HANSON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the Stonebridge Commons
Public Hearing of
August 18, 2003
I. CALL TO ORDER - 8:00 p.m.
Members Present: Philip Lindquist, Chairman
Gerard LeBlanc, Vice Chairman
David Nagle, Clerk
Joan DiLillo, Member
Gordon Coyle, Member
Others Present: Town Planner Noreen O’Toole
Administrative Assistant Barbara Ferguson
Chairman Philip Lindquist advised all present that the meeting was being tape recorded and reviewed the agenda for the public hearing. He asked if all abutters had been properly notified and was advised by Administrative Assistant Barbara Ferguson that certified mail receipts for all abutters had been received by the Planning Board office. Vice Chairman Gerard LeBlanc read the following public hearing notice published in The Enterprise on August 4 & 11, 2003:
TOWN OF HANSON
PLANNING BOARD
The HANSON PLANNING BOARD will hold a public hearing on MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 2003 at 8:00 P.M. at HANSON TOWN HALL, 542 LIBERTY STREET, HANSON, MA 02341 on the application of MARK A. RIDDER of 454 BROADWAY, HANOVER, MA 02339 for a SPECIAL PERMIT under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 9 and Town of Hanson Zoning Bylaw, Section VI.K.1., for the CONSTRUCTION OF STONEBRIDGE COMMONS, A 121-UNIT ADULT RETIREMENT VILLAGE OFF WINTER AND LIBERTY STREETS, HANSON ASSESSORS MAP 90, LOTS 5 & 5A and MAP 91, LOTS 14 & 16.
HANSON PLANNING BOARD
Philip R. Lindquist, Chairman
August 4 & 11, 2003
II. Presentation of plans from applicant/engineer
Applicant Mark Ridder of Hanover presented plans for the construction of a 121-unit adult retirement village on a 60 acre parcel located off Winter and Liberty Streets. Assisting him with his presentation were Steve Garvin, PE, of Samiotes Consulting of Framingham and Tom Ryan, registered landscape architect, and Jeff Wroth of Ryan Associates of Arlington.
A 1,450 foot roadway and associated bridge has been approved through the state Department of Environmental Protection, Mr. Ridder said. The plans show two separate sections of the proposed development each with its own access joined by a 12 foot gravel access road for emergency purposes. The roadways from Winter and Liberty Streets will be 20 feet wide with sidewalks on both sides although the zoning bylaw only requires a sidewalk on one side of the roadway.
Mr. Ridder said that the development will be serviced by an on-site treatment plant rather than individual septic systems. The plant will be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental Protection rules and regulations. DEP witnessed percolation tests, he noted, passed with flying colors. The project has been approved for fire protection by the Hanson Water Department, Mr. Ridder said, and his is the first name on the list for water service. Electric, cable, and natural gas service will be underground. He noted that a traffic study had been supplied to the Board. The study indicates, he said, that an age restricted community is the least intrusive on the flow of traffic.
The plans call for a double boulevard entrance on Winter Street that is 175 feet deep. There will be four condominium units per building. All will have two bedrooms and 2 1/2 baths. The master bedroom will be on the first floor. All will have full basements. Some will have a two car garage and others will have a one car garage. The community building will accommodate gatherings of up to 150 people. There will be four parking spots per unit with additional parking in the village green area.
Tom Ryan reviewed the landscaping plan for the development. He said that existing trees will be preserved wherever possible. The existing house on Winter Street will be coming down. The center islands will be landscaped. Street trees will be planted on both sides of the street and trees will be planted on the green. There will be lantern lighting throughout the development.
III. Questions from abutters
Clerk David Nagle read the following list of abutters and all abutters were given the opportunity to ask questions or offer comments when their name was read:
Hanover Planning Board - Not Present
Halifax Planning Board - Not Present
Pembroke Planning Board - Not Present
Whitman Planning Board - Not Present
Rockland Planning Board - Not Present
East Bridgewater Planning Board - Not Present
Shirley and Janice Russo - Not Present
Walter and Joan Estes - Not Present
Dexter and Susan Robinson - Mr. Robinson asked if the topography on Winter Street was taken into account when the traffic study was done. He said that in his opinion the proposed entrance would be perilous. Mr. Ridder said that the line of sight was one of the key factors taken into consideration when the traffic study was done. He said that the line of sight on Winter Street is 375 feet in the southerly direction and 600 feet to the north.
John and Kathleen Ferry - Not Present
Walter and Barbara Morrissey - Not Present
Edward and Barbara Monticone - Mr. Monticone expressed concern with air pollution and the 480 proposed parking spaces. He said that he would favor another entrance to reduce the traffic entering and exiting the development.
Robert and Barbara Farrell - Not Present
Christopher and Kimberly Bean - Not Present
Robert and Linda Crowley - Not Present
Joseph and Carol O’Brien - Not Present
Mark Kehoe - Not Present
Sally Wheaton - Not Present
Michael Miele and Demetra Karalexis - Not Present
Barbara Smith - Richard Smith said that he would favor the installation of a yellow caution light to slow people down. He said that his driveway is across the street from the proposed entrance and that he has trouble backing out into the existing traffic. He also expressed concern with the number of trucks that will be going in and out during construction.
Jeffrey and Jeanine Clifford - Mr. Clifford also expressed concerns with the traffic that will be generated by the access road off Winter Street. He said that there could be a traffic jam or a flood on the single lane road that would be an impediment to an emergency vehicle. He recommended a second access to help alleviate the situation.
Lloyd and Sherri Howell - Not Present
Martin Cohen and John McCarty - Not Present
Thomas and Laurie Murphy - Not Present
Hanson Conservation Commission - Not Present
Kevin and Jennifer Cronin - Not Present
Dale and Cheryl Young - Not Present
George and Ruth Reed - Mr. Reed was present, but said he had no questions.
David and Janis LeFort - Not Present
Lori Russo - Not Present
Susan and James Fitzgerald - Not Present
Town of Hanson - Not Present
Richard and Joyce Duhaine - Not Present
Floyd and Priscilla Garrett - Not Present
Susan Yeager - Not Present
Town of Hanson Middle School - Not Present
Judith Grindle and David Caddell - Not Present
Daniel Salvucci - Not Present
Susan DeFrancisco - Ms. DeFrancisco questioned where the leaching fields for the treatment plant would be located and was told they would be on the former Deatherage property. She then asked whether they woul d generate any order, and Mr. Ridder replied that the odor would be negligible.
Michael and Jayme Horton - Mr. Horton was present but had no questions.
Donald Norris - Mr. Norris, who owns a business on Liberty Street, said that he would like to have the fencing in the Liberty Street section set backwards a little bit further than shown than shown on the plans.
Mark Devlin - Not Present
Nelson and Lillian Williams - Not Present
Robert and Carole Goodman - Not Present
Robert Mixer - Not Present
Hanson County Road Associates - Not Present
Glen and Brenda Myette - Not Present
David and Agnes Harraden - Not Present
Richard Barr - Not Present
Thomas and Karen Forbes - Not Present
Joseph Duncan - Not Present
Anthony and Linda Quigley - Not Present
Mary Wolfe - Not Present
Richard and Sharon Howland - Not Present
Stephen and Darlene Regan - Not Present
Robert Gerhard - Not Present
Richard Oberstein and Kathleen Murphy - Not Present
Ronald Lamb - Not Present
John and Roberta Tuffy - Christopher Seyller, who said he bought the Tuffy property last year, asked where the emergency access would be located and was shown its location on the plan by Mr. Ridder.
Angel Morris - Not Present
Gary and Debra Lundgren - Not Present
IV. Questions from public
Joseph McElroy of Old Pine Drive asked for an explanation of the age restriction and was told by Mr. Ridder that under the provisions of the town’s zoning bylaws one resident has to be over the age of 55. Mr. McElroy said that he was concerned about the traffic flow and would favor two accesses on Winter Street. Mr. Ridder estimated that 10 to 12 cars would be exiting or entering the development per hour. Mr. McElroy asked the price range for the units and was told by Mr. Ridder that they would probably start at around $300,000.
Abutter Edward Monticone expressed concern with the location of the leaching fields and urged the Board to take whatever action is required to protect the town. Mr. Ridder said that the system will have to be designed to meet the standards set by the DEP. Thomas Eddlem of the Hanson Express was given an brief explanation of the operation of an on-site sewerage treatment plant by Mr. Ridder. Abutter Richard Smith asked what the leaching field would look like and was told that it would resemble a lawn.
Abutter Jeffrey Clifford asked if the 121 units was a firm number and was advised by Mr. Ridder that it was. Mr. Clifford also asked if the traffic count was based on this number of units and was advised that it was. Mr. Ridder said that the traffic report is available in the Planning Board office for review by any interested citizen.
Howard Dillon of Winter Street, who is also a member of the Hanson Trails Committee,asked for a deeded easement for the town from Winter Street to abutting town owned property to provide access in perpetuity. Mr. Ridder said that he would be willing to talk to the committee about a trail.
In conclusion, John Wright of County Road asked who would be operating and maintaining the treatment plant and was told by Mr. Ridder that it will be the responsibility of the condominium association to have a certified plant operator on duty.
V. Questions/Comments from other Town Boards/Departments
A. Police Department
Chairman Lindquist read an August 18, 2003 memorandum from Police Chief Edward F. Savage III expressing concern with the egress from entrances on both roadways and the emergency roadway between the two sections. He urged separate and unique street names for emergency response purposes.
B. Water Department
Chairman Lindquist read an August 15, 2003 memorandum from Water Superintendent Glen Doherty indicating that water utility plans are not complete and requesting a meeting with the applicant’s engineering company at the company’s earliest convenience.
C. Fire Department
Chairman Lindquist read a July 24, 2003 memorandum from Fire Chief Allen P. Hoyt relative to hydrant spacing, the looping of water mains, the need for hydrants on the cul-de-sac off Liberty Street, the need from a minimum 50 foot inside turning radius on all cul-de-sac, The need for fire alarm systems, sprinkler systems, lock boxes, and exterior alarm indication, and the need for an gated access road capable of supporting an ambulance or forest fire unit.
D. Board of Health
Chairman Lindquist read an August 14, 2003 memorandum from Health Board Chairman Gilbert Amado indicated that the septic system for Stonebridge Commons will be reviewed and approved by the Department of Environmental Protection for a groundwater discharge permit.
E. Building Inspector
Chairman Lindquist read a memorandum from Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer Michael Kennedy noting the zoning requirement of a 30 foot separation between structures which has not been scaled out and marked on the plan. He said the units also encroach on the rear setback requirement. He voiced a concern relative to water consumption.
G. Conservation Commission
Chairman Lindquist read a memorandum from the Conservation Commission advising that it is currently meeting with Mr. Ridder to determine if the cart path is upland or wetland. The next scheduled meeting with Mr. Ridder, the memorandum stated, is on August 26, 2003 at 8 p.m.
\ H. Highway Surveyor
Chairman Lindquist noted that Highway Surveyor Richard Harris did not respond to the Planning Board’s July 17, 2003 request for comments on the plans for Stonebridge Commons.
J. Board of Appeals
Chairman Lindquist noted that the Board of Appeals did not respond to the Planning Board’s July 17, 2003 request for comments on the plans for Stonebridge Commons.
VI. Questions from Planning Board Members
Town Planner Noreen O’Toole inquired about the length of the emergency access and was told it would be approximately 800 feet in length. She said that she noted another emergency access on the plan that abutted Town of Hanson property. Mr. Ridder said that access was requested by the Fire Chief to give access to a brush breaker in the event of a fire in the woods. She said that she had also observed some discrepancies between the site plan and architectural plan including the location of one entrance to the access road, and Mr. Ridder said the access will be at Building 8 rather than in guest parking. Mr. Ridder said that only the Fire Department will have vehicle access through a Knox Lock. Ms. O’Toole said that, if people are going to be
walking on the 800 foot access road, there should be lighting. Another discrepancy was the depiction of a maintenance facility on one of the plans, Ms. O’Toole said. Mr. Ridder replied that his plans no longer call for a maintenance facility. Ms. O’Toole asked about trash and was told there will be individual pickups by a service paid through the condominium fee. She also requested the measurement of the parking spaces and was told that those not in a driveway or a garage will be 9’ x 18’. She also asked about a pathway to Heidi Hollow shown on the architectural plans and was told that the pathway was about 200 feet in length. Ms. O’Toole inquired about the access to the 5,500 square foot community building for the residents living on the Liberty Street side of the development and was told it was assumed they would be going on foot sometimes and by car on other occasions. Ms. O’Toole asked if any consideration was given to the
impact of the project on the police and fire departments. Mr. Ridder said there would be less impact on the town than there would be from a development with children. Ms. O’Toole asked that Mr. Ridder provide information on the impact on public safety and public services.
Chairman Philip Lindquist expressed concern that based on the age of the residents there was no provision for entering any of the units without having to go up a set of stairs. Mr. Ridder said that every unit has a master bedroom, laundry, kitchen, and living area on the first floor. He said if there are a lot of potential condominium owners who desire a different floor plan there is flexibility in the existing design. Chairman Lindquist noted that there is a pond on the site and asked if Mr. Ridder had any plans to enhance the area. Mr. Ridder said that it was previously an irrigation pond for blueberries and some enhancements have been proposed to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Lindquist said that he was also concerned with the disassociation of the two sections of the
development, and he told Mr. Ridder the Board will need reports from the DEP on the treatment plant that is being designed.
David Nagle also expressed concern with the lack of accessibility due to stairs from the garage into the units and stairs to the front door. Mr. Ridder said that he will research the accessibility accommodations in similar developments in other communities. He noted that the community building proposed for the development is all on one floor and that residents will have sufficient living area on the first floor of all units. He reiterated that, if a customer needs an accessible unit, it can be arranged. Mr. Nagle said that once all the units are sold the opportunity for a customized unit will be lost. Mr. Nagle also seconded Chairman Lindquist’s concerns with the disjointed nature of the development layout.
Gerard LeBlanc asked if on-street parking would be allowed, and Mr. Ridder said it would not as there are sufficient parking spaces throughout the development. Mr. LeBlanc also asked, if the over 55 restriction would be in perpetuity, and Mr. Ridder said the restriction would be written into the condominium document. Mr. LeBlanc also asked about the stream crossing and was told it has been approved by DEP as a boxed culvert. Mr. LeBlanc asked about the sidewalks and was told they will be on both sides and will have cape cod berms. Mr. LeBlanc asked if the basins were designed to be dry in 24 hours and was told that two will be retention basins and two will be detention basins.
Joan DiLillo asked about maintenance and was told that it will be handled through private contractors hired by the condominium association. She also asked about the width of the sidewalks and was told they will be four feet wide.
David Nagle asked whether the residents in the 16 units located off of Liberty Street will be paying the same condo fee as those who reside in the 106 units located off of Winter Street, and Mr. Ridder replied that the fees will be set by the Association and he saw no reason why they would not be the same for all units within the development.
Gordon Coyle said that he also saw no reason for charging a different condominium fee noting that residents will purchase units in their area of preference with some favoring the 16 unit section and others the 106 unit section with easy access to the community building. If there is a problem marketing the units, he said, it will be Mr. Ridder’s problem not the Planning Board’s problem.
VII. Comments from Board’s Engineer, Merrill Associates
Chairman Lindquist read the highlights of an August 8, 2003 letter from its engineer on the project, Merrill Associates of Hanover, relative to its review of the definitive site plan. The letter makes reference to: Land Use Regulations - Zoning Bylaw; the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land; Drainage Calculations; the Traffic Impact Report; and General Comments. A copy of the memorandum is on file in the Planning Board office.
VIII. Findings
Board members determined that the hearing should be continued to give the applicant an opportunity to address the concerns raised at the public hearing and the Board the opportunity to address the four waivers requested by the applicant which are; set back of 50 feet from perimeter lot lines; Design Standard 6.5.2 to allow reverse curves; Design Standard 6.5.3 to allow a radius less than 25 feet for the street sidelines; and Design Standard 6.5.6 to allow to exceed the allowable length of dead-end road.
Motion to continue the public hearing for Stonebridge Commons to Monday, September 15, 2003 at 8 p.m.: Gerard LeBlanc
Second: Joan DiLillo
Vote: 5-0
| 
