MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MARCH 25, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Patricia Halpin, John Baker, Vincent Vignaly, Lawrence Salate
MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen Paré
OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Doughty. Wayne Amico, Paul Bleau, Fran McHugh, Fred Vaudreuil, Joanne Vaudreuil, Gloria McHugh, Georgette Freeman, Raymond Freeman, John Isbell, Fred Thibault, Bill Italiano, Tim Tyler, Nick Moudios, Matt Brassard, Dick Kenneway
HILLSIDE VILLAGE: DRAINAGE ISSUES
Ms. Halpin reported that a site walk took place at Hillside Village on Monday, March 24th, at which Ms. Halpin, Mr. Salate and Mr. Amico joined members of the Hillside Village Condominium Association to assess the functionality of basins #1 and #2. Mr. Paul Bleau, 50 Hillside Village Drive, addressed the Planning Board on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Condo Association in order to express their concern with future liability of the association due to surface drainage onto abutters’ property. Surface water from basin #1 continues to drain east, downhill and onto adjoining property. The worst problems seem to be occurring at the intersection of Hillside Village property, the Freeman’s property and that of D&S Realty (formerly Image Press). Water overflows the swale onto the Freeman’s property and continues onto the D&S property. Remedial work was performed by Keystone Development in September on basin #2, Mr. Bleau reported, and a letter from Heritage Design states that
test holes were dug at that time. There is a question whether basin #2 is functioning as designed. Pictures taken by Mr. Isbell and Mr. Amico show overflow from Basin #2. Mr. Bleau questioned whether there should be this great a volume of overflow if the basin is functioning properly. The level spreader installed at basin #1 seems to be somewhat of a failure and was supposed to be lined with sand and stone.
Mr. Fred Thibault, 45 Hillside Village Drive, stated that not enough gravel was left when the bottom of basin #1 was scraped. When the bottom of basin #2 was scraped, 6” of sand was spread, not the 12” that was supposed to be left. The bottom is not permeable, Mr. Thibault stated.
Minutes of the Meeting 2.
March 25, 2008
Mr. Amico, review engineer from VHB, stated that he, Mr. Staiti and Ms. Peterson, engineer from Heritage Design, had looked at Basin #1and decided to raise the outlet pipe and line it with stone. Two to three feet were scraped and filled with 6” of sand. This plan should allow for percolation and it seems as if the basin worked OK, he stated, but the area has not yet been stabilized with grass because the remediation work was done this fall. Grass needs to take root on the slopes. Given time, basin #1 should function well. Mr. Bleau noted that Heritage stated it would issue a “Letter of Completion”, which he has never seen. Mr. Amico agreed that there could be more stone around the side and that this issue needs to be reviewed with Heritage.
Mr. Raymond Freeman, 44 Hartwell Street, stated that the functionality of basin #1 seems to be improved but is still inadequate because a lot of water is still flowing onto his property. The “extra” basin is too small, he stated, and will overflow because it is only 1-1/2’ deep. Mr. John Isbell, 86 Hillside Village Drive, stated that this basin has already overflowed, so any more rain, no matter what the size of the storm, will continue to overflow. Mr. Amico stated that he believes the system was designed for a 100-year storm, but engineers design to town and state regulations and this design met those criteria. He stated that there is evidence of outflow from basin #2 onto the Freemans’ property. A rip-rap swale was the agreed-upon method of remediating the problem. Now
there is “scour” and this needs to be discussed with Mr. Staiti. Mr. Isbell questioned whether there are wetlands at the bottom of the hill, on the D&S Realty property.
Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Board has no duty to rectify these problems and questioned what the Hillside Board is asking from the Planning Board. Mr. Amico stated that there is some erosion from basin #2 and these concerns are valid. Following the 2007 outflow issues, Mr. Baker stated, shaped rip-rap was installed by Mr. Staiti, but now that it is in place, there is scouring due to heavy rain. Something is not allowing the water to infiltrate, Mr. Amico agreed. Mr. Baker postulated that this design does not function with frozen ground. Silt was removed and sand filled in, Mr. Amico stated, and the data provided by Heritage passes state and town requirements. Although this is not like a design for a sanitary system, Mr. Amico stated, perc tests were conducted by Heritage.
Mr. Isbell noted that roof drains on several units were supposed to direct flow to cultec units but were instead directed to retention ponds, and he speculated whether this has added to the flow.
Mr. Baker again queried what the Condo Association was asking of the Planning Board. He questioned who was paying for the advice and input of Mr. Amico and added that the Planning Board has no money with which to pay. The condo association could hire an outside review firm to identify the problems, as they did previously. The only recourse of the Planning Board is to execute the $10,000 bond, but Mr. Baker stated that he doesn’t believe that the Planning Board is ready yet to do that. The Board can continue to push Mr. Staiti, but he can argue that the plans and remediation he performed met code. Mr. Bleau queried whether the drainage system is functioning in accordance with the plans that were originally submitted and approved. Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Board can never satisfy the
condo association that it will never have run-off and the Board is not able to
Minutes of the Meeting 3.
March 25, 2008
support that level of expectation. Ms. Halpin added that calculations are not required to be taken during a period of frozen ground and Mr. Staiti’s design has met requirements. If overflow still occurs in July, Mr. Bleau queried, does the condo association have recourse. Mr. Baker questioned whether the problems are a result of a latent defect or an Operations and Maintenance problem. He advocated that the Planning Board continue to hold the $10,000 bond.
Ms. Halpin read to the meeting an email that the Planning Board received from Mr. Staiti on March 21, 2008, wherein he stated in part that “…I feel Keystone’s responsibilities in regards to issues at Hillside Village have been satisfied.” “In addition, our engineers reconfirmed perc tests that were originally provided during permitting in 2000/2001. The results as confirmed by VHB were satisfactory as was the reconstruction work we performed on both basins.” Ms. Halpin stated that the Planning Board will take under advisement the issues raised tonight and meet again in the near future with the Hillside Village Condo Association representatives.
DISCUSSION OF SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA AND DEFINITIONS
This discussion was tabled until May 14th so that the Building Inspector can be present.
HONEY DEW DONUTS: AMENDED PLAN
Mr. Matt Brassard, engineer for the applicant, addressed the Board. He stated that he knew the DCR review process was not complete when he agreed to close the Planning Board public hearing, but he was confident that there would be no major changes as a result of that review. In his opinion, the changes augment the site design and don’t affect any Planning Board issues. Ms. Halpin queried whether abutters were notified when the DCR conducted its public hearing and Mr. Brassard stated that he did not know, however, the changes were of no interest to abutters and nothing controversial was affected.
Mr. Amico, by letter dated March 18, 2008, reviewed the changes on the February 22, 2008 Site Plans. In his opinion, the addition of two bio-retention cells was the biggest change, which he described as a “glorified landscape area”, however, he expressed his concern that it is to be located within the “state highway layout”. The applicant needs to provide documentation that MassHighway approves the revised plans and that the applicant’s Access Permit has been amended. The changes as a whole were minor, he stated, and augment the plan by improving the drainage and increasing TSS removal. Mr. Brassard stated that he has been communicating with MassHighway and understands that an amended approval is needed but they require no formal re-submittal.
Mr. Baker questioned the reason for the addition of a deed restriction line, toward the back of the site along Gates Brook, for a Conservation Covenant area. Mr. Brassard explained that the owner is granting a deed restriction in perpetuity to DCR so that that area will remain untouched and trees reintroduced. No maintenance plan is necessary. Mr. Baker questioned whether trash will be removed and Mr. Brassard stated that there are
Minutes of the Meeting 4.
March 25, 2008
stipulations that trash and certain fallen tree limbs be removed. Mr. Moudios stated that the DCR was concerned that trees would be cut and wished to keep the area vegetated.
Mr. Amico stated that he has completed his review of the plans and will not need to see them again, even if the Planning Board requires the filing of an amended site plan review application. Mr. Vignaly stated that the Board needs to be consistent. It required amended filings from CVS and Rock Church. The Bylaws state that “any changes” need to come back before the Planning Board and the Board decides what constitutes minor or major changes. The Planning Board’s final approved plan should basically be the same as the as-built plan. The applicant made the decision to move ahead and close the public hearing “at risk”. Mr. Brassard stated that, if he and the applicant had the understanding that even minor changes could require the filing of an amended application, they would have
decided differently. At the time, he felt that the DCR changes would be minor, as they were, and thus not require any additional filing with the Planning Board. Ms. Halpin stated that the members of the Planning Board were elected to use their judgment and to be fair. She added that the Planning Board could encourage the Building Inspector to issue a demolition permit in order to get work started sooner on the project. Mr. Moudios stated that, if there is to be a literal interpretation of the Zoning Bylaws, then a public hearing should never be closed because there are often unavoidable changes that occur during the construction process. He thought that there was a verbal agreement and understanding that there would be minor changes occasioned by the DCR review. He added that it becomes very confusing, knowing where to start with all the town and state boards.
Mr. Baker asked that the changes be clarified and Mr. Amico reviewed the changes, as itemized in his letter of March 18th. The addition of trenches draining into the landscaped area on MassHighway property is the biggest change. Mr. Baker inquired of Mr. Brassard whether there are any other changes of which he is aware that are not on the latest plans. Mr. Brassard stated that there are not. Mr. Vignaly asked Mr. Moudios why he is unwilling to go ahead with an amended site plan and he stated that the reasons are financial and he seeks finality with the permitting process. Mr. Brassard stated that additional time and money would be required for his services. He added that they understood that minor changes would be OK, otherwise they would have left the public hearing open. He questioned
what happens if there are some small or large changes during construction. There would be the same liability to the Board. Mr. Vignaly pointed out the problems that have occurred with the Hillside Village Condo Association. Construction was not performed per approved plans, or to good standards, and now problems have arisen and projects need to be redone and reviewed. He added that the Planning Board knows there will be changes during the construction process.
Mr. Vignaly moved, seconded by Mr. Salate, to require the applicant to file an amended site plan review application for this project. Mr. Baker and Ms. Halpin voted no. Mr. Vignaly and Mr. Salate voted yes. The tie vote was decided by the Chair. The motion failed and the applicant will not be required to file an amended application at this time. Ms. Halpin cautioned the applicant to submit to the Board a copy of the amended MassHighway permit as soon as he receives it.
Minutes of the Meeting 5.
March 25, 2008
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN: KENNEWAY
Mr. Kenneway asked that the Planning Board postpone their review of his conceptual design because his engineer failed to attend the meeting.
VHB SERVICES
Ms. Halpin thanked Mr. Amico for all of his help and valuable input on this, and all other issues. Mr. Amico attended this meeting on a “pro bono” basis in order to assist the Board with Hillside Village drainage issues and changes to the Honey Dew Donuts site plan. Mr. Amico stated that he would be willing to attend one meeting per month (the first meeting of the month) without charge if necessary, in order to continue to assist the Board.
Mr. Amico did state his frustration with the flurry of emails he receives directly from applicants, often in a “piece-meal” fashion. Of late, input concerning road acceptance documents has been arriving, not as a complete application, but daily in a confusing fashion. In the future, he will require that all communication be addressed to the Planning Board, and copied to him if necessary. He added that, if there is no cover letter, he will refuse to review the attachment.
ROAD ACCEPTANCE UPDATES
Merrimount Subdivision: Ms. Halpin stated that she asked Mr. Gaumond to have the legal documents from Merrimount submitted for review to Town Counsel. Mr. Vignaly stated that we need to ask Mr. Gaumond to tell Town Counsel to respond to the Planning Board by April 2nd so that there will be time for the Board to review them on April 9th before sending the Article along for approval at Town Meeting. No public hearing will be necessary. Mr. Amico reported that Mr. Westerling met with Mr. Flagg in order to resolve issues raised by Mr. Westerling concerning a broken header and the detention basin filled with sand. Mr. Flagg needs to get a written “OK” from Mr. Westerling for the road and have him either approve the detention basin or Mr. Flagg needs to submit a Homeowners
O&M Plan covering its maintenance. Everything needs to be filed with the Planning Board by April 2nd. VHB issued two review letters following submission of the as-built plans, on February 21st and March 21st. Minor issues raised in the March 21st letter also need to be addressed. Ms. Halpin will email Attorney Sushchyk, notifying him of the deadline and remaining issues.
Olde Century Farm Subdivision: VHB reviewed the original as-built plans that were submitted and requested some minor changes. The revised plans were received today by VHB. Nothing else has been submitted. Ms. Halpin will email Mr. Perkins and alert him to the filing deadline with the Planning Board in order to be ready for submission to Town Meeting. It appears almost impossible at this time for all the documents to be received and reviewed by Town Council and the Planning Board.
Minutes of the Meeting 6.
March 25, 2008
WARRANT ARTICLES FOR TOWN MEETING
Ms. Paré prepared and submitted for final review the language for the Articles for Town Meeting for proposed changes to the Zoning Bylaws. The language was approved by both the Planning Board and by the Building Inspector. Ms. Paré will forward these Articles to Ms. Lucier for inclusion on the Warrant.
INSPECTION REPORTS
Oakdale: No visible further construction has occurred since the pavement was laid down in December.
Angell Brook: In the fall, the perimeter erosion controls were OK. Mr. Staiti will inform VHB of any further erosion measures.
Lawrence Street Cell Tower: Tata & Howard finally contacted Mr. Amico to inform him that they are beginning to look at the redesign of the access road to the cell tower. Huge chunks of chopped-up pavement continue to land on Mr. Johnson’s lawn. Mr. Brodeur went to the site to ascertain whether Fiber Tower has installed their equipment, but he has not notified the Planning Board concerning the outcome of his visit.
OLD BUSINESS
Expedited Permitting: Ms. Halpin reported to Mr. Gaumond the results of the Planning Board discussion of the proposed “Expedited Permitting” process. This issue has not yet been further discussed by the Board of Selectmen.
One Seventy-Five LLC: Mr. McCormick again requested the return of his review fees for this project. He stated that he thought it was understood that the Building Inspector would do the construction inspections for the Planning Board. Mr. Amico stated that he believed the Building Inspector could perform these inspections. Mr. Baker stated that he does not have a problem with the Building Inspector handling the inspections, but he believes, and Mr. Vignaly concurred, that Mr. McCormick should make his request for a refund in writing so that the Planning Board has documentation for its files and there is a written justification on file for the request.
Hillside Village: After further discussion of the design of the basins, Mr. Amico and Mr. Vignaly decided to draft a letter to Mr. Staiti outlining how the basins functioned and what further remedial steps need to be taken. Mr. Amico will check and see if there are any wetlands on the D&S Realty property.
Election of Officers: Will take place at the April 9th meeting.
Minutes of the Meeting 7.
March 25, 2008
REPORTS FROM OTHER BOARDS
Open Space: Mr. Vignaly reported that the revised Open Space Plan is stalled because he has not yet received necessary data.
MINUTES/BILLS
No bills were submitted for payment. Upon motion of Mr. Salate and second of Mr. Vignaly, the following Minutes were approved as written:
Minutes of the March 12, 2008 Planning Board Meeting
Minutes of the March 12th Continued Public Hearing, Sign Permitting, etc.
Minutes of the March 12th Public Hearing: Metro/PCS Application for Site Plan Review and Special Permit.
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Date Accepted:____________ By:___________________________
Karen Paré, Clerk
Submitted By:_______________________
Susan Abramson
| 
