Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 07/12/00 (' Planning Board Minutes of July 12, 2000 Present: H. Thomas French, Chairman, Bernard J. Dolan, Clerk; Roger Achille, Tom McShane, Mark Cook, Ken Torman, Scott Frank Shaun P. Burke Director ofPlannin and Develo ment 1. Minutes of June 14,2000 Motion: To approve as submitted (Cook-McShane) Three in favor. French, Achille abstained. PASSES 2. Minutes of June 21,2000 Motion: To approve as submitted (Cook-Achille) Four in favor. French abstained. PASSES 3. Zoning Board of Appeals application for finding - Bruno - 100 South Main Street - Addition off rear of house will not increase non-conformance Motion: To send the Zoning Board of Appeals a positive recommendation (McShane-Cook) All in favor. PASSES Dr. Torman arrived at this point. r-- I Letter Lisa Davis re: Stop and Shop gas station signage. Ms. Davis would like to know if the board would be willing to modify the original special permit. In a straw vote, the members present were split 3-3. 4. Request for release of surety - Keli Lane; Memo from Jack Smith, Subdivision Inspector Motion: To release $10,935.00, leaving a balance of$12,719.78 (Dolan-Cook) All in favor. PASSES 5. Zoning Board of Appeals decision on appeal of Building Inspector's decision re: DLC Corp (Tweeter Center) Motion: To send the Board of Selectmen a letter indicating the Planning Board's desire to appeal the decision and requesting the Selectmen reconsider its decision not to fund any appeals. (Dolan-Cook) Mr. McShane said the decision was nothing more than a history of correspondence, and did not include anything to support the Zoning Board of Appeals' findings. Mr. Burke was concerned about the precedent this would set for other landowners. All in favor. PASSES Mr. Frank arrived at this point. ( 6. Memo from Mary-Lou Cotton re: Tara surety 6. Letter from Paul Folkman re: request for punch lists - Steams Hill and Sturbridge 7. Zoning Board of Appeals decisions - 17 Fruit Street (Denied); DLC Corp - I Planning Board Minutes 7/12100 (' Appeal of Decision of Building Inspector (BI decision overturned) 8. Letter from Bob Durand, Secretary of Environmental Affairs, re: Great Waves Notice of Project Change 10. Memorandum from MEPA re: ENF for Erin's Centre 11. Memo from Southeasten Regional Services Group re: zoning of wireless facilities 12. Public Hearing notices - Attleboro Zoning Board of Appeals, Attleboro Planning Board, North Attleboro Zoning Board of Appeals, Foxboro Planning Board, Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals, Easton ZBA 13. June building permit summary 14. American Planning Association - 2001 National Planning Awards 15. TransReport newsletter 16. New England Real Estate Journal 17. Waterline newsletter 18. Planning magazine 19. Journal of the American Planning Association 20. Meeting notice - Joint Transportation Planning Group - SRPEDD 21. Mass Interchange newsletter Brian Leahy, representing the applicant, requested a continuance to Wednesday, July 19,2000 at 7:30 p.m. in order to conduct a second staff site plan review. ( Mr. McShane said he has a conflict that night and would not be able to attend; he suggested moving the review to July 26. Mr. Cook, an abutter to the project, will abstain from the review. Dr. Torman, whose daughter is an abutter, was unsure whether he could participate. Mr. Burke told Dr. Torman he could ifhe filed a disclosure. Mr. French indicated his company does some work for Shaw's and he would be uncomfortable participating, but would if there were a quorum problem. Motion: To continue site plan review to July 19,2000 at 7:30 p.m. (Dolan-Achille) Four in favor. McShane opposed. Cook, Torman abstained. PASSES The clerk read the public hearing notice. Gerard Sevard, Abbott Partners, explained he had been to the Conservation Commission, which has a site walk scheduled for July 29,2000. He explained the project's financial benefits, including reduced impact on municipal services, private roads and related services, and no children. ( -2 Planning Board Minutes 7/12/00 (' Giles Ham, VHB engineer, explained the traffic study shows this use to be a low traffic generator, with about 104 trips per day. The driveway will be on Reservoir Street, with 500 feet sight distance to the east and 300 feet to the west. Gary Henderson, eID Associates, explained the site is on a long, narrow peninsula with a single access to a cul-de-sac. There will be 48 units in townhouse buildings with 8 units in each, and three-stOlY apartment buildings. The buildings will have elevators in the center and fire stairs at each end. There will be a clubhouse and pool at the end of the driveway and a 25 foot no construction zone around the water. The buildings will be set 40 feet away from the water, with a detention basin to hold water in the winter. Mr. Henderson said they intend to keep the site as natural as possible. The water service will be on a looped system with three fire hydrants, and drainage will flow into the detention area. The site slopes from the street, so sewer disposal will consist of a gravity pump station to a manhole to the town's sewer system. r Department Head Comments The clerk read the department head comments. The Fire Department is very concerned about the site having only one point of access and requested a second one. The developers are talking with the owners of an adjacent parcel to use an existing dirt path for emergency accesss. Mr. Sevard explained the path is within 100 feet of a wetland, so there would be no paving, and they would be meeting with the Police Department to discuss its feasibility. Chelsea Handbridge, CID Associates, presented a memorandum with responses to the department head comments. Public Comment There was no public comment Board Comment Mr. Dolan asked about sidewalks. Ms. Handbridge said there were none proposed because they want to keep the site as natural as possible, but if the board wants sidewalks, they would reconsider. Dr. Torman asked about the length of the driveway. Ms. Handbridge explained it was 750 feet to the cud-de-sac, and another 250 feet to the end. Dr. Torman said he would like to see the second access clarified, and suggested a note be added to the plan and future deeds about the site being under the runway of the airport. ( Mr. Frank asked if a study of the turning movements into and out of the Bubble had been done. Mr. Hamm explained they had counted Reservoir and South Main Street traffic. -3 Planning Board Minutes 7/12/00 (' Mr. Frank asked about the open space calculations. Mr. Sevard explained that much of the land was flooded when the reservoir was created, but it was conveyed forward. Of the 17 acres, just under 9 is upland, and they need 10 upland acres to conform. Mr. Burke asked if a density calculation had been done based on the upland area. Mr. Sevard said they were trying to keep the site as natural as possible, and thought they would have more than 35% open space. He said he would provide a calculation on the upland open space. Mr. Frank asked if the apartment buildings, joined by a common stairway, would be considered one building or two. Mr. Burke said they effectively become one when they are connected. Mr. Sevard explained they were trying to make the construction work for residents, so there will be one elevator between two buildings, while the individual buildings will have their own fire walls. Mr. Burke suggested the applicant get an opinion from the Building Inspector in terms of the building code and the Zoning By-Law. Mr. Frank said he would like to have one handicapped parking space marked for each building. ( Mr. McShane said he would like to see the open space and the building questions cleared up before the next meeting. He asked whether the site would be part of the Mansfield or Norton sewer system. Ms. Handbridge said they would be part the Mansfield system, but would go through the Norton pump station. Mr. Sevard explained the site would really only be visible from the adjacent office park, at one point from Route 140, and at one point from Reservoir Street; he said there would be a 25-foot no build zone around the site. Mr. McShane asked that any additional landscaping be shown on the plan. Mr. Dolan was concerned about the detention pond. Mr. Sevard said they designed the basin as a feature, instead of just a hole, but said they would install guard rails around it for safety. Mr. Dolan asked how the no children regulation would be enforced. Mr. Sevard explained there would be covenants specifying the ages of residents. Mr. Dolan said he would rather not have the second access road paved. Mr. Frank suggested a narrower roadway with a sidewalk on one side, since it will not be a public way. Mr. Sevard said they were willing to comply with the board's wishes. Dr. Torman was concerned about the safety of older residents. Mr. Sevard said traffic would be going slowly because it is a driveway. ( -4 Planning Board Minutes 7/12/00 ( Mr. French asked about the clubhouse. Mr. Sevard said it would be for residents only. Mr. French asked what ITE rate had been used to determine the traffic; Mr. Ham said he had used "Retirement Community" standards. Motion: To continue the public hearing to August 23,2000 at 8:00 p.m. (Dolan-McShane) All in favor. PASSES Mr. McShane asked about Town Counsel's opinion on the West Street/Shaw's property. Mr. Burke said that while he was not happy that counsel said the use is grandfathered, he is comfortable with the opinion. Mr. McShane said he had received phone calls from residents concerned that this would set a precedent and allow other landowners to grandfather land with only a Form A plan. Mr. McShane also said some Town Meeting members would not have voted to change Mrs. Levine's citizens' petition if they had known this retail use would have been allowed. Mr. Frank said he didn't think it would have mattered, because the parcel would have been grandfathered regardless of that citizens' petition. Mr. Burke added there was no guarantee that petition, to not allow retail in the industrial 1 zones, would have passed at Town Meeting. (' Mr. McShane was concerned that with the grandfathering, the Planning Board is only considering the project under site plan review, and suggested the Building Inspector hold a public hearing. Mr. Burke said the Building Inspector can only look at what is allowed by the law, but the Planning Board has more of an opportunity to negotiate with applicants. Motion: To adjourn at 10:30 p.m. (Torman-Cook) All in favor. PASSES Date of next meeting: July 19,2000 at 7:30 p.m. July 26, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. ~J (A~ ~gnature of Clerk Z:/ ") ,- ~~ ,..(}t) Date of Approval ( -5 Planning Board Minutes 7/12/00