Planning Board

************************************************************ TAUNTON PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Meeting held at Maxham School, 141 Oak Street ************************************************************* DATE: May 7, 2020 BOARD MEMBERS: Bob Campbell, Chairman Anthony Abreau Arthur Lopes, Vice Chairman John Reardon Manuel Spencer, Clerk Dennis I. Ackerman Brian Carr ADVISORS: Michael Patneaude, City Engineer Kevin Scanlon, City Planner __________________________________________________________________________ Roll Call: Carr, Reardon, Abreau, Lopes, Ackerman, Spencer, and Campbell present. Meeting opens at 5:30 PM. By virtual means. Also present was City Planner Kevin Scanlon. Kevin read statement: “Tonight’s Planning Board meeting is being conducted remotely consistent with Gov. Bakers Exec. Orders due to the current State of Emergency in the CW. In order to mitigate the transmission of the COVID-19 virus, we have been advised and directed by the CW to suspend public gatherings, and as such, the meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Accommodations for public access have been made via livestreaming, and this meeting is also being recorded. This evening there is also a public hearing. Anyone wishing to make a public comments can call 774-406- 5261 when we get to that portion of the hearing.” Cont’d - Public Hearing – 20 Basset St. & prop. I.D. 30-71-0 - A Special Permit from Section 440-1101 of the Zoning Ordinance for a age qualified (55+) residential 110 lot Mobile Home Park entitled “Titicut Estates”, submitted by Matthew Falconeiri. Roll Call: Spencer, Reardon, Abreau, Lopes, Ackerman, Carr, and Campbell. Hearing opens at 5:31 PM Manny stated since he was not hear last month he will not be voting on this. City Planner reads letters from Chris Williams, P.D. Safety Officer and Bob Rego’s rebuttal. Atty. William Rounds, Bob Rego, Jeff Dirk and Matthew Falconeiri was invited into the meeting. Atty. Rounds stated they continued because the Board has concerns with the traffic and they created access off Bay Street and in hopes of it being approved by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Rego stated they added the primary access off Bay Street which will require a small wetland crossing. They moved the clubhouse from Basset Street closer to Bay Street. They also move access to the mailboxes and added 4 parking spaces. There is 19 parking spaces around the clubhouse and they tried to address the concerns of the Water, Sewer and Engineer. Mr. Rego stated they originally had the 40 foot buffer around the entire and they have now added the property lines and the buffer is around that and around the wetlands. He addressed the comment from the Safety Officer and stated they provided a width that is sufficient for 2 way traffic with an occasional on-site parking and emergency vehicles. Mr. Rego stated thy e Bassett Street entrance will be for emergency access only with a gate and notch box and the Bay Street access is the primary access. Jeff Dirk, Vanasse Associates, traffic engineer 1 stated they improved the ability to access in/out from Bay Street which clearly removes traffic from Bassett Street. There will be about 40-50 trips during peak hours from using Bay Street. There will be no increase in cueing on Bassett Street. One of the advantages of using Bay Street is that there is Gatra Bus service. He stated the site lines at driveways exceeds 40 -50 mph. He doesn’t think there will be any detriment along Bay Street. Dennis stated they added more parking and he suggested possibly eliminating 8 units to add more parking. He stated he’s familiar with High Point in Middleboro and they have ample visitor parking. Bob Rego stated he added more parking around the clubhouse. He stated each unit has 2 spaces in garage and 2 spaces behind garage. Arthur stated the entrance from Bay Street is long and curvy. He stated there is minimal impact to the wetland the way they designed it. It was asked how wide the roadway is and it was answered 24 feet wide with 1 foot cape cod berm on each side. Chairman had concerns with the number of buildings. Brian stated he knows there is a need for housing for the older population and he’s aware the residents are looking forward to this. He stated the applicant has changes plans based on our concerns and presented a plan and address the housing need in our community. They have taken care of the traffic issue and increased the parking showing 4 spaces for each unit. He thinks they have put together a good project. Tony concurs with Brian that it’s a good project and they will be looping water main. The Bay Street access will be ungated and the Basset Street access will be gated for emergency vehicles. Chairman Campbell asked if they considered gated both ends? Mr. Falconieri answers they would ideally not have gate at Bay Street because it becomes more of a nuisance, largely because it gets pegged up. John stated he’s in favor of the project. Open public input: no one in favor or in opposition. Public input closed. Motion made and seconded to grant with the following conditions: Condition #1) The plans dated January 24, 2020 and revised through April 16, 2020 shall govern with the following conditions: Condition #2) The Mobile Home Park will be responsible for obtaining an Annual Mobile Home Park License and submitting a Monthly Mobile Home Park Tax to the Board of Health. All dwellings must comply with the Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation, State Sanitary Code, Chapter II. Condition #3) The proposed water work will require DPW Permits including: City Licensed Contractor, Road Opening, and Trench prior to the work starting. Condition #4) DPW Water Division Water Specifications will be required for all materials and installation prior to the acceptance of the water work proposed. Condition #5) All units will be required to have individual radio read water meters, provided by the DPW Water Division ,prior to occupancy. Condition #6) Any retaining walls over 4’ high will require stamped structural design plans. Condition #7) Drainage to be provided to the City Engineer for approval. Condition #8) Provide specific details for cross sections for each proposed detention pond to be reviewed by the City Engineer. Condition #9) Work with the Fire Dept. in cooperation with the City Engineer on number and signage of homes. Condition #10) The Bassett Street access shall be for used for Emergency Access Only and shall be gated with a lock box. Condition #11) Show manholes every 300 LF. For the proposed gravity sewer system Condition #12) Any bridges or culvert designs for the Bay Street access need to be provided to the City Engineer for review. Condition #13) Provide information and dimensions for ponds 4 & 5 to the City Engineer for review. Condition #14) The permittee shall be responsible to completely refurbish the Partridge Circle sewer pumping station in conformity with plans they must submit to the Department of Public Works for approval prior to beginning any utility installations on the project; 2 Condition #15) Any historical or other marker encountered in the construction of the access roadway must be left intact until a plan for its relocation is approved by the DPW. 6 members in favor, 1 member excused. Cont’d Public Hearing – 340 Winthrop St. – Special Permit from Section 440 Attachment #1 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a single family use in a Highway Business District, submitted by Valerie Martin. Roll Call: Carr, Reardon, Abreau, Lopes, Ackerman, Spencer and Campbell. Hearing opens at 7:06 PM Dept.. City Planner Kevin Scanlon reads dept. comments from Conservation Commission, Water, City Planner, B.O.H, and Engineer which were placed on file. Atty. Dan deAbreau representing Valerie Martin and sister Virginia McCrohan who resides on the property. They are requesting under Section 440 attachment 1 of the Zoning Ordinance for a single family in a Highway Business District. The structure has been used as a car lot in the past and they have retired and now wish to convert it to a single family use. They will upgrade gas line, repair chimney and other improvements. They plan to connect to City Sewer. Manny has no objections with the request. Brian asked if we approve as a single family use could they rent it out and Kevin answers yes. John asked about the front yard as it is currently paved. Virginia McCrohan stated they will do whatever the Board wants. They can plant some grass. It was suggested limit the driveway and restore the rest to grass. Public input: No one in favor or opposed. Motion made and seconded grant with Special Permit for a single family use in a Highway District with the following conditions: Condition #1) Any changes to the existing City Utilities would require DPW Permits including City Licensed Contractor, Road Opening Permit and or Trench Permits. Condition #2) The dwelling must comply with the Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation, State Sanitary Code, Chapter II. Condition #3) Property must tie into Municipal Sewer as presented Condition #4) Replace pavement with landscaping with the exception of a minimum of a 16 foot wide paved driveway with access to the existing garage and curb openings. Hearing closed at 7:17 PM Public Hearing – Winthrop St. – Assessor’s lot 101-6 and 31 – for a Special Permit from Section 440 – Att. #1 of the Zoning Ordinance for a two family use on four proposed Lots (8 units total) on Assessors lot 101-6 and 31, Winthrop Street , submitted by Jeffrey Terra. Hearing opens at 6:08 PM Roll call: Carr, Lopes, Reardon,Abreau, Ackerman, Spencer and Campbell. City Planner Kevin Scanlon reads the dept. comments from the Engineer, Fire Dept., City Planner, Water, Veolia Water, Conservation Commission, TMLP and B.O.H. which were placed on file. Letters from Doreen Gracia, Kayla Brophy, John Barlow, 701 Winthrop St., Vincent Muir, 8 Gulliver St. opposed. Jeff Tallman, Sitec Engineer representing Terra Trust. The parcel is a 4.7 acre parcel about 800 feet east of the Dighton Line. The proposal is to divide the lot into 4 lots with a duplex on each lot. In a Highway Business District a Special Permit is required for residential use. There are residence abutting along Burt Street and a condo complex to the west and a few commercial sites to the east, car lot and Willy J’s Pub. Due to the amount of wetland they can’t develop the property. The property is adjacent to the Segregansett River and 3 there is an intermittent stream. They are proposing 4 duplex lots with two 16 foot wide driveway to access lots. It will be paved with a 2 foot shoulder for fire trucks on either side. They will have municipal water and on-site septic. They have not done any soil testings. The intermittent streams negatively affects the commercial development of the site. Its more suite for residential development. The density maximum is 12 units per acre which would be 42 acres and they are only proposing 8 units. They designed the site to be environmentally safe. This proposal allows the petitioner to use the property is the residential manner. Tony asked why aren’t they using the sewer in the street instead of crossing wetlands? Jeff answers they are proposing slab on grade no full foundation. Tony suggests putting in main road instead of 2 driveways right next to each other. Jeff thought it would be too much to request a Special Permit for a common driveway. Jeff asked if they wanted us to do a Form C subdivision (Definitive) and it was answered yes. Manny agrees with Tony and he has had complaints about the water issues and he would like them to connect to sewer. Brian also agrees he would rather see one road 24 feet wide. He asked if the proposed septic system would be for each unit. Jeff answers they would have one septic for each units. Brian asked how are they going to address the water concerns? Jeff stated the property is higher than the abutter’s property and they will be sloping east to west. Burt street property are above grade and so is Indian Ridge Condos. Jeff stated he doesn’t’ see any negative impact on the abutters. Everything is sloping away and there is a high water table. They are not showing any proposed grading. Brian asked will it affect the river and it was answers no but they will have to go to the Conservation Commission. It was asked if they reached out to any abutters? Jeff answers no but he understands their concerns but from of drainage point of view they will have no impact. Dennis suggests tying into sewer and instead of full road maybe a common driveway? Jeff stated they are not opposed to connecting to sewer and he think it will be best suited for common driveway. It will be like a small scaled down condo development. Dennis said the condo docs will have language saying they are responsible for the maintenance of the common driveway. Arthur and Bob both agree they would like to see it serviced by sewer. It was suggested showing a common driveway. The intention of putting sewer in was so residents would use it. He suggests putting one single driveway in instead of the proposed 2. He suggests 24 feet wide. Jeff stated they could do a hammerhead or a T and they will also provide screening along Burt Street lots. Kevin suggest putting the turnaround between lots 1 & 2 because there will be room because they would be eliminate the septic systems. Bob said the site is up and down and would be they be clearing the most of the vegetation? Jeff stated they would file with Conservation Commission under one NOI. He stated it would be condo style complex so they will make every effort to keep the vegetation. Tony suggested putting a 30-40 foot no cut zone along Burt Street. Brian asked how would they put one driveway as opposed to two driveways. Bob stated there could be 4 driveways off the common driveway. Jeff stated they would prefer one common driveway so they would come back and ask for the Special Permit. He would prefer a hammerhead but would like some direction from the Board. He stated a hammerhead is less disturbance to the wetlands. They would design it in a way to maintain as much vegetation as possible. He’s not opposed to the suggested buffer no cut zone. Jeff stated the Board could vote on the Special Permit tonight and then the Special Permit for the common driveway next month. Brian asked what one driveway would look like? Jeff stated they could show a typical 22 wide and Dennis said he would like to set 24 feet wide. Kevin suggests continuing and looking at the project as a whole to keep options open. Chairman Campbell agrees with the City Planner he would like to see both designs. Public Input: No one in favor. Scott Marsden, 1135 Burt St. had concerns with his backyard, puddles and drainage, and concerned 4 with possible lighting affecting his house and asked if there were plan for any fencing. He was informed this will be continued to June 4th. Motion made and seconded to grant a continue until next month to re-advertise for SP for common driveway, and applicant submit 2 sets of plans showing 20 foot no cut zone, connected to sewer and show hammerhead and cul-de-sac. All in favor. Hearing ended at 7:04 PM. Public Meeting- Site Plan Review – 800 John Quincy Adams Rd. - for the construction of additional parking area and associated drainage improvements to support the proposed warehouse use, submitted by BL Companies, on behalf of Amazon. City Planner reads dept. comments from the DIRB, Water Dept, Veolia Water which were placed on file. Susie King, BL Companies, Raymond Francisco, P.E., Property manager, Brad Griggs, Amazon Sr. Mgr. This site will be the last mile distribution 24hrs 7 day a week operation. The proposed improvements include retrofitting the interior of the building to accommodate parking, a new office block and warehouse material handling equipment. The exterior improvements include re-striping the existing pavement areas on the southern and eastern sides of the building and expanding the parking areas on the western and northern sides of the building. Tractor trailer trucks will deliver goods/packages to the warehouse overnight and then the employees will unload the trucks and sort the packages for delivery to the consumer by van drivers. Around 9:00 AM van drivers will arrive at the site in their personal vehicles and get into a van to begin the “Mega-cycle”. Van are coordinated and times so that groups of vans are staging and loading in a cycle so that as soon as one cycle of vans are loaded and leave the site, the next cycle of vans is ready to pull into the loading dock. Sue explains the site has 3 existing driveways and one proposed full access driveway. Driveway 1 will be for van parking and entrance for van loading, Driveway 2 (proposed) will be for van parking, Driveway 3 will have associated parking, and Driveway 4 will be for truck entrance/exit and van loading exit. They will be revising the stormwater management system to follow all the Mass. Stormwater Standards, The proposed drainage design will also provide water quality improvements for the new development of the project and with the addition of subsurface infiltration systems with isolator rows. Water quality best management practices (BMPs) have been incorporated into the project design. They will be adding a few new hydrants. The majority of the improvements are re-striping, install concrete barriers for safe parking zones. Tony stated this is a great project and this will be a good tenant. Public input: no one in favor or in opposition. Manny made and seconded to motion to approve the Site Plan Review with the following conditions Condition #1) That the plans dated April 6, 2020 shall govern with the following additional conditions: Condition #2) Lighting shall not illuminate any portion of abutting properties. Condition #3) The site shall be kept clean and clear of debris. Condition #4) Two sets of as-builts shall be submitted upon occupancy for all work on site and shall include design engineer and land surveyor certification notes stating the development has been built according to the approved plans. Plans will show all construction of buildings, utilities, grades, setbacks etc Condition #5) Two sets of updated plans shall be provided that conforms to this decision prior to Building permit. Condition #6) Dumpsters shall be located on a concrete pad, enclosed with a 6 foot stockade fence, be kept closed at all times and emptied regularly. Condition #7) In the proposed driveway on Robert Treat Paine Drive the existing iron rod with cap shall be replaced as part of the final as-built. Condition #8) City Water Specifications applies as well as City Licensed Contractor, Road Opening and Trench Permits. 5 Condition #9) The project may require 2 existing fire hydrant relocations, 1 new fire hydrant, 1 PIV relocation. The Fire hydrant and PIV relocation and addition will also have to be reviewed and approved by the Taunton Fire Department. Run Brook Circle – request to modify the release of 7 lots – Holding $55,440. Communication from the City Engineer and Greenman-Pedersen, outside consultant were read into the record and placed on file. Chris Moniz was invited into the meeting. He states he prefers to post a performance bond instead of cash surety and it’s allowed under the Planning Board’s Rules & Regs. He states the lots were previously released and now they are ready to start after their contractor as returned from Florida from the winter months. He stated within the next 30 to 40 days they will loam and seed and they have plan in plan in place to get working. Chairman Campbell asked about the retention basins? Chris ans wers they are roughed out, easement next to lot 6 and they have cut out next to lots 25 & 26. Bob asked what happens when the water gets into them and Chris answers all the structures in road are in place. Manny stated the City Engineer recommends having the basins done before nay lot released. Chris said you can vote conditionally that once the basins are in the we can post bond The Board needs to bond amount and what type of bond ? Manny suggests having bond longer period, perhaps 5 years. The Board’s policy is they prefer cash surety rather than posting bond. Chris stated on Nov. 7, 2019 the Board released 7 lots requiring $24,420 for each lot. Chris stated they are requesting to change the surety from cash to bond. Chairman Campbell stated the bond doesn’t cover the whole subdivision. Chris stated the Board will still be holding 17 lots. Dennis suggested posting $200,000 and no building permit will be issued until the basins are in. Kevin stated they cannot enforce a certificate of occupancy and the building dept. cannot either. Chris stated they can only purchased a 2 year bond and they can escrow the cost to complete. Tony stated he did a quick search and said there is a Performance Bond they can post if they have a A_+ 10 rating with a carrier. Chris stated there are different types of bonds. He stated they need certificate instruction from the City. Atty. Rounds stated 7 lots have been previously released and now the developer is changing the type of surety to bond from cash and the Board needs to determine an amount and type of bond. Manny stated he has an issues with accepting a bond because with cash surety it gives the developer an incentive to finish to get money back. He stated he suggests listening to the City Engineer and outside consultant. Brian states he wants to be fair to the developer while still acting in the City’s best interest. Atty. Rounds stated the law stated the developer suggests the type of surety and the Board sets the amount and type of bond. Chris stated they have a good track record and have completed a significant amount of work and the law allows them to post a bond. Chris goes over the completion numbers and he is suggesting posting a $200,000 bond and they won’t come back until a significant amount of work has been done. John states he’s in favor of bond, it’s a good company who has done and complete work in the City, (Bay Street project) Tony suggesting allowing a subdivision bond. Manny has great respect for the contractor but would be more comfortable speaking with the law dept. to seek legal advice. Kevin spoke to the Law Dept. and the Board has to accept a bond if they wish to post it. The Board has no choice in accepting a bond. There was a discussion on an amount. Motion made and seconded to accept a Performance Bond instead of cash surety for the release of lots 2,3,4, 7, 8, 9 and 24 in the amount of $300,00 with no expiration date. If that can be proven unfeasible, the Board will consider a Bond of not less than a 2 year expiration date with a cash escrow to extend the bond for an additional 2 years. The Board voted that the type of bond is subject to the approval of City Solicitor’s Office. The Board suggests researching “a Subdivision Bond” for this purpose amongst other options the law office may be inclined to consider. 6 Public Meeting Site Plan Review – 93 County St. – for the construction of one retail building with a floor area of 4,140 sq. ft. submitted by Horton Street LLC Tony excused. City Planner read dept. comments from the DIRB, Water Dept., City Engineer, TMLP, Veolia Water, Historic District Commission, Fire. John DeSousa, SeaCoast Consulting LLC was invited in. He stated the site has been approved for a Retail Marijuana and now this is the Site Plan Review. They originally showed 2 buildings but have removed one and they flipped it. The provided their revised plans to the DIRB but the layout hasn’t’ been changed that much. Chairman Campbell asked about the building foundation elevation? John stated FEMA trending upward and so the wall touches elevation of 13 feet . They will bring up grades a little due to the floodplain. Brian asked if they plan on putting any signage? There was discussion as to whether or not Putnam Pipe has a free-standing sign because if they did they would need to allow this company to go on their as there is only one free-standing sign per lot. Public Input opens: No one in favor or opposition. Public input closed. Motion made and seconded to Grant the Site Plan Review with dept. comments and the following: Condition #1) That the plans dated March 23, 2020 shall govern with the following additional conditions: Condition #2) Lighting shall not illuminate any portion of abutting properties. Condition #3) The site shall be kept clean and clear of debris. Condition #4) Two set of as-builts shall be submitted upon occupancy for all work on site and shall include design engineer and land surveyor certification notes stating the development has been built according to the approved plans. Plans will show all construction of buildings, utilities, grades, setbacks etc Condition #5) Two sets of updated plans shall be provided that conforms to this decision prior to Building permit. Condition #6) Dumpsters shall be shown on the plan, located on a concrete pad, enclosed with a 6 foot stockade fence, be kept closed at all times and emptied regularly. Condition #7) Retaining walls over 4 feet require stamped structural design plans. The current provided details is not sufficient. Condition #8) Dumpers shall be shown on the plan, located on a concrete pad, enclosed with a 6 foot stockade fence, be kept closed at all times and emptied regularly. Condition #9) The final drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any building permits. Condition #11) A landscape plan in conformance with Section 440-702 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted and approved prior to any building permits. Condition #12) Compliance with Conservation Commission Order of Conditions #2736. Condition #13) An updated deed and plan reference for the lot shall be provided. Condition #14) A surveyor’s stamp is required on the plan. Condition #15) City Water Specifications would apply as well as City Licensed Contractor, Road Opening, and Trench Permits. Condition #16) The services would have to be dedicated to each lot individually, and the hydrant at the end of the main extension for flushing purposes. Condition #18) Future reference for this proposal should use 83 County Street address until the lot is subdivided and the new parcel is given a new address. Condition #19) That pavement markings be utilized at the transition from one-way to two-way operation to better guide vehicles to the correct path; Condition #20) That regrading or a free-standing wall be utilized to ensure that the 1% flood elevation will not extend to the building, should the flood elevation rise as expected. Brian brought up information regarding performance bond as opposed to cash surety. He asked what rights does the planning Board have and he thinkd maybe the City Solicitor can educate us? And perhaps the Board can consider changing their rules regarding performance bonds. 7 Motion made and second to forward a letter to the Law Dept. inquiring about the rights are of the Planning Board relative to its regulations concerning performance bonds. Also consider modifying the rules so the Planning Board has control of what type of surety is acceptable. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 PM 8