MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
BEEHIVE BUILDERS APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
242 WOODLAND STREET
SEPTEMBER 14, 2011
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Patrick McKeon, Marc Frieden, Karen Paré, Vincent Vignaly, Lawrence Salate
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Amico, Lesley Wilson, Hossein Haghanizadeh, Patrick Hayes, Paul Conger, Andy Beardsley, James Mitchener, Randy Ekstrom, Thelma Haddad, Kathleen Scalera, Dominic Scalera
All documents referenced in these Minutes are stored and available for public inspection in the Planning Board office, 127 Hartwell Street
The Chair opened the continued public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Ms. Lesley Wilson and Mr. Hossein Haghanizadeh of HS&T Group presented to the Board and the audience a description of the proposed project. The one building on site will house three doctors’ offices. There will be 48 parking spaces, as required by UMASS, including the requisite handicapped spaces. A traffic study was completed by AK Associates of Spencer and a legal opinion was obtained from Attorney David Philbin on the legality of closing a public hearing, rendering a decision and imposing conditions upon an applicant. Test holes were dug and ground water was reached at 60” and 46”. These test holes will be dug again.
Ms. Wilson stated that there will be an entrance and exit on Woodland Street, but the driveway will be “in only” on Prospect Street. Parking has been moved from the point of the property line to the setback. The entrances have been widened to accommodate a fire truck. A 6’ stockade fence will sit atop the retaining wall and trees that were planted for screening will be replanted after construction, if necessary. Mr. Vignaly inquired whether the lighting will be full cut-off, anti-glare. No lighting will be installed on the property line and no light will spill onto the roadway, Ms. Wilson stated. Mr. Conger stated that he does not really know the schedule for lighting and whether it will be on all night. Mr.
Minutes of the Continued Public Hearing 2.
Beehive Builders – September 14, 2011
Haghanizadeh stated that the lights on the building will be on all night but that the other lighting will be on a timer. No lighting was proposed within the footprint of the underground filtration system.
Ms. Wilson explained that run-off from the driveways on Woodland and Prospect Streets will flow to catch basins and then into existing street drainage. Ms. Paré inquired whether this has been approved by the DPW and Ms. Wilson stated that no comments on the plans
were received from the DPW.
Mr. Amico discussed activity to date performed by VHB in the review of this project. Plans were received on July 11th. The first review letter was issued on August 5th in time for the August 10th public hearing. On August 11th, the Planning Board sent an email to the applicant emphasizing those areas needing to be addressed in the continuing review process. HS&T Group responded to the first letter on August 28th. VHB sent further comments to Ms. Wilson on September 1st and on September 9th, VHB issued their second review letter. On September 9th, a letter was received from Ms. Wilson and on the 12th, a teleconference was held. A response letter from HS&T was carried to the hearing tonight. The traffic study was also presented tonight, so Mr. Amico has not had the opportunity to closely review it. Remaining areas of concern are the signage and the drainage systems. Lighting seems to be OK, as does the glare issue.
Mr. Patrick Hayes, 250 Woodland Street, inquired whether the applicant can show a picture of the building. Architectural plans of the building were presented. A retaining wall will be constructed with a stockade fence on top because there will be a six-foot cut into the land. Mr. Beardsley stated that there will probably be a need for more trees to be planted. Mr. Hayes inquired whether there will be any on-street parking and Mr. Haghanizadeh replied that there will be no need for it. Mr. Randy Ekstrom of 528 Prospect Street inquired whether there will be a similar wall abutting his property. Ms. Wilson stated that there will be no wall because the land will be graded and trees replaced. Mr. Ekstrom also inquired whether there will be a fence, and Ms. Paré stated that there will be a
40’ buffer and trees to screen. Mr. James Mitchener of 524 Prospect Street questioned the drainage system. Ms. Wilson explained that strict EPA standards must be adhered to such as 80% TSS removal and groundwater recharge. He also inquired whether the drainage will affect the Wachusett Watershed and he was told that it does not. Mr. Mitchener then asked whether the Chief of Police has a solution to the traffic problem. In an article in “The Banner”, it seemed as if the Chief did not believe that the installation of a stop sign would be a possible solution, Mr. Mitchener stated. Concern about the intersection is one reason why the Board requested a traffic study, Ms. Paré stated. Mr. Amico stated that there are different requirements in each town for stop signs. Ms. Paré stated that it may be necessary to petition the town for a stop sign.
Mr. Dominic Scalera of 535 Prospect Street inquired whether there will be any new drainage that will impact his property. Ms. Paré stated that the town’s Zoning Bylaws require that no increased flow be allowed onto an adjoining property. Mr. Scalera inquired
Minutes of the Continued Public Hearing 3.
Beehive Builders – September 14, 2011
whether this is a “fail-safe” system and Mr. Salate informed him that an Operation and Maintenance Plan is required to maintain and clean the basin and overflow outlets. Mr. Scalera stated that the drainage easement on his property has not be cleaned in fifteen
years.
Mr. Amico explained that there will be an underground cultec system on site. The water will flow through this system and dissipate underground. Mr. Ekstrom inquired about snow storage. Mr. Vignaly stated that the 40 feet of property adjoining the Ekstroms will probably be used. Mr. Haghanizadeh explained that they are required to have “too many” parking spaces and the snow, most likely, will first be pushed onto the extras spaces. Mr. Scalera asked where the signage will be installed and expressed the hope that the sign on the building wouldn’t be shining into his house. Mr. Beardsley explained that there will be no large, lit signs on the building and those that are installed will comply with the Zoning Bylaws. No decisions have yet been made on the signs. Mr.
Conger stated that they prefer to have small, unlit signs at this time. Mr. Ekstrom asked what kind of doctors will be practicing in these offices. Mr. Conger replied that they will be family physicians. Ms. Paré noted that no request has been made for a special permit for a clinic.
Mr. Frieden noted that there are two drains to the street system and asked how much water is predicted to flow into them. Ms. Wilson stated that sand and TSS will be filtered out of whatever water flows into the system. Ms. Thelma Haddad of 533 Prospect Street asked whether there will be any blasting and Mr. Beardsley stated that there will be no blasting. Mr. Haghanizadeh added that the soil is all gravel. Mr. Scalera asked what the remaining, unoccupied 700 square feet in the building will be used for. Mr. Conger stated that they are still talking with UMASS about the space. Mr. Beardsley noted that, if the space is not used for doctors’ offices, there will be deed restrictions so that this additional space will only be leased for a similar use, such as a dentist.
Mr. Vignaly stated that UMASS may be tax-exempt and inquired whether taxes will be paid to the town on the property. Mr. Beardsley stated that he and Mr. Conger are the owners of the land and, as such, will pay the property taxes. Mr. Vignaly also noted that there is no engineer’s stamp on the traffic plan. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated that the plan was prepared by a PE and that he will get a stamped letter. When there is no posted speed, Mr. Vignaly stated, then it is presumed to be 30 mph in the traffic study. However, traffic on these streets normally flows at a faster pace and these speeds should have been used in the calculations. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated that he will cooperate with the DPW and design for the actual speed. Mr. Vignaly expressed his concern for pedestrian access and noted
that there is no way for pedestrians to get to Pinecroft Dairy. Mr. Beardsley stated that crosswalks can’t go from nowhere to nowhere and there are no sidewalks along Prospect Street. Mr. Vignaly suggested that sidewalks could be installed. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated that people coming to the site will be driving. The offices will not attract pedestrians. If, in the future, the town installs sidewalks along Prospect Street, we’ll connect to them along this property, Mr. Haghanizadeh stated. What about people going to lunch from the medical building?, Mr. Salate inquired. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated that the
Minutes of the Continued Public Hearing 4.
Beehive Builders – September 14, 2011
employees will bring their own lunches. Mr. Conger stated that, financially, they cannot
afford sidewalks. Mr. Vignaly asked whether the Board can get in writing that the applicant will connect if the town installs sidewalks, and Mr. Haghanizadeh agreed. Ms. Paré stated that, unless it becomes a requirement of the Zoning Bylaws, it seems unlikely that an applicant will ever install sidewalks.
The land adjoining that of the Ekstroms is now a slope, Mr. Vignaly observed. Mr. Beardsley stated that there is already a line of white fir planted. These will be replanted after construction within 5’ of the edge of the parking. Mr. Vignaly noted that a statement on snow storage should be shown on the plans. He asked whether there has been field testing and Mr. Haghanizadeh stated that it was already done. A soil scientist from his office will do a static head test.
Mr. McKeon asked whether there is a design for the retaining wall. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated that a structural engineer will design the wall and get the building permit for it. Ms. Wilson stated that there will be landscaping along the perimeter of the site. Mr. Frieden inquired whether the applicant anticipated any problems with people cutting through their property to get from Prospect to Shrewsbury Street. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated that the owners won’t chase people off the property. Ms. Paré stated that dumpsters should not be emptied before 6:00 a.m. Mr. Ekstrom inquired at what time the construction starts and Ms. Paré stated that heavy equipment is allowed between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated that the day for a construction worker runs from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Mr. Amico and Mr. Vignaly noted that the property line at the tip of the property along Woodland Street goes into what is now paved. Mr. Amico stated that the plans show the grading going
beyond the edge of the pavement and advised Ms. Wilson to correct the plan to pull back the grading.
Mr. Amico noted that the applicant has submitted an architectural plan and that a plan for the design of the retaining wall is required. The traffic report must have an engineer’s stamp and the drainage needs to be reviewed. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated that when VHB issues a final review letter, the applicant will agree to the outstanding conditions. Mr. Amico stated that a letter needs to be submitted requesting desired waivers. A signage plan needs to be submitted as well as the results of the revised drainage from the additional test pits. There should be a written statement that trees will be replanted along the property lines. On the traffic report, Mr. Amico noted that there is one sight distance that is shy coming up Woodland Street. There should be a condition that the
applicant should continue to pursue the installation of a stop sign and a warning sign, if warranted. Ms. Paré noted that an O&M Plan also needs to be submitted, as well as a statement on the plan showing where the snow will be stored. Mr. Vignaly stated that five lines are needed on the plan for the signature block.
Mr. Haghanizadeh stated that he “doesn’t have a problem coming back with an amended plan” if the test pits show the need to raise the drainage system up 2’. The test hole will be drilled tomorrow and results ready by the middle of the week. Ms. Paré inquired whether the applicant wished to close the public hearing with conditions. She noted that the
Minutes of the Continued Public Hearing 5.
Beehive Builders – September 14, 2011
applicants’ conditions are such that they may require a new public hearing, needing to be advertised and held if results of the testing are not in compliance. The applicants requested a five minute recess and when they returned, stated that they would prefer to keep the public hearing open until September 28th, with the hope that the Approval will be granted on the same date. Mr. Haghanizadeh stated that he will resolve all issues by next Wednesday (September 21st) for Mr. Amico.
A letter from Mr. Coveney, Superintendent of the Water District, was received this evening stating that all required modifications have been made to the plan and the District does not object to the Planning Board’s approval of the project.
Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Mr. Salate, it was unanimously voted to continue the public hearing until September 28, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
Date Accepted:_____________ By:____________________________
Karen Paré, Clerk
Submitted By:_________________________
Susan Abramson
| 
