WESTFIELD – The developer of the Bent Tree subdivision asked the Planning Board to allow a minor change to the plans accepted by the board last month.
The 10-lot development on 28 acres of land off Montgomery Road is being developed by Mark Bergeron of Bent Tree Development, LLC. The preliminary subdivision plan was approved by the board in February and the definitive plan at the board’s May 20 meeting
The definitive plan is the document that will be filed with the Registry of Deeds along with the Mylar drawings signed by the Planning Board members. The document includes the board’s findings, condition and waivers.
A condition of the approved plan was to install a four-foot high chain-link fence around the retention area where stromwater, collected in the subdivision, is pooled, then allowed to percolation into the soil. There is also a piping system to discharge stormwater collected during a significant storm.
Bergeron, represented by Rob Levesque of R. Levesque Associated, argued that instead of installing the fence he would decrease the slops of the retention pond, changing the proposed 3 to 1 slope to a 4 to 1 slope.
“The developer feels the fence is not manageable,” Levesque said. The proposed slope change will make it easy to get in and out.
Bergeron said that he conducted percolation tests which indicated that “the ground will soak up water, it will not go over two feet in depth.”
Bergeron argued that the fence “looks institutional. I’d like to put something in that is more natural.” He also said that maintenance of the fence will be difficult and that over time it would become overgrown.
Several members of the Planning Board expressed concern of any change which eliminates the fence.
Board Member Jane Magarian said that two feet of water is more than sufficient to drown a toddler.
“I know that parents can’t plan for every contingency in life, but if the fence saves one life, isn’t it worth it?” Magarian asked.
Board member Carl Vincent said the retention facility is nine feet deep.
“Even without water in it a child wanting to explore could get hurt,” Vincent said. “We discussed requiring a six-foot high fence, than decided that a four-foot high fence was adequate protection. I’m not willing to remove any kind of restraint. I feel there should be some kind of fencing or a barrier.”
Several members of the board also supported the change as presented by the developer, viewing the slope modification as a minor change to the plan.
“I tend to agree with the developer,” Chairman Phil McEwan said. “Playing a round of golf is more hazardous than this. A two-year old could walk in and out of this.”
Levesque requested the board to continue the issue to its July 27 meeting to allow time to investigate options such as a vegetative barrier. The board voted to grant that continuance.
