MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2004
The Planning Board meeting was held beginning at 8:00 p.m. in room 105-C, Norfolk Town Hall with Planning Board members Arthur A. Spruch, Steven G. McClain, Thomas C. Poppey and Thomas M. Burke along with Thomas C. Houston of Edwards and Kelcey and Gino D. Carlucci, Jr., of PGCA. Robert E. Nicodemus and Andrea Langhauser were absent from this meeting.
The first appointment of the evening was with the development of Norfolk Commons, Phase I. The applicant Eastern Development was represented by Jim Lamp, along with Lisa Davis, planner, Lisa Davis Associates, Mark Dooling, architect, Dooling & Company Architects, Ken Staffier, engineer, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin and Attorney Carmine Tomas of Goulston & Storrs.
Mr. Tomas began the meeting by giving some background on the development for the benefit of the two newly elected planning board members. The Planning Board has currently approved a planned multi-lot development, a subdivision and a site plan. Renderings of the previously approved site plan was shown as well as what the project is evolving into. There were to be no announcements yet as to what tenants will occupy the buildings. However, the largest building is designated as a supermarket, a pharmacy in the building which will be next to the Town Hall and buildings along Main Street which will potentially be a national chain restaurant and boutique-type stores. Attorney Tomas told the Planning Board that he was looking to give them a sense of the changes. He showed the currently proposed clustering of
buildings, sidewalks, landscaping and parking. The applicant felt that the town roundtable had worked very well. There had been quite a few iterations along the way. Originally the corner building had been proposed to be a restaurant, however it seems that there may not be enough parking for that use.
Mr. Staffier showed that he felt that the biggest change had been with the supermarket. There had been a need to acquire additional land. The new layout created pedestrian plazas and livelier streetfronts. The applicant had taken advantage of the recent zoning changes. The setback of the buildings will give larger sidewalks with landscaping. Easements have been discussed with the town.
Mr. McClain asked the applicant about the discussions between the parties and the MBTA with regard to parking. Mr. Lamp stated that the document had been signed by the developer, the town and then forwarded to the MBTA. It has not been signed by the MBTA and Mr. Lamp will be following that progress. Mr. McClain then asked about the loading dock at the supermarket and the ability for emergency access. Any conflicts on this would be a determination made by the Planning Board.
Discussions ensued on the design of the supermarket and its location facing the roadway. Window boxes may be incorporated into the design of this building. This building is to be occupied by a regional or national tenant but design standards are in the by-laws. Discussion began for a joint meeting between the Planning Board and the Design Review Board with the applicant. Mr. Spruch said that he wanted to see landscaped islands on the endcaps of the islands. It was agreed that acres of paving was not attractive and was not what was desired.
A timeline was discussed on submission of the modifications. The first would be the PMLD which would be submitted sometime in late August. An additional submission would come in September and the last in October. Mr. Carlucci was asked to look at zoning with respect to the PMLD submission and to provide an e-mail to the Board for their review. A date of August 19, 2004 was established with the parties for their next discussion and a request was made to the Planning Administrator to contact the Design Review Board for their participation.
Next on the agenda was the Lampasona Concrete Corp. site plan application which had been continued from July 1, 2004. Mr. Ed Ryberg of Land Tech General Contractors and the applicants, Tony and P.J. Lampasona along with their architect, John Parmentier of Dunn-McKenzie, Mr. Lyons of Lyons Architects. To give background was the developers of the property, Luke Joannides and Tim Jones and their engineer, Jim DeVellis of Geller-DeVellis. Submitted on July 15, 2004 were revised plans, calculations and responses to the feedback received from the Board and its consultants. As it was pointed out, the property now consists of parcel 2A and 2B. Parcel 2A being the lot that the applicant is actually developing.
The balance of the property will be in one ownership, Luke Joannides. Mr. Spruch reminded that the application was for two pieces together and without that it is not valid. Mr. Ryberg concurred and said that the strategy here was to keep the project moving and not to have it held up by the overall subdivision was to create a legal lot with frontage on Route 1A. Mr. Spruch agreed. Mr. Ryberg gave reference to the Purchase and Sale Agreement. As the subdivision is approved and begins its construction, lot 2B will be returned back to the seller to be developed as the secondary road of the subdivision. In developing the lot we looked at the frontage as being on the future subdivision road which currently does not exist. It was pointed out weeks ago that right now the frontage is on Route 1A and this is
all technically driveway. In order to avoid bringing all of this up to driveway standards and then tearing it all up for subdivision road standards, it is the applicant's approach is to develop the lot as a stand alone contemplating as a future subdivision and merely extending the road and the utilities to serve the lot at this time. In the submission of revised comments, the applicant has asked for some waivers. Drainage issues that were brought up have been addressed.
Mr. Spruch said that he had gone out to see the site. He said that there are drainage structures throughout the street. Mr. Ryberg agreed. He said that he did not bother to figure pre and post calculations. He felt that maybe they were even reducing drainage by what they were doing on the lot. Dunn-McKenzie would address later, but they had placed some French drains.
Mr. McClain had a question with regard to the paved surface of the driveway. He was shown on the plan.
Mr. DeVillis, a civil engineer of Geller-DeVellis, hired by Tim and Luke to work on the other parcels. He explained the progress on the plans. He felt that there would be a few more weeks before the plans would be submitted and then took questions from the Planning Board about easement issues and grading. Currently there are some significant grades at the Lampasona site.
There is a total of thirty acres with an existing warehousing facility which was shown by Mr. DeVellis.~ A plan of the property was shown.~ Mr. DeVellis stated that it was his objective to come before the Planning Board with a preliminary plan that meets all of the current zoning in a few weeks.~ Mr. Spruch asked about grading and profiles and how that would be affecting the site and the Lampasona project.~ He told Mr. DeVellis that without that information, there would have to be easements granted and the Planning Board would have to place conditions on that.~ Mr. DeVellis stated that they had looked at that but did not have that information at this time but that they were not looking to impact the Lampasona site.~
Mr. Ryberg then asked the engineer, Chris McFarland, from Dunn-McKenzie to respond to the comments of Edwards and Kelcey.~ A letter dated July 15, 2004 had been sent and the responses were shown on the plan by Mr. McFarland.~ In reviewing the comments, the wetlands by the driveway were noted and it was stated that a determination from the Conservation Committee may be necessary.~
There is issue with substantial grading changes, the utilities that will have to be replaced if you extend the water mains anyways.~ Waivers had been requested.~ Is the water department going to be looking for something more than just the main in.~ The fireflows are going to drive it.~ If they make a determination that the fireflows have to be X versus Y, then it is going to drive the size of that main out there.~ He asked Mr. Ryberg if he had spoken with the Water Department on the subject.~ He responded that he had not.~ Mr. Spruch voiced his concern.~
Mr. Ryberg again stated that the applicant is looking to get started as soon as possible and reflected on the current weather and what was to come.~ The Planning Board asked their consultants about comments.~ Edwards and Kelcey has yet to complete their review.~ As an outstanding issue, there is the EK comments, which are yet to come as well as PGCA comments also.~
Mr. Spruch said that there needs to be some way of addressing the site, access to the site and the shared access to the others.~ Mr. Ryberg said that there were waiver provisions in the Purchase and Sale Agreement and with the applicants consent, the document was provided to the Planning Board during the meeting.~
Mr. Spruch made a motion to close the Lampasona Concrete Corporation pending receipt of the consultants comments, both Edwards and Kelcey and PGCA. Second by Mr. McClain. The vote was unanimous.
The Planning Board scheduled an appointment with applicant, Billy Hewitt of the Gordon Road subdivision for next Thursday evening, July 29, 2004 at 8:30 p.m. to discuss the performance bond and lot release.
The Planning Board met with Attorney Robert Shelmerdine representing Intoccia Development on the Christina Estates subdivision. Accompanying Mr. Shelmerdine was John Parmentier of Dunn-McKenzie and Richard Andrukonis, Intoccia Construction, who has done work on the landscaping and the trees. The discussion revolved around the detention basins and the recent testings and the soil analysis. Mr. Parmentier made a presentation to the Planning Board saying that Evergreen Road was a sandpit, cross the wetlands as you go up Cypress where the soil changes completely. There is a till ridge and along the soil changes. We scoured the area doing four years of testing. His testing occurred mostly on the ridge before he was with Dunn-McKenzie and before that Jim Dunn had done all of the testing in the Evergreen area. He spoke on the different types of soils that were found and how it was to get a perk for them. There are pockets of sand. He said that when he looked back on historically
where the borings were done, I looked at a map and plotted them all and they didn't actually drill in the basins, #4, 5 and they missed 3, 6 and 7. They were close to #9 but not inside it. They are out front. They drilled on the street on Applewood and they also drilled halfway to the basin from the street. They did hit in the street in an area where I know is very sandy. Structured sand. Right at that point it changes. When you get to the Willow Place side of the ridge and you come down that hill, it is a very compact hill. It was noted that there are several basins there, #4, 5, 6 and 7. Strangely enough between 6 and 7 there is an area of gravel. It was striking because if you move up in front of 52 you have the till. If you go behind 51 where basin #7 is located I think that you miss the gravel. We dug down into the basin of #7 and it was dry on the detention side and the water quality side was still getting
infiltration from the groundwater drainpipes. We dug down ten feet or so into the bottom and we thought that we could attempt a perk test, elevations, that didn't work. We went down deeper because we thought the soils were looser. When we were in that till even though it appeared looser or not as compact as the crust on top, the perk would not move. The soil there that day was saturated. Water had settled down through there. It has to go down in through that soil very very slowly. One other thing that doesn't encourage infiltration of basin was the loam that had been placed in the bottoms. That is an impediment between the flow of water down to the soil plus unless you have a healthy root system and so forth. In basin #7 you have that grass growing in there but I don't see that being helpful because the loam is at least six or seven inches thick. That is generally the picture that I have and I have some views in my mind as
to what needs to be done. What will probably is happen is that the Board will probably want to sit down and mull over the different options and look at everything and decide what to do. Mr. Spruch said that he would want the proposal to come from the applicant's side and to suggest solutions. Mr. Shelmerdine agreed and stated that he did need guidance. He said that he would provide three suggestions on each of the basins. Mr. Spruch gave guidance to Mr. Houston that the outcome of his review would not be to prevent the solution but to encourage Edwards and Kelcey to come up with some suggestions that would improve the situation. He asked Mr. Shelmerdine when he would be submitting his suggestions. Mr. Shelmerdine said that he would do that on Monday or Tuesday. He stated that he wanted this to be done during the month of August. He wanted to have the month of July to know where he was going. Mr. Parmentier asked if he could
deal directly with the consultants. The Planning Board agreed that anything that would be going to the consultants would come to the Town Hall at the same time. It was decided that Mr. Shelmerdine would appear next on Thursday evening, July 29, 2004 at 8:45.
Mr. Shelmerdine then said that Lopes had done the sidewalk on Willow, that the gravel was down about halfway down Willow and that they are continuing to do that and to have pavement go down. Landscaping is being done and that the trees have been planted. Mr. Spruch mentioned that there were a lot of trees missing from the review that they had done. Mr. Shelmerdine said that it depended on the street. Mr. Shelmerdine addressed his requests for inspection and for bond releases. He said that a bond for Cypress or Willow had never been done. They have now done that. The facade/stone veneer is done. He said that that was $70,000 on Cypress. The applicant is now officially asking for a lot release and for bond inspection. Mr. Spruch said that this will be looked at and until the basins are
resolved we have to put a number to that and we don't know what number to put to that. Maybe by the end of next week if there is some ideas on the solutions then we may be able to apply a number to that.
Mr. Shelmerdine understood and said that within the next several weeks he hoped for that with continuing input from the applicant. He said that he did have a desire for Evergreen, which has now been done for two years and Cypress, which is almost that amount. Massachusetts Avenue which has been done for two years now. Applewood and Willow are a little bit different, but on those three streets we are going to want street acceptance. There are no basins on Cypress. Evergreen is okay. Massachusetts Avenue does have a basin but it is one of them out of three. It is basin 3 on lot 25. You will take this into consideration when you are posting the bond for Willow. We will post of all the money at the same time within the next month or so. On those three streets there is only one basin and
we would like to come up with a number for that. We are trying to get that set up for street acceptance. I understand that they have to be perfect. Mr. Spruch said that the thing that would hold off, even if we accept it, would be the trees. They need to go to a season so what we usually do is put a separate fund set aside for that so that we can go ahead with the street acceptance. As soon as the season goes by and we know that they live then we will release the rest of that. Mr. Shelmerdine understood and said that that is done in other towns and that if the applicant has to then they will add basin three as well. Mr. Spruch said that he was more concerned with that. Mr. Shelmerdine addressed that the warrant was opened and he wanted to know the procedure. Warrant closes August 23, 2004. Mr. Spruch said that between now and August 23d that we are feeling comfortable to go forward. We will prepare draft articles to
be put in place. He asked the Planning Administrator to start that and the Planning Board would make that decision before August 23. He said that if the basin on Massachusetts Avenue is not working then he did not wish to go forward with that one. Mr. Shelmerdine asked that the Planning Board prepare the article. Mr. Spruch agreed. Mr. Houston mentioned that he was not going to be in his office on Monday and Tuesday to Attorney Shelmerdine.
Mr. Spruch mentioned that it was necessary for the Planning Board to make an extension of time for completion of the subdivision as it is currently through July 23, 2004. Mr. Spruch made a motion to complete the Christina Estates subdivision to August 20, 2004. Second by Steven McClain. The vote was unanimous.
Prior to completing the appointment, Mr. Spruch asked the public if there was anything that they wanted to add. There was no comment from the public which included Katie Bowen, 2 Cypress Lane and Jeri and Paul Berkel of 36 Massachusetts Avenue.
The Planning Board began reviewing business items. The Planning Board had received an extension of time request from the applicant of Old Mill Meadows. Mr. McClain made a motion to accept the extension to September 17, 2004 from Old Mill Meadows. Second by Mr. Burke. The vote was unanimous. Mr. Spruch abstained from the vote.
The Planning Board reviewed the memorandum from the Highway Superintendent with regard to the Gordon Road subdivision. Prior to next Thursday evening's meeting, the Planning Board requests that the applicant state that they are going to correct the placement of the roadway,
that he is going to remove the curbing, he is going to put it back out into the right of way, re-set, re-pave and re-patch the area there. We will receive a notarized letter from the applicant pertaining to their intent to hold the town harmless for any liability in a notarized letter. Completion of the work must be done and inspected by the Planning Board's consultant prior to an occupancy permit. As guidance, the Planning Board is looking to reduce the radius and have it as a smooth curb as well as clear the bound by one foot. He must describe what he is doing as far as reducing the radius. He has to make the statement of what it is. His engineer has to tell him what it is. He has to make that commitment of how much and to what extent the curbing gets modified.
The Planning Board reviewed the request which came from the Wrentham DMR, subject: Wellhead/Aquifer Protection District - PWS #4350001. The Planning Administrator was requested to forward to the water department for their comment.
The Planning Board reviewed the plan forwarded by the Highway Superintendent for the Pond Street Recreation Facility and felt that it was okay.
Mr. Spruch made a motion to vote to extend the date of endorsement of plans from Daley's Service Station to September 20, 2004. Second by Mr. McClain. The vote was unanimous.
Mr. Spruch made a motion to approval the removal of four trees with a combined total diameter of sixty inches at Pin Oaks noted on their plan with mitigation in the form of eight four inch caliper trees with a total diameter of 24". The trees are to be replaced in a location to be determined by the Planning Board or the sum of $2800.00 ($350.00 per tree) to be deposited in the Town of Norfolk Tree Fund. Second by Mr. McClain. The vote was unanimous.
It was noted by the Planning Board that member Tom Burke would be attending the August 5, 2004 meeting of the Earth Removal Advisory Board meeting to review the recommendations on Canterbury Estates, Ph. II application to the Board of Selectmen.
The Planning Board reviewed the Special Permit for Estate Lot of Robert N. Denison, Decision Number 04-01 and the detailed record. Each member of the Planning Board, Arthur A. Spruch, Steven G. McClain, Thomas C. Poppey and Thomas M. Burke voted yes to grant the special permit. They each affixed their signature to the decision and the clerk, Thomas Poppey signed the detailed record.
In the absence of Mr. Nicodemus, Mr. Spruch made a motion to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 11:35. Second by Mr. Poppey. The vote was unanimous.
___________________________________
Thomas C. Poppey, Clerk
| 
