7:00 PM Baker Hill-Request for Continuance of Time for Completion of Subdivision Roadway
7:30 PM Gardner Terrace-Request for Continuance of Time for Completion of Subdivision Roadway
8:00 PM Continuation of Site Plan Review Hearing-South Shore Baptist Church
Unscheduled Old/New Business
_____________
Present: Planning Board Members, Judy Sneath, Chair; Paul Healey, Clerk;
and Gary Tondorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
7:00 PM Baker Hill-Request for Continuance of Time for Completion
Paul Healey served as acting Chairman for this agenda item.
Dave Gooley, Project Manager for Intoccia Construction, came before the Board to request an extension to the time of completion for the Baker Hill Subdivision. The prior extension expired on June 1, 2009. Mr. Gooley explained that there are currently eighteen families in residence on Baker Hill Drive. He noted that at this point Intoccia is using a new realty and marketing company, and there is a new commitment to complete this phase of the project. Mr. Gooley reported that he had recently met with Michael Intoccia, Planning Board Chairman Judy Sneath and Town Planner Katy Lacy to tour the site. At this meeting Mr. Intoccia committed to complete the sidewalks and streetlights, and to generally clean up the site.
Several residents of Baker Hill Drive attended the meeting an expressed their frustration at how long it was taking to complete the project. They noted that the lack of sidewalks and street lighting was dangerous for the residents, especially children who might be playing outside. They also noted that they had other concerns relative to the completion of their residences, and acknowledged that this was outside of the Planning Board’s purview.
Mr. Healey provided some background on the history of the subdivision. He acknowledged that while the Town had the legal right to pull the bond and complete the roadway, but explained that this would be a less than ideal outcome. Several residents asked if it would be possible to repave the portions of the roadway that have already broken up. Mr. Healey urged Mr. Gooley to patch as needed for safety, but explained that it would be better to hold off on applying the final coat of paving until all of the houses were complete.
Mr. Leen, of Hilltop Road, expressed his frustration that the final work on the emergency access roadway was still not complete. Mr. Gooley noted that the stone facing for the bridge had been delivered, and that it the safety gate would be installed.
Mr. Gooley reported that it was his hope that the sidewalks and lights would be installed during July, 2009.
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED by all present to extend the permitted time of completion for Baker Hill Drive to December 1, 2009.
7:30 PM Gardner Terrace-Request for Continuance of Time for Completion
Developer Brian Davis and realtor Ferd Lucas came before the Board to request a one-year extension to the time of completion for the subdivision roadway. Mr. Davis reported that two of the three houses proposed for the subdivision are complete, and one is under construction. Mr. Lucas noted that it was possible that they could put the roadway up for acceptance at the 2010 Town meeting.
Two abutters to the roadway and one resident of the roadway attended the hearing. The Glennons of 6 Gardner Terrace expressed concern that it appeared that Mr. Davis was processing loam for other jobs on the site. Mr. Davis denied this, and explained that all of that loam was to be used as fill on Lot 3. Jennifer Sabatini of 152 Gardner Street expressed concern that the existing home at 160 Gardner Street would be demolished and a much bigger house facing Gardner Street would be constructed. She and the Glennons also expressed concern that the applicant was planning to carve another lot out of the property at 160 Gardner which would front on the new roadway. Board members acknowledged these concerns, but stated that they fell outside of the Board’s legal authority to control. Mr. Davis noted that at this point he was not planning on creating a new lot.
Lisa Andre at 155 Gardner stated that Mr. Rosano had described the project to her as including only three new homes, with little impact on abutting properties. She stated that Mr. Rosano has agreed to plant screening trees on her property and on the subdivision roadway to screen out glare from car headlights. Board members noted that aside from the requirement to plan street trees, that the Subdivision Approval made no mention of such screening. Ms. Andre expressed sadness regarding this potential deception.
Mr. Healey urged Mr. Davis to meet with the neighbors and respond to their concerns to the extent reasonable.
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED by all present to extend the permitted time of completion for Baker Hill Drive to December 1, 2009.
8:00 PM Continuation of Site Plan Review Hearing-South Shore Baptist Church
Ms. Murphy joined the meeting at this point.
This was a continuation of a hearing initiated on May 11, 2009 and continued on June 1, 2009.
Present for the Applicant: Attorney John Shea; Al Trakimas, SITEC Environmental; Vcevold Strekalovsky, Jeff Georges, Landscape Architect; and numerous members of the South Shore Baptist Church Board of Elders and Building Committee.
At the last hearing the Board identified the following remaining items to be discussed: 1) site lighting; 2) potential methods for reducing impervious surface including the reduction in the size of drive aisles and selected parking spaces 3) Church plans for the building currently located at 12 Free Street, which will have to be demolished or relocated to develop the site as planned, and 5) the overall massing and appearance of the church building.
Engineer Al Trakimas presented a new lighting plan dated June 5, 2009 including revisions suggested at the last hearing. In this revised plan the lights were raised from 16’ to 20’ in height, which allowed them to use a lower wattage, and shed less light onto neighboring properties. All lighting fixtures were located along the perimeter of the property.
Board members expressed concern that there still appeared to be light impacts on abutting properties, whereas the light levels in the middle of the lot were a bit low. Gary Tondorf-Dick suggested that the lights proposed for the north east section of the parking lot, and along the eastern perimeter be moved away from the perimeter and relocated to a center island. He further suggested that a reduction in the overall number of lights could be realized if double-fixture lights in the center were used instead of rows of lights all around the perimeter. Finally, he suggested that a timer system would be needed to ensure that the lights were only on when needed. Mr. Trakimas agreed to revise the plan accordingly. Board members also asked when and how often the lights would be on, and requested a timer schedule. Church officials indicated that for cost and community reasons they would be making an effort to limit the amount of time that the lights were on. Ms. Murphy asked whether it was really necessary to light the far northeast corner of the parking lot for any but the most crowded night-time events. Board members also requested information about how the outside of the building would be lit. The project team agreed to provide the information the Board at the next meeting.
In terms of reducing the amount of impervious paving on the site, Mr. Trakimas showed a plan that expanded the perimeter buffers along the parking lot’s northern and eastern perimeter boundaries, and reduced the size of the adjacent parking spaces from 20’ in length to 18’. Board members debated the pros and cons of this plan, but did not make a final determination.
At this point the conversation shifted to abutter concerns about the effectiveness of using landscaping, even if widened, to screen out headlights and views of the parking lot, and to create safe and effective boundaries. Some of the abutters expressed a preference for a solid fence than planting. Landscape Architect Jeff Georges responded that the screening that he was proposing would be very effective. Mr. Tondorf-Dick noted that he was not convinced that the perimeter planting proposed would fully screen views into the church from adjacent streets or properties. Mr. Shea responded that they could afford to install fencing or landscaping, but not both. Ms. Murphy noted that for safety concerns she could understand the desire to just use fencing, which would ensure privacy. Ms. Bogan and Ms. MacCallum, whose properties abut the property to the north, wanted a simple post and rail fence to demarcate the property boundary.
Attorney Shea committed to meet with abutters to the property to discuss their concerns regarding screening and fencing between their property and the church property. This information would be consolidated into an overall “Perimeter Plan” and presented to the Board at the next hearing.
Board members concurred that, based on what was resolved in terms of screening vs. fencing would determine whether the parking spaces needed to be reduced in size or not.
Mr. Strekalovsky described the proposed architectural design for the building. Board members had comments and concerns about the size and massing of the building. Ms. Lacy suggested that, in light of the fact that this was a religious property protected by the Dover Amendment, that the Board should convey their comments to the Historic Districts Commission, who were scheduled to review the project in the near future.
Mr. Strekalovsky provided the Board with a sample of the composite material that they were proposing for the fence. He noted that this would also be reviewed by the Historic Districts Commission.
Attorney Shea reported that they consulted with building mover Jim Gordon as requested by Paul Healey, and found that it was, indeed, possible to move the building. He reiterated that the house at 12 Free had to be moved because it was the only location where they could install the extensive septic system required by the Board of Health. They do not have a buyer yet, but are making a serious effort to move the building rather than relocated it.
The hearing was continued to June 22 at 7:00 PM.
Unscheduled Old/New Business
The Board voted to approve the minutes of May 11, June 1.