Canton, Massachusetts · Saved source text
PB 12-7-11
Saved text from 2 of 10 source pages. Transcription and OCR may contain errors; verify figures and wording against the original.
Source page 1
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
Source page 2
#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