HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNINGbrd_02272013 Planning Board Minutes - E i ED
February 27,2013 r ICE
Present: Tom French, Chair, Beth Ashman-Collins, Clerk, Donald Cleary, Ral Penney, Cheryl
Collins 13 *CArA g: (i
Alternates: Rod Oreste and Michael Feck
1S A
Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development; Jennifd Crotty Da`✓its Administrative
Secretary i,
1. Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.
rig ask Ex�
1. February 13, 2013 minutes
Motion: To approve (Jodice-Cleary) Six in favor. Penney abstained. PASSES
2. ZBA application for Variance—70 Copeland Drive
Mr. Burke explained the application is to replace the panels on the existing freestanding sign
with electronic panels of the same size. The existing sign is oversized and there was no
building permit found. He said with a building permit, the sign would be protected after
10 years, but without one, there is no protection. He said he has no opposition to the variance.
Ms. Ashman-Collins noted the small placard signs on the site are not allowed. Mr. French
suggested the recommendation include a suggestion that signs not allowed by the Zoning By-
Law be removed.
Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation with the suggestion the sign be back-lit
and not be flashing or moving, and that the signs not allowed by the Zoning By-Law be
removed (Ashman-Collins-Oreste) Six in favor. Jodice opposed. PASSES
3. ZBA application for Variance—260 Gilbert Street
Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, explained the property currently has
two houses that existed prior to zoning. He said because of the age of the houses, current law
would allow two lots to be created by right. He presented two plans; one showing the by-right
lots, which are oddly shaped; and a second plan showing more regularly shaped lots, which
need frontage relief. Mr. Trowbridge said there would not be any more than two residential
structures as a result of the variance. Ms. Ashman-Collins said she would not want to see one
of the lots divided again. Mr. Trowbridge said the area of the proposed lots exceed the size of
lots in the neighborhood and exceed what is required in the zone, but would both be short of
frontage. Mr. Trowbridge noted the landowner transferred some of the original lot's frontage
to the Light Department; he said if that had not happened,the lots would both have adequate
frontage. Mr. Burke said he thinks it makes sense to support the variance with the condition
that at least one of the structures be removed to prevent further subdivision.
Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation with the condition that at least one of
the structures be removed to prevent the land from being divided again in the future.
(Penney-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES
4. Public Hearing notices—Attleboro, Easton, Foxboro,North Attleboro,Norton, Plainville,
Sharon
5. The Beacon
1 Planning Board February 27, 2013
044
fig.:uK � ',�a ,>.;,�`� r�*e va
fir' @ 4Q _. @ @ @ �'W E / � {\
...� x\'..
Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, explained the plan to add a third bay to
the existing gas/service station at 157 Pratt Street. The ZBA has granted a special permit to the
site to expand the pre-existing, non-conforming use.
Mr. Trowbridge said the new bay, which will be used for state inspections, will be constructed
on existing pavement. He said there are never traffic issues. Parking will remain in the back of
the site; there will be 16 spaces where nine are required.
Department Head Comments
The clerk read comments from the Planning, Electric and Engineering Departments. Mr.
Trowbridge said all the department head comments have been addressed.
Mr. Jodice asked about queuing room; Mr. Trowbridge said there is room inside the site.
Mr. Cleary asked about the metal storage unit; Mr. Trowbridge said it will be removed.
Mr. Trowbridge said there will be no expansion of the retail area and the owner has no intention
of opening 24 hours.
Mr. Burke suggested sending the building inspector a positive recommendation.
Motion: To send the Building Inspector a positive recommendation on the 157 Pratt Street site
plan (Jodice-Cleary) Six in favor. Penney abstained. PASSES
The warrant closes March 1 for the May 7 Annual Town Meeting; the board discussed which
articles to submit for the warrant. Mr. Burke suggested scheduling two nights, March 27 and
April 4, for the Planning Board public hearings and two nights, April 17 and April 24, for
possible citizens' petition public hearings.
Mr. Penney asked why the Zone II article is first. Mr. Burke said he put it first because he
doesn't expect as much discussion on it as there will be on the other articles. He said he grouped
the last four articles (BI/B2, Signs, PBD and TOD)together because they are all
recommendations that came out of the Strategic Plan. Mr. Penney said he thinks there will be
some discussion about the Zone II redelineation at Town Meeting. Mr. Burke said that project
originally began as an effort by a landowner to get his land out of the Zone II, and the DPW
Director and Wastewater Operations Manager have done a great job working with that
landowner engineer to include more of East Mansfield in the new map.
2 Planning Board February 27, 2013
The board discussed how the articles should be organized on the warrant; Mr. Burke said the
way he has organized the articles for public hearing is not necessarily the way they will appear
on the warrant.
Mr. Burke said there is a lot of support from the Board of Selectmen, Finance Committee,
School Committee and the Strategic Planning Committee to implement the recommendations
that came out of the Strategic Plan. Mr. Burke said adding density and uses are ways to add
value and a way to avoid a Proposition 2 1/2 Override.
Zone II
Mr. Burke said Woodard& Curran found about a 10% change from the existing Zone II map.
He said the Zone II got larger in Foxboro and near the airport, and smaller on Oakland Street
near the railroad tracks. Mr. Burke said the Board of Selectmen has supported the submission of
the revised Zone II map to DEP, which has 45 days to review it. He said Mr. Azinheira has been
told Mansfield's Zone II map is the next in line for DEP review, so there should be either an
approval or a request for additional information well before Town Meeting.
Mr. Burke said the site that started the Zone II review is on Oakland Street near the town line.
He said that site is on the market, the buildings demolished and the site cleaned up. The
landowner petitioned the town several years ago to amend the Zone II (the town has to be the
applicant), and the town has worked with the landowner to include more of East Mansfield.
Mr. French said there should be a map showing current and proposed Zone II at Town Meeting.
Mr. Burke said the 1992 Zone II was a conceptual study, and Woodard & Curran did on-site
testing for the redelineation. He said Mr. Azinheira will present the article, and representatives
from Woodard& Curran will be there.
Mr. Penney said he is comfortable with the redelineation.
Consensus was to submit the article for the 2013 Annual Town Meeting warrant.
B3B4
Mr. Burke said this article would create a new B4, Village Business, Zone for the outlying B3
properties on the East Common, Otis Street, Elm Street and Eastman Street. The B4 zone would
have the same densities and uses currently allowed in the B3 zone. The remaining B3 zone,the
Copeland Drive corridor, would change density. No uses would change in B3 or B4.
Mr. Penney said he thought there was general support for this and he is comfortable with it.
3 Planning Board February 27, 2013
Mr. Cleary asked if there should be individual Schedules of Principal Use Regulations tables in
each article or if the changes should be combined into one. Mr. Burke said each article should
have its own table. He said whichever articles pass at Town Meeting, the use changes would be
combined and the Zoning By-Law amended accordingly.
Mr. French asked if the board wants to include mixed use in the B3 zone. Ms. Ashman-Collins
said she does not want to add mixed use at this time. Mr. Jodice said he is not opposed to mixed
use being added for discussion at the public hearing. Ms. Ashman-Collins said she was
concerned it would complicate the article, and said she doesn't think it reflects where the board
wants to go in that zone. Mr. Jodice said he thinks mixed use would help some of the small
businesses in the zone by allowing them to add apartments. Mr. Penney said this is a relatively
small area and it should be preserved for retail space. Ms. Ashman-Collins said
commercial/industrial/retail space is better for the tax base. Mr. Jodice said he is not opposed to
making it possible for people to move to Mansfield; Mr. French said the question is what is most
appropriate for the zone. He said he thinks preserving the highway business area is important.
Ms. Ashman-Collins said this would be a simple way to help the businesses in that zone.
Mr. Jodice said the board has discussed uses that currently exist in the zone, but would not be
allowed under current zoning; he said he doesn't want to exclude anyone. Ms. Ashman-Collins
said she doesn't think adding mixed-use in the B3 would be a change that would add value. Mr.
Feck said mixed use may add value to individual land owners; Ms. Ashman-Collins said the
board has to think about the value to the whole town, not to individuals. Mr. Penney said there
should be a distinction between the property owner and the business. Mr. French said the current
residents also have to be considered. Mr. Penney said this corridor is one of the few remaining
areas in town that are strictly for retail.
Mr. Oreste asked if the article can be changed after the public hearing; Mr. Burke said he would
be reluctant to do that. He said the Route 106 corridor is one of the few areas where business is
the primary use. He said the board has been discussing ways to add value to properties, and
introducing mixed use would not add value in B3 the way it would downtown.
Mr. Bill Clemmey said many of the lots in B3 abut residential uses, and said the residents who
attended the public hearing in 2012 supported mixed use.
Consensus was to submit the article for the 2013 Annual Town Meeting.
Site Plan Approval
Mr. Burke presented a new lighting section for the Zoning By-Law, which the board had
discussed would help support site plan approval.
4 Planning Board February 27, 2013
Mr.
Jodice asked about the Building Inspector's opinion of site plan. Mr. Burke s said he has
spoken with Mr.Riccio,who reviewed the by-law and found no conflicts with
Mr. Jodice said he is concerned about the defensibility of the by-law.
He er asked if boardf there a way than
to give the Planning Director more authority as a department head,rather
said when Police and Fire review a plan,they look at public safety issues,while he looks
at the overall plan.
Mr. French said he thinks site plan approval will give the board more hwill not orkewith the board
developer to produce a better prod it would give plan
the rovathe ability to add conditions;
the ability to say yes or no. Mr. F rench said
Mr. Penney said putting the requirements in writing would help tthe
e bull Zomng Bytor en or e
the conditions. Mr. Burke said if the conditions are requirements hin the
decision will be more defensible. Mr. French said it would be difficult to put everything
board is concerned about in the by-law.
jects
Ms. Ashman-Collins said most developers are willing to work with
e board he idworripr about;
are improved after the discussions.l�'ho do not cooperate are the ones who will challenge the
he said his concern is that the people
-law. Mr. Penney said the by-law will clarify the rules. He said most of the towns in the area
Y
have site plan approval.
Mr. Feck said he understands the requirements to require safety issues,but he is concerned about
the difficulty of enforcing aesthetic requirements. Mr. French saidd the board rd is usually
than going to
work with a developer and abutters to improve a Board's,which is decision would go to the ZBA before it
court. Mr. Oreste said an appeal of the Planning g
goes to court. Mr. Jodice said he would like the board to have a say in how things are designed
and built, like with a historic district. or
a
Ms. Ashman-Collins asked what the legal issue is. Mr. Burke sail court no
said with requiring this by-
public hearing for a by-right use would likely not be successful in
law, site plan would not simply be a recommendation to the building inspector. He said if the
p By-Law, it would be more
conditions of a site plan approval reference sections of the Zoning By-
enforceable and defensible.
Mr. Penney said he was concerned about the timeline and asked what would happen if the plan is
M Y leteness would be a reason to
incomplete. Mr. Burke said the town The as t licant would then have to resubmit and the clock
send a negative recommendation. applicant
restart.
5
Planning Board February 27,2013
Mr. Jodice asked if the building inspector could make a different decision than the Planning
Board. Mr. French said if there is something in the decision that isn't reasonable or doesn't
appear in the by-law,the building inspector could deny a building permit. Mr. Jodice said he
doesn't think there would be much difference from what happens now.
Mr. Cleary asked if the Lighting Standards section would apply to all projects. Mr. Burke said it
would be a new section 4.3.12 and would apply to commercial, retail and industrial uses, not to
single-family construction.
Mr. Cleary said Section 4.3.12.3 requires site lighting to be powered down by one half, which
seems to say they could not be powered down by more than that. He suggested changing that to
"at least one half."
The board discussed adding"Planning Department"to Section 5.3.18.
Mr. Bill Clemmey suggested the lighting standards section be a separate article so it does not fail
if site plan fails. Consensus was to leave site plan and lighting as one article.
Consensus was to submit the Site Plan article for the 2013 Annual Town Meeting.
s X16.: §�, ..:../ :c3 --••,
Mr. Flynn told the board he attended a meeting at SRPEDD about changes to MGL Chapter 40A
and suggested the board review the proposal. Mr. Burke said he has seen the proposal, which
includes requirements for things like arbitration rather than court appeals, gives regional
planning agencies more authority and requiring public hearings on ANR Plans.
Business 1/Business 2
The amendment proposes the following changes to Section 4.4.1, Off-Street Parking Schedule:
Two spaces per unit for two-family uses in B2;
One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for general business less than 25,000 square
feet in B1 and B2;
2.75 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for business,professional, office over
25,000 square feet in PBD; and
Either one space per eight restaurant seats or no parking requirement if valet is provided in B1
and B2.
Mr. French said he isn't certain he supports eliminating the parking requirement for restaurants
with valet. Mr. Oreste asked what would happen if a restaurant stopped offering valet parking;
Mr. French said the building inspector would enforce the requirement. Mr. Cleary asked if a
6 Planning Board February 27, 2013
restaurant would have to have a designated area for parking. Mr. Penney suggested trying it to
see if it will work; he said the idea is to help downtown businesses.
The amendment proposes amending Section 4.4.4.3, Location,to require parking at the rear of
the principal building in B1 and B2.
The amendment proposes to change Schedule of Principal Use Regulations to change single
family in B2 to special permit and mixed use in B2 to a by-right use. Mr. Burke said allowing
mixed use in B1 has focused development downtown. Mr. Jodice said an apartment complex
could be built in B2 by right now. Mr. Burke said he sees the West Street end of North Main
Street being more residential than the middle portion of North Main Street. He said the town has
concentrated higher density in one part of downtown, and he is not sure encouraging that density
in B1 and B2 is a good idea. He said he is concerned that could result in very tall buildings next
to a very small ones.
Mr. Penney said there is limited frontage on North Main Street, which he would like to see as
business, but with apartments above. He said there are a lot of apartments in the downtown area
because there used to be a lot of home-based businesses. Mr. Burke said he is concerned a
change from mixed use by special permit to mixed use by right would discourage that.
The board discussed leaving mixed use in B2 a special permit use.
Mr. Karl Clemmey said making mixed use a special permit use will cost small businesses in
permitting. Mr. Clemmey said the town owns a 10-foot buffer zone parallel to North Main Street
from the South Common to the North Common.
Mr. Cleary said he would prefer mixed use stay by right in B2.
Mr. Jodice said the board should keep in mind there are B2 zones other than North Main Street.
Consensus was to leave mixed use a special permit in the B2 zone.
The board discussed changing the required parking for general business under 25,000 square feet
from one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area to one space per 250 square feet.
Consensus was to make that change to Section 4.4.1, Off-Street Parking, and add it to the B1/B2
article.
Signs - General By-Laws Chapter Five Sections II and III
The proposal is to change the height of awnings, etc. from seven feet to eight feet per the
Building Code and add paragraphs allowing A-Frame or Sandwich Board Signs.
7 Planning Board February 27, 2013
Signs—Zoning By-Law
The amendment would add definitions of Downtown Business Zone Rear Wall Sign and A-
Frame or Sandwich Board Signs to Section 1.5, Definitions. Mr. Flynn said he was concerned
about signs blocking the sidewalk. Mr. Jodice said the downtown business owners came to the
board to request the signs be allowed. Mr. Burke said he doesn't think the hold harmless
agreement has to go to Town Meeting, but should be part of the building permit application. Mr.
Penney said the hold harmless should include the business's certificate of insurance naming the
town as a holder.
PBD/Cabot Business Park
Mr. Burke said the by-law does not propose to change the height of buildings in the business
park, but to leave it at 75 feet, or 60 when abutting residential. Mr. Karl Clemmey said he thinks
Covidien would want to build higher than 75 feet. Mr. Clemmey asked if rooftop gardens would
count toward open space; Mr. Burke said they would. Mr. Clemmey suggested dropping the
open space requirement to 30%. Mr. Clemmey said most of the buildings in the business park
were built for warehousing, not office use. Mr. Flynn said one of the reasons the business park is
so attractive is because of the open space requirement. Mr. Bill Clemmey said businesses need
more parking as they change from warehouse to office uses. Mr. Oreste thinks the 35% open
space requirement would help to encourage rooftop gardens.
Mr. Penney asked if there would be a benefit to increasing the building height. Mr. Burke
suggested if the board wants to increase the height, it should be by right rather than special
permit. Mr. Flynn said increasing the height would be better than reducing the open space. Mr.
Jodice said he would like to find out what the Fire Department has to say.
Consensus was to increase building height to 90 feet after discussing it with the Fire Department
and leaving the height at 60 where it abuts residential
Linkage Special Permit—The amendment adds Research& Development, Biotechnology and
Light Manufacturing to the PBD and I1 zones. Mr. Burke suggested removing paragraph 4.9,
Linkage Special Permit; he said it has never been used and is not really business-friendly.
Mr. Bill Clemmey said the new section only includes the PBD, but does not include I1, which is
in the existing Linkage section.
Consensus was to delete paragraph 4.9, Linkage Special Permit and add I1 to the new density
bonus section and to change "Linkage Special Permit"to "Density Bonus" in footnote S.4.9 in
the Density and Dimensional Regulations.
8 Planning Board February 27, 2013
.- •
Mr. Bill Clemmey said the proposal eliminates the bonus density for retail; Mr. Burke said the
intent was to promote the new uses. He said the uses being eliminated from the density bonus
can be struck out. He said he doesn't think the board's intention is to provide a density bonus for
businesses that do not provide value to the town.
Mr. Jodice said he wants to promote green building, but he also wants to fill the business park.
Mr. Cleary said the board is trying to encourage the new uses, R&D, Biotechnology and Light
Manufacturing, with the density bonus. Mr. Bill Clemmey said the current linkage by-law does
not address the PBD and suggested that simply be added to the proposed by-law. Mr. Burke said
he doesn't have a problem with that.
Consensus was to leave 4.9, Linkage Special Permit, as is and to change the PBD FAR to
Section 4.10.
[Mr. Penney left at this time]
Transit-Oriented Development
The board discussed whether to begin TOD or continue the discussion to the March 13 meeting.
Mr. Burke reminded the board the warrant closes March 1 and the Town Manager has asked
departments to submit its warrant articles by February 28.
[Ms. Collins left at this time]
Mr. Burke explained the by-law has been restructured, shortened and minor changes have been
made. It is now referred to as an overlay district rather than a separate district; the underlying
district will not change. The by-law requires applicants to demonstrate vehicular-pedestrian
safety for their site. The number of definitions has been reduced. A new TOD column has been
added to the Density & Dimensional Regulations. The overlay district promotes mixed use at a
density similar to downtown. The parking is similar to the B1/B2 proposal. Signage is
consistent with what is allowed downtown. Prototype or chain formula signage is prohibited in
the TOD. The list of allowed street trees is the same as the Subdivision Regulations. A
minimum of 50 feet of frontage is required, with a maximum building height of 45 feet.
Mr. Burke said he has spoken with a residential property owner, who would like to be included
in the TOD zone. Mr. Burke said he would like to hear from the public about whether they want
their properties to be included in the zone or not. He said TOD would give the industrial land
owners some different use options, including the ability to combine parcels. He said the TOD
zone line follows the river as far as the residential neighborhood, but he did not want to include
the houses without input from the residents. He said the Hatheway-Patterson site has been
cleaned to an industrial/commercial level; the EPA is working on the reuse restrictions.
Mr. Burke said he has spoken with Miryam Bobadilla at DHCD about funding for the public
engagement portion of the plan.
9 Planning Board February 27, 2013
Town Manager William Ross said the board could submit a place holder for the Annual Town
Meeting warrant if the text for the TOD by-law is not finalized by March 1.
Mr. Burke asked if the Planning Board can request the order in which the zoning articles appear.
Mr. Ross said the Board of Selectmen will make the final decision on the order of warrant
articles, but the Planning Board can request the order it would like. He said he has spoken with
the Board of Selectmen about placing the zoning articles at the beginning of the warrant.
Mr. Flynn asked if a certain percentage of the parking in TOD would be set aside for train station
parking. He said he has discussed a parking garage with SRPEDD, and he does not think that is
in the MBTA's plan.
7. Public Comment
8.Around the Table
Mr. Jodice suggested the town think about reacquiring the Paine School.
9. Adjournment
Motion: To adjourn at 10:45 p.m. (Ashman-Collins-Cleary) All in favor. PASSES
Next Planning Board meeting: March 13, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.
3- t3-2013
Signature o C erk Date of Approval
10 Planning Board February 27, 2013