March 24, 2008
Present was Jonathan P. Smith, James C. Lehan and John P. Hathaway, Town Administrator. Ramesh H. Advani came into the meeting at 6:53 p.m.
Jonathan Smith opened the meeting at 6:35 p.m. Jack Hathaway read the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING - APACHE CONSULTING, REDWOOD CIRCLE
At 6:37 p.m., Jonathan Smith asked for a motion to re-open the public hearing. Jim Lehan moved to re-open the public hearing for Apache Consulting. Jonathan Smith seconded, and it was so voted.
Present was Bruce Johnston, David Dalzell, Bob Bullock, Building Commissioner, and Tom Houston, Engineer for the Planning Board.
Jonathan asked our representative from the Earth Removal Committee (referred to here as ERC), Bob Bullock, to join us at the front of the room. Bob asked Tom Houston to join us.
Jonathan Smith said when we recessed this meeting, it was on the condition the ERC have another meeting with the applicant and concerned abutters and neighbors to the subject premises. He said he believes that Mr. Bullock can update this Board as to what occurred at that meeting, and additional recommendations that he may wish to give us. He asked if there was anything the applicant wished to say before we have the revised report from Bob Bullock.
Jonathan asked Bob to update us on the meeting that we asked that you have with the ERC regarding this application. Bob Bullock read into record the recommendation from the Committee, as follows:
The Earth Removal Committee met on March 17, 2008 @ 8 PM in Rm. 214 to discuss and review an application from Apache Construction. Bruce Johnson and the Applicant Dave Dalzell attended the meeting to answer questions. The Committee was made up of John Robbins (Assessors), Peter Chipman (Board of Health), Tom Burke (Planning Bd.), Alan Shaw (Conservation) and Robert Bullock (Building Comm.). The Committee heard the presentation from the applicants representatives and then had the Planning Boards Engineering consultant give an overview of the stormwater plan that he reviewed for the Planning Board. We then opened the committee up for questions from the neighbors, after a couple of hours we came back to the committee and asked if we would entertain a motion to recommend to the BOS the same position we originally came to. It was seconded and
voted all in favor except Allan Shaw who opposed. We concluded that we didn't have a problem with this Special Permit being issued but have the following recommendations that the Board may want to incorporate into its decision:
An inspection would be done after the installation of sediment control devices and prior to earth work to begin.
Hours of operation to be from 9 AM to 2:30 PM Mon -Friday according to the subdivision plan approval.
Truck travel will follow Day St. to Noonhill to Seekonk St. toward the direction of Medfield.
If there is a problem in the course of construction it will be fixed within a 24 hour period. (Dust, Noise, erosion control etc.)
As-Built plan when work is complete showing final grades as shown on earth removal plan per the subdivision..
The bylaw states that a bond shall be placed on the site and a letter from the owner allowing the Town to legally enter the site with personnel and equipment to make restoration to the site in the event of default (Article VII Section 2 & 5).
All areas that have been disturbed in the course of construction will be loamed and seeded or other suitable means of landscaping as per the subdivision plan.
Bob said there were a few other things he wanted to review with the Board. The ERC met for about 2.5 hours. Bob said he felt there were still concerns that the Town doesn't have enough safeguards in place. Three different engineers designed and reviewed this plan; one from Planning Board, the Board of Health and the Applicant. Each one has reviewed it and accepted it. The ERC met twice to hear this, as well as the Selectmen. Bob said after the last meeting, he went back and read some of the conditions that the Planning Board has as safeguards, and in their Condition #13 it requires monthly observations as to stormwater erosion or damage as well as inspections within 24 hours of a heavy rain storm. In Condition #14, it requires the work to be done in the high water season when they are doing the retention
areas, as an added safeguard to make sure that the detention areas are a minimum of 2 feet above the high water table. Working in high water season will help us see any potential problems while the project is under construction when the Town has to find the most leverage to correct any of those situations.
Bob said Condition 46 requires the stormwater system to be constructed to handle all the subdivision and protect any adjacent property before any lots are to be released. Condition 48 allows the Planning Board to stop all or part of the work on the subdivision and cause the contractor to fix and remedy any problem situations. There is also a bond that is put in place by the Earth Removal Committee through the Selectmen and then there is also one placed on the subdivision by the Planning Board prior to any lots being released.
The last oversight is the Building Code. Even as they are building the subdivision, it is considered one lot until those lots are actually released into individual lots. During the course of construction, if the grades are being changed to actually start moving the water toward an adjacent property and causing a problem, there is a remedy through the Building Code that when things are found in default and they are not corrected, there is $1000 fine per day for every day the violation continues. There are safeguards in place, and he said people are going to come up with different things that they are concerned with, but Bob feels the Town has gone through extraordinary circumstances to make sure that this has been handled properly.
Bob said he asked the Planning Board to send a representative tonight. As their member of the Earth Removal Committee couldn't attend tonight, they asked Tom Houston of PSC - whose firm is the consulting engineer for the Planning Board to come to answer questions.
Tom said it may not be evident, but whenever a subdivision comes before the Planning Board, and when this came before the Planning Board, a comprehensive drainage study was done. The drainage study covers 100% of the subdivision. You will know where any surface water within the subdivision ends up. In this case, there is no uncontrolled surface water to leave the subdivision in any direction. There is a central street, which serves all four lots through the subdivision. That street conveys the surface water through the subdivision to two underground retention facilities that are at the base of the subdivision street relatively near Day Street. In the course of preparation for the earth removal hearing, he read several emails where neighbors expressed various concerns. One of them was that there
would be an increase in water contributed to a natural low area that lies between Noon Hill Avenue and the subdivision. With respect to the drainage system in the subdivision, it actually conveys water farther away from that low area than under existing conditions. Under existing conditions, water falls on that hillside and the subdivision street is approximately at the location of a natural drainage divide, so water on one side flows toward the Stop River. Water on the other side flows toward Noon Hill Avenue. The proposed subdivision drainage system pretty well replicates that. There is a detention area on either side of the road, so water in the proposed condition is distributed in roughly the same manner as under existing conditions. The key difference is that under existing conditions, recharge occurs all over the site that flows to that low area. Under the post development conditions, water is captured in the street's closed drainage
system and is carried farther away from that natural low area. Does that mean that none of the subdivision water will get in there? Probably not. But he thinks it is at least neutral deposit in terms of contributing the same or less runoff than under existing conditions. There is also a concern expressed that the 3500 cubic yards of soil that will be allowed to be removed from the roadway for the site itself, or the 4700 total cubic yards be allowed for the road plus the lots result in a loss of water storage capacity in the watershed. They did a preliminary analysis of the entire surface watershed which would roughly emulate the ground watershed. The tributary to that existing low point between the subdivision and Noon Hill Avenue. That entire area is about 12 acres. If you assume that the depth of soil throughout the 12 acres is at least equivalent to what we had in the subdivision, and again, assuming that half the road
contributes to the low area; half doesn't because it's a natural drainage divide, the net change in loss of water storage when the soil is taken out is less than 1% of the total water storage that is likely available in that watershed. So, while allowing either 3500 or 4700 cubic yards of earth removal, it is true, there will be a little less ability to store water there, but it is probably less than 1% of the total.
Tom said there was also some concern expressed about flooding that had occurred on Seekonk Street and there was a concern that because flooding had occurred there, if you develop the subdivision on the Noon Hill Acre site, flooding might arise as a result of that. We looked into that again in a preliminary manner and it does appear that the cause of flooding on Seekonk Street was measurably different than the conditions that will arise as a result of developing the subdivision. Apparently, what happened on Seekonk Street there were a number of formerly vacant lots that were developed all along the street. The street basically didn't have a closed drainage system. So, Butch Vito, the DPW Director went in and put a closed drainage system along the entirety of the street. That has, to everyone's understanding,
fixed the problem. He has a picture of that system, and also has a picture of the residents at 177 Seekonk Street, because that was specifically mentioned in several of the emails. The picture of 177 Seekonk is useful in two respects, (1) it indicates the general nature of the development that went on along the street - a whole bunch of driveways are now shedding into the street which Mr. Vito was able to address with the storm drainage system. The problem as the homeowner describes here, there is a break out of groundwater to the rear of that residence, and it appears, just from inspecting it from the street, when the house was constructed it was cut into the base of the hillside. Typically, when you cut into the base of a hill in New England, the danger of groundwater break out, because what happens as the topography falls away on a hill, groundwater tends to rise to the surface. So if you cut into the base of a hill, which you've done here, there is
a common issue of getting groundwater break out. The reason he says this is different, particularly with respect to the existing low point that is between the subdivision and Noon Hill Avenue is there is no excavation proposed down there. Everyone concedes that that is sort of a wet area, so there is groundwater breaking out in that area now. But nothing that is being done on the subdivision is going to affect that in any way. There is no excavation proposed there. The problem that occurred at 177 Seekonk Street, and he's speculating somewhat, it appears to be a groundwater problem from cutting into the hillside. With respect to the subdivision, there is no construction proposed near the base of the hill within the subdivision.
Tom said these are his thoughts and believes that the Planning Board thoroughly reviewed the subdivision. He does not anticipate that as a result of this construction that there would be damage to adjacent properties. He offered the photographs mentioned as part of the record.
Jonathan made a comment to the applicant that you now see what the conditions are. Do you have any issue with any conditions imposed by the Earth Removal Committee? David Dalzell said no, they are the same conditions as when we started this. Jonathan asked about the Planning Board conditions that were alluded to by Mr. Bullock a few minutes ago. Mr. Dalzell said no problem.
Jonathan asked Bob Bullock if the Earth Removal Committee discussed a dollar amount for the bond. Bob said that was left to the Selectmen. Bob said that he thought typically a bond is $10,000.
Jonathan asked if anyone from the audience wished to be heard, based on the reports of Mr. Bullock and Mr. Houston.
Ken Lawrence, 50 Noon Hill Avenue. Mr. Lawrence said he appreciates the information from the ERC. He said he is right behind what will be Lot 2. What happens once the four lots are sold and a problem does develop, as a homeowner, how does that get resolved? Bob said the Building Code requires that you cannot allow the water runoff from your project onto an adjacent property. That's where the water problem would come into play. That would have to be remedied by the contractor or the homeowner of that property. That is all going to happen during the construction of the project. Once everything is done, especially when the grass grows in generally that will retain the water a lot better than during the construction process.
Bob said you have to realize, too, that when they did the perk tests on this lot, it was perfect gravel all the way down to bedrock and all 8 perk tests, 2 perk tests on each lot, each went down roughly 210" and hit bedrock and no water was found on any one of them. Bob said he realizes the abutters are skeptical because of the situation that happened on Seekonk Street, but this is the difference between not having a stormwater drainage system and having one. This is designed 300% higher than what the town requires.
Jonathan asked Bob if the Seekonk Street property was an approval not required plan so therefore the Planning Board didn't have any jurisdiction over that. Bob said correct. Ken said he was wondering that, and was glad someone asked.
Bob said Seekonk is an old, old road. It never had the stormwater drainage in it. There isn't anything in the Code that says you can't allow the water to run down the driveway into the street. That's where he had backed off. It wasn't going into the neighbor's property on either side; it was going out into the street. Every house always has the driveway pitched toward the road so that the water isn't running toward the house. Bob said they are trying to blame one particular house, but it was an accumulation of water from all the homes. He said there are 12 or 15 driveways that come from the high point of that road that all run down to the Noon Hill intersection there and the house right on that corner is conservatively lower than the street, and without any curves or without any drainage, it's going to
find its natural course. Now with the drainage in place, Bob saw puddles after a heavy rain storm recently, puddles alongside the road, but he didn't see any in that one yard anymore. He feels everything is corrected because of the stormwater drainage system.
Tom said Bob is correct, it isn't one house. It's a cumulative effect of developing multiple properties. The DPW's solution is working, and putting curbs and gutters along the street and it has solved that problem - a surface water runoff problem.
Ray Ewer, 52 Noon Hill Ave. He said he sent two emails to Mr. Hathaway - doesn't know if he forwarded them to the Board. Jim Lehan said yes, he did. Mr. Ewer submitted them and asked that they be entered into the record. Ray reviewed the fact that this Board of Selectmen does have the authority to impose whatever conditions you feel appropriate on this permit. Perhaps there are conditions already in place. He said before the lots are released, the Planning Board covenant does, in #46, say that it's up to the Planning Board to make sure there is no drainage problems to any of the adjacent properties. Is it correct that if in construction, and before the lots are released that the Planning Board will have jurisdiction and oversight to make sure there are no drainage problems to any abutting property,
no matter which property that is. Tom Houston said that is correct. Ray Ewer asked Bob Bullock if once the lots are released, then the Building Commissioner has the jurisdiction to make sure there is no drainage problem from a lot in the subdivision to any abutting lots or water flow problem from lots in the subdivision to any abutting lots. Bob said that's true, but will preface it by saying if it's natural grade that's there now, and the water is flowing to your property, then that's not something the person is responsible for. It is only if they change the grade during construction or change in their backyard or whatever, that that change of grade now causes a problem to drain that water onto your property. That would become an issue under the Building Code.
John Quillan, 18 Day Street. He said he would like to hear from the Conservation Commission. What do they think? Did you talk to them at the meeting, what their concern was.
Jonathan said we're the ones who take in the information and make a decision. Under the bylaw, the first step is the ERC. So he would ask Bob to speak on this.
Bob said their concern basically was whenever you have a stream or it falls under the Rivers Act, you are supposed to stay outside the 200' riparian zone. You need to stay 200' away from that. It is drawn on the plan, that none of this construction is within that 200' riparian zone. What Mr. Shaw brought up is he feels as though on the other side of Day Street, the very beginning of the street there is one corner of it that possibly falls under that 200' riparian zone. That is something that Conservation would have to address. You have to realize that during the Planning Board hearing, they were all notified at that time and if there were any comments from any of the Boards or Committees on the subdivision, all he can do is surmise that they chose not to make any comments at that time.
Bob said you heard at the earth removal hearing, Conservation was sent three emails to three different addresses and they decide not to come to the first earth removal hearing. We had a second earth removal hearing, and that was the concern that they brought up. Bob said that's all he can tell you.
Bruce Johnston said he went to the post office on Friday and David Dalzell's wife was there and told Bruce in the parking lot that they just got a letter from the Conservation Commission. It was a notice to Apache Consulting to David Dalzell and it said that they had reviewed the earth removal filing for the project and a site inspection of the property was also conducted. As a result, the Commission is concerned that a portion of the proposed roadway, Redwood Circle, may be located within the second riparian zone regulated under (Mass Law and Town of Norfolk regulations). Their recommendation is that a Notice of Resource Area Delineation (ANRAD) be filed determining the boundaries of this resource. Nor work on the proposed roadway shall be commenced until the final ORAD is issued. The Commission also observed that
the wetland flags delineating the boundaries of the bordering vegetated wetlands that impact this site are in poor condition. Bruce said he checked, and what they wanted is between 11 and 13 Day Street, the perennial stream goes under Day Street, it goes around the back of those two houses and if you look at it, at Day Street you can't see it. He said he imagines that's why it wasn't done by Landmark, aside from the fact that again, no one came to the Planning Board hearing a year and a half ago from the Conservation Commission, and all the Planning Board asked was a determination of an intermittent or perennial stream which we got from the Conservation Commission indicating it was a perennial stream, and that was on the edge of the property at the time he owned it, and they had the riparian zone flagged, we had the river bank flagged, we had the 100' wetland area flagged, they had the 200' riparian zone flagged and Conservation had the chance to review that a year and a
half ago like every other committee and board, but what they've done here to try and help is the botanist who did the flagging went with him and flagged the back of that old brook and stream. Bruce said they took an actual tape and measured it and it was well over 200' to actually Day Street. They didn't go through a lot line. What they do need to do and will do for them, and that's the letter from Landmark Engineering that the Board is reading now, that we will make a delineation on the subdivision approval plans showing that it does not come within the 200' riparian zone or 100' wetlands or Rivers Act.
Dave Dalzell said to keep in mind they got the Conservation Commissions' letter on Friday afternoon. They said they are trying to do this as fast as they possibly could. Town Hall was not open on Friday.
Jim Lehan thanked the residents for participating in the process. Jim said that one reason he and Mr. Smith agreed to delay this was to ensure their questions and concerns were adequately heard and you had every opportunity to have whatever assurances we could provide that your property is not going to be damaged or impacted in any way. Hopefully you have heard that. Jim said that this is the first time, to his knowledge, that we have done this twice. For the record, he did want to reinforce a couple comments. We want to be very respectful of Conservation's needs and requirements. We want to ensure that they have every opportunity to evaluate whatever conditions are appropriate under their jurisdiction, but it should be noted that we have worked very hard to set up a process that makes it a fair process
for all parties involved. That's why we have these roundtables, that's why we have these committees that get together where all parties, Planning Board, Conservation - everyone concerned and citizens are always welcome, and we regret that one of the gentlemen was not notified and you certainly should have been - another reason why we wanted to delay that. To do that, the participating boards and groups have to work with us to make that happen. It should be noted that Conservation was fully notified of that hearing. All parties, including their representatives, were notified at several different email addresses, and all emails were acknowledged, so they were fully aware of that permitting hearing. Yet for reasons only known unto them, they did not attend. Planning Board would also attest that Conservation was notified throughout the entire planning process for over an 18 month period where they had every opportunity to participate in the
process, and to express whatever concerns or issues put before them, and for reasons known only to them, they did not. It is unfortunate for the citizens actually, that that doesn't happen in a more appropriate and beneficial way for you folks.
Jim said that their areas of jurisdiction and their concerns are very valid and we want to assure that they are heard and, again, this is why we delayed it. Jim said it is also important to note that our boards have to work well together, and we need to do better at this. We need to play our fair share in assuring that we don't cause concerns for neighbors, and we don't cause unnecessary delays for people who have legal rights to proceed with whatever appropriate development they may be involved in to meet all the requirements of all the various boards. In that regard, Jim feels this is a process we failed. He apologized to the citizens, because we are a part of that process. He said we need to do this a little better and become more efficient. We don't have a lot of these, but they are all important. He hopes we have addressed everyone's concerns, and he's glad they all attended.
Jim said that in terms of the liability issues that Mr. Ewer raised, we have looked into the documents and those concerns are very well addressed within the document itself. All of the protections for the town and yourself are there, but most importantly, the protection you are looking for are really more downstream when these lots get developed, but that resides with the Planning Board and Mr. Bullock and your questions were very appropriate. Jim said he is reluctant to add additional language that is over and above that for each individual set of circumstances, unless it is peculiar to that set of circumstances. He did look at the document, he did review the concerns and thinks that the current language does provide you, well, covers you.
Jonathan said that the letter that David Dalzell gave him, did he hear right that Landmark expects that there is no part of this property within the 200 foot riparian zone? David said they delineated it today. The markers are up and took a 300' tape measure and went to where they thought the road might begin and it's much greater than 200. Obviously, he won't commit to anything until he sends his surveyors out. Jonathan said he is trying to think of a way to accommodate everyone. Would you be amenable to a condition that says that the plan that Landmark drafted does not show anything within 200 feet. David said that's what he was hoping for tonight.
Jonathan asked Jim if he is comfortable with that. Jim said he was trying to draft a condition, and yes, he agrees. Jonathan said also building a house on any particular lot might also be subject to a particular notice of intent with the Conservation Commission, depending on where you intend to site the building. Just so the neighbors know that, too, for any particular house that might be built in here over and above the road, it appears from the plans that at least for sure two of the lots would require Conservation approval. He's not sure about the other two. They are pretty close depending on where you intend to disturb the ground. David said so as he understands it, it will be conditioned on the Conservation Commission having the plan by Landmark showing that the roadway is greater than 200'.
Jonathan said that there is no disturbance within 200' and that the drains… Jim said the only question at issue is whether it does fall in the 200' riparian zone. So with a condition that says you will not commence any work until Landmark Engineering provides Conservation Commission with the appropriate assurance that this does not fall within the 200' riparian zone. Jonathan said we want to get all the information in within a reasonable time and be able to close the hearing and make a judgment based on information that we have. If it turns out that something comes in and it's not, then we wouldn't allow it. Jim said we can condition approval and he has listed 7 items, the seventh being that Landmark provide the appropriate certification that it doesn't fall within the 200' riparian zone. Jim is fine with the $10,000 bond.
Jack said with respect to the 200' riparian zone, if he read the memo correctly from the Conservation Commission they have to abide by the CMR and Wetland Protection Regulations regardless of what our condition is. Jim agrees with that, but said it's indifferent to this. Jack said if you are going to limit them to not disturb within the 200' riparian zone, say Landmark's walk with the tape was wrong and they are actually 195', what happens then? I think under the Code, Conservation has ways to replicate or otherwise negotiate so they can work within the 200'. But if you are going to say they have to stay outside the 200', you may be more restrictive than you have to be.
Jim said good point, but anything that would fall within the 200' would be a condition that would be under the authority of the Conservation Commission, not this board. So we should probably word this in a way that states that any remediation of that would be at the discretion of the Conservation Commission.
Bruce said it would have been nice if a member of the Conservation Commission was present tonight to answer questions and clear up a few concerns.
Jim said if the 200' consideration is not an issue, we have no issue. If it is, then you have to work that out with the Conservation Commission. For purposes of our role in this, Jim said he would like to somehow frame it this way, that if it is outside the 200' concerns, and that certification is provided to Conservation… Jim asked Tom Houston to help him out here.
Tom said he understood that the Commission would be issuing the ORAD by March 28th, - no, Landmark would be - he suggests the Board list a condition that no further work on the property will occur until the CC issues their ORAD and should they choose to assert juris that all further work will comply with any Order of Conditions that would be issued by CC. This may be somewhat burdensome on the applicant because we're asking him to stop until the ORAD is issued, but it's a matter of law and regulation. It might be prudent to ask the applicant to hold until they get an ORAD from Conservation.
Jack asked hasn't Conservation already asserted their jurisdiction here in this letter to the applicant. It says do not continue work until you have an ORAD, so why do we need to complicate this permit with that same assertion? Tom said he did not see the letter, but if it's already in there, there is no reason to reinforce it.
Tom said he did download streams and topography from State GIS, and there could be small tributaries that don't show, but on the plan, the stream is accurately delineated up to Day Street. It's beyond that that's in question. At least the State maps, show the stream continuing straight across Day Street. If that is the case, the roadway would not be 200'.
Jim agreed that Jack's point is well taken. Let's leave this to the applicant and the Conservation Commission, and not condition our permit. It's a matter of law, and they have to deal with it. It's a separate matter that should not be part of our agreement.
Jonathan said the reason he wanted this as a condition is that he understands they can make their own decisions, but that means they could second guess every plan that's ever been done by the Planning Board even if they were involved in the process the whole way. That seems to be the implication here. He just wants to make sure that that is not what we want it to be. Jim said we can't control that anyway. There is a point of reason that is imposed on all of us. That won't occur here. This will or will not meet the requirements, and we have to let the process take its course. Jonathan still feels more comfortable that they do provide the plan to us this week, and show that it's outside 200'. Jim said that they are only two votes, so they have to come to an agreement. Jim wanted to
do something as simple as saying this approval is subject to full compliance of all concerns associated with Conservation Commission. Jim said he doesn't want to complicate the process by imposing in a separate document a condition that is not within the privilege of this Board, and is under another Board that will do it very well and thoroughly. Jonathan said this is not a condition, but this was a fact that was part of the basis of our decision and that fact was provided by engineers that were hired by the applicant and petitioner to show that this project was outside the 200' zone. Jonathan said he can go with this not being in here at all if it is okay with the petitioner.
Bruce said would you consider it that close the hearing and approve based on what you've said and what the discussions have been at the hearings, subject to the work not being within that 200' zone. Jim said what he does not want to do is delay a decision and condition the decision to be sure all parties are protected. Jim said we should approve this subject to the following conditions, one of those conditions simply is that they comply with all of the concerns associated with the Conservation Commission or however we want to word this. David Dalzell said he is fine with that. Jonathan said to remove the seventh point.
Jim Lehan moved to approve the earth removal permit for Noon Hill Acres, Redwood Circle subject to the following six (6) conditions: (1) an inspection would be done after the installation of sediment control devices and prior to earth work to begin. (2) Hours of operation to be from 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Monday through Friday according to the subdivision plan approval. (3) Truck travel will follow Day Street to Noon Hill to Seekonk Street toward the direction of Medfield. (4) If there is a problem in the course of construction, it will be fixed within a 24 hour period (dust, noise, erosion control, etc). (5) As-Built plan when work is complete showing final grades as shown on earth removal plan per the subdivision. (6) A bond shall be posted for $10,000. All areas disturbed in the course
of construction will be loamed and seeded or other suitable means of landscaping as per the subdivision plan. Jonathan Smith seconded, and it was so voted.
Jim Lehan moved to close the hearing. Jonathan Smith seconded, and it was so voted.
MPG MOTOR SPORTS, CLASS I LICENSE
Present was Joseph Crowley, applicant.
Joseph Crowley introduced himself and told the Board he would like to sell scooters and small motorcycles. He owns property at 262 Dedham Street, and has a storefront.
Mr. Crowley had brochures for the Board. He told the Board that all vehicles need to be registered except the small one.
Joseph Crowley now does lawn and garden. It used to be John Deere, but is now Crowleys Lawn and Garden. The Board discussed hours, and Mr. Crowley said he may want to open one night later. He now closes at 4 p.m.
Ramesh Advani moved to award a Class 1 license to MPG Motor Sports of 262B Dedham St., Norfolk. Jim Lehan seconded, and it was so voted.
CHIEF BUSHNELL - FIRE BUDGET
Present was Chief Cole Bushnell and Captain Peter Petruchik.
Chief Bushnell discussed a budget issue due to two staff who had non-work related injuries and two with work related injuries. He said there is no wiggle room in the budget because they are bare bones. Looking at the budget, they have money that they want to have only used with absolute necessity. They have 3 firefighters on a call after 4 p.m. Chief Bushnell goes with the day shift. He said that all the money is now for the 24/7 shifts. He is down to 19 people. They had 21, but two call people have left. The department covered 97% of ALS calls.
Chief Bushnell said he is looking for the monies come from the Reserve Fund and have the Reserve replenished from the ambulance account. He would like this to use as an option. They are looking at an additional $4,500.
Jim Lehan moved to approve $29,831.56. Ramesh Advani seconded, and it was so voted.
PWED GRANT HEARING
Remo Vito, DPW Director present.
Jonathan Smith opened the public hearing.
Butch Vito displayed a plan of the project. He told the Board that he is present tonight to talk about the PWED Grant. This is the grant that the town has been pursuing for the past 3 or 4 years. This was for the Liberty Lane Extension.
Butch explained that part of the grant process is this public hearing, notice to abutters. He said he realizes we have talked about this in the past at many meetings, but it was not an actual advertised public hearing. This goes back to the middle to late 90's. He said we are talking about the B1 district that was formerly the Musto property and now owned by the Borelli's.
Butch explained that when we did the road configurations back in the 90's with the Planning Board, we had an economic development grant for this section here (shown on the plan). We looked at the traffic that was going to be generated through the Musto concept of this area. After that, Mr. Borelli bought it. The Borelli's looked at a little different concept. A little more density because of a wastewater treatment plant. This section is high priority to us - how's it going to look; how's it going to work. Butch said if you look at this piece of land, it is offset through Main Street - one way in, one way out. As we started to look at this through the Borelli proposal, we started to see that we were going to have a problem right at this intersection. The intersection, under the conditions of
the plan, is looking at a signal at full buildout. With that being said, in the middle 90's we did look at this area as far as an access area. Late 90's, early 2000 we had the ability to meet with the landowner, Mr. Chipman. We did discuss it and were able to acquire the piece of property and town meeting voted it and gave us the ability to come in and come over and get to this bridge area. Over the past few years, we have been talking to the State who is the other component of this which they have now bought onto this and looked at it and at the meetings have very good support for this.
Butch said what this is going to do is it's a new connection to this area of the town center. This area is going to be part of the B1 district with the full buildout. There are condo units built up here, and 16 more units will be going in that area, and Walgreens will be going in, and the Planning Board is looking at building Liberty Lane all the way in.
Butch said he applied for the PWED grant in 2005. At that time, the cost of this was roughly around $3 million. The new numbers are down around $2.5 million. He did talk to the MBTA and he has letters of support from Congressman Barney Frank's office. We put the project together from 2005 until now, and submitted for the grant in November of this year. Right now, we have the grant in, and we are waiting to hear from the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT). He heard back from Congressman Frank's office this morning who has been in touch with EOT. They are waiting for this hearing to be done, and are waiting for the comments of the Selectmen and abutters .
Butch said they looked at many concepts to address traffic issues, and he did look at a huge rotary. The roundabouts were put in place instead. They did not have the acquisition of land from takings at the time, but have since acquired what they need and it is all coming to fruition at this time.
Butch said that the MBTA will actually pick up 15 more spaces. They are allowing us to come through their property with the road, so we are reconfiguring the parking lot and with their parking lot, they will pick up 15 more spaces. There has been talk about moving the station up here as well, because with the roundabouts, the train stops right at the edge of the road and the gates stay down, stopping traffic in the center. If we could get the train to move forward, more west, the gates will come up and it won't block traffic. Butch said another thing we have done through Police Chief Stone, is to take a survey of the parking lot. 70% of the cars parked here come from Franklin and Millis. When they unload, they all come down to Independence Drive. The new plan would allow them to unload the other way
over the bridge and head away from the center.
Jonathan questioned if this grant was contingent upon moving the train station. Butch said no. He said they looked at circulation, the problem of the gates staying down. The MBTA already did a conceptual plan of moving the station which we have. Jonathan just wanted to make sure this wasn't a condition, and Butch said no, they are not together. They are two separate projects.
Butch said we have done well with the Planning Board. He is still looking at circulation and access and different concepts. Jonathan asked if a signaled intersection is part of the PWED application. Butch said it is. Right now it is an engineering amount. Engineering will tell them whether it will be a signaled intersection. Butch said it could be phased in as the intersection happens.
Ramesh Advani asked if the MBTA has sent a letter of support. Butch said yes, a very high letter of support. Ramesh said that will help the whole commuter issue. Butch said he and Jack met with the MBTA. There is also some access issues on the Stop & Shop property, and we discussed all that while we met with them.
Jim Lehan asked Butch to describe the funding source so everyone will understand how this will be paid for. Butch explained that we put in for the grant itself for $2.5 million. Part of that $2.5 is the community contribution which is roughly around $400,000. We have also put in a development contribution which we estimate at around $150,000. Between municipal and private funds, it comes to around $550,000. We hope to get $2 million from the state. There are some federal funds, but the federal funding comes down to the state, and the state dictates how they are going to be spent. Because this is a real high transportation issue, since the money is in transportation, he thinks this is a more high priority. This is two year funding. The first year, which is '08 - for 12 months the first
year we would spend $1 million. The second year, '10, will be final construction. Butch said there is a retail store and bank that are pretty far along in the Planning Board.
Jack Hathaway asked if we get credit for any of the work we've already done, such as drainage. Butch said no, that was in preparation for this. It doesn't count. Mr. Borelli did contribute toward the roundabouts, so there has been developer contributions to get us to where we are today.
Jonathan asked if any abutters or the public would like to comment.
Peter Chipman, 201 Main Street, an abutter. Peter asked what the Board is approving tonight. Jonathan said that in order for this project to proceed, it needs a public hearing with statements of support for the project from the effective parties and the Board of Selectmen. Peter asked if there is any town meeting action needed. Jonathan stated no. Peter asked where the engineering funding will be coming from? Butch said we haven't planned any funding source as yet. It could be fall town meeting - we may ask then. Or he may have the option to use Chapter 90 to get going to offset some of the costs. There are options, but none have been decided as yet.
Jerry Walsh, 225 Main Street, an abutter. Jerry said from what he heard, there is approximately $350,000 that has to be appropriated by the town. Does that have to go before town meeting for approval? Jonathan said yes, but not until the project is approved. Then we have to come up with our share. That is not a condition for the project to be approved initially. Butch said once we get the approval, they deduct the developers contribution and the town's share. That's set in stone; we have that grant. Then it comes back to the Board of Selectmen and we pursue the funds. We don't lose the grant because we don't have the funds. We are committed to a share and they will placehold the grant. Jerry asked how long they'll hold the grant. Butch said approximately a year.
Jerry asked why are we adding spaces to the MBTA? Butch said because the road goes through their parking lot and they are going to lose spaces. Butch said this is MBTA property and they are going to sign over to the town the rights to go over for the bridge crossing and the parking.
Ramesh asked what happens if the grant gets approved and we start to actually do the work and the estimates come in differently? Their commitment is to just whatever they've approved. We have to anti-up the difference, right? Butch said we will know the answer to these questions after the bidding process or cost estimate process. Ramesh said but the PWED amount won't change, correct? Butch said no, it won't change. We will be going back to Boston, so we'll get more answers. Ramesh said then what happens will be up to us. Jonathan asked if we can design down a little bit so that we can get through without taking a financial hit on the town's side. Butch said on the town center project, we only constructed what we had the money to do.
Jerry Walsh asked about the drainage that's already there. Is that going across the bridge or does it stay this side of the bridge? Butch said it is going to cross the bridge. Jerry asked if the drain line is adequate to take on this? Butch said yes, but we may design it a little different once we get to this point, because this is the T parking lot, so we may talk to the T about this. We are talking the new parking lot. The drainage on the other side will take it. Butch said the Town's share is engineering. The grant is all the construction.
Daniel Boone, 229 Main Street, an abutter, questioned lighting. Does the State commit only to the dollar value and not the scope of the work? The Board said yes. It is based on what we submit. Dan asked if there is room down the road to opt not to do it. Butch said yes, at any point we can opt not to do it but if we hit that point, we will probably look at other grant mechanisms that we could piggy back with this one. Dan asked if we determine that we do need a light, would be look for developer contribution to help out? Butch said we would absolutely look at that option and any mitigation issue. The Planning Board looks at that.
Ramesh asked that all abutters and the Economic Development Committee send letters of support to help us with this grant.
Jonathan asked about the review process. Butch said he will be doing the review, not like TIP where the State does the review process. He will try to get support letters from the Boards, as there are no stormwater issues.
Peter Chipman asked for an itemization of costs. Butch said he will get that to him.
Jim Lehan moved to provide a strong letter of support to the State on this project. Ramesh Advani seconded. Jim stated that when this does come to fruition, we will ensure that we won't create a burden for the community in terms of unfinished projects or cost. It would be done in a way that we stay within our finances, but yet it will be completed and then pieces that were not finished would be finished over a period of time with available funding so that it will not cause unnecessary burden to the taxpayers. Jonathan strongly supports this and has for many years. He said we get close and hopes this one goes through. It was so voted.
At 8:37 p.m., Jim Lehan moved to close the public hearing. Ramesh Advani seconded, and it was so voted.
EARTH REMOVAL HEARING - ROCCO REALTY TRUST
Jonathan opened the public hearing and read the hearing notice.
Present from Rocco Realty Trust was Evan Wilmarth, Engineer and Trustee, Alan Quaglieri.
Evan Wilmarth represented Rocco Realty Trust. He said they need an Earth Removal Permit for 17 Pine Street because they are very limited on the site for the area of use. They need to remove the top soil and subsoil. That is what is coming off site. He said the entire site built up 3 to 7 feet of what is existing now. Mr. Wilmarth said they need the permit to get the excess material off the site. They have no use for it.
Jim said they are building up one area and taking out another area. Evan said it's the topsoil and subsoil that they will use again. The pavement and the building is what they have no use for and they want to remove it from the site. It's basically road gravel.
Ramesh said they have the recommendation of the Earth Removal Committee who support this.
Ramesh asked what is going to be built there. One story building with walk out basement area in the back. Offices - 4 units on the top and 2 units down in the basement. Mr. Quaglieri will be occupying one of them. Evan said final approval is pending from Board of Health. Planning Board has done the site plan. They are hoping for the beginning of June to start construction.
Bob Bullock said he has no issues. The bylaw states that you can't dig within 10' of the water table. He said the Earth Removal Committee met with the applicant, and the Committee is in favor of the project. He didn't see any issues.
Mr. Wilmarth presented the green receipts from the certified mailing to abutters.
Jim Lehan moved to authorize the earth removal permit for Rocco Realty Trust subject to the following conditions: (1) An inspection would be done after the installation of sediment control devices and prior to earth work to begin. (2) Hours of operation to be from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday - Friday. (3) Truck travel will follow Route 115 to Rt.1A. (4) If there is a problem in the course of construction it will be fixed within a 24 hour period (dust, noise, erosion control etc.) (5) As-Built plan when work is complete showing final grades as shown on earth removal plan per the site plan. (6) The bylaw states that a bond shall be placed on the site and a letter from the owner allowing the Town to legally enter the site with personnel and equipment to make restoration to the site in the event of default (Article
VII Section 2 & 5). A $10,000 bond will be posted.
(7) All areas that have been disturbed in the course of construction will be loamed and seeded or other suitable means of landscaping as per the site plan. Ramesh Advani seconded, and it was so voted.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
ACTION ITEMS
Jim Lehan moved to vote the replacement water bond(s) for the Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust in the amount of $18,786 to replace the portion of the $234,828 General Obligation Sewer Bond issued to the Trust dated November 16, 2005 that was prepaid on November 9, 2007 as follows:
(1) that the Town shall issue a bond or bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $18,786 (the "Bonds") pursuant to Chapters 29C and 44 of the General Laws and a vote of the Town passed at the 2004 Annual Town Meeting (Article 7.4) to replace the prepaid portion of the Town's $234,828 General Obligation Sewer Bond dated November 16, 2005 and issued to the Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust (the "Trust") for the construction of sewers and other water pollution control facilities project identified in such vote (the "Project");
(2) that each Bond shall be issued as a single registered security, and sold to the Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust (the "Trust") at a price determined pursuant to the Loan Agreement;
(3) that the Treasurer is authorized to determine the date, the form, the maximum interest rate and the principal maturities of each Bond, and to execute a Loan Agreement (or Agreements) with the Trust with respect to the sale of the Bonds, such date, form and maturities and the specific interest rate or rates of the Bonds to be approved by a majority of the Board of Selectmen and the Treasurer and evidenced by their execution of the Bonds;
(4) that all action taken to date by the Town and its officers and agents to carry out the Project and its financing, including the execution of any loan commitment or agreement by the Treasurer, are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed; and
(5) that the Treasurer and the other appropriate Town officials are each hereby
authorized to take any and all actions necessary and convenient to carry out the provisions of this vote, including execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement(s) and the Project Regulatory Agreement(s) relating to the Project.
Ramesh Advani seconded, and it was so voted.
Friends of the Norfolk Public Library have requested permission to install the banner on Town Hill, as done annually, to promote their Annual Book and Bake Sale. They would like to install it around April 7th and remove it after the sale - April 28th.
The Board discussed the two week limit on signs, and said that they would have to abide by that as well.
Jim Lehan moved to allow the Friends of the Norfolk Library to install a banner on Town Hill beginning April 14th and remove it on April 28th. Ramesh Advani seconded, and it was so voted.
Norfolk School Committee recommends the following appointments be made to NEEF: Anita Mecklenberg, John Silveria, Wendy Browne, Joan Marsden, Maryellen Horgan-Currier, Ronald Zullo, Dr. David Lu, and Linda Andrews. Jonathan discussed whether Mr. Zullo was a conflict of interest since his wife is running for school committee. They decided it wasn't a conflict after discussion. It's just a committee to raise funds.
Ramesh Advani moved to appoint Anita Mecklenberg, John Silveria, Wendy Browne, Joan Marsden, Maryellen Horgan-Currier, Ronald Zullo, Dr. David Lu, and Linda Andrews for a term of one year. Jim Lehan seconded, and it was so voted.
Jim Lehan moved to grant Norfolk Community League permission to hold their annual Run/Walk on Community Day, June 7th same route, beginning at 9 a.m. Ramesh Advani seconded, and it was so voted.
Ramesh Advani moved the following ballot question for the Annual Town Election on May 6, 2008 as follows: Shall the Town vote to have its elected Town Clerk become an appointed Town Clerk of the town? Yes - No. Jim Lehan seconded. Ramesh said he would like to amend the language to say subject to Town Meeting approval. Jack Hathaway said he did not think we could amend the question. Ramesh said he would like Town Counsel's opinion. It was so voted.
Ramesh Advani moved to allow the installation of up to four (4) directional signs for the PanMass Challenge as recommended by the Director of Public Works at the locations mentioned in his memo of March 12, 2008. Jim Lehan seconded, and it was so voted.
BIWEEKLY CALENDAR
Jack reviewed the biweekly calendar with the Board.
NEW BUSINESS.
Jack told the Board that he had a reserve fund transfer request from the Moderator for $400 for signs advertising town meeting. He would put them at the town borders.
Jim said this is a good idea, and we used to do this, and Jim commends him for trying to stir up interest in town meeting. Ramesh felt that we should send a certain tone. He agrees that in the recession, we should tighten our belts regarding anything to do with town government. He said that these signs could still happen through donations or other sources of funding. Ramesh said he would be happy to contribute toward a sign or signs. Jim agreed and said he would as well. The Board was all for the Moderator's efforts, but feel there is a different way to fund it.
The Board discussed a meeting with the Everett Street residents. We will try to do it on April 29th at 7:30 and will try to have Butch there, too.
Jonathan gave a short update on KP.
At 9:53 p.m., Ramesh Advani moved to go into executive session for purposes of contract negotiations and pending litigation. Jim Lehan seconded, and it was a roll call vote: Ramesh Advani, aye; Jim Lehan, aye; and Jonathan Smith, aye. The Board will not come back into open session except to adjourn the meeting.
At 10:38 p.m., Ramesh Advani moved to adjourn the meeting. Jim Lehan seconded, and it was so voted.
This is a true and accurate report of the Selectmen's Meeting of March 24, 2008.
_______________________________
Ramesh H. Advani, Clerk
| 
