was carried 4:0:0.
The Chair stamped and signed the approved plans.
Request for a Waiver from Site Plan Review
580 Main Street,Kumon Learning Center
Tina Brzezenski, owner of 580 Main Street,was present. Also present was Prakash Badola, franchise
owner of Kumon Learning Center.
The issues are the renovation of at least 1000 square feet of interior space and a change of use from
retail to "place of assembly".
Page l of 3
CPDC Minutes of 7/12/2010
DT moved the Board determine that the proposed interior renovations and the change of use to be
eligible for a waiver from site plan review. NS seconded and the motion was carried 4:0:0.
DT moved the Board approve the request for a waiver from site plan review for the modifications
proposed for 580 Main Street, Unit 101 as described in submitted materials dated June 23,2010 with
the understanding that no modifications to the unit will block the view through the front windows
(window blinds or shades excepted). NS seconded and the motion was carried 4:0:0.
Update on Mass General Law,Chapter 40A
GK described upcoming legislation that if passed would both change existing law(including The Zoning
Act(Chapter 40A), laws pertaining to master plans, and the Subdivision Control Law) and create new
law (Chapter 40U which would grant additional land use powers to cities and towns that agree to follow
the State's standards of sustainable development). See attached document: "Comprehensive Land Use
Reform and Partnership Act—Description of Sections—May 18, 2010"
Other Business
Approval of the minutes of 6/14/2010
The minutes were not ready for review.
South Main Design Guidelines
GK anticipated having the first draft of the vision statement ready for the July 26, 2010 meeting.
ZBA Case Review
Case#10-04: 45 Beacon Street
The consensus of the Board was, as the issues of the case appear to pertain to matters of procedure and
engineering, it had nothing to add.
The Board expressed interest in discussing at a future meeting the ANR issues of Case#10-03 "Lot C2-
186 Summer Avenue", and Case#10-05 "369 Main Street"which concerns signage violations (of Jiffy
Lube).
Updates
107 Main Street,Sam's Bistro
The Town Planner reported that with help from town staff Sam's Bistro opened on schedule. At her
request, the owner's attorney has submitted a list of the site's deviations from approved plans and the
status of each. See attached document"Post-Construction Check-List(6/29/2010; updated to 7/7/2010)"
There was some discussion as to whether the site's dumpster may be too small. If so the issue would
have to be revisited.
The Board noted that cars have been parked along Hopkins Street right up to Main Street. The Town
Planner assured the Board that the Board of Selectmen would review thesituationif it became an issue.
�.
~` She added that Police Chief Cormier had advised waiting awhile to see how the situation settles.
Page 2 of 3
CPDC Minutes of 7/12/2010
The Board suggested the area may benefit from a Main Street pedestrian crossing with an on-demand
traffic light.
530 Main Street, Grumpy Doyle Is
The Town Planner informed the Board that construction is scheduled to start on July 6. The owner has
agreed to close the curb-cut in front of the future patio and finish the curbing there.
30 Haven Street, Oaktree Development
The Town Planner is working on a draft decision. She noted the Town Engineer has suggested Oaktree
submit a traffic study. The consensus of the Board was that a traffic study would not be worthwhile until
the commercial tenants are known.
55 Walkers Brook Drive,formerly the TASC Building
The owners have submitted a request for permission to repave the approximately 14,000 square foot
parking lot. The Town Planner did not think a site review would be triggered but there may be
conservation issues. Town staff has scheduled a site visit for 7/20/10 at 11:00 a.m.
Downtown 40R Smart Growth District
The Town Planner reported that the Town has received the incentive money from the State.
($350,000.00) and she has submitted to the State the required reports on both the Downtown and the
Gateway 40R Smart Growth districts.
Enforcement of Sign Violations
The Town Planner reported that the Board of Selectmen has requested the town refrain from further
enforcement until it meets to review the matter at its July 27, 2010 meeting.
Wayfinding Report
The Board of Selectmen has scheduled to discuss this at its August 10, 2010 meeting.
NS moved to adjourn. DT seconded'and the motion was carried 4:0:0.
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on July 26, 2010; these
minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on July 26 2010.
Signe
as-
oseph Patterson, Secretary ate
Page 3 of 3
Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government
Comprehensive Land Use Reform and Partnership Act
Description of Sections
May 18.2010
Overview of the bill:
The bill proposes changes to three existing sections of Massachusetts General Law and creates one new
chapter.
• Offers clarity and updating of Chapter 46A(The Zoning Act),Section 81D of Chapter 41(the master
plan)and portions of Chapter 41(The Subdivision Control Law).
• Creates a new statute in the Massachusetts General Laws,Chapter 40U, that offers additional powers
,practices,and preferences to communities that"opt-in"to certain additional performance standards
consistent with the state's sustainable development principles
Specific Provisions'For All Communities
+ Sec don 1 The Zoning Act(Cbapte 40
The bill reorganizes and consolidates Chapter 40A(the Zoning Act)going from 17 to 11 sections. Like
topics are grouped for easier access. Presentation is in outline format with the use of reader-friendly
headings. The bill leaves significant portions of the state's zoning laws intact,while also providing
substantive zoning updates to all communities. Among these changes are:
o Construction and Purposes. The bill adds new language to clarify the construction and
purposes of zoning in Massachusetts. The bill clearly reiterates the home rule powers of
cities and towns--while recognizing the legislature's role in limiting the exercise of home
rule authority'in order to promote overriding state interests. The bill recognizes that
legitimate property rights and constitutional principles should not be violated by local land
use regulations.
o Consistency. The bill requires that zoning ordinances and by-laws not be inconsistent with
an adopted master plan under c,41,§81D. A seven year grace period is available to comply,
and a city or town without a plan may instead adopt an existing regional plan.
o Mansionization. Eliminates the prohibition on the regulation of maximum interior area of a
single family dwelling
o Exclusionary practices. A bar on exclusionary zoning practices has been added.
o estin . The complete zoning freeze for subdivision plans has been modified to also include
building and special permits,and standardized so all three approvals are treated similarly.
Thus,a development project proposed in a building permit,special permit,or definitive
1
subdivision plan duly applied for prior to the date of adoption of a zoning change will be
governed by the zoning then in effect for a period of Z,3,or 8 years,respectively. A minor
subdivision will be treated as a definitive subdivision plan under this section,but with a 3
year zoning protection period.
o Adoption of zoning bylaws. The two-thirds super majority vote remains the default to adopt
or amend zoning ordinances or by-laws,but a lesser majority vote now may be prescribed in
a zoning ordinance or by-law. Such a reduction in vote majority must itself be adopted by a
two-thirds vote of the local legislative body,and the change shall not become effective until 6
months have elapsed after the vote.
o Special Permits.The required vote majority necessary to approve a special permit now may
be reduced by ordinance or by-law. The effective duration of a special permit is set at no
shorter than three years(which matches the period of vested rights for a special permit
described above. Finally,a process for the extension of a special permit is established.
o Site Plan Review.A new sub-section places this common zoning approval within the Zoning
Act for the first time,affirming that site plan review is a process for uses allowed by-right,
distinct from discretionary uses subject to a.special permit. A time limit of 95 days is set for
the review,subject to mutually-agreed-upon extensions. Public hearings are optional. A site
plan shall be approved if it meets the three stated criteria,although reasonable conditions
and limitations may be imposed. An approved site plan shall have an effective duration of no
shorter than two years. Consultant fees to assist the board in its review may be assessed of
an applicant. A site plan,when required in conjunction with a discretionary review,such as
special permit,shall be integrated into the processing of the application for the special
permit and not made the subject of a separate proceeding.
o Variances. The criteria for granting variances under the old statute were so narrowly drawn
that a lawful variance was difficult to grant in Massachusetts. Consequently,some
communities that adhered to the statute granted few if any variances,while others,ignoring
the statute out of perceived necessity,granted many variances according to no set standards.
-- -- --.-•, -- --This-subsection-seeks-to-find-a-middle ground bysetting-reasonable criteria for variances- -
while still maintaining a community's discretion to condition or deny a variance. The
effective life of a variance is extended from one to two years before it lapses if not used,and
the permissible extension increases from six months to one year.
o Standard Procedures. Standard procedures for zoning applications,hearings,and decisions
were organized and clarified from various sections of the old c.40A. Unless otherwise
indicated elsewhere in the Zoning Act these are the default procedures to be followed.
o Inclusionary Zoning. The bill provides parameters for zoning measures that require the
creation of affordable housing in development projects. It encompasses the wide array of
such techniques used currently in the state. Subject to granting authority approval,off-site
units,land dedication,or funds may also be provided in lieu of on-site dwelling units.
Dedicated accounts may be set up for this purpose. Any dwelling units created under this
statute must be price-restricted for no less than 30 years.'Inclusionary zoning ordinances or
by-laws may require all or a portion of the units created be eligible for inclusion on the
community's Subsidized Housing Inventory.
o Development impact fee. The bill establishes that development impact fees are permissible
if in accordance with this subsection,which is based upon a number of in-state and out-of-
state models. Communities following the requirements of this subsection will have
defensible impact fee ordnances or by-laws that are less prone to being overturned. Public
capital facilities for which impact fees may be assessed are listed. Municipal expenses
ineligible for the application of impact fees,such as maintenance or salaries,are also listed.
- 2 .
Affordable housing subject to a restriction on sale price orrent is exempt from being
assessed an impact fee. The planning and study prerequisites to the adoption of an impact
fee ordinance or bylaw are detailed,as is fiscal administration of an impact fee program.
o Dispute Resolution. This new subsection sets out the procedure for a voluntary land use
dispute resolution process utilizing a neutral facilitator to help resolve conflicts stemming
from an application for a land use permit.
o Mediation of land use appeals. A voluntary mediation process is allowed which stays an
appeal for at least 180 days,and longer if extended.
• Section 2 Master Plans[amends Chapter 41 Section 81M
The bill proposes significant amendments to the section of law that requires municipalities to plan for
their community's future. Specifically,the revised Section:
o Reiterates the existing requirement for communities to create a master plan,and states.that
plans should be updated or extended every ten years.
o Reduces the number of required planning elements from nine to five as follows: goals and
policies,housing,natural resources and energy,land use and zoning,and implementation.
o Articulates six other,optional elements which may be added at the community's discretion;
certain of which are required in order to adopt a development impact fee ordinance or bylaw
or to opt-in to the provisions of Chapter 40U(see below).
o Requires a self assessment of consistency with an adopted regional plan.
o Authorizes"partnership plans"described in new Section 40U.
o Requires final adoption of a master plan and component by the local legislative body by a
simple majority vote.
o Requires a public hearing prior to vote on the master plan._
o Encourages,but does not require certification by the regional planning agencies,unless the
master plan includes a partnership plan,in which case certification is required.
• Sections 3-18 Subdivision Control Law(amends Cha,Vter1
4
The bill makes selected amendments to the Subdivision Control Law:
o . Minor subdivisions. Allows,by local option,the replacement of approval not required
("ANR")with a carefully crafted minor subdivision law.
o Minor Lot Line Changes.Establishes a new,streamlined method for making minor lot line.
changes.
o Parks and Playgrounds.Allows towns to require that parks and playgrounds not exceeding
5%of the subdivision's area within the new neighborhood.
o Consistency.Requires subdivision regulations not be inconsistent with master plans.
o Roadway Width.Establishes a presumption that requirements for roadway widths of greater
than 24 feet are excessive.
o Anneals.Introduces standards for appellants of a decision by the planning board on
subdivision approval.
o Submittal of Plans..Establishes new submittal requirements for subdivision plans
Provisions for Partnership Communities(Communities that"Opt In")
• Section 19. Land Use Partnership Act(New Chapter 40U1
The bill creates a new statute in the Massachusetts General Laws--Chanter 40U.The Land Use
Partnership Act--that offers additional powers to"partnership communities"that,by local option,adopt
a partnership plan and implementing regulations to satisfy additional performance standards consistent
with the state's sustainable development principles.
o A process is established through which municipalities can become"partnership
communities"by adopting partnership plans and implementing regulations that meet not
only the basic requirements of Chapter 41 Section 81D but also additional performance
standards.
o The partnership plans and implementing regulations must receive certification of the
regional planning agency,determining that they meet minimum standards and consistency.
o For the first five years of the program,certification will be met if the municipality adopts a
partnership plan and implementing regulations that satisfy the following. Subsequently,
certification requirements may be set forthin regulations promulgated by an Interagency
Planning Board.
■ Prompt and predictable permitting of commercial and industrial development
within one or more economic development districts
■ Prompt and predictable permitting of residential development within one or more
residential development districts that collectively can accommodate a number of
new housing units equal to a housing target number equal to five percent of the total
number of year round housing units in the community.
■ Prompt and predictable permitting of renewable or alternative energy generating
facilities,renewable or alternative energy research and development facilities,or
renewable and alternative energy manufacturing facilities,within one or more
zoning districts that are eligible locations.
■ A requirement for use of open space residential design for any development of S or
more Housing units in districts where the minimum lot area exceeds 40,000 square
feet.
■ A requirement for low impact development techniques for any development that
disturbs more than one acre of land
o Once.a city or town becomes a Partnership Community,that community shall enjoy, in
addition to those powers enumerated to all cities and towns in Chapter 40A,the following
additional powers:
■ Rate of development. The power to regulate the.rate of development
4
T
■ Natural Resource Protection Zoning_The power to protect natural resources by
limiting development densities in areas designated by the state or municipality as
having important natural or cultural resource values.
■ Vested Rights. The vesting period for a definitive subdivision plan would be
reduced from eight years to four years.
■ Development Agreements. The power to enter into development agreements that
function as abona fide local land use regulation.
■ Development impact fees. Development impact fees authorized under Section 9F of
Chapter 40A could be used to defray the costs of public elementary and secondary
schools,libraries,municipal offices,affordable housing,and public safety facilities.
■ Priority for infrastructure funding_Partnership Communities would receive priority
in the awarding of discretionary funds for local infrastructure improvements and
other programs
■ Planning technical assistance. It is intended that technical assistance grants be
offered to municipalities to assist in the preparation of partnership plans and
implementing regulations.
`i
POST-CONSTRUCTION CHECK-LIST(6/29/2010;updated to"7/7/2010)
The Applicant reports that the responsive action indicated below has been taken.
1. The curbing, grading retaining walls "dumpster^pad materials drainage system rim .
elevations and extent of pavement along the eastern and southern sides of the building do
not appear to conform to the approved site plans,including the most recent plans entitled
"Proposed Site hnprovements, 107 Main Street,Reading,MA, Sheets C-1 and C-2
revised through 11-30-2009,and Sheets C-3 and C-4 revised through 10-9-09. It appears
likely that excess pavement will have to be removed from the inner Buffer Zone to bring
the site into compliance with the Order of Conditions. Changes in grading and layout
may also be necessary. Please provide an as-built site plan showing all present site
conditions, along with a letter from the engineer or surveyor that describes all
discrepancies between present conditions and the approved plans. [RESPONSE:
Awaiting as-built plan.]
2. The retaining wall located east of the rear entrance in the gap between the two sections of
curbing along the eastern side of the pavement was not on the proposed site plan. Please
provide a complete description of the materials dimensions footings,drainage,:and
stabilization measures use in the construction of this wall.
[RESPONSE: Manufacturer's specification sheet has been provided to the CPDC
and Conservation Administrator.A Cape Cod berm has been laid to control surface
water run-off. Gap has been filed with asphalt.]
3. The same retaining wall does not extend above the height of the pavement, and there is a
gap between the wall and the curbiniz to the south. This arrangement may allow runoff
from theparking lot to bypass the on-site treatment systems and flow into the abutting
wetland to the east. It may also allow vehicles to drive over the wall, damaging the
vehicle, its passengers, and the wetlands.Please provide a proposal to address.these
problems.
[RESPONSE: Manufacturer's specification sheet has-been provided to the CPDC
and Conservation Administrator.A Cape Cod berm has been laid to control surface
water run-off. Gap has been,filed with asphalt.A wooden guard.rail has been
installed. It has been affixed as directed by the Town Engineer.]
4. The cover of the DMH near the rear entrance was not visible. Only one of the two
manhole covers for the grease trap at the•dumpster was visible The pavement laid over
these covers must be removed and the rims must be set flush with the pavement.
[RESPONSE: Pavement removed. Rim set.]
1
5: The cover of at least one of the access ports into the infiltration bed was labeled"sewer".
The cover should be changed so that contaminated materials will not be discharged
mistakenly into the infiltration bed.
[RESPONSE: Has been ordered.May have already been replaced.Need to verify.]
6. . Construction debris was visible in the sump of the trench drain at the dumpster-pad this
week. The sumps of the grease traps stormceptors catch basins and other drainage
system components were not visible. There were white deposits on the rims of two of the
catch basins that might have been from disposal of paint or plaster slurry from work in
the building. Because many of the drainage components were open all winter,we
observed significant deposits of earth and construction debris in the components.earlier
this spring, and requested that they be cleaned before the joints were sealed and the
parking lot was paved. Please provide documentation that all of these systems have been
inspected and cleaned this spring. If they have not been cleaned the work should be
scheduled immediately. All workers on the site should.also be instructed not to dump
any materials into the catch basins. These systems are only to collect parking lot runoff.
[RESPONSE: Earlier this week Wayne's Drains inspected and cleaned the catch
basins and system.]
7. Condition 25.£ of the Order requires specific monitoring of the roof drains and
infiltration system during three major storms after installation, with results reported to'the
Commissioin. If any such observations have been made to date,please provide reports. If
not,please make the arrangements needed to begin this work.
[RESPONSE: The owner has observed,the roof drain run-off during all significant
rain events since the drainage was installed and has advised the Conservation
Administrator that the surface water runs positively towards the catch basins.]
8. Condition 25 also requires specific information about the persons responsible for the
drainage system maintenance to be submitted to.the Commission prior to occupancy of
the building. Please provide complete information.
[RESPONSE: Owner is engaging Wayne's Drains.]
9. The ZNV bounds have not been set as required by Conditions A-1 and A-2. Because the
pavement appears to extend into the ZNV at present,please wait until the Commission
has received and reviewed the as-built plan and ordered any corrective actions necessary
before addressing this.
[RESPONSE: Awaiting as-built plan.]
2
' . 10. The ten new trees Have not been planted as required by Condition 2, and some of the
existing trees have been damaged(bark skinned off,branches trimmed,fill placed over
roots, granite curbing set into root zones instead of bit. conc. curbing as specified'on the
site-plans). Please provide a proposed_planting plan including species, locations,and
sizes of trees to'be planted.
[RESPONSE: Have asked the Conservation Administrator to provide a listing of
appropriate species.]
11. The land south of the parking lot has not been planted to stabilize the soils. .We did not
check to see whether the berm has been provided in this area to prevent runoff from#95
Main Street from flowing over the wall into the site. If not,the berm should be
constructed first, and then it should be stabilized with vegetation.
[RESPONSE: The wall has a slight lip.The contours are satisfactory.]
After having inspected the site and reviewed the details of the Order of Conditions more fully,
the Commission voted to amend the motion passed at the June 2nd meeting and to require that the
following actions be addressed before the Administrator is authorized to sign off on occupancy:
1. Complete provisions to prevent vehicles from driving off the edge of the existing
retaining wall behind the building next to the wetlands.
[RESPONSE: Completed.]
2. Provide the information about the-long-term maintenance plan per Condition 25 of the
Order.
[RESPONSE: Provided name and contact information as to VWayne's Drains.]
An as-built of the site shall be furnished as soon as possible for review. The as-built shall
include locations,inverts, sizes of all utility components,landscape features,walls,
curbing, building location,parking markings, spot grades and all other site improvements
performed.
[RESPONSE: Awaiting as-built plan.]
• The curb cut along Hopkins Street was required to be reduced to 18 feet in width which has
not been completed.
[RESPONSE: Curb cut has been reduced to 18 feet.Additional curbing has been
,added and grass strip has been seeded.]
3
® The utility trenches along Hopkins Street have settled and require milling and an 1
inches overlay
[RESPONSE: Needs to be addressed.].
o Additional granite curbing along Hopkins Street and within the site, shall be installed as
required to meet the reconfigured Hopkins Street driveway width.
[RESPONSE: Done.]
® The grass strip along Hopkins Street between the sidewalk and parking lot curbing shall be
re-graded to meet the elevation of the back of sidewalk and the top of granite curbing
along the site parking area.
[RESPONSE: The current condition of the grass strip was deemed satisfactory at ,
the site visit.]
d The inlet-ceptors do not appear to be of the style indicted on the approved plans and lack
sufficient opening for access and cleaning. Supplemental information shall be furnished
indicting what unit was installed and how will servicing be accomplished. If the units
installed do not meet the intended efficiency and maintenance provisions of the approved
models then the units shall be replaced.
[RESPONSE: Inlet-ceptors are of the required design. Opening is smaller and
contractor(Wayne's Drains)who has appropriate_equipment has been engaged.]
s _Inlet-ceptors,all drainage components and all sewerage components shall be cleaned of
sediment and debris. .
[RESPONSE: Has been done.]
. All sewer manholes require the installation of brick,inverts.
• The inlet-ceptor frames and covers are substandard(one is presently cracked)and shall be
replaced with approved castings. If non Town standard castings are used the applicant
shall furnish evidence that the replacement casting meet or exceed H-20 loading.
[RESPONSE: Covers have been replaced.]
The employee parking space proposed along the rear of the building.has not been painted
e Handicap parking spaces shall'be painted and equipped with U-propriate signage in
accordance with NlTJTCD and Architectural Access Board regulations.
[RESPONSE: Post signage is ordered and will be installed.During site visit the
4
owner discussed that he did not paint the employee rear parking areas to avoid
customers parking there.May paint cross-hatching.]
• The curbing along Main Street and within the landscape islands at the two front comers of
the lot are not installed in accordance with theplans. This results in the inability to utilize
three of the parking spaces and reduces the total available space's to 45 below the
approved level of 48.
[RESPONSE: Discussed during site visit.Will consider identifying as compact
spaces or spaces for use by employees.]
• The parking spaces on each side of the Main Street driveway enhance extend into the
driveway opening.Either the curbing will need adjusting or the location of parking
spaces should be,comected to align with the driveway opening.
[RESPONSE:Will await final Sin to curb cut to see if Main Street opening is
narrowed.]
• The curbing along the Main Street entrance will need to be adiusted to the correct
driveway width subiect to MassDOT permits.
Q - (RESPONSE: See above comment.]'
• The applicant shall furnish a copy of the MassDOT permit as soon as received.
[RESPONSE: Agreed.]
• The crosswalk leading form the lip spaces to the door has not been installed..I recommend
this not be installed at this time until a resolution to the above noted curbing\pwking
space issue is resolved. -
[RESPONSE: Will wait,as suggested by Towu Engineer.]
•A planting area along the right property line has been installed which was not on the
approved plan.This reduces the access lane width,between the building and parking
spaces,to 17.6 feet. This will result is excessive vehicular turning movements to gain
access\egress from 3 to 4 of the parking spaces in this area,
[RESPONSE: Will monitor functioning during operations.]
• Along the rear property line the land between the parking lot and abutting property is
unfinished and requires clean-up and landscaping.
[RESPONSE:Will plan trees from list provided by Conservation Administrator.]
5.
Along the rear line were the grade differential exists a plan shall be'fiunished indicating the
location of the proposed guard rail finishading and landscaping for review and
approval prior to any work.
[RESPONSE: berm and guard rail have been installed. See response above as to
trees.]
. The pavement to the rear of the building in the vicinity of the dumpster has been extended
beyond the approved plans.
[RESPONSE: Will need to seek approvals or remove.]
During the site visit Mr. Palmer indicated that MassDOT had requested additional information
regarding drainage. If a drainage issue is reason the access permit has not been issued by
MassDOT then there is a possibility that additional on site drainage work will be required. This
could result is substantial disturbance of the site and jeopardize site safety if the CO is granted."
Until the status or reason for the delay in the.issuance.of the MassDOT access permit is
determined I would recommend against the issuance of a CO.
[RESPONSE: Based on the most recent DOT email, drainage is not what DOT is Iooking
for.DOT is looking for engineer's letter certifying that no environmental notification form
(ENF) filing is required under MEPA. This is being done.]
7.7.2010
F