HANSON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the StoneBridge Commons
Continued Public Hearing of
February 4, 2004
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 noted that since the last hearing session a January 15, 2004 letter had been received from applicant Mark Ridder requesting a waiver from the Hanson Planning Board Rules and Regulations, Section VI.K.D.7, on site storage.
Also received since the last hearing session, he noted, were a January 15, 2004 memo from Acting Fire Chief Ralph Becker, January 21, 2004 memos from Building Inspector Michael Kennedy, Water Superintendent Glen Doherty, and the Conservation Commission, and January 19, 2004 and February 2, 2004 Definitive Site Plan Reviews from Merrill Associates, Inc. of Hanover, the Board’s review engineer on the project.
The memo from Acting Chief Becker stated the department had no issues with the project and the memo from Building Inspector Kennedy urged caution during construction as some of the buildings are located extremely close to the 50 foot vegetated wetlands line. Water Superintendent Doherty said that the water lines will be serviced and repaired by the owners of the property. The Conservation Commission noted that the Bureau of Resource Protection at the Department of Environmental Protection had not received an application regarding a waste water treatment facility.
The balance of the session was primarily devoted to a review of the latest set of plans, dated January 5, 2004, and seven revised sheets relative to the site plan, grading plan, utility plan, and details, dated January 21, 2004, comparing the comments contained in the February 2, 2004 definitive site plan review by Merrill Associates with the comments contained in a January 27, 2004 letter from Mr. Ridder’s engineering consultant, Samiotes Consultants, Inc. of Framingham. Peter Palmieri of Merrill Associates advised the Board that he had seen the letter from Samiotes Consultants but had not seen the seven revised sheets.
The February 2, 2004 letter from Merrill Associates noted under Land Use Regulations - Zoning Bylaw, Section K.C.4 that there are a number of instances where the dwelling units are less than the required 50 feet from the perimeter lot lines and that the minimum setback for the roadway layout of 30 feet had also not been met in a number of instances. The letter stated that the applicant had requested a waiver from the 50 foot setback but not the 30 foot setback. Mr. Ridder said that he had requested a waiver from the 30-foot setback requirement in a letter dated December 15, 2003.
Chairman Philip Lindquist noted that the 40 foot layout is not shown on the plans. Mr. Ridder said that he would have no problem adding that although within a condominium development there is no 40 foot roadway layout requirement. Chairman Lindquist reminded Mr. Ridder that he had been requested to show the distances between buildings. Mr. Ridder replied that 8 of the 32 buildings do not meet the rear setback requirement and all of the buildings do not meet the front setback requirement. The distances, he said, are all shown on the plans. The closest rear setback encroachment, he noted, is 14 feet. In the few areas where residential property could be impacted, he said, screening will be provided.
Mr. Palmieri stated in his letter that all issues under Section K.D.3, Site Development Standards relative to the sanitary sewer system had been addressed with the exception of the location of the sanitary sewer and associated pump stations. He recommended that, once the system has been designed, its location be added to the site plan. Samiotes indicated in its letter that the sanitary sewage collection system would be added to the site plans as requested.
Under the Planning Board’s Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land, Design Standards, Section 6.5.2, Mr. Palmieri noted that there are a number of reverse curves in the roadway system. Reverse curves are not permitted, except where the Planning Board finds them to be in the public interest. Mr. Ridder said that there are three reverse curves and he has requested a waiver. Mr. Palmieri said he had no problem with the reverse curves. He noted that the applicant had requested waivers of Sections 6.5.3 and 6.5.6.
Mr. Palmieri noted under Drainage Calculations that they would be performed for the existing condition areas not tributary to the stormwater basins to properly demonstrate that there will be no increase in stormwater runoff for the post-development condition. Mr. Ridder noted that new calculations had been submitted with the letter from Samiotes. Mr. Garvin agreed to submit new calculations done a slightly different way as requested by Mr. Palmieri.
Mr. Palmieri said that front elevations of outlets should be shown on the plan including the elevations of each outlet with those elevations presented in tabular form. Relative to the detail for the sediment forebay berm, he recommended that the depth of the 10 to 15 lb. stone, be 12 inches. He also said that the calculations relative to the bridge crossing should be submitted to the Planning Board for review, that the calculations relative to a retention pond and two detention basins should be revised based on soil information, and that the plans should indicate that all roof runoff will be connected to the closed drainage system.
The Samiotes letter said that the new detail for the outlet control structure and the sediment forebay berm now meet the requirements, that soil information and bearing capacity calculations will be provided for the bridge when the final design is completed, that soil logs relative to the basins have been submitted and that a note relative to roof runoff has been added to the plans. Board members noted that the calculations for the flow of water under the bridge have not been provided and indicated the need for the Board to receive them.
In relation to the Traffic Impact Report, Mr. Palmieri recommended that the design team review the sight lines and Samiotes indicated they had been revised to 250 feet both at Liberty and Winter Streets. Mr. Palmieri said that the location of trees along the front of the property to the north at the project entrance from Winter Street should be shown on the plan. If they are on private property, he said, documentation should be provided to the Planning Board that the applicant can cut the trees.
Relative to Planning Board comments from prior meetings regarding the Liberty and Winter Street entrances, Samiotes noted that the plans show granite curbing at the entrance at Liberty Street. The existing curbing on Liberty Street is bituminous berm. Mr. Palmieri said that the Planning Board will require a catch basin on Winter Street and stated that the grading should be revised along the dual entrance to provide for gutter flow only along the outside edge. Mr. Palmieri recommended that a keep right sign be added at the southerly end of the island and noted that no information regarding the bearing capacity and soil relative to the cross culvert have been received. Mr. Ridder showed where a catch basin had been added, and Mr. Lindquist asked that the basin be
relocated to better address the situation.
Information was also presented by Mr. Palmieri on the basins, emergency access, and the treatment plant. The Board reviewed the information provided by Mr. Garvin relative to depths and drain times. The new information also stated that civil engineering plans have been revised adding the sewer line to the cross section related to the treatment plant.
Mr. Palmieri noted that a typical cross section of the emergency access has been provided on the plans showing the width as well as the materials utilized for construction. Chairman Lindquist asked that the sewer and water line be shown on the cross section and Mr. Ridder said that it could. Chairman Lindquist asked if the depth of the parking areas was shown and Mr. Ridder replied that it was not but that they were all 10 feet by 20 feet. There are a total of 483 parking spaces, Mr. Ridder said. Chairman Lindquist recommended the installation of wheel stoppers at the end of parking spaces to keep cars of walkways.
Chairman Lindquist told Mr. Ridder that, if he plans to phase construct the project, the drainage system should work during the period that only the base coat is down. The rims will need to be raised, he said, when the road comes up to final grade. Chairman Lindquist also recommended that the cross slope of the road be changed to 3/8 inch rather than 1/4 inch to improve drainage. Mr. Garvin said that the change would be made and would appear on the typical cross section.
Town Planner Noreen O’Toole questioned the guard rail and culvert. The Board noted that the height of the guard rail is not indicated.
In conclusion, Mr. Palmieri said that additional dimensions should be provided at all parking areas and the building setback to the perimeter property line should be shown on the plans, the detail of the cross culvert and the guardrail should be revised to be consistent with the roadway profile, and a note should be added to the plan specifying that the drainage system, including all catch basins, shall be functional after placement of the base course of pavement.
Vice Chairman Gerard LeBlanc noted that the Board’s review engineer had a lot of comments and questions He said he wanted to make sure they were all addressed before the hearing is closed. Chairman Lindquist asked Mr. Palmieri to only address unresolved issues in his next review. Board members said they wanted the calculations on the flow of water under the culvert and the relocation of the catch basin on Winter Street shown on the plans.
In insure that all the Board’s concerns and those of its review engineer are addressed in the updated plans, it was agreed that the hearing would be continued and that Town Planner Noreen O’Toole, Chairman Philip Lindquist, Peter Palmieri of Merrill Associates, applicant Mark Ridder and his engineer, Stephen Garvin would meet the following week prior to any revisions being made.
Motion to continue the public hearing for StoneBridge Commons to March 3, 2004
@ 9:00 p.m.: Joan DiLillo
Second: David Nagle
Vote: 5-0
| 
