Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 03/29/00 , ' .'. .'''~ ,. 1 r"~: ("' Planning Board - ~ " 7':!~ 3 Minutes of March 29, 2000 ," \~:. :,; Present: Thomas French, Chair, Bernard J, Dolan, Clerk; Roger'S, Achille; Thomas p, McShane; Kenneth H. Torman, Scott Frank, Mark Cook. .~: -\ S Shaun P. Burke, Director ofPlannin and Develo ment Motion: To appoint Mr. McShane acting chair until Mr. French's arrival Dolan-Frank All in favor. PASSES r 1. Minutes of March 15,2000 Motion: To approve the minutes as submitted (Torman-Dolan) All in favor. PASSES 2. Street Acceptance Discussion - Millfarm Drive and Millstone Court Mr. Burke explained Department Head comments had been received, and the work is mostly completed with the exception of minor punch list items. Motion: To support the acceptance of Millfarm Drive and Millstone Court on the condition that all punch list items are completed before Town Meeting. (Dolan-Cook) All in favor. PASSES 3. March 17,2000 memo from Paul Folkman re: start of pile driving 4. March 13,2000 letter from Crown Castle re: cellular towers 5. Zoning Board of Appeals decision - 33 Warren Avenue - Denied 6. Zoning Board of Appeals decision - 3 Coach Road - Denied 7. Notices of Public Hearings - Norton Planning Board, Attleboro Zoning Board of Appeals, Foxboro Planning Board 8. Community Choices publication from The Trust for Public Land 9. New England Planning newsletter 10. Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund Application 11. Advertisement - DuMor, Inc. 12. Meeting Notice - Joint Transportation Planning Group 13. Meeting Notice - SRPEDD - 2000 Regional Transportation Plan Mr. French arrived at the meeting at this point. South Main Street - Karl Clemmey. Mr. Burke explained the plan is a perimeter plan with no change in the information shown, and includes all the information required in a Form A. Motion: To sign the Form A (Dolan-Cook) All in favor. PASSES West Street/Route 140 - Karl Clemmey. Mr. Burke explained this plan is similar to the above South Main Street plan, but creates two lots. Motion: To sign the Form A (Dolan-Achille) Five in favor. Torman and Cook abstained. PASSES r- - 1 - Meeting of March 15, 2000 ("' Mr. French suggested the board schedule its discussion of the proposed zoning amendments for May 10. Mr. Cook and Mr. Torman left the room at this point. The clerk read the public hearing notice. Karl Clemmey, proponent, explained his proposed zoning amendments. Article 66 would reduce the required open space in industrial zones from 35% to 25%. He said open space is not taxable, and the 35% requirement does not leave enough room for parking, which results in parking and unloading on the street. Mr. Clemmey suggested a floating scale for open space requirements. Public Comment Richard Gordon, 407 Wets Street, said the requirement should stay at 35%. r Board Comment Mr. Frank said he has looked at other zoning by-laws, and some towns have as much as 50% open space, while others have as little as 25%. He said he did not support 25%, but may support a link between the landscaping and open space requirements. Mr. Achille asked Mr. Gordon to explain what he thought the detriment to lowering the requirement would be. Mr. Gordon said the community looks better with more open space. Mr. Burke explained landscaping is included in the open space percentage. Mr. Dolan asked what the IDC thinks. Mr. Barrows said he has noticed congestion in the industrial park, but thinks the tenants like the open space. Walter Jenkins, IDC, said there aren't as many warehouse uses as office uses in the park, and suggested the 25% open space may be reasonable with a large warehouse facility, but an office use with a smaller building could have more open space. Mr. Dolan said he did not support a blanket 25% open space by right, but said something to add some conditions may be possible. r Mr. McShane asked if it is legal to park on the street. Mr. Burke said there is no parking ban, but that on-street parking violates the zoning by-law. He said he did not necessarily think the on-street parking is being caused by a lack of on-site parking due to open space requirements. - 2 - Meeting of March 15, 2000 r Mr. Barrows said he was concerned about companies in the park wanting to expand; Mr. Burke said the zoning by-law provides for expanded floor-area ratio up to 35% with a special permit. Article 67 Karl Clemmey, proponent, explained the proposal for housing for residents 55 years and older in the R2, B3, and Reservoir districts. He said the Planning Board supported the proposal at last year's town meeting, but the proponent withdrew the residential portion. Public Comment Richard Gordon, 407 West Street, said by definition, R2 is low-density housing, and he is not in favor of increasing the density. Board Comment Mr. Burke said the board did not support the previous proposal in residential zones, but did support the concept. He added that looking at the use together with Mr. Clemmey's other articles, 67 would allow the use in R2 with a special permit, and 68 would change the definition of townhouse/rowhouse. r Article 68 Karl Clemmey, proponent, explained the change in definition of Rowhouse/Townhouse to allow the use in the R2 zone. Mr. Burke explained the Table of Uses for the R3 zone calls out the density per unit for multi-family housing, but it does not really appear in any other place in the zoning by-law. Mr. Clemmey said he would be willing to work with the board to make the necessary changes to allow this use in the R2 zone. Public Comment Richard Gordon, 407 West Street, said the R2 zone is for single-family uses, and this would change the character of the neighborhood. Board Comment Mr. Frank said during the Gilbert Street rezoning discussion, Mr. Clemmey had said changing that land from industrial to residential would result in a tax loss for the town, but now seems to be saying the opposite. Mr. Clernrney explained there would not be children in these over 55 units like there would be in new single family houses. -- Mr. French said the previous article dealt with residents over age 55, but that this has no age provision. Mr. Clemmey said these would be townhouses, not apartments. Mr. Dolan said there would still be children in the units. Mr. -3- Meeting of March 15,2000 r Clemmey said he would be willing to amend the article to require 55 and over at Town Meeting. Mr. McShane asked what the difference is between Article 67 and 68. Mr. Clemmey said townhouses have a different definition than 55 and over housing. Mr. Burke said a townhouse is a vertical residential structure with a separate entrance, usually with shared walls; the only difference between a townhouse and an apartment is the manner of construction. Motion: To close the public hearing (Dolan-Frank) All in favor. PASSES The clerk read the public hearing notice. r Bob Grace explained Omnipoint is requesting a special permit for the former Owens-Illinois facility, in the 12 zone. The site includes an existing 155-foot concrete tower to which Omnipoint would attach a nine-panel antenna, painted to blend in with the background. The electrical equipment will be installed inside the existing structure and cables will be enclosed in trays run up the side of the tower. Mr. Grace said the site is ~ mile from the nearest residential area, and will help to reduce the need for new towers. Omnipoint has applied for and received the necessary permits from the Massachusetts Department of Health. Department Head Comments Letters were read from the Conservation Commission, Electric Department, Town Engineer, and Police Department. Mr. Grace submitted the project's approval from the Department of Health. Public Comment Jay Barrows said the use is appropriate for the site and will improve cellular service to Mansfield. Mr. Grace explained the equipment is fully taxable at approximately $50,000 per year, and that if another carrier wanted to locate on the tower, there is room, but they would have to get a separate special permit. He said other carriers would not be able to interfere with Omnipoint's signal. Mr. Grace also submitted computer- generated pictures of what the tower would look like after the installation. (- Mr. Burke said there have been several other carriers in contact with the town, so there may be additional applications. He said this project is in keeping with the by-law to encourage the use of existing structures. He suggested the board consider Mr. Lewis' comments, which said if the tower comes down through some accident, Omnipoint does not have the right to build a new one on the site. -4- Meeting of March 15,2000 r Mr. Frank asked about parking. Mr. Grace explained there will be plenty of parking for the one or two maintenance visits to the site each month. Motion: To grant the special permit because the use is consistent with the by-law by utilizing an existing facility, being non-obtrusive, a benefit to the community, and has been approved by DPH, with the condition that said approval does not grandfather this use on this site. (McShane-Dolan) Motion: To amend the above motion to request Mr. Burke to prepare a draft decision to this effect. (McShane-Dolan) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To continue the public hearing to April 12, 2000 at 7:45 P.M. (Dolan-Cook) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Cook left the meeting at this point. The clerk read the public hearing notice for the changes to the Table of Uses. The original advertisement in items 3.5.1, 3.5.15, and 3.5.20 included typographical errors, and were therefore not included in the first public hearing on the board's proposed amendments. r Public Comment Sandra Levine, Walnut Street, asked Mr. French to explain the proposed amendments. Mr. French said the board reviewed the Table of Uses to come up with ways to encourage quality development. These uses are currently allowed by right in the Industrial zones, and after several studies recommended retail uses not be allowed in the Industrial zones, the board decided to make retail a special permit use so applications could be considered individually. He said this use may be appropriate in some areas but not in others, and the special permit requirement would allow the board some flexibility. Sherry Clancy, National Development, said some of the terms used in the zoning by-law are not well-defined, such as "parking facility" and "amusement facility." Mr. Burke explained that use is defined on page 16 of the by-law, and amusement facility is defined on page 15. ,- Cynthia Sarber, Vice President, AMB Corporation, said her company owns two million square feet in the industrial park. She said there are problems with trucks parking on the street, creating safety issues, and she would like to be able to pave some parcels to use for truck parking and trailer storage. She said the special permit procedure would be prohibitive, and some retail uses should be by right in an industrial park. She said her company had done a site plan for a lot on Plymouth Street, which took 60-90 days to complete; Mr. McShane asked for a copy of the landscaping plan for that site. - 5 - Meeting of March 15, 2000 r Mr. Dolan asked whether the 35% open space would be a problem for Ms. Sarber's company, or if the requirement could be site specific. Ms. Sarber said having the requirement be site specific would be helpful because of parking issues and increased offices instead of warehouses. She said the park is getting older and may need some upgrading. Ms. Clancy said some of the warehouse buildings are not state of the art and could be made "flex buildings", but they need additional parking. Mr. Burke said the buildings can increase their floor area ratio, which is a separate issue from providing additional parking. Mr. Frank said he did not want to see whole lots paved in the industrial park. Leonard Flynn said Dr. Mullin recommended not trying to attract more warehousing uses to the park, but that office uses would be more suitable. He said he did not think paving whole lots would add to the value of the park. r- Mr. Clemmey said retail uses should be allowed by right in the industrial park, adding Dr. Mullin had recommended mixed uses in the park. He said developers will go to other towns if they think locating in Mansfield will be difficult, which the special permit requirement will do. Mr. Clemmey suggested an overlay district in the industrial park. Mr. Barrows said there are some retail uses that would be appropriate for the industrial park and suggested forming a committee. Walter Jenkins, IDC, said his board does not agree with the Planning Board's approach because the special permit requirement would limit uses. Mr. Dolan said he didn't think any other board would have brought these issues up if the Planning Board hadn't. He said he agrees with the idea of an overlay district in the park. Mr. Barrows agreed the zoning by-law needs to be changed periodically, but feels the Planning Board has proposed too many changes at once. He said he agreed that retail uses should not be allowed in the park. Mr. Frank was concerned that industrial landowners will rush to file plans if the amendment does not pass at Town Meeting. r Mr. McShane said the IDC and Planning Board had discussed the proposed changes, at which time the IDC was concerned about not prohibiting retail uses in industrial zones not in the park. He said he thought the IDC was supportive of the Planning Board's proposals with an overlay district, which was discussed. Changes were made to the board's amendments based on the IDC's input, but now the IDC has changed its position. Mr. Barrows said that was why there should be a subcommittee. Mr. Clemmey agreed. - 6 - Meeting of March 15, 2000 r Peter DeTrolio, 496 Elm Street, said the change would make retail uses in the B3 zones more difficult. Mr. Frank explained retail was still a by-right use in B3. The clerk read a letter from Mr. Willis and Mr. Walsh saying they are opposed to the amendments, and a letter from Ken Butler, Mansfield Music and Arts, saying his group was concerned about not being able to stay at their location if the amendments pass. Mrs. Levine said she is in support of the amendments and the board is not taking away any landowner's rights by requiring special permits. She said she was concerned about the residents of the areas being effected by things like big box retail establishments. Articles 54 and 55 Mr. Torman left the meeting. Mr. French said the board recognizes these articles may need fine-tuning but said the goal was to create a streetscape with parking taken out of the front of business sites. He said the board would likely revise the amendment to include only B 1, 2, and 3 zones, not the industrial districts. r- Sherry Clancy said she was in favor of the proposal as amended because it would be better for handicapped access and would be more appropriate in the business zones. Ms. Sarber also supported the articles as amended. Mr. DeTrolio was concerned that he would not be able to fit parking on his Elm Street site, and he would be unable to improve his land. He said the B3 parcels were rezoned 11 years ago so the owners would be able to use them, and said customers won't patronize a convenience store if they aren't able to park at the front door. Mr. Burke said landowners with parcels like this do have options, through the zoning board of appeals or with a special permit. He said it was not the board's intent to harm anyone's business, but to do something in the downtown area. Rich George, 43 Marshall Ave and IDC member, said the B3 zone should not be included. Torn Prestwich, 4 Shady Brook Lane and IDC member, said the building height amendment is too late, and would result in a lot of flat-roofed buildings. r- Mr. Clemmey said there is a public safety issue with trucks unloading on the street, and requiring parking in the back would be unsafe, and there would be problems with residential abutters. -7- Meeting of March 15,2000 (' ("' r . . Article 56 Mr. Burke explained this is to clarify where the setback is measured from and where it applies. Mrs. Levine said she is in favor of the amendment. Article 57 Mr. Cook and Mr. Torman returned to the meeting. Mr. French said having the use "Rooming House" in the zoning by-law was not in the town's best interest. Mr. Barrows asked if that definition would be different from an extended stay hotel. Mr. Burke said he thought it would be different. Article 58 To delete "more or less" from the definition of Hotel /Motel Article 59 To delete the comma from the definition of Bulk Material Storage and Sales Article 53 As the Residential Compound definition currently reads, Form A lots don't count toward density. This proposal would require developers to include any street lots in the compound. Mr. Frank asked if there would be a time limit. Mr. Burke said he did not think the board reached a consensus on a five-year time limit. Mr. Dolan said it should remain as is, and if builders want more lots, they should design a traditional subdivision. Mr. Clemmey asked what the density would be if the land were in separate ownership. Mr. Burke explained the land would have to be in common ownership before the plan was filed. Motion: To close the public hearing (Dolan-Achille) All in favor. PASSES PASSES ~ ~. z..--rrLJ e of pproval Date of next meeting: April 26, 2000 at 7:30 P.M. - 8- Meeting of March 15, 2000