Minutes of Meeting— February 7, 2013
The Hudson Board of Appeals met in the Selectmen’s Hearing Room, 2nd Floor, Town Hall, Hudson, Massachusetts. At 7:00 PM, Lawrence Norris called the meeting to order.
Present: Lawrence Norris, Joseph Peznola, Todd Pietrasiak, Jill Schafer, Christopher Tibbals, Dorothy Risser, Aldo Cipriano, Town Counsel, Jennifer Burke, Planning Director and Teresa Vickery, Clerk.
Petition 1037: 561 Main Street, Special Permit
The Board is in receipt of a letter from Atty. David Sacco requesting that the petition be withdrawn without prejudice.
Joe Peznola, seconded by Dorothy Risser made a motion to withdraw Petition 1037 without prejudice.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Petition 1036: Cabot Road, Comprehensive Permit, Cont.
Present were: Paul Giannetti, Esq.
Paul Feldman, Esq.
Joseph D. Lynch, Senior VP, Conroy Development Corp.
James J. Devellis, Engineer, Devellis Zrein, Inc.
Shaun P. Kelly, Senior Project Manager, Vanasse & Assoc., Inc.
Mark Howland, Kleinfelder
Mr. Norris read a letter from Tony Marques into the record. The letter was stated that he had reviewed the reports regarding the capacity of the existing sewer line. The report states that the proposed site will generate an additional 29,000 gallons of sewage and their analysis shows that it will not burden the existing infrastructure. Mr. Marques stated that these tests results could change in conditions of extreme wet weather. The requirement of the I & I reduction by the DPW may enhance it’s ability to accept any proposed additional flows as the overall capacity of the waste water treatment plant has been calculated by the previously approved project of 6,000 gallons per day from the proposed site.
Atty. Giannetti informed the Board that the applicant recently met with representatives from Wal-Mart. They expressed concerns about the gate location, the locking of the gate, type of roadway surface and additional fencing. Their greatest concern was the emergency vehicles traveling through the parking lot and the safety of its customers; citing this as a liability issue.
They also suggested a preferred location for the access road. The applicant addressed the issues and a memo was sent to Wal-Mart. They are awaiting feedback from Wal-Mart.
Mr. Kelly discussed the main issues that were raised at the last meeting. The three main issues were site distance, the need for a traffic signal and distribution of traffic. The Board had requested a site distance analysis be conducted. Mr. Kelly informed the Board that the stopping site distance was met in both directions (north and south). At the last meeting the applicant stated that they would erect signage along Technology Drive to caution on the impending intersection as well as additional speed limit signs. They will also install radar detection signs.
The second concern was that a traffic signal be installed. The applicant looked at peak hour volumes to see if a signal would be justified. The analysis clearly showed that it does not meet the requirements that would necessitate a signal.
The third issue involved the distribution of traffic. The bulk of the traffic heads out into the route 85 connector. The results show that there will be no notable change to the distribution of the traffic.
Mr. Norris asked about the pedestrian sidewalk. Mr. Kelly stated that a sidewalk will be continued on the south side of Technology Drive. Ms. Burke noted that the position of the Planning Department as well as that of Community Development is they would like a sidewalk up to the field on Technology Drive. Atty. Feldman stated that they are open to doing this but are waiting on decisions regarding other waivers. This will give them a better idea of the economics of the project and this could ultimately be an issue of money.
Mr. Howland feels that in order for the study to be valid it needs to be run for at least an 8 hour period as there seems to be a difference of opinion. Mr. Kelly said they will rerun the study for 8 hours. Mr. Howland stated that once the project is complete there may be a need for the signal and would not want the Town to end up stuck with this problem.
Mr. Peznola would like the option of a commitment of a future contribution written into the decision if a signal ends up being required at the intersection of Cabot and Technology Drive once the project is complete. He would like the applicant to provide the Board with how much a signalized intersection would cost.
Mr. Devellis noted that at the last meeting the applicant presented changes to the plans. The drive aisles were increased from 22 to 26 feet. The depth of the parking spaces was increased from 17 to 18 feet and the number of buildings was reduced by one. Bike racks have been added at the entrances of the buildings.
Mr. Devellis showed graphics which illustrated different views from the edge of the property lines to the buildings. Mr. Norris stated that the only thing that stands out it the top floor of the buildings. He noted that it is a lighter color and that maybe the applicant could consider changing the color to make it darker to minimize the amount of visual feel.
Mr. Devellis noted that from a zoning perspective they are well above the snow storage area requirement.
An issue raised at the previous meeting was that of above ground versus below surface detention. Mr. Devellis stated that they looked at the topography of the site and ultimately found that the most cost effective and practical detention would be above ground.
Mr. Devellis noted that there is a single stretch of one of the drive aisles that they are requesting remain at the original 22 foot width it would help with snow removal as well as with the retaining walls. It is not a double parking area as there would not be any other vehicles backing up on the opposite side. It is also one of the least used areas of the site. Atty. Feldman stated they did have some flexibility as to this certain aisle width. He believes that this design creates the best balance.
Mr. Peznola stated that changing the width to 24 feet and increasing the parking stall width at this location to 18 feet would be optimal.
There was a discussion regarding handicapped access to the community garden. The applicant will look into this issue.
Mr. Norris asked when the architectural peer review will be ready. Ms. Burke informed him that it should be ready by the March meeting.
Mr. Peznola requested drainage calculations for the next meeting.
Atty. Feldman asked if it would be possible for the Board to draft a neutral decision that the applicant can use as a template. Mr. Norris suggested that the applicant present the Board with a draft decision that both parties can work toward. This will give the Board a good idea of the waivers requested. Atty. Feldman agreed.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by Dorothy Risser, made a motion to continue the public hearing for Cabot Road until March 14, 2013 at 7:00 PM.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Minutes
Dorothy Risser, seconded by Todd Pietrasiak, made a motion to accept the minutes of January 10, 2013, as written.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Adjournment
At 8:30 PM, Lawrence Norris, seconded by Joe Peznola, moved to adjourn.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Document List February 7, 2013
Document |
Location |
Letter from S & S Realty Trust |
Planning Office |
Email from Tony Marques dated 01/29/13 |
Planning Office |
Minutes of January 10, 2013 |
Planning Office |
| 
