Rutland Planning Board
Minutes
Public Hearing Continuation on the new amended
Brice Lemon Estates Subdivision Plan (Charnock Hill and Main Street)
7.22.14
Present: Norman Anderson, Addison Redfield, Marilyn Sidoti, Dick Williams, Tim Nahrwold
Guests: Refer to file
Hearing opened at 8:00pm.
Reference: Mr. Blair’s letter to the Planning Board dated 7.22.12 received at this hearing.
Chairman stated that he spoke with Ryan from Mass Historical Commission.
Ryan looked up Rufus Putnam property in the book on registered National or State Historic Landmarks. It’s not a state historic landmark but is on the registry. Ryan stated that he had asked for additional photos and information from the applicant and did not get this information. DEP should not have signed off on MEPA>
Mr. Carl Hultgren, Quinn Engineering: Referenced his letter to the Board dated today, 7/22. He stated the applicant submitted a memo to him with a list of waiver requests (slope less than 1%, plastic pipes, no installation of security bars, no street lights, and Cape Cod berms. Ref. p. 2 (e) attached. Other items in new memo (not old) include storm drains (f), water pipes (g), and flared ends (h) were also discussed. Two other waivers are being requested (right of way greater than 50 feet {Ref. p. 2 (i) and a waiver pertaining to wells. Ref. p.2 (j).
Mr. Hultgren read and discussed his letter to the Board in depth.
- P. 2 (#3) Perimeter lots - \ defer to the Board
- P. 2 (#4) Open space access - defer to the Board (access to open space by rail trail)
- ADA was referenced. Who will be the owner? Board needs to look at the town’s regulations to see what requires access (Section 34 of the zoning bylaw for design standards was referenced).
Marcia Warrington: Asked if there was an approved open space plan should that space need to be made available. Chairman stated “no”. It is either proposed or existing. (someone could own it and have access to the open space}. She also questioned if the applicant has a bordering piece of property who is responsible to gain access if the developer cannot?
Clealand Blair stated that open space can be retained by the applicant.
He will be putting in a pathway if need be. The Board will look at this and will further discuss. Criteria could be very well met. Applicant will need to get back to Carl Hultgren on this.
Michael Sullivan: Asked how far the crossing was.
Chair responded by saying the Board walked the site in late spring and it was not wet.
Dick Williams: Asked if there is H.O.A. or will applicant own it and restrict it?
Attorney Kiritsy responded that homeowners would own it. They may not want others walking through it.
Clealand Blair asked Mr. Hultgren if he needs to make the area walk able?
Chair stated that he needs to see that shown on the plan.
Carl Hultgren letter was reviewed and discussed:
#9 P. 3
#11 & 12 – Take up together. Wetlands and utilities not shown on the plan that has already been submitted and approved. Carl is not leaning one way or another. He is just trying to be reasonable.
#13 – Wells
#20 - Sewers:
#21 Waivers previously discussed (flow within the drain itself).
#25 – Reinforced pipe waiver
#27 – Headwalls waiver
#28 – Street lights
#29 – Street trees – Clea will do this.
#30 – Plantings in cul de sac (? Less than 6 ft high)
Dick suggested vinca, myrtles or some type of ground cover.
P. 5
#31 – Recharging runoff
#37 - Has nothing on it
#53 - Sequencing – How the phasing of the project works – Defer to Gary Kellaher, DPW per Board.
#58 – Providing details of pump stations.
Plans are now being revised.
Applicant was informed that the plans should be submitted to DPW as part of the submittal before we accept plan.
Mr. Blair will send this to Gary Kellaher. He further stated that it’s just a matter of a few changes.
#72 - Phasing Plan was submitted. Applicant narrative was submitted in 2009. Suggest applicant come up with new narrative to see what is going to happen with each sequence.
#73 - Defer to DPW
New comments on P. 9 - Technical in natures Ref. p. 13
#75 – Review structural review for retaining walls – need to be stamped by structural engineer
Clea stated that he wouldn’t get these until the actual walls get approved by the building inspector.
Clea suggested adding this to the conditions of approval.
#76, 77, 77, 78, 79, 80 , 81 –
Carl Hultgren – Erosion control plan. They have flume pipes
Carl was of the opinion that this could be incorporated in actual design so it doesn’t enter the drain system.
Clea is okay with this.
Board comments:
- Board needs time to go through all comments.
- Marcia Warrington: Would like an update with comment from the Board on her previous letter regarding her concerns with the historic aspect.
Chairman Anderson: Communicated again that he spent 45 minutes on phone with Ryan from Mass Historic and stated that trying to obtain answers was not easy.
Ryan looked at the official Mass Historic State Register and property is not listed on State Registry. The bottom line is that it doesn’t make any difference as the same protections are there. Also, the historical review was never completed because the required photos and information requested were never received. He was very absolutely emphatic on that. Also, DEP signed off before they were done.
Attorney Paul Cranston: Stated that this is a proposed amended plan public hearing. The historic aspect is not part of the public hearing. When the applicant goes to obtain permits we will know more.
Chairman Anderson: Stated that he doesn’t mind if this is discussed but agreed with Attorney Cranston that we will not know what the historic ramifications until they go for permits. This new plan will entirely supersede the old plan if the plan is approved.
Attorney George Kiritsy: Referenced Subdivision Control Law and stated this hearing is not a forum for it. Under its rules and regulations the plan must be approved; nothing is said about historic Review is solely as a point of order and the planning board does not have jurisdiction over historic issues.
Might help us do a better job that’s why he is allowing discussions.
Marcia Warrington: Stated that she has had a specific question regarding the certificate of actions on this project. They are not operating under the new plan. She would like to have this addressed. She further stated that she has been asking in writing for the Board to respond and to date they have not.
Chairman Anderson: Reiterated again that the Board would not have any comment at this time. When the Board receives sufficient information we will respond to Marcia.
Marcia Warrington: Asked to be put on the agenda for the historic aspect to obtain follow up and answers from the Board. Specifics on the certificate of action (Article 26) are being ignored and not answered.
Addison Redfield: Commented that that Marilyn Sidoti, at last hearing, gave Marcia very detailed information the in depth research Marilyn had done on Mass Historic and Army Corps of Engineers.
Dick moved to continue the public hearing to 8/26 at 7:00 pm Tim, 2nd, all in favor.
Marcia will be placed on the agenda for 8pm.
Attorney Cranston: Stated the you can’t have this amended plan without the old existing special permit of 2005. This can be discussed as part of the amended plan discussion. whether or not it is lapsed.
There are a few reasons why it has not lapsed:
- Substantial use of permit
- Won’t lapse if there are delays beyond control
- Permit extension act. Extends regardless
- Thinks it is still in existence as it has only been 4 years and has a couple of years left.
Discussion continued. Attorney Cranston cautioned the Board that they need to satisfy themselves with what to cover under the subdivision regulations.
Mike Sullivan: At the last meeting we were discussing sewer routing and planning. Norm statement was omitted from the last minutes.
Chairman Anderson stated, for the record, no house will be built until all necessary or appropriate permits are approved.
Discussion ensued to include why Mass Historic was not queued by DEP.
Board requested response in writing from Attorney Cranston.
Before the next meeting Attorney Cranston will get something comprehensive in writing for the Board.
Hearing was continued to 8/26/14 at 7:00pm
Respectfully submitted,
Susan R. Ducharme
Susan R. Ducharme
Secretary
| 
