37° and Clear
Image
Above, Associate Member, Jennifer Williams makes a point at the last Board meeting before the election.
The first Planning Board Meeting of the month was conducted in the Town Council Chambers on November 1. In the wake of the Nov. 2 election, it also became the last to include long-time members Joe Halligan and Anthony Padula.
One of the first items up, was a discussion of an Endorsement for a site plan modification at 176-210 Grove St. The board did ultimately approve the endorsement but not before drawing comment from Chair Padula. The thickness of poured concrete was one issue focused on by Padula. In answer to a comment that “five inches thickness is standard” he noted that Franklin doesn’t go by industry practice but sets its own, stricter standards when it feels it should. “The town has the right to either supersede that regulation or make it more stringent, but they can't, make it more lenient,” he noted.
He noted that what was at issues was a modification (to the plan) for something that had already been done. “We can't make them change, but we are endorsing a modification for a site plan because they're increasing the parking on that.” he said.
The next matter was a Final Form H for 12 Forge Parkway with regard to loading dock changes that were made at the site. Beta (the town’s consulting engineer) provided an on-site report with photos.
[At about this point in the meeting sound quality became an issue for those participating remotely with extraneous music being heard by some. The problem continued for some time.]
The 12 Forge Parkway modifications included a ramp and there was a discussion of whether it had been properly constructed and had an appropriate slope for handicapped access. The slope for those purposes is supposed to be not greater than 5 percent but Crowley indicated at one point it increased to 5.7 percent and therefore might need to be reviewed by the building inspector. The Board did eventually approve the form H.
Discussion then moved to an 81P for ANR on Bent Street. [An 81P is applied for when an applicant believes their project does not constitute a subdivision within the meaning of the Subdivision Control Law. Planning board endorsement is required, indicating that they agree that the Subdivision Control Law is not applicable.]
The property in question actually consisted of two parcels of land and two different owners. located in the rural residential one zoning district. The applicant wanted to combine them so as to build a house on the combined property – in conformance with zoning regulations.
The board agreed to approve the 81P.
The board had been scheduled to continue a hearing for a Washington Street property that had previously been before the board; however, the board agreed to approve another continuance for the project instead.
Next up was a previously continued hearing for Eastern Woods, a subdivision at 725 Summer Street. The applicant had previously requested a waiver to locate the sidewalks on one side of the road and agreed to design to match those in the neighborhood. They had recently been to Conservation Commission which granted a negative determination, meaning there were no issues requiring ConComm oversight.
The Department of Public Works expressed a concern with the retention basin and an associated retaining wall around maybe 70% of the base. They DPW represented noted their preference for no retaining wall but said that if the Board chose to approve the plan to please ensure that DPW would get to approve the final design of the retaining wall, guard rail, and fencing.
The Board ultimately approved the plan submitted.
Two final matters concerned the Board before adjournment.
The Board dealt with a scheduled public hearing for 15 Freedom Way for a site plan modification. This was a proposal to add 82 parking spaces for a total of 216 “where 275 are required.”
It was noted that at the last public hearing, it was required that the owner add four additional handicap spaces to comply with ADA regulations. This they had done, near the front entrance. They also provided additional trees to accommodate a landscaping plan. They submitted their photometric plan and added lights to the property as well.
One concern expressed by the board was with regard to the number of spaces that would exceed a distance of 300 feet from the building. The board also questioned the planned curbing in the lot. A representative for the project said.
“I just wanted to ask one more time regarding the curbing... for permission for the monolithic berm [rather than granite]. They went on to explain that unlike the old berms where they were laid on top of the previous asphalt, the modern berms are integral, making them more durable. The applicant also noted the preference of plow drivers for asphalt berms, which are not as rough on plowing equipment.
Chair Padula said approving asphalt wasn’t within their purview but noted that the town bylaws offer a choice of granite or reinforced concrete. The applicant asked whether curb stops would still be required and was told that is option but is intended to keep vehicles from extending into sidewalk areas, when present.
The Board ended by voting to close the public hearing and then voted to approve the site plan modification.
There was also a continuation of a hearing for a site plan at 40 Alpine Row, first brought before the board in July.
Among the points discussed were sight lines for vehicles exiting the property, the proper application of town regulations to this particular project, retaining walls, and sidewalk with. The site plan was approved with several conditions attached.
