************************************************************
TAUNTON PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
CITY HALL, TAUNTON, MA 02780
**************************************************************
DATE: Dec. 4, 2008 PAGE NO: 1
BOARD MEMBERS: 1. Daniel Dermody, Chrmn. 5. Richard Faulkner, Clerk
2. Bob Campbell 6. Arthur Lopes
3. Manuel Spencer 7. David Pimental
4. Tony Abreau
ADVISORS:
8. Kevin Scanlon, City Planner
9. Mark Slusarz, City Engineer
Roll Call: Faulkner, Dermody, Spencer, Campbell, Abreau, Pimental, Lopes. Also present was City Planner Kevin Scanlon. Meeting opens at 5:32 PM.
Arthur made motion to approve minutes of November 6, 2008, seconded by Manny. All in favor.
Cont’d. Public Hearing – Prospect Hill Preserve - 22 single family homes within a condo community on 42.2 acres o the west side of Prospect Hill Street, known as 366 Prospect Hill Street – submitted by Winterton Corp.
Letter from Atty. David Gay requesting a continuance until February to get approval from Natural Heritage. They met with the City Planner and they tentatively have Natural Heritage approval.
Dick made motion to grant continuance until February 2009, seconded by Manny. All in favor.
Public Hearing – Form J Plan – Herbert Street – Waiver of frontage requirements – to split one lot into two lots – submitted by Steven Fasolo
Hearing opens at 5:31 PM. Roll Call: Spencer, Campbell, Abreau, Pimental, Lopes, Faulkner and Dermody. The City Planner read letter from B.O.H., Water Dept. and Conservation Commission which were placed on file.
Arthur made motion to invite petitioner into the enclosure. Seconded by Manny. All in favor.
Atty. David Gay and Paul Patneaude, P.E. were invited into the enclosure. Atty. Gay stated they received approval from ZBA in Case #2934 and now need waiver of frontage. The lots are good size and have had good perks. They have frontage on Bartlett Street but due to the wetland cannot access from there. They are proposing a shared driveway running along Gadry and Correia properties. The location of the house is still unknown due to the placement of septic system. Lot 2 may need Conservation Commission approval. Arthur asked if there it will be a deeded easement for driveway? Atty. Gay answers yes there will deeded right of access over Lot 1 for Lot 2. They are proposing a 12 foot wide driveway. Both will have emergency turnaround. Bob asked if they
could possibly put driveways from Bartlett Street? Paul answers that there is ledge to get thru and the topography drops so it will be physically difficult. There will be separate water lines from street. Atty. Gay stated there was no opposition at ZBA hearing. Manny asked where this street was? Paul stated is right next to the variety store on Plain Street and there is about 400-500 feet of wetlands as you enter down Bartlett Street. Atty. Gay is aware some don’t like shared driveways but they are going to
Page 2 of 4 – P.B. Minutes – Dec. 4, 2008
know what they are getting. They will both maintain driveway. Kevin suggested putting language in their relative to a minimum condition it has to be maintained to. It should be very clear in the deed as to what
standard it needs to be. There may be some difference in opinion between the two as to what needs repair or no. Atty. Gay stated the Subservant lot controls everything as opposed to the Dominant lot (who uses driveway) Bob asked about the proposed improvements and maybe they could incorporate into one plan? Atty. Gay stated he is ok with that. He did say the only thing under the P.B. jurisdiction is the 50 foot frontage on Herbert Street. There was some discussion if the P.B. has jurisdiction over the condition, size and material of the actually driveways. Atty. Gay stated the Board he is not going to argue but thinks the Board is only obligated to looks at the actually frontage and not the “driveway” once it’s on private property. Paul stated there
is a low point on Herbert Street and there is ledge in the area. He knows you can’t alter after low point. Because of the driveway there is no where for theater to go? He stated they cannot extend infiltration area because that would not be practical. They were suggesting having stone driveway the entire length? Kevin asked about some kind of poirus pavement and gravel? Tony reminded everyone of snow removal? Right now they probably put at end of road until it melts? It was asked if they intend on living here? Atty. Gay answers Steven Fasolo intends on living on Lot 1 don’t know about Lot 2. They are proposing the driveway to the north due to the septic system. Tony said there is a drainage problem now and it can’t be any worse than what is there now. Mark stated there is an infiltration system and the City doesn’t like to maintain those. Dave asked Paul if the main will be
open for Lot 1 and will leave Gadry a stub? Atty. Gay answers yes that would be no problem.
Dick made motion to open public input, seconded by Manny. All in favor. James Nunes, 12 Herbert St. was in favor. No one appearing in opposition.
Arthur made motion to close public input, seconded by Manny. All in favor.
Bob asked Atty. Gay if the roadway improvements to Herbert Street were completed could there be a subdivision approved? Atty. Gay stated technically yes because it’s a public way but this proposal is only for 2 lots. Atty. Gay stated the other Fasolo property does have frontage somewhere else. Kevin asked if Lot 1 perced? It was answers yes and Paul points to where it perced. There was some discussion about its location and possibly adding more water? Bob stated he would recommend a separate plan for the roadway improvements because of its complexity.
Bob made motion to approve Form J Plan contingent upon a Roadway Improvement Plan being approved, seconded by Manny. All in favor. Hearing closes at 6:02 PM.
Dick made motion to revert out of the regular order of business, seconded by Bob. All in favor.
Field Street - Letter from Ellen Clark-Lavender – requesting clarification on Common driveway
Ellen Clark-Lavender & James Clark, 128 Field St., and Fred Clark, 192 Massapoag Ave., N. Easton, Ma.
Mr. Clark read the Cert. of Final Action‘s conditions He asked when the conditions are going to be met when they come in for a building permit. Mr. Clark suggested to the Board that they have some kind of guidelines for common driveways as they do in Easton, Ma. where he has served various boards. Kevin stated they some sort of guideless, first they have to comply with the Subdivision Rules & Regulations and then it’s up to the Board to grant waivers. Kevin stated the driveway is a 20 foot wide easement ROW of which 15 feet is required to be paved. Mr. Clark stated when the petitioner appeared before the Conservation Commission the slopes changed? Kevin stated if the changes are major then they would have to come back to the P.B. Mr. Clark again suggests
having the Board have some kind of “guidelines” to
Page 3 of 4 – P.B. Minutes – Dec. 4, 2008
make it easier for applicants. It was stated the maintenance agreement will be requested when bulding permit is requested. Mr. Clark asked if he could have copy of it? Kevin stated upon request he can have a
copy because it is public record. Bob stated the Board usually requires a wider driveway but he can’t remember the circumstance relating to this site. Mr. Clark stated he wasn’t allowed on-site by the applicant during the inspection conducted by the Conservation Agent. He stated his daughter received letter informing of who can and can’t go on walk-thru. Kevin stated that is thru the Conservation Commission and if they alter the plan it will be reviewed to see if they comply with decision. If the changes are major they would need to come back to the P.B. Mr. Clark stated they are planning on moving driveway? Kevin answers that wouldn’t’ necessarily need to come back. The City Engineer and the City Planner would look at new location for
driveway. James Lavender stated the owner he was approached to purchase some of the backland? He thought that is being conveyed to a non-profit agency? Kevin stated they may possibly be able to do that. They cannot leave orphan lot in back. Kevin stated these questions could have been answered by the staff in the office. Mrs. Lavender was told it had to go on the Agenda.
Chairman Dermody excused at 6:24 PM.
Vice Chairman Bob Campbell presiding over meeting.
Silver Fox Estates – completion of Subdivision – street acceptance
The City Planner stated they are trying to get street acceptance. The only outstanding issue is the Cert. of Completion of Conservation Commission was has to wait until Spring for growing. The City Planner stated all the other stuff has been completed.
Dick made motion to find the subdivision to be complete, forward a positive recommendation for street acceptance, and release all surety after Municipal Council action on street acceptance. Seconded by Tony.
Dick made motion to go back to the regular order of business. Seconded by Bob.
Dick Faulkner excused from meeting at 6:26 PM.
Public Hearing - Proposed Zoning Changes – submitted by the City Planner –
Roll Call: Spencer, Campbell, Abreau, Pimental, Lopes present. Hearing opens at 6:26 PM. Kevin read dept. comments.
Kevin stated he passed out the proposed changes last month and will answers any questions the Board may have.
Arthur made motion to open public input, seconded by Tony. All in favor.
Timothy Thomas, 740 Glebe St., stated he opposed the proposed change for Agricultural Use from 300 feet to 200 feet from an adjacent structure. He stated he thinks it’s too close to a residence. He asked why the change? Kevin answers it’s very cumbersome for the residence to have horse on property. It has been requested by the homeowners. Mr. Thomas asked how close could they be from a well? Bob stated it can be reduced to 50 feet away from a well by the B.O.H. Mr. Thomas stated he has neighbor has horse about 200 feet from has house and 125’ from well. Kevin stated this would include coral area. Kevin stated the B.O.H. has regulations they must comply with also in addition to the Dept. of Agricultural. Mr. Thomas stated he in support of KEEPING it
300 feet. No one else appearing in favor or in opposition.
Arthur made motion to close public input, seconded by Manny. All in favor.
Page 4 of 4 – P. B. Minutes – Dec. 4, 2008
Bob had some questions. Under Section 3.1.1 he talked to Kevin about leaving in 1 of the 2 people who can interpret the Zoning Ordinance. Kevin stated that Bob Pirozzi, Building Commissioner, stated he was
uncomfortable and they will leave it with 2 people. Bob suggests, under Section 7.3.1 keeping the first sentence in and adding language about parking must be on lot.
Arthur made motion to approve the following changes: Section 7.3.1 Parking & Loading Requirements – Residential Used – Add Language: These limitations shall not apply to farm or garden motor vehicles or motorized garden equipment when parked or stored within the boundaries of the farm, garden, or home lot on which they are being used. The minimum parking requirement must be met on-site. Seconded by Tony. All in favor.
Bob also had questions regarding Section 7.5.9 Projecting signs. There was some discussion about sign cannot project over abutter’s property. It was suggested perhaps talking to the Law Dept. about liability should a sign fall and cause damage or hurt someone? After length discussion Kevin stated he would talk to Steve about this and let him. Bob suggests adding language: sign cannot project over an abutting property.
Arthur made motion approve the following language changes: Section 7.5.9 – Projecting signs – The projecting Sign cannot project over an abutting property (does not include public way). Seconded by
David. All in favor.
Bob had some concerns with solar panels but see that was addressed. Tony stated is concern was the storage units which Kevin said are being treated like sheds which required a building permit or shed compliance (if shed is under 120 sq. ft.). Manny asked about satellite dishes? Kevin stated he didn’t feel the need to address them since they are very small and there is no real need to regulate them.
Bob made motion to forward a positive recommendation with the above changes to the Municipal Council for the proposed zoning changes, seconded by Arthur. All in favor. Hearing closes at 6:45 PM.
Motion to adjourn meeting at 6:45 PM.
| 
