The regularly scheduled meeting of the Millbury Planning Board was held on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 7:00 p.m., in the Municipal Office Building, 127 Elm Street, Millbury, MA. Chair Anna Lewandowski presided.
Present: Rusty Valery, Brian Stowell, Anna Lewandowski, Richard Gosselin, Scott Mueller
7:00 p.m. 130 Westborough Street: Discussion/Decision
Brian Stowell read section 12.44 of the Zoning Bylaws, and cited applicant’s failure to address related concerns.
Rusty Valery asked applicant’s attorney what activities were presently being conducted on this site. He expressed concerns with the impact to the neighborhood and the environment. He has been to visit the site and the abutting area several times, and was also concerned with the safety of the children, the effect of silica dust and related health issues.
Mr. Gosselin indicated that he did not vote to close the public hearing, he still has unanswered questions.
Motion by Scott Mueller, seconded by Richard Gosselin (for discussion) to approve the site plan review and environmental analysis special permit. Motion was defeated on a 2-2-1 vote. Scott Mueller and Anna Lewandowski were opposed, Rusty Valery and Brian Stowell were in favor and Richard Gosselin abstained. After the vote was taken, member Rusty Valery advised that he was in opposition to the project, he incorrectly stated his vote.
The Board cited the following reasons for its denial:
· The proposed development is not in conformance with Section 12.4 Site Plan Review
· The adverse impacts of the proposed development are substantially greater than the impacts of uses which are permissible under existing laws and regulations, without a requirement of site plan review
· The proposed development is not in conformance with Section 15 Environmental Analysis Procedures
· The proposed development is not in conformance with Section 35.1, Disturbances
A copy of the Board’s decision is attached hereto for reference.
7:30 p.m. Public Meeting: Bateman, 289-291 West Main St. Appeal
Clerk Valery read the public hearing notice. Attorney Knapik was present on behalf of Mr. Bateman. Mr. Bateman would like to divide his property into two lots. He has submitted a request to re-submit a second application to the Board of Appeals. The previously submitted application for a variance (from the upland requirement) was denied by the Board of Appeals in June of 2006. Changes to the original application include improvements to the bridge, which solve the problem of egress, and tentative consent has been received from the Board of Health for two septic systems, and from the Conservation Commission.
Clerk Valery read into the record, the following:
· Letter from Brad Lange, Sewer Commission which stated that this property has not been connected to the sewer system and there are no plans to connect.
· Letter dated September 25, 2007 from the Conservation Commission which indicated that it does not anticipate any major impact to wetlands.
· E-mail from Board of Health Chair Tom Brown which advised that the approval was conditioned on the granting of a waiver if the septic system is to be within fifty feet of a wetland. If the lots cannot be split, only one system will be allowed.
Attorney Leland was present on behalf of an abutter and stated that there was no objection, the work that has already been done on the property was attractive.
Mr. Gosselin stated his concern with the property line which appears to run through the dam. Mr. Bateman will advise his engineer,
Motion by Brian Stowell, seconded Richard Gosselin, to allow the submittal of a new application for a variance to the Millbury Board of Appeals, as specific and material changes to the original proposal exist, which include improvements to the bridge which improved egress problems, tentative consent from the Board of Health for two septic systems, and tentative agreement with the Conservation Commission meeting the requirements to further develop the land.
Vote: 4-1-0. Mrs. Lewandowski was opposed, stating that the changes to the original proposal were not substantial enough to warrant a re-submittal.
Chair Lewandowski declared a two minute recess.
8:15 p.m. Comolli Multi-Family Special Permit, 133 Elm St. Public Hearing
Mr. Valery stated that Attorney Spillane, who represents abutter Pauline Salois, has also represented his current employer, this will not influence his decision, however if the applicant believes that a conflict exists he will step down. Mr. Comolli advised that he had no objection to Mr. Valery participating in this decision.
The October 29, 2007 revised plan was reviewed.
Chair Lewandowski opened the meeting to the public.
Attorney Spillane addressed the issue of ledge which runs toward Mrs. Salois’ property, and related concerns with the installation of water and sewer lines, and excavation procedures for utilities. Since Mr. Comolli previously stated at the last public hearing that no blasting would be required, would the Planning Board add this as a condition if they approve the application. If blasting is allowed, the lowest level of materials should be used for minimal impact, and 24 hour notice be give to the abutters and to the gas company, censors be used to monitor shock waves and insurance endorsements be required for any loss or property damage. He also indicated concerns with the amount of paving and changes to stormwater discharge. Norman Hill, Land Planning, discussed the proposed mitigation
measures.
Mrs. Salois also advised the Board as to the amount and location of the ledge, and her concerns with proposed driveway location. She asked if safety signs could be installed as an added measure.
Albert Martin asked that provisions be included to protect abutting property and asked for clarification on the drainage pattern.
The Board discussed the addition of a condition to include altering the homeowners within 500 feet of any blasting or hydraulic hammering, pre-blast surveys and the use of low level blasting agents.
Motion by Brian Stowell, seconded by Rusty Valery to close the public hearing.
Motion by Rusty Valery, seconded by Richard Gosselin to grant a waiver from Section 12.44 ( c ), requirement to submit an isometric line drawing showing the entire project and its relation to existing areas, buildings and roads. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Rusty Valery, seconded by Richard Gosselin to grant a waiver from Section 12.44 (f) requirement to submit a development impact statement. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Brian Stowell, seconded by Rusty Valery, to grant the multifamily special permit, to construct a duplex in conformance with plan entitled “Special Permit Plan, located at 133 Elm Street, Millbury, Massachusetts, owned by and prepared for Steven J. Comolli”, dated July 26, 2007, last revised on October 29, 2007, with reference to the hydrology report entitled “Roof Drainage for 133 Elm Street, Millbury, MA”, with conditions (a) – (i), which will include pre and post inspections, 24 hour notice prior to blasting, hydraulic hammering to be added to section 5 (e), and (j) which will state that any condition of this permit shall be construed as separate to the end, and if any condition shall be held invalid for any reason, the remaining conditions shall continue in force and effect.
Motion carried on a unanimous vote.
9:10 p.m. Mangano Estates, Public Hearing, cont.
Clerk Valery read request for continuance from Hannigan Engineering, to the date of December 4, 2007, at 9:00 p.m., to allow time to review all remaining file correspondence which was received by the applicant today.
Motion by Richard Gosselin, seconded by Rusty Valery, to continue the public hearing to December 4, 2007, at 9:00 p.m., motion carried unanimously.
Clerk Valery read letter from Hannigan Engineering granting an extension of time to render a decision, to December 28, 2007, for final action.
Motion by Brian Stowell, seconded by Rusty Valery to grant the extension of time to December 28, 2007, motion carried unanimously.
Chair Lewandowski declared a two minute recess.
9:20 p.m. 55 Sycamore Street, Public Hearing, cont.
Chris King, Heritage Design was present to represent Patriot Homes. He submitted a traffic impact assessment, reviewed revisions to the plan, including the relocation of the driveway, restricted egress, the addition of five parking spaces and snow storage and recreation areas.
John Shevlin, traffic engineer, Par Corporation, reviewed his research regarding Mass Highway plans for Route 146, which was approximately 12 – 15 years into the future and which would not have an impact on the entrance to this development. He also reviewed safety issues, present conditions and traffic control measures. School bus traffic was identified as a concern by the Board.
Chair Lewandowski opened the meeting to the public.
Doug Morin, 48 Sycamore Street stated his concerns with water, sidewalk requirements, impact to abutting property owners, and inaccurate traffic counts.
Duanne Fortin, 45 Sycamore Street was concerned with the construction phases and length of time for completion, trucks and traffic, poor condition of street, can these units be turned into apartments instead, add no parking signs across the street.
Mr. Gosselin identified a problem between units 4 & 5, which could be used for a collection area of cars, boats, etc., and asked that the engineer move the contour line to the front. He does not like the use of large boulders in that area..
Mr. King stated that there would be deed restrictions and a homeowner’s association to prohibit this, shrubbery and landscaping can be added to prevent vehicle storage there.
Mrs. Lewandowski identified concerns with density and visitor parking.
Motion by Rusty Valery, seconded by Richard Gosselin, to continue the public hearing to January 14, 2008 at 7:30 p.m., motion carried unanimously.
10:20 p.m. Braney Road Sidewalk
Mr. Bob McKie submitted a revised sidewalk plan.
Mrs. Lewandowski asked if the plan was filed with the Conservation Commission, and was concerned with the vernal pools in the area and encroachment onto the Piktellis property.
Mr. Don Harrington, 26 Braney Road advised that he contacted DEP regarding the vernal pool and the requirement to file with the Conservation Commission. He had concerns with surface water and curbing, re-directing water away from the vernal pool, impact to the tree root systems.
Town Planner Connors advised the Board that mailboxes would have to be relocated onto the other side of the street, grading as shown on the Harrington property would require an easement or the provision of an alternative to the proposed plan.
Letter dated July 23, 2007 from the Conservation Commission was read into the record. It indicated that the developer would be required to file a notice of intent.
Mr. Gosselin advised the Board that he contacted Don Schmidt, Dept. Housing & Community Development, regarding the determination of a minor versus major modification, and how it would apply to this proposal. This is outside of the requirements for a major modification as it does not impact the lots within the subdivision itself. Condition 36 on the decision is vague, this has already been before the Planning Board and has been through a public hearing process if a second hearing was opened it would be viewed as creating double jeopardy. Applicant has already done more that what is required.
Mr. McKie reminded the Board that at its July meeting he advised that straight curbing would prohibit turtle travel.
Mr. Paul Piktellis, 38 Braney Road, told the Board that he had his property surveyed, and he will not allow a sidewalk on his property.
Mr. Gosselin stated that there is an existing easement there, legally established through a court of law, and referred to a May 25, 2005 judgment. Two lines are shown on the surveyed property, one for the property ownership, one for the easement.
Motion by Scott Mueller, seconded by Brian Stowell, to accept the plan entitled “Sidewalk Improvement Plan in Millbury, Massachusetts” dated April 3, 2007, last revised on November 26, 2007, and consisting of two sheets, as prepared by Hannigan Engineering, Inc., 8 Monument Square, Leominster, Massachusetts, subject to the following conditions listed as A – C:
A. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations, and obtain all necessary permits and approvals including but not limited to Conservation Commission approval.
B. The developer shall relocate mailboxes impacted by sidewalk construction on the easterly side of Braney Road to the westerly side of Braney Road when they cannot be accommodated within the right-of-way, between the sidewalk and curb. Relocated mailboxes shall be opposite the appropriate resident’s home.
C. The grading shown on the Harrington property (26 Braney Road) is subject to the developer’s ability to obtain an easement from the owner of the land now or formerly owned by Harrington. If no easement is granted, then the Applicant shall submit an alternative for Planning Board review and approval.
Motion was approved on a 4 –1-0 vote. Member Anna Lewandowski was opposed for the following reasons:
· Applicant has not filed a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission and the Conservation Commission has not submitted review comments
· The plan which was approved this evening depicts the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street from the approved Definitive Plan entitled “Definitive Subdivision Plan, Cronin Brook Heights, dated December 9, 1999, as revised on 6/30/00, 7/5/00, 8/29/00 and 10/10/00” dated November 27, 2000; property abutters to the sidewalk on this plan are already subject to an easement which would have accommodated the installation of the sidewalk.
Mr. McKie asked the Board, at its meeting on December 4, 2007, to clarify the sidewalk distance to be completed or make the decision to substitute the condition to mill and pave Braney Road to complete the sidewalk along the entire length of the roadway instead. He would also like to discuss the Tri-Partite Agreement on that date.
Ms. Lewandowski then read pertinent sections of MGL which grants the Planning Board authority to enter onto subdivided land.
11:10 p.m. McCracken Meadow Subdivision: Minor Modification
The developer would like to modify the design of the units, as they are too tall and will not comply with the Millbury Zoning Bylaw.
Motion by Brian Stowell, seconded by Scott Mueller, to accept the revised plan, which was submitted and viewed by the Planning Board on November 26, 2007, and depicted as sheet 19 on plan entitled “McCracken Meadow, A Definitive Subdivision Plan in the Town of Millbury”, dated April 6, 2007, last revised on June 29, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.
11:15 p.m. FIBA Technologies
The property owner has requested the Board review a site plan proposal which would include a proposed drain line which would run through the addition. The Board will not support this plan.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Brian Stowell, seconded by Scott Mueller, motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan M. Dean
ATTEST:
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
| 
