Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 12/13/00 r' RECE'''EO PI - B d M- TOWN CLERY<,S OfF \eE aDDmg oar mutes December 13, 2000 0 I JAN 3 I PH 2: r. 3 Present: R Thomas French, Chainnan; Bernie Dolan, Clerk; Mark Cook, Kenneth Torman, Roger Achille, Thomas McShane, Scott Frank MAHSFIElO Shaun P. Burke, Director of PI ann in and Develo ment MASSACHUSETTS J 1. Zoning Board of Appeals application for special pennit - Great Woods Office Park, South Main Street - less than required landscape buffer. The Zoning By-Law requires 22 feet of landscaped buffer; the proposal is for 15 feet. Mr. McShane arrived at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Burke explained that with a 22-foot buffer, the parking lot travel lane would be very tight, and if that lane were increased, the width of the building would have to be reduced. Mr. McShane said the board often suggests residential applicants to do just that, reduce the size of the building. Mr. Burke noted this is a special pennit, which is more subjective, where the Zoning Board of Appeals looks at whether the application meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law through a different layout. Mr. Frank arrived at 7:50 p.m. r Mr. Burke said the building could be shifted closer to the buffer, which would eliminate the need for a wider strip, but 15 feet would be the minimum required. Mr. Frank said he didn't see anything on this site that necessitates the grant of a special pennit, and thought the application did not meet the special pennit standards. Mr. Achille noted the applicant does not have to compare the plan with the best idea, it just has to be a better idea than the strictly enforced standard. Dr. Tonnan agreed, saying with less than required landscaping, the travel lane would be wider and safer. Mr. McShane said the building could be made smaller, eliminating the need for a special pennit at all. Mr. Dolan said if that happened, the landscaped buffer strip would have to be even wider. Motion: To send the Zoning Board of Appeals a positive recommendation because a 15-foot buffer is a preferable alternative to a 22-foot buffer, which would effect the width of the parking lot travel lane, and because the number of trees and shrubs will be the same as in a 22-foot buffer. Note that a pedestrian access may need to be addressed. (Dolan-Cook) Five in favor. Two opposed. PASSES 2. Request for partial release of surety - Mayhew Fann - Bounds/Memo from Mike r, Ahem recommending the release Motion: To release $2,600 (Frank-Dolan) All in favor. PASSES ,.t r 3. Request for partial release of surety - River Edge Drive /Memo from Mike Ahem recommending the release Motion: To release $18,839.00 (Tonnan-Cook) All in favor. PASSES 4. Request for partial release of surety - Eastfield Village/Memo from Mike Ahem recommending the release Motion: To release $89,064.92 (Dolan-Tonnan) All in favor. PASSES 5. Zoning Board of Appeals application for variance - 88 School Street - Spring Brook Cemetery - Lot Width. The cemetery association is selling the house, and has to separate it from the land and the barn, which makes the house lot nonconfonning. Motion: To send the Zoning Board of Appeals a positive recommendation due to the unique shape ofthe lot, as detennined by the shape and situation of the adjacent lot (Frank-McShane) All in favor. PASSES 6. Zoning Board of Appeals decision - 51 King Arthur Way - (Sideyard) - Denied 7. Memo from Canoe River Aquifer Advisory Committee re: Subdivision Plans within the Canoe River Aquifer 8. Meeting notices Attleboro Municipal Council; North Attleboro Zoning Board of Appeals; Easton Zoning Board of Appeals; Foxboro Planning Board; Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals; Attleboro Planning Board; Foxboro Zoning Board of Appeals; Attleboro Zoning Board of Appeals; 9. Meeting notice - Trust for Public Land 10. Meeting notice - MAPD 11. TransReport newsletter 12. Meeting notice Joint Transportion Planning Group 13. The Commissioner newsletter 14. APA publications list 15. Block Grant Program notice - DHCD 16. The Beacon 17. Memo from Mike Ahem, Public Buildings and Special Projects Manager requesting a list of all remaining subdivision sureties; memo from Mr. Burke to Richard Boucher requesting this infonnation 18. Zoning Board of Appeals decision - 7 Matthew Lane (sideyard) - Denied 19. Zoning Board of Appeals decision - 199 Oak Street (sideyard) - Granted 20. Zoning Board of Appeals decision - Douglas Drive (sign) - Granted 21. November Building Permit summary r'- The clerk read the public hearing notice. Motion: To continue the public hearing after the conclusion of the discussion with Mr. Epstein (Torman-Dolan) All in favor. PASSES Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering, explained Mr. Epstein owns 1.7 acres with 100 feet of frontage and one existing house. Mr. Maloon presented a sketch plan showing a 50-foot r wide road with a 50-foot radius cul-de-sac and one additional lot. r- Mr. Dolan asked if the cul-de-sac would meet the Fire Department's requirements for turning radius; Mr. Maloon said they told him the minimum was 35 feet, which he said seemed small. Mr. French said the current radius requirement is 80 feet. He asked if the two lots would have enough frontage with a radius of that size. Mr. Maloon said no, but it could be done with a 60 foot radius, which was the previous requirement. He said he would need waivers for cul-de-sac diameter and possibly other roadway issues, such as sidewalk. Mr. French suggested pulling the bubble back up the road to the narrowest part of the lots, which would shorten the roadway and give the lots more usable land. Mr. Maloon asked about pavement width; the board agreed 20 feet would be reasonable. Mr. Maloon presented a plan for a four-lot conventional subdivision, followed by the residential -compound plan. He explained they have nnt yet been to the Cnnservatinn Commission to determine wetland areas; there may also be a question as to whether this site falls under the Rivers Act. The site contains the remains of greenhouse buildings, which will be removed, and while the work will not come within 200 feet of the Canoe River during construction, the demolition ofthe existing buildings may. r Two sets of catch basins will be used, with groundwater recharge 100 feet from the property line. Mr. Maloon said he is discussing the drainage issues with the Engineering Department, and will probably come back with a waiver request for recharge to be less than 100 feet from the property line. He explained there are eight inches of clean sand under the topsoil with a good perc rate, then material with a slow rate under that, resulting in better drainage with a more shallow system. The site is on town water and would have septic systems; the site is 400 feet from the Dustin Well site and is therefore in the Zone II. Mr. Maloon said he would wait to finalize the open space areas because the site is in the ACEC. The roadway will be 16 feet wide, with a 56-foot exterior turning radius on the cul-de- sac. The catch basins are offset because that section of East Street has very poor drainage; the offset basins will catch the drainage from the new development without exacerbating the existing problems. Department Head Comments The clerk read comments from the Light Department, Engineering, Conservation, and Police. Mr. Burke requested Mr. Maloon verify the site distance in the field. Mr. Maloon explained he would be going to the Conservation Commission to address Mr. Lewis's concerns. r " r Mr. French suggested putting a restriction on the lots closest to the well site to forbid the use of fertilizers and pesticides. He also suggested placing the houses toward the front of the lots and leaving the back in its natural state. Mr. Burke said the board can limit the lawn area and/or the use of fertilizers and pesticides, or could require a 40-foot no disturb buffer outside the building envelope. Mr. Maloon said he could reduce the building envelopes and leave a 60-foot buffer in the back. Mr. Burke suggested the houses could be brought closer to the roadway; Mr. Frank said he thought the lots would be deep enough with a 40-foot setback from the street. Mr. Frank also noted that Lot B only contains 21,000 square feet where 25,000 is required. Mr. Maloon said he would correct that. Mr. Maloon said they would be applying to the state for various penn its, but did not foresee any problems. Mr. Burke said he expected to receive comments from the Canoe River Aquifer Committee. Mr. Cook asked if the project would disturb more than five acres; if so, they may need a stormwater discharge permit. Motion: To continue the public hearing to February 7, 2001 at 8:00 p.m. (Dolan-Tonnan) All in favor. PASSES r Mr. McShane was -c-oncemed about the appearance -of the sign at the Red R-oof Inn. Motion: To send the Zoning Board of Appeals a letter congratulating them on enhancing the beauty of the town by granting the variance for the Red Roof Inn sign (McShane-Frank) Four in favor. Two opposed. One abstention. PASSES Mmron: T-o adjourn at 9:35 p.m. (T-orman-Cook) AU in fav-or. PASSES Date of next meeting: January to, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. ~~~ Signature of Cler ;-/(J-V'/ Date of Approval r