Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 09/11/00 ( ".... RECEIVED Planning BoardlIDC Minutes - September 11, 2ddbWN CLERKS OFFICE Present: H. Thomas French, Chairman; Roger Achille, Kenneth Tormore s!pwoPlt' 3' 5 I Carlton Bri s, Tom Prestwich, Rich Geor e · Mr. French explained the purpose of the meeting was to get public input on the proposed Planned Business District before deciding the final language of the article, and whether or not to place it on the warrant for Special Town Meeting. Mary Hourigan, 475 Chauncy Street, said her property is 1-1 now, and is concerned about the building height and the use of the land surrounding her. She suggested an amendment to protect residential uses adjacent to business or industrial uses. The chair read a letter from Mrs. Hourigan concerning this subject and suggested three possible footnotes to be added to the Density and Dimensional Regulations. These footnotes are: making the maximum building height 60 feet when a commercial use abuts a residential use or zone line; when the building height is more than 60 feet, making the setback two and one half times the building height when a commercial use abuts a residential use or zone line; or making the maximum building height 60 feet when the parcel is five acres or less when a commercial use abuts a residential use or zone line. (' Sharon Vickery, 279 School Street, said she and her neighbors are currently 1-1 and would be included in the new zone, but are not sure if it is in their best interest to be rezoned. Mr. Prestwich explained the PBD restrictions would prevent the area from being built up with retail uses like fast food and strip malls, but would allow for business uses like offfice buildings or hotels. Larry Christian, 287 School Street, was concerned the PBD would restrict what the residents can do with their properties, since they are not large enough for hotels or office buildings. Mr. French explained the boards made a commitment to Town Meeting to work out the best way to protect the integrity of the Industrial Park, and basically followed the existing boundaries of the park when drawing the new PBD zone line. Frances MacMillan, 295 School Street, was concerned that the boards in town do not listen to what the residents want and make decisions without notifYing those affected. Mrs. Vickery suggested moving the zone line to the railroad tracks, and suggested if the zoning of their properties matched that of the property across the street, which is not included in the PBD, they would be developed in a like manner. t Mr. George explained that when the two boards arrived at this proposal, they thought they would be protecting the residents along School Street, and had no intention of harming anyone's property values. Mr. French said the boards had been concerned that under current zoning, one of the parcels could be sold for a fast food restaurant, leaving the remaining owners as neighbors to that use. r-- Roger Vickery, 279 School Street, said none of the properties has enough frontage to sell to any sort of commercial use, and was concerned this rezoning would harm their chances of selling as a group. Mr. Prestwich asked the School Street residents what they would like; Mr. Christian explained they could not say until they know what the real estate prices are in each zone. Mr. French said the Planning Board has to make a recommendation to Town Meeting based on what it thinks is in the best interest of the whole town. He said the Planning Board went to Town Meeting last spring with changes to the Schedule of Uses, with the major issue being retail in the industrial park. Town Meeting approved making retail a special permit use in the park. Following Town Meeting, the Planning Board and IDC began working together to come up with an even better solution. Mr. Briggs added that the Mullin Report had recommended not allowing retail in the industrial park. Sherry Clancy, National Development, said many of the original covenants not allowing retail are still in place; some have 30-year time limits, and are about to end. r Ms. Clancy said there are places in the park where residential uses co-exist with commercial/industrial uses, and adding restrictions will make it difficult for business or residential owners to redevelop their properties. She said she does not see the benefit of the height limit because it would cause problems with parking expansion. Mr. Clemmey said he was concerned about not allowing parking facilities in the new zone because of existing parking problems in the park. Ms. Clancy agreed; Mr. French explained "parking facility" only referred to commercial parking facilities, not ancillary parking lots. Mr. Clemmey said refuse incinerators should not be allowed in the PBD. He suggested moving the zone line back to the railroad tracks. Mr. French explained the boards are still working on the proposal and would decide the final language and zone line location after the public hearing on September 20. Mr. Barrows said the IDC has been concerned about retail uses in the industrial park, and worked with the Planning Board on the overlay district in an attempt to protect the park, and did not intend to harm any of the land owners. Mr. French asked Ms. Clancy what she thought of changing the open space requirement from 35% to 30%. She said that would make the redevelopment of warehouse, built with minimal parking, easier. Office uses need much more parking, and with 35% open space, the buildings would have to be built up rather than out, which is more expensive. r-- p.m. (BarrOWS-Geor~ All in favor. P ~SES - .) ) --()-C Date or Approval