Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 04082009 Planning Board Minutes April 8, 2009 Present: Tom French, Chair; Beth Ashman-Collins, Clerk; Doug Annino, Tony Jodice, Olivier Kozlowski and Shawn MacDonald, alternates -- \/ED FICE :: "' n. ; ~ _' t.,. C) I: tlq 11. Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. .. -1 I 2. Correspondence I 1. Minutes March 25, 2009 Motion: To approve as submitted (MacDonald-Annino) Four in favor. Two abstentions. P ASSSES 2. April 1 , 2009 letter re: SPREDD Commissioner appointment Motion: To reappoint Leonard Flynn as the board's SRPEDD representative (Annino-Kozlowski) All in favor. PASSES 3. April 1,2009 letter from Police Chief Arthur O'Neill re: reducing Mansfield Crossing security patrols / draft April 8,2009 letter from Mr. French to Chief O'Neill 4. April 8, 2009 memo from Mr. Burke re: Mansfield Marketplace signage variance; Mr. Burke does not believe the grant of a variance for a sign four feet higher than allowed requires a modification to the special permit. Motion: To allow the modification to the signage as a field modification. Any further changes may require review by the Planning Board for potential modification to the special permit (Annino-Collins) All in favor. PASSES 5. Public Hearing notices - Easton, Norton 6. Mass Housing Partnership 2008 Annual Report [Mr. Annino left the meeting] I 3. Form A (ANR) Plans 4. Discussion about 214 Rumford Avenue Redevelopment - Marco Crugnale Mr. Crugnale showed the board preliminary plans for 214 Rumford A venue. He is proposing to remove the existing building and replace it with a four-story building with retail on the first floor and condos above. There would be 4,000 square feet of retail and 24 condos. He said his plan meets the parking requirements, with five retail spaces and the rest for residential. He said he is thinking of a loft-style, modem building and plans to use as many "green" building techniques as possible. The condos will be two- bedroom, one-bath. The front of the building will have a lot of glass overlooking the downtown, with less glass in the back to block the train noise. Mr. Crugnale said he would like to get some feedback from the board before moving ahead. Mr. French asked if this conforms to zoning. Mr. Cruganle said it complies with the parking, height and setback requirements. There is an existing 8- foot sidewalk, which Mr. Planning Board 4/9/2009 Crugnale said he would improve. He said he would add some lighting and green space, and install a wrought-iron fence next to the building, along the path the commuters use. Construction would be a slab with no basement; each unit would have a storage area. Access to the residential units would be at the back, with access to the retail space at the front. Mr. Kozlowski asked how this fits in with the Master Plan. Mr. Jodice said the board discussed that building being an entrance to the downtown area, and had hoped something would be done there to make it more attractive. Mr. Crugnale said he would do something to break up the back of the building, which would probably be brick. The front of the building will have awnings. Mr. Jodice asked if this is a by-right use or a special permit. Mr. Crugnale said it is a by- right, site plan use. Ms. Collins said the building could be dressed up with things like with landscaping and glass. Mr. Jodice said this redevelopment could help to make people feel more secure when walking from the train to downtown. Ms. Collins said having a tall building at that location will help people on Route 106 see downtown. Mr. Crugnale said he has spoken with the Light Department about getting the electrical lines buried. He said he is willing to do other creative things, like improving the sidewalk and adding lighting and benches. Mr. French said this property is a gateway to the town and this would be a huge improvement over what is there now. He said all ofMr. Crugnale's other projects have been beneficial to downtown. Mr. Crugnale said there is public parking in front of this site, which will help the retail. Mr. MacDonald asked about plans for the side of the site abutting the existing house. Mr. Crugnale said there would be a small landscaped area. He said he looked into acquiring that property, but was unsuccessful. Mr. Crugnale said this would generate much more in taxes and fees. Trash would be private. Because of the size of the units, the tenants would likely not have children, so there wouldn't be additional stress on the school system. Mr. Jodice asked if Mr. Crugnale has spoken with the Fire Department about access to the back of the building. Mr. Crugnale said he plans to do that. Mr. French suggested if there is a turnaround issue, parking could be around the perimeter of the site. Mr. Kozlowski said he likes this idea, but noted there is a note in the Zoning By-Law requiring a 75-foot buffer when commercial abuts residential. Attorney Ed Valanzola, representing the current owner, said he doesn't think the lot next door is zoned residential; Mr. Kozlowski said the note talks about a "residential use." Mr. Valanzola said this project would be a benefit to the downtown. Planning Board 2 4/9/2009 Mr. Crugnale said this should be a good place for retail uses because of its location. Mr. MacDonald suggested trying to work some jogs or other detail into the fayade to break it up. Mr. Jodice suggested some greenery or landscaping would accomplish that, as well. Mr. French said glass, lighting and using different materials will break up the building. Mr. Crugnale suggested different awning colors. He said the mechanical equipment would be on the flat roof with a parapet. He has already spoken with the Light Department about the transformer location. Mr. Crugnale said he has spoken with a consultant about the affordable units. 5. Public Hearing - Zoning By-Law Amendments for Annual Town Meeting [Mr. Annino returned to the meeting] The clerk read the public hearing notice. Gap in Wireless Coverage Amendment 3.6.7.2.6.1 Special Provisions for a Gap in Wireless Coverage The Planning Board is authorized to issue a special permit for a wireless communications facility in accordance with this by-law in districts where a wireless communications facility is otherwise prohibited under the Schedule of Principal Use Regulations subject to the following terms and conditions: a. The Planning Board, after public hearing and presentation of substantial evidence by the applicant, determines that a significant gap in wireless coverage exists in a portion of the town,; and that to disallow the location/construction/placement of a wireless communication facility within a zoning district where a wireless communication facility would not be permitted would be an effective prohibition of said use and a violation of Section 704 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. b. An applicant for a significant gap in wireless coverage determination must submit such information as may be required, such as mapping of existing areas of coverage, maps depicting location of wireless coverage gaps, reports, affidavits and other supplemental narrative information from a suitably qualified radio frequency engineer(s) or other industry specialist to clearly demonstrate a gap in coverage exists and there are no other suitable locations for the placement of a wireless communication tower to close the gap. The Planning Board may require an applicant for a gap in wireless coverage determination to pay the costs and expenses of an expert or other consultant deemed necessary by the board to provide peer review and comment upon the application. c. An application for a special permit relying upon a significant gap in wireless coverage determination shall comply with all applicable requirements of Section 3.6.7, Wireless Communication Towers, and Section 5.5, Special Permits, of the Mansfield Zoning By-Law. Mr. French explained the town's existing wireless by-law limits where towers are allowed. Because most of the existing towers are along highways, there are gaps in coverage in the more rural areas of town. This by-law would allow the board to make a finding that a gap exists and to issue a special permit provided the applicant proves a gap exists and complies with the special permit and wireless communication by-law. It would also allow the board to hire a consultant for peer review. Planning Board 3 4/9/2009 Mr. French said the wireless communication by-law limits the location of towers to non- residential areas. However, the Federal Communications Act trumps local regulations, which has recently resulted in a court order to allow the construction of a tower in a residential zone. This by-law would give the town more control by requiring an applicant to prove a gap exists and to comply with the existing wireless and special permit by-laws. Motion: To send a positive recommendation to Town Meeting (Annino-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES Flood Plain Map and Zoning By-Law Amendments 1.5.43 Flood Hazard, Area of Special: The land in the flood plain within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Mansfield subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. The area is designated as Zone A, AI, :\2, :\3, ,^.1, ,\6 or ,^.7 and AE on the FIRM dated July 7, 2009. 1.5.46 Special Hazard Area: An area having special flood and/or flood related erosion hazards, and shown on the FHBM FIRM as Zone A, /\1, ,^.2, .^.3, ,^.1, ,\6 or ,\7 and AE. 5.4.1.1 District Delineation: Flood Plain District is herein established an overlay district. The District includes all special flood hazard areas within the Town of Mansfield designated e&the Mansfield as Zone A and AE on the Bristol County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the administration of the National Flood Insurance Program. The map panels of the Bristol County FIRM that are wholly or partially within the Town of Mansfield are panel numbers 2S00SC0018F, 2S00SC0019F,2S00SC0036F,SOOSC0037F,2S00SC0038F,2S00SCO039F,2S00SC0041F, 2S00SC0043F, 2S00SCOI07F, 2S00SC0126F and 2S00SC0127F dated April I, 1977 July 7, 2009. as Zone A, ,\1, :\2, /\3, ,^.1, ,'\6, aHa ,'\7. The exact boundaries of the District may be defined by the I OO-year base flood elevations shown on the FIRM dated April I, 1977, and as may be amended from time to time by 'iote of Town Meeting and further defined by the Bristol County Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report dated Ootober 1978 July 7, 2009. The FIRM and FIS report are is incorporated herein by reference and is-are on file with the Town Clerk, Planning Board, aHd Building lnspeetor Official and Conservation Commission. 5.4.1.2 Floodway Data: In Zone A the best available Federal, State, local, or other floodway data shall be used to prohibit encroachments in floodways which would result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base discharge. In Zone ,\1 30 and AE, along watercourses that have not had a regulatory floodway designated, no new construction, substantial improvement, or other development shall be permitted unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood. In Zone ,\1 30 and AE, along watercourses that have regulatory floodways designated efl within the Town of Mansfield on the Bristol County Insurance Rate Map or Flood Boundary Map encroachments are prohibited in the regulatory floodway which would result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. 5.4.2.2.a Notification of Watercourse Alteration: In a riverine situation, the Conservation Commission shall notify the following of any alteration or relocation of a watercourse. * Adjacent Communities *NFIP State Coordinator, Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, 251 Causeway Street, Suite &00-600-700, Boston MA 02114-2104 *NFIP Program Specialist, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region I, 99 High Planning Board 4 4/9/2009 Street, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02110 5.4.2 Use Regulations: The Flood Plain District is established as an overlay district to all other districts. All development, including structural and non-structural activities, whether permitted by right or by special permit, must be in compliance with Chapter 131, Section 40 of the Massachusetts General Laws and with the requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code, Section (Section 780 CMR J.W+-120.G, "Flood Resistant Construction and Construction in Coastal Dunes"); Wetlands Protection Regulations, (Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 310 CMR 10.00); Inland Wetlands Restrictions (DEP, 310 CMR 13.00); and Minimum Requirements for the Subsurface Disposal of Sanitary Sewage DEP (310 CMR 15, Title 5) and as maybe amended from time to time, pertaining to construction in the floodplain. B. And to see if the town will vote to adopt the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map, Bristol County, Massachusetts, dated July 7,2009. (Mansfield is shown on panel numbers 25005C0018F, 25005C0019F, 25005C0036F, 25005C0037F, 25005C0038F,25005C 0039F,25005C0041F, 25005C0043F, 25005COI07F, 25005C0126F and 25005C0127F.) Mr. French explained Town Meeting will have to adopt the new flood plain map and by- law amendments. Motion: To send Town Meeting a positive recommendation (Annino-Collins) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Annino-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES I 6. Public Comment I 7. ArouJld the Table I 8. Adjournment Motion: To adjourn at 9:00 p.m. (Annino-Kozlowski) All in favor. PASSES Nex:;;gtLnea;z29, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. ~ _ .2 0/ _ 0 C{ Signature of Clerk Date of Approval Planning Board 5 4/9/2009 .,~