WEST BRIDGEWATER PLANNING BOARD

8/20/14

PRESENT: H. Hurley, H. Anderson, G. Stetson and J. Noyes

ABSENT: A. Kinahan

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.

1. Bridge Repair, Route 106 West Center Street:

Mr. Hurley reported that he had received a letter from the MASS Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding the bridge repair at the above site. The Board had sent a letter with their concerns after attending the Design Public Hearing held on May 27, 2014. Mr. Hurley noted that they appreciated the Board’s input and had offered the following responses:

1.  In regards to notifying drivers coming from E. Bridgewater and Halifax of the construction detours, a changeable message sign will be installed,

2.  It is recognized that Walnut Street and West Street are residential areas and sensitive to traffic flow. Walnut Street and United Drive will not be included in the temporary detours, however West Street is a critical element of the detour and is shown in the proposed traffic management plan,

3.  In response to whether the added traffic volumes have been investigated, the answer is yes. During the three (3) week closure of Route 106 at the bridge, numerous roadways will experience increased use. Where these diversions significantly increase traffic, the traffic signal’s timing will be adjusted. At the other locations which are not signalized, police officers will be deployed. This is expected to sufficiently accommodate the increased traffic flows,

4.  As to the 100 year flood elevation, debris clearance and the use of the adjacent canoe launch, the plans presented at the hearing will be as is. They believe that the proposed bridge will provide the same level of safe canoe passage during normal flows as the existing bridge. It was noted that the elevation of the proposed bridge cannot be raised due to adjacent driveways to residences and the bridge span cannot be shortened to allow a more shallow bridge depth due to the associated channel environmental impacts. Also the hydraulic analyses will neither result in any increase in flood elevations during the 100 year flood discharge nor necessitate increasing the horizontal limits of the river’s regulatory floodway in proximity to the West Center Street crossing location. The proposed bridge’s ability to pass debris will be improved over the existing bridge, and

continued:

West Bridgewater Planning Board

Minutes of 8/20/14

Page 2

5.  With respect to the Town’s water distribution system, the design plans are being revised to include an 18” diameter sleeve in the east and west bridge abutment walls to accommodate an insulated water pipe as requested. In addition, structural supports will be installed at this time to support the water main when the Town elects to install a new distribution pipe.

Mr. Hurley noted that he wanted the changeable message to be in Halifax to give drivers advance knowledge of the detours and not so close to the actual detours. As to the use of West Street as a detour road, the Board was in agreement that West Street was not sufficient to support the tractor trailer traffic that would be detoured. As to the Water issues, Mr. Hurley explained that they requested the “sleeve” for future use. He stated that the DOT had agreed to this. Copies of the letter will be forwarded to Mr. Hurley and Mr. Noyes for further review before responding to the letter and/or taking any additional action.

2. B.C. Way: Present were Matthew Ditrolio, Fred Ward, Barbara St. George, Carol St. George, Adrienne Edwards, Gary Hinchliffe, Marilyn DeMolles, Julia DeMolles and William DeMolles.

Mr. Hurley welcomed the attendees and noted that the Board had expected the developer and engineer for the project to be in attendance at this meeting, but that it didn’t appear that they would be attending after all. He noted that while this is not a public hearing, it was a public meeting and those in attendance would be able to ask their questions and voice their concerns. Mr. Hurley reported that this subdivision was approved in 2005 and has had several owners since then. He noted that, at one point, demolition materials were being brought onto the site so they had the Highway Department put up barriers to keep everyone out.

Mr. Hurley stated that a subdivision usually has an eight (8) year approval period, however the Legislature had extended that deadline an additional four (4) years because of the recent severe downturn in the economy and building activity. Consequently, this subdivision approval is still valid. He further noted that the Board monitors all subdivisions, was now aware of the recent activity, and has already been in touch with the developers. He stated that the normal procedure is to have a preconstruction meeting but that this did not happen. Mr. Hurley noted that proponents would need a road opening permit from the Town, and that the Conservation Commission is interested in anything that impacts the wetlands. He also noted that the Building Inspector is trying to get a handle on things as well.

Ms. Edwards stated that she is an abutter to Lot 5 and has serious concerns with the large slope and steep drop off at the rear of her property. She stated that it touches all of the surrounding properties at some point. She also noted that the proposed driveway would cut into the hill and that the grading is insufficient, and erosion is a major concern to her. Ms. Edwards stated that

continued:

West Bridgewater Planning Board

Minutes of 8/20/14

Page 3

the lot configurations are “very tight” and with the poor grading, she expects that everything corner of Lot 5. She also reported that the “fill” that was brought in was not clean, could cause potential health issues, and has now been buried so they cannot even have it tested to see if it is dangerous. She noted that this is unacceptable and not allowed under the Wetlands Protection Act. She also noted that there is now a lot of vegetation and questioned what will happen to it when the developers get through with it.

Mr. Hurley reported that the Planning Board had recently changed the Zoning bylaws to no longer allow “gerrymandered” and “pork chop” lots and also now requires that a one hundred by one hundred (100’ x100’) foot square be added to each new lot at the minimum setback line. He stated that the plan that the Board used at Town Meeting to get the bylaw changed was this exact plan. He noted that it was the perfect example of how “not” to do it. Mr. Hurley stated that this plan would not meet the current regulations, but because of the Legislature’s extension their hands are tied. He noted that when the original bylaw was created, they never dreamed that this would be the result.

Ms. Barbara St. George stated that her major concern was the grading of the driveway in back of her property. She noted that the elevation is already at five (5’) feet and that the contractor, Ross Messina, had told her that there is no drainage planned. Mr. Hurley stated that there was certainly drainage for the roadway in place, but that the actual lot grading and house placement would not be determined until the individual lots are sold. Ms. St. George also questioned what would happen when the roadway is plowed in the winter. She stated that she is very worried that all the debris will be dumped in her back yard. She stated that she wants it spelled out first before they are allowed to proceed.

Mr. Hinchliffe questioned the plan’s specifications and permitting process and asked if building permits had been issued. Mr. Hurley stated that the permits did not come from the Planning Board, so he wasn’t sure what had been permitted. He noted that the subdivision was all approved at this point. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that the contractor had been working for the last three (3) weeks bring in fill with a lot of debris in it. He stated that he had taken pictures and then presented those pictures to them for the Board to review. Mr. Hinchliffe also questioned if there were any easements on Lot 5 and if so, how close would they come to his property. He stated that because of the steep grade everything will wash back down the hill. Mr. Stetson noted that some of the fill material came from the old medical center. He noted that a month ago the Board looked at this project to see if the approval period had expired; hoping that it would have to be redesigned into maybe 2 lots, however it still falls under the old bylaws.

Ms. Edwards stated that a Notice of Intent was supposed to be filed for Lots 3, 4, and 5 but only one had been filed thus far. Mr. Stetson noted that he came upon the activity on this subdivision purely by mistake when he was leaving another inspection. He noted that the

continued:

West Bridgewater Planning Board

Minutes of 8/20/14

Page 4

Planning Board and the Highway Department were supposed to be notified at least forty eight (48) hours in advance of any activity as required under the subdivision rules and regulations, but that this was not done.

Ms. Carol St. George stated that a “DEP” sign just went up this week even though they have already been working for several weeks. Mr. Hurley noted that the Conservation Commission Agent has been involved as well. He stated that the Planning Board has control over the division of the property and roadway construction, but after that, they have no authority. He noted that he was not trying to “pass the buck” but each department (Building Inspector, Board of Health, Conservation Commission, etc.) has specific duties with respect to each new development. Mr. Stetson noted that they might have some authority with respect to Lot 5 because of the roadway drainage, but would not have much to do or say with the other lots. He reiterated that the developers were invited to attend this meeting to discuss the issues but evidently chose not to appear. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that when they had tried to have a discussion with the contractor, R. Messina it got very heated. Mr. Messina was also not happy that they were out there taking pictures of the site and checking on the stake placements.

Mr. Ditrolio stated that he had bought his property (on Lot 1) in 2009 and didn’t understand the configuration even back then. He questioned what could be done to change the Lots or if it was too late to do anything about it. He reported that there was a barn that was taken down but the foundation is still there and is half on his lot and half on Lot 2. He stated that when he returned home from work recently he noticed that thirty (30’) feet of his property had been excavated and his trees had been taken down. He stated that he would even be willing to reconfigure his land at this point just to get it straightened out, or even just make it a little bit better. He also noted that the foundation should have been removed and grading done at that time. Mr. Ditrolio stated that when he purchased the property the abutting owner stated that he would work with him to reconfigure his lot so he would not be impacted by the subdivision. He stated that this never happened. He also stated that these proposed lots had been “squeezed” in to the property to get this many lots. Mr. Hurley noted that these lots only have the minimum area that is required and that’s why the Board pushed for the bylaw change to be implemented. Mr. Hurley also noted that there was no way that proponents would make any changes now because they would end up losing a lot. As to the tree removal, Mr. Hurley stated that they will address this with the proponents. Mr. Ditrolio stated that four (4) lots would have been much better. Mr. Hurley agreed and reiterated that this was why the Board changed the bylaw. Ms. Carol St. George stated that she grew up in this area and her neighbors had a farm and a barn and that during the wet season the horses would have to be moved to higher ground since the buildings floors would be flooded. She stated that this development would make the situation even worse than it is now.

continued:

West Bridgewater Planning Board

Minutes of 8/20/14

Page 5

Ms. Barbara St. George questioned how high Lot 5 would be built up. Mr. Hurley reviewed the plan and noted that it would be five to six (5’- 6’) feet maximum. Mr. Stetson noted that there would be a small “dip” in the road at the entrance, but did not know what would occur with Lot 5 as yet. Mr. Hurley noted that the lot grading would be done when the house plans are designed. He noted that Lot 5 appears to have a lot of pools and the proposed drainage drops into four (4) separate areas before it is eventually discharged into the wetlands. He stated that the proponents have to comply with all of the State mandated standards.

Ms. Marilyn DeMolles stated that she owns several hay and corn fields as well as some of the wetlands in the back of her property that abuts this development. She questioned how much of the drainage would end up on her property and if it would flood the fields. Mr. Hurley stated that the drainage design is not allowed to increase the rate or volume of the runoff and that this plan had been reviewed by the Planning Board and Conservation Commission engineers before the approval was given. Mr. Anderson stated that the proponents had to meet all of the State standards. Mr. Hurley noted that it has been addressed on both sides of the proposed roadway. He suggested that proponents stay in contact with the Building Inspector to make sure it gets done right. He also noted that the Board of Health has an engineer review all of the septic plans before they get approved.

Mr. Stetson stated that the Board will have a little control on Lot 5, and reiterated that proponents have to meet their standards for the roadway. He stated that the Board is not happy with this plan either, but unfortunately they can’t change it. He noted that on some other approved subdivisions they are asking for grading as-built plans, but again, this was not part of the approval for this subdivision. He noted that the Board members have all lived in this town for many years and remember what used to be there and what problems there were then.