Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 04092008 Planning Board Minutes . April 9, 200~ ;'FCEIYcO. Present: H. Thomas French, Chair; John DeMassl, Clerk;P9ug'~~~'CE McClanahan, Stan Feck, Tony Jodice, Beth Ashman-Collins~'DonaId '~feWy, Alternate Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development lOOB APR 2ll P 2: 50 1.2...C()rr~p4)llctell~e 1. Minutes March 19,2008 Motion: To approve as submitted (McClanahan-Annino) All in favor. PASSES 2. ZBA application for Variance - 579 East Street - Frontage and Lot Width Mr. Burke explained the proposed lot would not access through the conforming frontage, but through a second, non-conforming frontage. One lot would have adequate frontage on East Street, the other would not. Mr. Burke suggested a negative recommendation be sent to the ZBA. Ms. Ashman-Collins said there is no hardship shown on the plan or the application, and the application doesn't include any information. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because there is no demonstration the application meets any of the statutory tests for the grant of a variance. Further, the application appears to be incomplete. (Ashman-Collins-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Burke presented the board with a draft special permit. Mr. Valanzola asked that condition 3 be rephrased to include both Pinnacle Partners and Old School Street LLC. Mr. Valanzola said the ANR plan has already been done and recorded, so that condition is not necessary. Mr. French suggested adding that "No other drive-through uses [other than the bank] shall be allowed under this special permit without the approval of the Planning Board." Ms. Ashman-Collins asked whether the name change had been considered and said she felt strongly "Mansfield Commons" is inappropriate. Mr. Hoppe said he would consider changing that. Motion: To sign the special permit with the amendments suggested above by Mr. Valanzola and Mr. French (McClanahan-DeMassi) McClanahan - In favor. The applicant has done a lot of work to satisfy the board's concerns, including safety issues at Old School Street DeMassi - In favor. The applicant has worked hard to make the plan better, has answered all of board's questions, done a lot to create continuity among the sites in the Planning Board 1 4/10/2008 area with common architecture, will be a positive addition to the community and will provide tax benefits Annino -In favor. This will be consistent with development in the area, as the residential uses there now are inappropriate, the design and architecture will help create a consistent feel in the area, and the developer has worked well with the board Collins - In favor. I am impressed with the way the plan has evolved to satisfy the concerns of the board, especially regarding traffic and pedestrian circulation Jodice - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, it will be a good fit for the area, provide additional tax revenue and jobs, and the applicant did a good job working with the board. Cleary - In favor. The site will be an aesthetically pleasing improvement to the area, and will provide fiscal benefits to the town. French - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments with the design of the site and additional jobs, and is consistent with other uses in the area. 7 in favor. 0 opposed. All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (McClanahan-Annino) All in favor. PASSES liz. G9....~pf).lld~~te~o..tb:tueil 7. 2008-2009 SRPEDD Commission Delegate Appointment Form Motion: To reappoint Leonard Flynn as the Planning Board's representative (McClanahan-Annino) All in favor. PASSES The clerk read the public hearing notice. The proposed amendment would change the minimum lot size required for a 55 and Over development from six (6) acres to five (5) acres. Gary Hendren said the state standard for a 55 and over development is five acres. Mr. Cooney said he thinks the town is looking for more over 55 housing, and his project would include some affordable units, and would not put any burden on the school system. Mr. Hendren said construction and employment is lower than it has been, so this would be an opportunity to bring some jobs to town. Mr. Cooney said he is willing to work with the board. Mr. DeMassi said this change wouldn't affect only Mr. Cooney's parcel on School Street, but every parcel in town. He said the board's concern the last time this was discussed was the density. He said this use is a special permit, so the board has some flexibility to ensure a site isn't too dense. He said he wants to encourage more of this type of housing. Planning Board 2 4/10/2008 Mr. Jodice asked what the intent of changing the minimum lot size from 10 acres to six acres was. Mr. French said Mr. Clemmey proposed the reduction for a site behind Shaw's, which the board discussed being a good transition use and made a positive recommendation. Mr. French said the board has looked at a number of other community's regulations, and they were allover the place. Mr. Jodice asked what the state requires for density; Mr. Burke said it requires 10 units per upland acre. Mr. Jodice asked if someone else could ask for a minimum lower than five in the future. Mr. Hendren said that would have to go before the state legislature. Mr. Cooney said his site has 4.1 or 4.2 upland acres, which would affect the density. Mr. McClanahan said he is very concerned about this type of use on Mr. Cooney's site on School Street. Mr. Burke said he wasn't supportive of the petition to lower the minimum from 10 to six acres, and he is not supportive of this change. He said when the 10 acre minimum by-law was adopted, the board felt this type of development should be on a large enough parcel that it would become a community with a village-type feel, and not be done on small parcels with an apartment building configuration. He noted infrastructure has to be in place for this type of development, which is primarily in areas near the center of town. Mr. Annino said this would be a good use for downtown because of transportation, shopping and eating options. Mr. Cooney said his plan includes a clubhouse and 32 units. Mr. DeMassi said this type of housing is important and should be encouraged so older people have the option to stay in town. Mr. Burke said there m:e three different types of age-restricted housing in the by-law now. He said he is concerned about trends with developers coming back to change the age restrictions on this type of development when market conditions change. He noted that has been happening recently with 55 and over developments permitted under Chapter 40B. Mr. Hendren said those 40B projects are much larger than Mr. Cooney's. Mr. Cooney said there was discussion at the Master Plan workshop about trying to keep older residents in town. Mr. Cooney said his proposal would help the traffic problem on School Street by moving the driveway onto Willow Street. Mr. Feck said he supports smaller sites with lower density, and because it is a special permit use, the board has more control over the permitting. Public Comment Richard Gordon, 407 West Street, said he is concerned about the density and impact on the character of the neighborhoods in which this use could be permitted. He said he is Planning Board 3 4/10/2008 concerned about the real estate market changing a developer's plans for this type of development. Mr. Burke explained the board has to make a report to Town Meeting and said the public hearing can either be closed or left open if the board wants to take in more information. He recommended closing the public hearing. Mr. Cooney said he lives in Mansfield and ifhe does this, it will be done right and will be an asset to the community. Motion: To close the public hearing (McClanahan-Feck) All in favor. PASSES The clerk read the public hearing notice. The proposed amendment would rezone the following parcels from R2 to B3: Map 20, Parcels 147 (115 Walnut Street), 148 (376 Chauncy Street), 197 (364 Chauncy Street), 198 (372 Chauncy Street), 150 (360 Chauncy Street), 152 (109 Walnut Street), 151 (Chauncy Street Rear) Mr. Clemmey explained the petition and map showing the parcels to be rezoned. The site is seven lots from the corner of Walnut Street and Chauncy Street to the Route 106 intersection. He noted the retail development on School Street has been beneficial, and this is the same situation, with residential uses across the street from retail uses. He said this would bring those properties into harmony with the surrounding uses. He said the four houses across Chauncy Street from Stop & Shop are the only residential uses on Chauncy until past Central Street. He said getting in and out of those driveways is very difficult, and renting or selling them is difficult because of the traffic and access issues. Mr. Clemmey said there are retail developers interested in purchasing the parcels; he said the best use would be to match the uses around it. Mr. Clemmey said the two lots across Walnut Street are in the PBD. He said Lot 20/152 is included in this zoning change because it would provide enough land for parking and buffering. Mr. Clemmey said this is a 3-acre site, which would be about a 30,000 square foot building, and any new business would require site plan review. He said having businesses on this parcel would reduce the number of curb cuts onto Chauncy Street. Public Comment Carole Gordon, 407 West Street, said she thinks this is spot zoning. Mr. French said he doesn't think so, given the other businesses around it. Mr. Burke agreed. Mr. Gordon said the neighborhood has been fighting these rezoning proposals for years. He said the 1989 and 1996 Master Plans recognized this as a residential neighborhood. Jeffrey Waites, 35 Walnut Street, said he is concerned about where the rezoning would stop. He said right now, these houses are their buffer, and if the rezoning happens, they will have business and industrial in their back yards. Planning Board 4 4/10/2008 Paul Kilroy, 25 Walnut Street, said if this is rezoned, the valuation of the existing residential uses will go down. He said he would be concerned about further rezoning and more business on the other side of Route 140. He said there are existing traffic problems on Walnut Street, and more business uses would make that worse. Mr. French said there will not be curb cuts off Route 140 because it is a limited access highway. Kathy Norty, 106 Walnut Street, said if the value of the houses across Chauncy Street has gone down, the addition of more business there would affect the value of the remaining residential properties nearby. Ms. Norty said she was also concerned traffic. Celeste Jones, 60 South Walnut Street, said Mr. Clemmey referred to the four houses on Chauncy Street as having driveways onto Chauncy Street. She said one has a driveway onto Walnut Street. She asked about the lots on Walnut Street; Mr. Clemmey said Lots 147 and 152 are on Walnut Street and are included in this rezoning, and would become the buffer between the houses on Walnut Street and the new businesses. Mr. Clemmey said changing these parcels to business won't change the existing traffic issue with people driving between Shaw's and Stop & Shop. Tina Solveria, 79 Walnut Street, said she is concerned about existing traffic and said new businesses along Chauncy Street would have parking, lighting and dumpsters at the back. Mr. Feck said if the houses in the PBD were removed, new houses could not be built. Kim Foley, 25 Casa Drive, asked who owns 20-151. Mr. Clemmey said Mr. Epstein owns that parcel. He said Mass Highway has a restriction along Route 140 so nothing can be built within a certain distance from the intersection and the parcels cannot be accessed from Route 140. Ms. Foley asked what would prevent further expansion of the business zone toward Casa Drive. Ms. Foley said if the houses across from Stop & Shop are devalued, additional business in the area would devalue her and her neighbor's houses. Mr. Clemmey said the value of the land across School Street from the mall rose. Liz Holbrook, 45 Casa Drive, asked about how taking three driveways with two or three cars each and changing it to two or three driveways with much more traffic is a benefit. Mr. Clemmey said getting out of those driveways is very difficult. Ms. Norty asked what 20-147 would be used for. Mr. Clemmey said he doesn't know what type of businesses would go on this site. Kevin Foley, 25 Casa Drive, said traffic is bad now and more business would make it worse. He said rezoning will transfer the devaluation problem to the other homes. Board Comment Mr. Cleary asked why the rezoning is to B3 and not PBD. Mr. Clemmey said PBD doesn't allow retail. Planning Board 5 4/10/2008 Mr. Jodice asked about the Pinnacle site across School Street from the mall. Mr. Burke explained that area is II, though there are residential uses on it now. Ms. Collins said there is a brand new residential apartment building on this intersection, so the argument that noone will live in the houses across from Chauncy Street is hard to make. She said further business development in the area would require traffic studies and traffic calming methods. Mr. Annino said he was opposed to this the last two times it was proposed. He said the neighborhoods are being squeezed, and the business use wouldn't be keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood. He said there are already traffic concerns and more retail uses would make that worse. He said he doesn't see benefits to the proposal. Mr. DeMassi said he wasn't in favor of this the last time it was proposed. He said he doesn't think all the options have been explored for the reuse of these parcels, which would require the landowners to cooperate. He said he understands the additional lots in this proposal will add more buffering if businesses are built. He said he isn't in favor or changing the zoning, but said he thinks there are other options that could be investigated. Mr. Feck asked if Stop & Shop is in the PBD; Mr. Burke said it is, but was in the II when it was permitted. Mr. Feck asked if there is a way to restrict the curb cuts so they don't go onto Walnut Street. Mr. Burke said if the parcel has frontage on Walnut Street, they could access through Walnut Street. Mr. Feck asked about increasing the buffer above what is required. Mr. Burke said that would be outside the scope of this hearing. Mr. McClanahan said he would like to visit the site. Mr. Burke said this is not the same situation as the parcels on School Street. He said the rear of those parcels abut the railroad tracks, not a residential neighborhood. He said this has been before the board before, and he didn't support it then and doesn't support it now. He said his concern is the encroachment of business uses into residential neighborhoods. He said he can sympathize with the landowners, but doesn't think it is fair to put the burden on the neighbors. He said Route 106 from Foxboro to Easton has many areas of residential use and residents mixed with businesses. Mr. Clemmey said the eight direct abutters to these lots are not here tonight. He said he has spoken with four of the abutters, who have no concern with this change. He said he thinks this proposal makes sense because it is the best use of the property. Brad Miller, 97 Walnut Street, said he thinks there may be other options besides business for this land. Mr. Foley said he is concerned the petitioner will come back to rezone additional parcels in the future. Motion: To close the public hearing (DeMassi-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES Planning Board 6 4/10/2008 1...SRPEDDCol11........ionReP9~ Leonard Flynn, SRPEDD Commission representative, said the last meeting was about the South Coast Rail Project. The 67 alternatives have been cut to 10, which includes Mansfield near Gilbert Street and the Attleboro bypass. He said the preference is for electric, but it is very expensive. He said the earliest the work could start is 2017. The clerk read the public hearing notice. The proposed amendment is as follows: 5.3 Site Plan Review 5.3.1 Purpose The purpose of Site Plan Review is: to provide an orderly review procedure where site plans of n proposed projects can be approved with reasonable conditions which will maintain the character and integrity of all zoning districts and adjoining zoning districts; to ensure that new, expanded or reconstructed sites are planned and designed to minimize impacts on the environment, abutters, and town services by proper design and construction of stormwater systems, parking and loading areas, waste removal, sediment and erosion control, lighting, landscaping and buffering, points of access and egress, pedestrian access and signage. 5.3.2 Applicability In all instances specified in Section 3 Schedule of Principal Regulations, indicating that site plan approval is required, no building permit shall be issued in any case where a building is to be erected or externally enlarged and no area for parking, loading, or vehicular service (including driveways giving access thereto) shall be established or substantially changed, except in conformity with a site plan bearing an endorsement of approval by the Inspector of Buildings after review thereof by the Planning Board. Site plan approval shall not be required in any case where a building is to be externally changed for the purpose of closing an entrance or creating a new entrance thereto and for other extension(s) to a building, which in total shall not exceed more than 15% of the gross floor area of the building or 10,000 square feet, whichever is less. Uses which require a site plan review and issuance or denial of a development approval by the Planning Board are identified by the letter "V" under the column heading "SPA" of Schedule of Principal Use Regulations. 5.3.3 In instances where site plan review is required, a site plan shall be submitted in accordance with Section 5.5.2 and 5.5.3 of this Zoning By-law, as well as the following which shall be required by the applicant for site plan review: a) locus plan; b) location of structures within 100 feet of property lines; c) existing and proposed buildings, showing setbacks from property lines; d) signage; e) existing and proposed contour elevations in two-foot increments; t) parking areas, driveways, and facilities for pedestrian movement; g) drainage system ; h) utilities and lighting, including a photometric plan; i) landscaping, including trees to be removed and retained; j) loading and unloading facilities k) provisions for refuse removal; I) existing and projected traffic volumes from the site and effect on the local road network; m) drainage calculations and soil tests for the location of the building(s), parking areas and drainage facilities; Planning Board 7 4/1 0/2008 n) other information as may be necessary to determine compliance with the provisions of this bylaw. 0) Building elevations, floor plans 5.3.4 Review Procedure The Planning Board shall examine the following concerns in reviewing the site plans of the proposed development: a) proper drainage of the property; b) safe access to the development, minimizing the number and width of curb cuts; c) acceptance design and layout of ways, streets, and parking areas; d) - that the projected traffic increases to the local road(s) is within the capacity of the existing network for both daily and peak hour volumes; e) proper lighting design for parking areas and abutters; 1) complies with the Mansfield Master Plan and Open Space and Recreation Plan. g) design features, building elevations h) aesthetic assets i) screening 5.3.5 The applicant shall submit such material as may be required regarding measures proposed to prevent pollution of surface or groundwater, soil erosion, increased runoff, changes in groundwater level, and flooding. 5.3.6 The applicant shall submit material regarding design features intended to integrate the proposed new development into the existing landscape, to enhance aesthetic assets, and to screen objectionable features from neighbors. 5.3.7 The applicant shall submit such material as may be required regarding the projected traffic flow patterns into and upon the site for both vehicles and pedestrians and an estimate of the projected number of motor vehicle trips to and from the site for an average day and for peak hours. 5.3.8 Prior to rendering its decision the Planning Board shall examine the technical quality of the site plans and evaluate the advisability of approval after considering the following matters: 5.3.9 Protection and enhancement of existing site features; 5.3.10 Protection of adjoining premises against detrimental uses by provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers and preservation of views, light and air; 5.3.11 Convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site, the location of driveway opening in relation to traffic or to adjacent streets and, when necessary, compliance with other regulations for the handicapped, minors and the elderly; 5.3.12 Conformance of the arrangement of parking and loading spaces in relation to the proposed uses of the premises to Section 4.4 of this by-law; 5.3.13 Proper methods of disposal of refuse and other wastes resulting from the uses permitted on the site; applicant must demonstrate availability of adequate water supply and waste disposal systems; 5.3.14 Relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape, existing buildings and other community assets in the area and compliance with other requirements of this by-law. 5.3.15 Protection of environmental features, particularly groundwater resources, on the site and in adjacent areas, adequate protection to prevent pollution of surface and groundwater, soil erosion, increased run-off, changes in groundwater recharge or elevation and flooding. Planning Board 8 4/1 0/2008 5.3.16 The original and eleven (11) copies of the development application and plans shall be submitted to the Town Clerk, who shall give the applicant a dated receipt. Within three (3) days of the receipt of said application, the Town Clerk shall transmit the original and all copies to the Building Inspector for distribution and review. 5.3.17 The Applicant shall submit to the Building Inspector a fmal as-built of the site plan, stamped by the Engineer and Land Surveyor (as necessary) in both hard copy and digital format (preferably in AutoCAD DWG format, but DXF format will be acceptable). The media shall be a 3.5" floppy disk or CD. The plan Vertical Datum shall reference the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NA VD88), and the plan shall contain a minimum of two benchmarks. The horizontal orientation shall reference the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). The plan shall show the locations and dimensions of the building foundation(s), and all utilities, including sanitary sewer, storm drain, water and electric. The location of the foundation( s) shall be shown with respect to the lot lines. The locations of all utility connections shall include the elevation, the size and material of the connections, and the distance from the points where the services leave the foundation to the nearest foundation corner. For sewer and drainage, swing ties shall also be provided from at least two foundation corners to any sewer or drain structure, or change in horizontal or vertical line of the services and the distances from the nearest Town manhole to the points of connection to the Town mains. For water service(s), swing ties shall also be provided from at least two foundation corners to any bends, valves, fittings, curb stop and corporation stops. For electric service, swing ties shall also be provided from at least two foundation corners to any underground conduit bends, hand holes or manholes. The Engineer or Registered Land Surveyor shall certify that the construction conformed to the approved site plan or approved modifications thereto. Both the above as- built plan and the certification must be received and approved prior to sign off of the Certificate of Occupancy. 5.3.18 The Building Inspector shall arrange for said site plan to be reviewed by, but not limited to, the following departments; Police, Fire, Engineering, Planning, Conservation, Electric, Water, Wastewater, Health, and Public Works. Written comments from the departments shall be forwarded to the Planning Board prior to the Planning Board's review. 5.3.19 Ifthe Planning Board, determines that said site plan complies with the purpose and specification of this bylaw, the Board shall approve the site plan with or without conditions. If the Board determines the plan does not comply with the specifications of this by-law, it shall be disapproved. 5.3.20 The Planning Board shall take action on said plan within thirty (30) days of receipt of the site plan from the Town Clerk. 5.3.20 Appeals The Zoning Board of Appeals as established by Chapter 40A of the General Laws of the Commonwealth shall hear and decide appeals in regards to determinations or decisions made by the Planning Board in the enforcement or administration of this section. Mr. French said this article has gone before Town Meeting before; the last time it lost by only a few votes. He said the board currently has site plan review on commercial projects, which is a non-binding recommendation to the building inspector. He said the building inspector does not have the authority under the building code to enforce the board's recommendations. This by-law would give the board the ability to work with developers to improve projects and would give some teeth to the regulations so the building inspector would have the authority to enforce. Mr. DeMassi said the board wants to have something standardized so developers know what they have to submit. He said the difference in quality between site plans and special permit plans is significant, but the projects have equal impact on the community. He said Planning Board 9 4/10/2008 it is important to standardize requirements so the board doesn't have to keep going back and forth with the developer, or have the developers ignore the board's recommendation completely. He said most Planning Boards in Massachusetts have site plan approval. Mr. Feck said he is concerned this could make everything a special permit. Mr. French disagreed, saying there is no test to find the benefits outweigh the detriments on a site plan, and approval does not require a super majority. Mr. Feck said he agrees some of the things in the proposal are needed, but is concerned it may go too far. He said he is concerned this would give the board the ability to change the requirements on different projects. Ms. Collins said this would give the board the ability to work with developers to improve each project. Mr. Flynn said part of the reason this failed at Town Meeting in 2007 was because it was at the end of the night. He said zoning articles are too important to be put at the end of the warrant. He said he supports this proposal. Mr. Gordon said he also supports this. Mr. Jodice said he sees the merit in this proposal, but said it is a political hot topic. He said whether it is or isn't, the perception is that it is a power play. Mr. Jodice said he has researched several sites in town for development, and said he thinks this by-law would hold back development. He suggested exempting the Bland B2 districts from this by- law. Ms. Collins said land development is so complex, the board needs to have the ability to discuss all the issues about a site. Mr. Annino said every building or development enhances the community, so there has to be a way to guide development. Mr. Jodice said he is concerned this by-law could be abused in the future. Mr. DeMassi noted there is an appeal process to the ZBA. Motion: To close the public hearing (McClanahan-Feck) All in favor. PASSES 12.....CorresPolldeneee()n~ued. 3. ZBA application for Special Permit - Canoe River Campground - Expansion of pre- existing, non-conforming use. The proposed use is to add campsites to accommodate large, modern recreational vehicles. Mr. Burke said the proposed expansion is at the back of the Canoe River Campground. The test for a special permit is lower than that for a variance; the ZBA will have to decide whether the expansion is significantly more detrimental than the existing use. Mr. Burke suggested a negative recommendation to the ZBA because the proposed use is more detrimental than the existing use. Ms Collins said she was concerned the proposal seems to be within the 200- foot riverfront. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation and suggest the proposed development be pulled back away from the Canoe River, the riparian zone associated with the Canoe River and the wetland buffer. The Planning Board also suggests the expansion be made less dense. The Planning Board is of the opinion that the proximity of the proposed expansion to the Canoe River, combined with the number of proposed sites and access roads, will be substantially more detrimental than the current use. (Annino-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES Planning Board 10 4/10/2008 4. SRPEDD Annual Award Request for 5. March Building Permit Summary 6. Meeting notices - Attleboro, Easton, Norton, Sharon Oakland Street - Richard Masison - To create three lots from one. Mr. Burke said there are three existing buildings on the existing parcel. Variances have been granted for setbacks. Mr. Burke said the plan has sufficient frontage and area warrants approval by the board. Motion: To sign the ANR Plan (McClanahan-Annino) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Jodice said the Globe ran an article on Sunday about green building and said he would send it to the other members. Motion: To adjourn at 10:45 p.m. (McClanahan-Feck) All in favor. PASSES Next meeting: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. (Master Plan) 1\ Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. (Planning Board) llJl4L2o .. Y!:J!jOJ Signature of Clerk Date of Appro I Planning Board 11 4/10/2008