MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
BEEHIVE BUILDERS APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
242 WOODLAND STREET
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Patrick McKeon, Marc Frieden, Karen Paré, Vincent Vignaly, Lawrence Salate
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Amico, Lesley Wilson, Patrick Hayes, Paul Conger, Andy Beardsley, Thelma Haddad
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 7:10 p.m. Ms. Wilson reviewed the changes made to the site plan since the last meeting of the Planning Board. Snow storage notes have been added to the plan. The edge of the pavement has been pulled back at the southern tip of the property, although Mr. Vignaly noted that work will still be done in the right-of-way. Mr. Beardsley explained that, after meeting with Police Chief Minnich, the Chief agreed that the yield sign on Woodland Street should be changed to a stop sign. The process has begun for the change, which includes reviews by various town departments, the Town Administrator and finally, the Board of Selectmen. A warning sign will be posted on pole #113 on Prospect Street, Ms. Wilson stated. A stamped copy of the traffic study was
submitted.
Additional test pits were dug, with far differing results than the original two. Ms. Wilson explained that the first two pits were dug by an inexperienced soil evaluator and no one from HS&T Group was present to observe. The three additional pits were dug in an area circling the original two, with an observer present from HS&T. It was determined that groundwater was much deeper than the original testing indicated. The results were such that there is no need to change the drainage plan. Ms. Wilson is awaiting the full report of the results of the soil tests, which should arrive tomorrow. The preparer was having problems with her internet connection so she was not able to transmit them in time for
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 2.
September 28, 2011
today’s deadline. Mr. Salate queried whether the DEP regulations require that the results of the original two tests be taken into account. Mr. Amico explained that normally this might be the case, but the additional holes were dug in an area circling the original two, so these more controlled results would be acceptable. Mr. Vignaly asked where the overflow drainage would go and Ms. Wilson stated that it would enter a closed system tying into the drainage in the street. Mr. Frieden noted that it would end up in the drainage easement behind the abutter’s house. Ms. Wilson stated that the drainage system would not increase the flow onto the easement and, in fact, would be less.
Mr. Vignaly took up the issue of pedestrian access. He would like to see a crosswalk across Prospect Street and stairs down from the southern end of the site, leading pedestrians to the crosswalk. Mr. Conger stated that he is opposed to any crosswalk or stairs. In his opinion, he stated, “it would be asking for liability”. Putting stairs in that location, he stated, “would be asking for someone to walk into the intersection”. Mr. Beardsley added that there will be no stop sign for the crosswalk. Chief Minnich stated that stop signs are not meant to be used to slow down traffic, so he resists putting a stop sign where the crosswalk would be located. Mr. Conger noted that the sight distance will be improved for traffic after the grading is completed on the project. Mr. Frieden
asked whether the stone walls will be left and Ms. Wilson replied that an attempt will be made to retain most of the walls. Ms. Paré stated that she is confused about the amount of parking proposed and the square footage of the building. She wants a condition of approval to be that the applicant obtains a written confirmation from the Building Inspector that the amount of parking is adequate for a building housing the proposed number of doctors’ offices and examination rooms. The email sent by the Building Inspector on August 8th stated that no Special Permit was needed for “use” because this will not be a clinic, but office spaces. This email, Ms. Paré stated, does not address the issue of parking required for the proposed number of offices and examination rooms.
Mr. Frieden inquired whether the revised traffic study was done based upon the actual mph traveled and not on 30 mph, which is the legal rate of speed on these roads. Mr. Amico explained that the engineers actually tracked the rates of speed of cars on these roads (not during the rush hour), and the average was actually 31 mph. Trees will be added to the northeast corner of the property, 10’ off the curb line. Mr. Vignaly stated that a condition of approval will be that all signage complies with the Zoning Bylaws. Ms. Wilson will supply the Planning Board with a written description of the proposed signage. Mr. Amico stated that there had been a discussion about limiting the hours for the lighting, some of which will be needed on the building all night. Mr. Conger stated that he prefers
“under lighting the area” and that the lights in the parking area will be off during the night, after business hours.
Mr. Vignaly expressed his displeasure that the deadline of September 21st was missed for the resolution of the remaining issues. Not enough time, therefore, was given for requested documents to be submitted and reviewed. He still has concerns with the drainage and soil test logs have still not been submitted. NRCS data indicate that the soil on site is actually a
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 3.
September 28, 2011
different type than that stated by the soil evaluator. He also has issues with traffic and pedestrian access within the parking lot. Mr. Amico noted that the applicant has requested a waiver for an interior walkway. Ms. Paré stated that she sees no need for an interior walkway in this space. It is not a large area such as that for the Salter School. She queried what problem would actually be solved with the installation of an interior walkway.
In conclusion, Mr. Amico stated that he believes that the drainage and traffic issues have been satisfied and that the second traffic report resolves the sight issues. Ms. Paré noted that the intersection is rated the third worse in town for accidents. Mr. Amico reiterated that stop signs are not intended to be used for speed control and was pleased that Chief Minnich was convinced to agree to change the yield sign on Woodland Street to a stop sign. Mr. Amico reviewed the requested waivers:
Section 3.6-D.1.m & 3.6-D.2.c – Waiver from a Full Traffic Study for the Site
Section 3.6.E.2 – Waiver to have two entrance driveways at corner lot
Section 3.6.E.7 – Waiver from Interior Walkways
VHB recommended the following conditions:
Installation of an R1-1 Stop Sign and painted 12” wide stop line at the Woodland Street traffic island
Installation of a W1-10 Warning Sign on Prospect Street on utility pole #113
Submission of an exterior signage package
Submission of Structural Retaining Wall Plans, stamped by a professional engineer
(Mr. Amico noted that, if the plans are stamped by a PE, there is no necessity for him to review them).
Replacement of any damaged or removed trees along the two residential property lines
Potentially limiting the hours of operation of exterior parking lot lighting
Submission of formal revised test pit logs
Written confirmation from the Building Inspector that a Variance is not required for parking
Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Mr. Frieden, it was unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
Date Accepted:_____________ By:______________________________
Karen Paré
Submitted By:_________________________
Susan Abramson
| 
