Canton, Massachusetts · Saved source text

PB 11-16-11

Planning · Source meeting date: 2011-11-16 · Record 39693

Saved text from 8 of 14 source pages. Transcription and OCR may contain errors; verify figures and wording against the original.

PLANNING BOARD MEETING 
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2011 
SALAH MEETING ROOM 
7:00 P.M. 
TOWN HALL 
 
 
 
MINUTES 
 
Present: Kristin Mirliani, Chairman, Jeremy Comeau, Vice Chairman, Christopher 
Connolly, George Jenkins, Gary Vinciguerra 
 
Chairwoman Kristin Mirliani 
Call to order the Planning Board 
 meeting of November 16, 2011 
Meeting came to order at 7:00 P.M. 
 
st 
1 Item on the Agenda - Overlook Extension, - cancelled 
Second item, - 2740R Washington St. 
 
Attorney Paul Schneiders 
: - We received today from PSC a review of the latest plan. It 
was suggested by members of the Planning Board and members of the Zoning Board and 
Mr. Houston that, if we took that line away that separated the front parcel from the back 
parcels it would make the traffic flow better. The discussion centered on circulation and 
traffic flow, and easements. We have to do two major things we have to combine the two 
parcels, which we have agreed to do and we have to refile with the Zoning Board. We 
respectfully request a favorable recommendation this evening, we can comply with every 
point Mr. Houston has made, we have no problems with any of it. Just to make it clear 
we are going to put a wall between the two uses, so you can’t go from the convenience 
store to the Liquor Store without going outside. 
 
Mr. Choubah - Engineering Group 
: 
He gives a description of the buildings and existing structures and size and their location, 
now. The engineering firm has come up with several site layouts based on meetings with 
the town engineer and the Planning Board. The one selected was the one preferred by the 
Planning Board. To eliminate the existing building in the back and build one combined 
building that would have both the convenience store and the Liquor Store. Change the 
circulation to one way counter clockwise and restrict the entrances to the North Side to be 
“in” only “exit” only on the South Side. In regards to Storm Water Management, all the 
run off from the site is collected by a close drain system that is going to two treatment 
structures on site. Mr. Choubah discussed landscaping and lighting plans, they will be 
supplied by LSI a lighting manufacturer who deals with Gas Stations, they will supply 
the lighting required by the Zoning By-Laws. 
 
 1

Chairwoman Mirliani 
: – asked, if there were anymore questions from the board? 
 
Mr. Jenkins 
 - asks if there are any emergency exits at the rear of the building, and he 
suggests installation of a walkway. 
 
Mr. Choubah 
 - he surmised that they would incorporate that with the landscaping. 
 
Mr. Jenkins: 
 - asked about water mains, if they would be needing PIV 
 
Mr. Choubah: 
- he had spoken with the Fire Chief; they would be speaking to the water 
department to make sure they have enough capacity. 
 
Mr. Jenkins 
: - asked where the snow would be stored 
 
Mr. Choubah: 
 - we have two extra parking spots ninety feet from the building, we 
would store it there. 
 
Mr. Comeau made a motion: 
 to send a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Board 
with the following included. PSC report dated November 16, 2011 for 2740R 
Washington St. also included is a sidewalk for emergency access from the rear of the 
building, snow signage on the first two spaces near the entrance of the lot. 
The motion was seconded by Mr. Jenkins the Board voted 5-0 in favor. 
 
Ms. Mirliani 
 – we will get a letter out to the ZBA 
 
SHORT RECESS 
: 
 
PLYMOUTH LANDING 
: 
 
Ms. Mirliani:Plymouth Landing 
 - Moving on to the next Item on the Agenda 
 
Attorney Matthews: 
 – with Scott Lendheart and Jim Miller, of M&M Engineering 
looking for site plan approval or a positive recommendation for the development of their 
seven residential units at 41 Plymouth St. M&M Engineering and Tom Houston of PSC 
have been discussing issues and plans. I believe that the majority of the substantive 
concerns that they have, have been answered. We are here to answer any remaining 
questions you may have. 
 
Mr Vinciguerra:item #17, 
 – Do we have any site plans, I guess we are gonna talk about 
#18, #19 and #16, 
 those appear to be significant items. 
Ms. Mirliani: 
 – Why don’t we start at the beginning and take them in order. 
Mr. Vinciguerra 
: - I just highlighted four items that appear to be based on Mr. Houstons 
report which are fairly significant. We should talk about those. 
Mr. Sanderson: 
 - Site Storm Water Management and potential drainage problems with 
Item #14, 15, 16, 17 
the Wall St. properties highlight what the Board feels to be critical 
items. 
 2

Mr. Viciguerra: 
 –it would be more appropriate to go thru the whole list 
Mr. Sanderson:Item#4 
 – The first three items, we are satisfied with their response we 
Item#5 
talked about a recommendation of construction hours - we wanted to see if they 
were going to be Townhouses or apartments, we didn’t know the use, we didn’t see it on 
the second set of drawings in order to be consistent with the CCEOD, we raised the issue 
Item#6 
of whether any of the units would be affordable and - they defer that to the Board 
of Appeals 
Mr. Comeau: 
 – There is still no affordable housing in this development is that correct? 
 
Attorney Matthews: 
 – That’s correct; it’s something we have to address when we go in 
front of the Zoning Board. 
 
Mr. Sanderson: Item #7#8#9 
– - we are o.k. with that, - we are o.k. with that, - we had 
a question regarding the porches we are o.k. with that, we were worried about the fire 
access around the side of the building, according to the by-laws it looks like their o.k. 
Item#10 
 - concerning the height of the building o.k. 35ft, is the height. 
Item#11 
 - signage, there will be no sign 
Item#12 
 - regarding open space to be discussed with the Board of Appeals and the DRB 
and the Zoning Board. 
 
Mr. Miller - Item#13 
 - The roof run off is co-mingled with the parking lot drainage and 
the reason for that is the site is so constrained, there really is not a place to put a separate 
area for the roof drains 
 
Mr. Jenkins 
 – Is it a requirement that they be separated? 
 
Mr. Miller 
 – I think it’s a DEP policy 
 
Item #14 
 – we are o.k. with that. 
 
There is some discussion regarding the Policy’s origination and purpose, regarding new 
vs. redeveloped 
 
Mr. Miller 
 - That is a conservation issue. We got a storm water permit 
Item#15+16 
 - regarding Storm Water Management, and roof water recharge, raised site 
and increased porous pavement section to more closely resemble Mass DOT they didn’t 
have calculations to demonstrate the reservoir system would de-water in 72 hours. 
 
Mr. SandersonItem#17&18 
 – , - address what we think are some of the bigger issues, 
particularly the back of the property is being lifted, 2 ½ to 3 ft, there are low areas in the 
back yard at Wall St. we are concerned it won’t drain properly. At the very least we 
would like to see some existing grades extended to the east of the site. 
Item#19 
 - We are looking for the conductivity and permeability of the underlying soils. 
Item#20 
 - Porous pavement discussion, high maintenance low impact design, suspended 
solids subject to impair the proper function of the system. 
 3

Item#21 
 – they agreed to prohibit (inaudi) 
Item#22 
 – is good 
Item#23 
 – is one of the other problems with the porous pavement, according to DEP they 
are not to be used in areas subject to heavy axel loads. 
 
Mr. Miller 
 - I need to contact Mass Highway, and find out about the pavement strength, 
we will upgrade the detail to match the Mass highway specs. 
 
Mr. SandersonItem #24&25 
 - – DEP Guidance with off-set, which they have adjusted 
their plans, so we are o.k. with those two. 
Item#26 
 – Access, circulation and parking recommendations, it may require a waiver 
with the current design. 
 
Mr. Miller 
 – we intended to ask for a waiver 
 
Item#27 
 – referenced the former design which they have cleaned up with the current 
design. 
Item#28 
 – they provided clarification on the fencing which we are o.k. with 
Item#29 
 – we really didn’t get a response to. 
Ms. Mirliani: 
 – Have you contacted the Fire Department, we are not in a position to vote 
tonight, considering the substantial problems we are seeing. 
Mr. Jenkins 
 – discussed the terminology of waiver versus variance in regards to zoning 
by-laws. He sites the strength of the word variance as opposed to the word waiver, in 
regards to street width and access for emergency vehicles. 
Mr. SandersonItem#30 
 – – We want the Fire Chief to weigh in with respect to fire 
protection issues particularly on the back sides of the units whether or not there is enough 
space to get equipment in there or to get people out of there. We recommended he should 
show where the snow storage area should be. 
Ms. Mirliani: 
 - where are you intending to put that? 
 
Mr. Miller: 
 - at the rear 
 
Mr. Sanderson:Item#30 is a variance 
 - 
Item #31&32 
 we are o.k. We recommended either vertical precast concrete or granite 
curbing for the edging. 
Item#34 
 – The revised plan better showed the entry ways to the unit, there was a bit of 
confusion in the first set. 
Item#35 
 – We had a bit of concern that there be vehicular strikes against the former lay- 
out and it looks like the current layout is better. 
Item#36 
 – We recommended a couple of the floor slab elevations be raised, which they 
did do. 
Item#37 
 – We requested a couple of additional spot graves which they also did on the 
second set 
Item#38 
 – o.k. 
Item#39 
 – o.k. 
 4

Item#40 
 – In general we requested that the pavement surface be provided with a little 
more pitch just to avoid puddling which they did. 
Item#41 
 - We requested information regarding the 100 year flood plain. 
Item#42 - 
 We requested the existing water service on Plymouth St. we want to know 
what the size and conditions is. 
 
Mr. Miller: 
 – We changed the plan to show a new service we’ll just abandon the old one. 
 
Mr. Sanderson:Item#43 
 – - They provided schematic gas service which we asked for, 
we are waiting for a letter from the CCDRB. Also on the revised drawing you should 
show the locations of the lights I don’t think they were on the second set. 
Ms. Mirliani: 
 – Do you have a report from the DRB, I don’t think they have sent 
anything to the office. 
Mr. Comeau: 
 – I think they are sending them to the Zoning Board. I have never seen a 
decision from the CCDRB to this Board. 
Mr. Sanderson:Item#45 
 – – We recommended Wallpac they have shielded lenses, with 
no upward projection. They added electrical service to the drawings. We don’t have 
existing sewer inverts on Plymouth St. in the second set of drawings. 
Ms. Mirliani: 
 – Did you speak with the Sewer Department about this 
 
Mr. Miller: 
 – I did, I guess it depends on what’s there, what they are gonna let us do. 
 
Mr. Sanderson:Item#48 - 
 – on we recommend the applicant document the status of the 
required authorization for direct connection to the MWRA sewer. 
Item#49 
 – we want to see some fire flow tests done on the existing Plymouth St. system 
for the water pressure, there will be a separate line for the Sprinkler system. 
Item#50 
 – PIV (Post Indicator Valve) which I guess you’re still seeking direction as to 
where you’re going to locate it. 
Mr. Comeau: 
 – inquires as to why the Fire Department was not consulted on any of this, 
before this board meeting? Answers to these questions weren’t prepared for this 
evenings meeting. 
Ms. Mirliani: 
 – Your responses to us, say we will seek direction from the Fire 
Department, those aren’t things that were just added on Nov. 11, those are your letters 
back to us in regards to Tom’s first letter, so these have been outstanding for weeks. It’s 
important when people say that they are going to do something that it be done. 
Mr. Sanderson:Item#514 
 – – Landscaping and screening we had two. There is 
going to be a landscape design submitted, which hasn’t been submitted yet, just showing 
the planting details and notes, we haven’t seen those yet. 
 
Ms. Matthews: 
 – Commented on the installation of a stockade fence and vinyl fence, the 
vinyl fence being the more permanent of the two. Most of the landscape plans are 
keeping the natural fence in between 55 Wall St and our property. 
 
Mr. Sanderson:Item#53 
 – – We want a pavement construction detail between the old 
and the new pavements at the driveway an along the frontage. It’s just an additional 
construction detail that we didn’t see. 
 5

Item#54 
 – o.k. – sidewalk section 
Item#55 
 – o.k. – pavement section 
Item#56 
 – o.k. – porous pavement section 
Item#57 
 – the applicant was amiable to fencing the site during construction which is 
something we suggested 
Item#58 
 – o.k. - additional detail on roof leader 
Item#59 
 – we requested a detail of the dumpster pad and the enclosure, which they did 
not do. Be more specific regarding use of materials – fencing and pad. 
Item#60 
 – whether or not they need a direct connection to the MWRA system. 
Item#61 
 – we requested some exterior light fixture details, and again maybe that is part 
of the Design Review Process, we still don’t have them. 
Ms. Mirliani 
 – Thanks Dave anyone on the Board? 
Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Comeau 
 – Referenced Zoning By-Law 9.3.2 regarding the 
promotion of Economic Health. And how that ties in with the stability of the town, 
encouraging investment and generating employment etc. 
Ms. Mirliani 
 – she expressed her concerns regarding storm water issues and open space 
issues, and she felt it relevant to review the site plan. 
 
Mr. Miller 
 – he stated he believed the open space was adequate. 
 
Ms. Mirliani 
 – she was not sure it is, and she felt the board needed to take another look 
at it. Ms. Mirliani asked if anyone wished to speak on the topic? 
 
Mr. Ed Justman 
 – (Audience member) I have properties on both sides, the water issue is 
not being addressed, saying that the water is going to go into the ground because of some 
porous cement is just ridiculous (here are some pictures.) The basement of the property 
on Plymouth St. got about 3 or 4 feet of water you keep saying it’s not an issue what I 
suspect is going to happen is that my house is going to get flooded the water has no 
where to go your not putting it anywhere. You’re just saying somehow magically the 
water is going to be absorbed through the porous cement through the ground table into 
the river I don’t think this happens. (the board is given pictures) He reiterates where is the 
water going to go? He further explains the pictures. 
 
Mr. Jenkins 
 – suggests that a drainage line be run down the lower end of Plymouth St. to 
get rid of it. 
 
Mr. Justman 
 – There is a sever water issue here and nobody is addressing it. You can’t 
walk back there without sinking in. Thank you 
 
Ms. Mirliani 
 – Anyone else in the audience. 
Mr. Comeau 
 – Can I assume that you will be in contact immediately with the Fire Chief 
to address the fire issues, and these water issues need to be addressed also? 
 
Mr. Miller 
- yes sir 
 
 6

Mr. Jenkins 
 – I would suggest Madame Chairwoman at this point we not vote on this 
and all the issues that where raised tonight be addressed in plan view not in verbiage. 
th 
Ms. Mirliani 
 – Our next meeting is December 7 do you envision having something 
ready by then? 
 
Mr. Miller 
 – We will try. 
 
Mr. Jenkins 
 – if you get any kind of Documentation from CCDRB could you make sure 
Mr. Sanderson gets a copy. 
Ms. Mirliani 
 – o.k. thank you 
 
Next Item #4Turtle Creek 
 - 
Mr. Connolly recues himself – Attorney Saillent takes a seat on the podium 
 
Mr. Comeau 
 – Town of Canton Planning Board Public Hearing Notice this was posted 
10-27-11 at Town Clerk Office for the record in accordance with the revised order of 
remand in Mass General Laws Chapter 40A Section 9 &16 and in Mass General Laws 
Chapter 41A Section 8.6 & 10.6 of the Canton Zoning By Laws 
Notice is read 
. 
Madam Chairwoman - I make a motion we open the Public Hearing – the motion is 
The meeting comes to order. 
seconded, all in favor - 
Mr. Comeau 
 – I have received the green cards for the certified list of abutters all here 
and accounted for. Postings were published for two consecutive weeks in the Patriot 
Ledger on October 29 and November 9. 
st 
Attorney Saillent: 
 - gives overview of issues regarding “Turtle Creek”. 1 application 
filed in June 2010, final action in May 2011. There was a simultaneous filing 1 for the 
Flexible Residential Development Plan and filing 2 for the Special Permit. She explains 
Land Court filings and procedures; she explains remand and revisions of remand. Case 
thth 
management conference took place on August 17. Remand modification November 9. 
Concerns were: access, open space requirements, and common ownership. She invites 
applicant to present his modifications. 
 
Attorney DeLello: 
 – He states we are here in regards to proposed modifications that 
were submitted for the Special Permit and Definitive Subdivision of the Turtle Creek 
Flexible Development Plan. The proposed modifications were detailed in the letter to the 
th 
Planning Board of October 26. The supports that detail specifically the application of 
those proposed modifications were delivered to the Planning Board on November 10, 
more specifically they were intended to address the basis that the board had laid out in 
their denial back in May as it related to why they believed that application should have 
been denied. There were 5 modifications sheets submitted and what they show is the 
configuration that the open space is satisfied, and it also shows there is a 30 ft. buffer 
zone that wasn’t included in the first calculation. 
 
Ms. Mirliani: 
 – asks Mr. Sanderson if he had a chance to look these over. 
Mr. Sanderson: 
 – says I did, but I didn’t have a copy of the modified remand decision. 
We could not finalize our review until we got a chance to look at that. 
 7

Attorney Saillent 
: – We will get that to you it was just a timing issue. 
 
Mr. Considine 
: - Goes into detail of proposed plan, regarding land usage, usable open 
space, wetland to upland ratios and Zoning issues, water retention facilities, and steep 
slopes. The creation of an ANR he goes sheet by sheet and explains how the land would 
be appropriated. 
Attorney DeLello 
: - He spoke regarding an OptiCom Gate and that Mr. Considine would 
endeavor to improve the existing Village Gate Road, and bring it to a standard that is 
acceptable to the Canton Engineering Department (BOS) and the Town, he asked for 
approval of the Special Permit and Definitive Flexible Development Plan 
 
Mr. Jenkins: 
 – has a problem with the gate issue, he suggests there be a timeline 
attached to its use. He states, if we are going to have the gate there forever, I don’t know 
why were rebuilding Village Gate Rd. If we are going to use a gate a two year timeline, 
I’d buy into that, but not Street acceptance. 
Ms. Mirliani: 
 – What I would suggest is we put a time frame on it, and we say if the 
street is accepted sooner, than the gate will come down sooner at that point. 
Mr. Jenkins: 
 – asks is there a timeline for the rebuilding of Village Gate Road. 
 
Attorney DeLello: 
 - I think the original submission is a phase project, I think the concept 
would be in the second phase. We are proposing this be a three phase project. 
Mr. Considine: 
 - So at the end of phase 2 when we go for acceptance of phase 3 which is 
basically acceptance for release of lots for that paved area that will form phase 3 and we 
will have all of the work done on Village Gate Road at that time. 
 
Ms. Mirliani: 
 – the other issue we need to address is access to 138 it’s mentioned in your 
thth 
October 26 letter, but not mention again in your letter dated the 10 so I just want to 
confirm. 
 
Attorney DeLello: 
 – I thought that the plan as shown demonstrated the open space going 
to the Conservation Commission. . 
 
Ms. Mirliani: 
 – I think it’s a good idea just for clarification sake. 
 
Mr. Considine: 
 - We can make it a condition of the plan, if you so wish we have no 
concerns about that whatsoever. 
 
Attorney Saillent: 
 – I wanted to make sure the Board made a finding that these are 
substantial modifications and comply with section 10.6 and I believe the words in 10.6 
are specific in material changes. You need to make those findings. 
 
Ms. Mirliani: 
 – should we do that before we open it to the audience. 
 
Attorney Saillent 
: – Yes 
 
 8