Canton, Massachusetts · Saved source text

PB 12-7-11

Planning · Source meeting date: 2011-12-07 · Record 39694

Saved text from 7 of 10 source pages. Transcription and OCR may contain errors; verify figures and wording against the original.

PLANNING BOARD MEETING 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2011 
7:00 P.M. 
SALAH MEETING ROOM 
TOWN HALL 
 
 
MINUTES 
Present: Kristin Mirliani, Chairwoman, Jeremy Comeau, Vice Chairman, Gary 
Vinciguerra, George Jenkins, 
 
Also Present: Thomas Houston, PSC 
Winifred Smith, Secretary 
The Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. 
 
 
 Plymouth Landing 
1.First thing on the agenda is it has been adjourned at the 
th 
applicants request and will be on the agenda for January 4. 
 
 Next Item -530 Turnpike St. James MillerM&M Engineering 
2. -, 
 Proposed Development Plan. This is a site plan approval for a warehouse. 
The road is owned by the applicant owner NECI and they have granted 
easement right to the condo areas in the rear. He has asked Zoning for a 
variance regarding frontage and parking. He shows standard construction 
details on the site plan, he needs more details on that and some things have 
been left of the drawings. 
th 
Ms. Mirliani 
, asks if January 4 is o.k. for him to return 
th 
Mr. Miller 
 asks to come back January 18. 
 
 Next Item – Pine Knoll 
3. – Boathouse Road Lot Release 
Mr. Marathas has not arrived yet, a motion was made to move him to later on 
the Agenda – motion is seconded and passed 
 
 Next Item - Overlook Road 
4. – Attorney Richard Staiti – it is cancelled. 
 
 Next Item – Turtle Creek – 
5.Attorney Salliant takes a seat at the podium, Mr. 
Comeau reads two letters received the first of December, from seven abutters, 
in the vicinity of Wayside Lane, with questions and concerns regarding 
Village Gate Road. The second letter is from Attorney Mooney. 
 
Mr. Vinciguerra 
 reads a third letter from Attorney Mooney dated December 
th 
6 all letters were distributed to all board members and concerned parties. 
Attorney DeLello 
, states that he has received commentary for Mr. Houston’s 
office, it was a thirteen item submission, in large part we are in agreement. 
Mr. Houston 
 – this morning we verified his receipt of our letter. I will just 
address our memorandum, not having had a chance to review Mr. Considines 
 1

#1 
responses this relates to the applicants rights to utilize the Goodman 
property a letter was received from Mr. Goodman. We suggested a copy 
should be provided to Town Council for their review. 
Attorney DeLello #2 
– We have provided that to town council evidence prior 
to construction the agreement did occur. 
Attorney Saillent 
– Did receive a copy of the exchange agreement. 
Mr. Houston - #3 
comment 3 relates to an ANR Plan, the plan divides the 64 
acres, into 3 parcels, A,B,C, parcels A&C being created for the purpose of 
conveying those parcels to the Conservation Commission, for use as open 
space, the remaining parcel B is to be used to develop the “Turtle Creek 
Flexible Sub-division. Parcel B does exceed the minimum tract size required 
for Flexible Development in the SRAA district. 
Mr. Comeau – 
asks what would be done to the portion of the property where 
“Balancing Rock” is located. He asks if Mr. Considine has had a chance to 
speak with the Conservation Commission or Historical Commission. 
Mr.Considine 
 – states that he has not, he will defer to the Planning Boards 
best judgment. The issue is related to Item #3 Parcels A&C are going to be 
outside the Flexible Development, we intend to convey those to the 
Conservation Commission. 
Mr. Houston 
 –Parcels A&C should be conveyed at an early stage, also these 
two parcels would substantially preclude any access to 138. 
MrJenkins 
. – Asks if a right of entry would be obtained. 
Mr. Considine 
 – In order to convey these parcels to conservation requires 
town Meeting approval, which creates a logistical issue for me, making it a 
condition that it’s done prior to construction it may preclude me from 
developing this till after July of 2012. It’s all wetland, our drainage is 
contained within the remaining sub-division, and the issue is the timing. 
 MrJenkins 
. – town meeting action doesn’t be come law till the A.G. 
approves it. That could go into July or August. 
 Attorney Saillent 
– asks regarding Item #4 and the timing, fear of access to 
138 can’t that be handled in a different manner. 
 MrHouston 
. – It’s the principal, that the proposal be locked up legally at an 
early stage in the process. That idea is further reflected in comment#5 which 
mentions parcels A,C,D&E being conveyed. 
 MrConsidine 
. – We are open to any language counsel might suggest relative 
to limiting access over those parcels to 138 for any reason as it relates to 
Item#5 
 which is slightly different, parcels A&C not withstanding there are 
other parcels in the sub-divisions that are part of the Flexible Development 
have to be addressed one of those parcels contains all of our drainage and 
retention facilities that is part of the homeowners Trust and that stays in the 
Homeowners Association they are responsible for maintaining those systems, 
that was our understanding. 
Mr. Houston#6 
 - verification of open space in parcel B comprises 37.14% 
#7 
which exceeds the minimum required by the Zoning Law of 30%. 
verification of what we have defined as usable open space exceeds 15% of 
Parcel B and the usable open space as it is calculated excludes land 
 2

encumbered by steep slopes open storm water management impoundment 
areas and the 30 ft. no touch buffer zone, adjacent to the wetland. 
#8 
this regards the physical gate that is to be place at the termination of the 
current gate. PSC suggested Ballard or some other deterrent be installed 
along with the gate. PSC needs a structural design for the foundation of the 
gate. 
Mr. Considine – 
We can satisfy the issue of cars getting around the gate. The 
control system for the gate is Opti-Com. 
Mr.Houston#9 
 – Opti-Com is a communication device it receives a signal 
from emergency apparatus, and that what tells the gate to open. 
#10 
We have identified a requirement for what would be a modification for 
the prior waiver, granted for the length of the dead end street system. The 
waiver needs to be revisited (modified) to reflect the new street length. 
#11 
 as a condition of having placed the gate at the end of Village Gate Road, 
we have created a dead end street on the other side of the gate. We 
recommend a cul-de-sac or other turn around capability be provided at the 
terminus of Road B. until such time as the gate is removed. 
Mr. Considine 
 – We suggest expanding the path that is next to the gate so 
you could pull up and turn around. That would satisfy the requirement; also 
we suggest putting up a dead end sign. 
Mr. Houston 
 – #12 The current proposal would require only access for 
emergency vehicles until such time as the gate where removed that would be 
predicated on Village Gate being accepted as a public way. 
Attorney DeLello 
– To the extent that the board approves the plan as an 
emergency access, the pass-repass would be limited to the residence. We 
reserve all rights Mr. Considine would have with respect to his position. 
MrConsidine 
. – if the board recommends to place a gate there we would 
accept it as a condition of the Boards approval. 
MrHouston 
. - #13 is a recommendation that prior condition and approvals be 
carried forward and used as conditions of approval on the action now before 
the board if that action is voted upon favorably by the Board. 
MsMirliani 
. – asks if there are any comments from the Board. 
 
Asksifanyone in the hall wishes to speak on this. 
 
Eric Lane, 25 Wayside Lane 
 – asks for feedback regarding the letter he 
submitted to the Board. 
 
Attorney Saillent 
 – She goes over the remand procedure again she says 
remand is not unusual, and the procedure is limited to the modifications 
proposed. She reads the questions from the abutters and answers them in the 
context of the remand procedure. 
 
Eric Lane 
 – I just want to be clear the reason the gate is proposed at the end 
of Village Gate is for safety reasons, it has nothing to do with the means of 
egress, and the ability of the applicant to pass over into his development. 
 
 3

Attorney Saillent 
 – Access and safety are the concerns of this Board when 
rendering a decision on a Flexible Development. 
 
Eric Lane 
 – a question regarding a non-disclosure agreement by the land 
court between Mr. Considine and Mr. Goodman 
 
Attorney Saillent 
 – I think you misheard there is a confidential agreement 
which is not part of the public record concerning a portion of the property, 
which will be alienated from someone to Mr. Considine, I was concerned with 
the timing of the passing of paper. But that has to do with the issue of 
Common ownership. 
 
Arthur Richmond, 21 Village Gate Road 
 - a point of information you talk 
about safety and access, what does safety have to do with access, it’s a private 
road? If you don’t have access there is no safety issue. 
 
Attorney Saillent 
 – We are not of the same mind, I view your question as 
rhetorical in nature. 
 
Charlie Cox 20, Village Gate Road 
 – Gives hand-outs explains hand-outs, 
gives dimensions of Roads. I agree that there has been no vehicular access by 
the general public to balancing rock. He continues to explain his photos, his 
point is regarding access, heavy equipment and the construction of a gate and 
vehicular traffic. 
 
Mr. Jenkins 
 – asks if any of the photos show the layout beyond the cul-de- 
sac the layout of the Road. He doesn’t receive a direct answer he concludes 
that line of questioning. 
 
Mr. Cox 
 – continues with discussion of wording of Public Notice questions 
ownership does it meet the requirements of the By Laws. 
 
Mr. Comeau 
 – it is owned solely by Mr. Considine 
 
Mr. Cox 
 – disputes the ownership issue he believes they are three different 
entities. He asks if the public will get to see the Goodman agreement, he is 
not willing to take the Boards word or the Attorney’s word. According to the 
By-Laws he states its one owner one parcel legally deeded, not three different 
entities with documents we can’t review. 
 
Attorney Saillent 
 – the document itself provides for a written modification 
regarding alienation. I believe that is exactly what is going to be happening 
here. You will not be seeing the confidential agreement. 
 
 4

Pat Johnson 1350 Washington St 
 –questions, there is some confusion as to 
the cost to the Town regarding road acceptance and bringing the road up to 
code. 
 
Ms. Mirliani 
 – The best assurance we can give you, if we were to accept a 
road at Town Meeting it would be up to Code, unless there were some 
extenuating circumstances. 
Mr. Comeau 
 – Reads from the proposed list of conditions which includes 
section#26, which states roads would be approved by both the Planning Board 
and the Board of Selectman only if the entire length of roads were up to 
standard in compliance 
 
Mr. Craig Randall 16 Way Side Lane 
 – asks about gate at the end of Village 
Gate Road, which will divert 100% of the traffic to his Street. I can’t assume 
that gate will ever come down; the road is not in condition to drive more than 
5 miles per hour. 
 
Ms. Mirliani – 
the gate is not intended to be there in perpetuity. The proposal 
is three years or until the road is accepted which ever comes first. 
Mr. Comeau 
 – road improvements will not commence until written 
authorization has been provided by the Road Commissioners of the town, the 
time frame is after completion of phase 2 of the “Turtle Creek Flexible 
Development” and before release of lots in phase 3 
 
Mr. Randall 
 – asks for clarification, construction truck will damage the Road 
further. He doesn’t believe Way Side Lane can take all the traffic without 
sustaining considerable damage. 
 
Mr. Jenkins 
 – responds with clarification of lot release and road acceptance 
bringing the road up to standards, and again the removal of the gate. 
 
Mr. Cox 
 – asks question regarding Title Insurance issues and the developer 
for the project and access. He states he would like the proponent to include 
valid title insurance to all parcels showing he has all rights and means to 
Village Gate Road and Wayside Lane, that would protect the towns interest. 
 
Mr. Jenkins – 
I have never heard of that before Title Ins. or bond 
Attorney DeLello 
 – Nor have we, we would not be inclined to acquiesce to 
such a request by the Board. 
 
Mr. Cox 
 – asks will title insurance be required at some point, isn’t it 
something the applicant will have to provide anyway to the residence who buy 
those properties. 
 
 5

Attorney DeLello 
 – Madam Chair for what it’s worth we have bank financing 
on the property, and we also have title insurance, respectfully the commentary 
seems to be diverting away from the modified proposal of the remand. 
 
Mr. Cox 
 – asks if the title insurance is on the Turly parcel or all the parcels 
 
Attorney Saillent 
 – This is not a full blown lets go at the Developer for things 
we want to see. This is a modification of remand. 
 
Fred Martin (resident of Dedham) 
 – I spoke before regarding Balancing 
Rock I spoke with Mr. Considine, we had the site looked at by the New 
England Antiquities Association. He read a recommendation from the 
Association. Their recommendation was to preserve it and some of the 
surrounding area, including Pinnacle Rock. He hoped that recommendation 
would be forwarded to the Historical Commission and the Conservation 
Commission. 
Mr. Comeau 
 – Make a motion to close the public hearing. 
Motion is seconded vote 4-0. Hearing is closed 
Madam Chairwoman – Let’s start with the Special Permit. I make a motion 
Special Permit 
we approve the under section 8.6 Flexible Development of 
Canton Zoning By Laws that we approve the Plan “Turtle Creek Definitive 
Flexible Residential Sub-Division”. 
Ms. Mirliani 
 – is there a second Mr. Jenkins seconds all those in favor 4-0 in 
favor. 
Mr. Comeau 
 – Make a motion we approve the Definitive Sub-Division for 
“Turtle Creek at Village Gate Road” with the following: 
Waiver 
 
#1 NGVD Seconded – vote -4-0 
#2 Sidewalks Seconded – vote -4-0 
#3 St intersection Seconded – vote -4-0 
#4 Road slope Seconded – vote -4-0 
#5 3.4.7.6 Centerline Seconded – vote -4-0 
#6 3.4.8.2 Road Length Seconded – vote -4-0 
#7A 3.4.11.1 Granite Curbing Seconded – vote -4-0 
#7B 3.4.11.2 Reveal Seconded – vote -4-0 
#8 3.4.12.3 Curbcuts Seconded – vote -4-0 
#9 3.4.9.4 Center Island Seconded – vote -4-0 
#10 3.4.6.5 Intersect @right angle Seconded – vote -4-0 
#11 3.2.3.4 cut shall not exceed 60,000 cu.yds Seconded – vote -4-0 
#12 3.4.5.1 pavement width 22ft. Seconded – vote -4-0 
#13 3.4.9.1 cul-de-sac @terminus of dead ends Seconded – vote -4-0 
 
Ms. Mirliani 
 – moving to the conditions next 
Mr. Comeau 
 –no access to Rt. 138 via the system of roads in the Turtle 
Creek system, and the restriction runs with the land in perpetuity, he asks to 
add the provision for the gate into #37 asks for the language. 
 6

Attorney Saillent 
 – and it shall be located as proposed, until Village Gate Rd. 
is accepted as a Public Way or 3 years has expired from, whichever is sooner. 
Ms. Mirliani 
 - I would propose it should go up when the road work begins 
and access is necessary, whenever emergency vehicles need to get in there. 
And it comes down before release of lots in phase 3. 
MrConsidine 
. – This is what we said, at the completion of phase 2 and 
before release of lots of phase 3, we will have all of the improvements made 
to Village Gate Road. 
The discussion continues regarding the removal of the gate 
. 
Attorney Saillent 
– Let’s take a look at #37 and add the following clause she 
reads #37, emergency access gate as proposed will be fitted with the Opti-Con 
control system to facilitate the passage of temporary first response vehicles 
and it shall be located as proposed until, 1: Village Gate Road is accepted as a 
Public Way 2: prior to the release of any lots in phase 2 or phase 3 or 3 years 
which ever comes first. 
MsMirliani 
. – we need a start date, when it goes up add the language, the 
gate will be installed prior to any lot release. 
Mr. Comeau 
 – Madam Chairwoman, I make a motion we approve “Turtle 
Creek Definitive Plan, with the following conditions, he reads the conditions 
and they are voted on. 
Conditions #1 - #36 seconded- voted 4-0 passed. Conditions #37 is 
opposed by Mr. Jenkins 
Mr. Considine – 
addresses the matter of surety 
Mr. Houston – 
you determine the amount of surety by segments of road for 
which lot release is being requested. That’s predicated upon the status of 
construction at the time when lot release is requested. 
Attorney Saillent – 
 asks in your experience would it be adequate to indicate 
appropriate surety will be required, without specifying an amount. 
Mr.Houston 
 – if the Board feels it’s necessary it can be done. 
Mr.Considine 
 – I’m speaking from past experience, regarding surety, in 
some cases the Board has required passbook savings or trilateral agreements. 
So the wording Tom used is adequate. 
MrHouston 
. – release of lots shall be predicated upon posting of adequate 
surety for the sub-division improvements required to support the lots release. 
Mr. Comeau – 
move the recommendation of the engineer is terms of the surd 
Seconded voted 4-0 
 
Ms. Mirliani – with the exception of the gate all our other votes were 4-0. 
Mr. ComeauI make a motion to approve the Definitive Sub-Division 
 – 
Plan, 
 in accordance with the conditions we have just approved. I refer to the 
“Plan” 
 as submitted. 
Seconded voted 4-0 
 
Attorney DeLello – 
My understanding is from tonight there is now thirty 
days to have a written decision filed with the Town Clerk, thereafter 10 days 
to file with the Judge. 
 7