Canton, Massachusetts · Saved source text
PB 11-16-11
Saved text from 3 of 14 source pages. Transcription and OCR may contain errors; verify figures and wording against the original.
Source page 1
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
Source page 2
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
Source page 3
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