Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNINGBRD_041713;EC(_l4fE f? Planning Board Minutes ?!)`,'m (;LF�! i`i (1 1` -FICE April 17, 2013 Present: Tom French, Chair; Michael McClanahan, Donald Cleary, Ralph Pe(1) aYA1QkrR6Yl A ! E : 2 ! Collins Alternates: Rod Oreste, Michael Feck i!, ", "t!`! f L1.1) Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development; Jennifer Crotty Davig;'Admi` stabile I `i Secretary Motion: To appoint Mr. Oreste Acting Clerk (McClanahan - Cleary) All in favor. PASSES 2: C©rresponderice" 1. Minutes April 3, 2013 Mr. Penney noted the Mr. Burke had spoken with the Town Manager about a medical marijuana "moratorium," rather than a by -law. During the Fates Oil site discussion, Mr. Penney said he suggested a portion of the site be designated for employee parking. Mr. Penney said the owner of the Happy Hollow frame shop is Ellen Cree Motion: To approve as amended (Penney - McClanahan) Six in favor. Oreste abstained. PASSES 2. Minutes March 13, 2013 Motion: To approve as submitted (Penney - Oreste) Four in favor. Collins, McClanahan abstained. 3. March 25, 2013 memorandum from Town Engineer Rick Alves re: Reconstruction of Bird Road / April 8, 2013 memorandum from Mr. Burke Mr. McClanahan asked why Bird Road needs reconstruction, since it was done about 15 years ago; Mr. Burke said at that time, the road was constructed as part of an out -of -court settlement, and was done to a minimum construction standard. He said a lot of the road will have to be torn up for the Bird Road substation construction. Part of Bird Road was constructed outside the right -of -way, so this reconstruction will take care of that while maintaining the existing driveway cuts. Mr. Penney said at one time, a water connection was planned to go through Bird Road to Sharon, which did not happen. Mr. Burke said that loop was eventually made through Homefield Farms and Massapoag Estates. Mr. Burke said he will walk Bird Road with the Town Engineer and the contractor to make sure no trees or stone walls will have to be removed; if that changes, a scenic road public hearing will be necessary. 4. Public Hearing notices — Attleboro, Plainville Mr. Burke said the ZBA denied the variance for the 975 Maple Street deck and stairs and denied the front yard setback variance but granted the open space variance for the proposed warehouse /office building at 600 West Street. Ms. Collins said the annual Mansfield Cleanup will be April 27 at 9 am and the Garden Club plant sale will be held in the Town Hall parking lot on May 18, 9 am -12 pm. Mr. Oreste said he took a continuing education course on Chapter 40A last month. 4/17/2013 Mr. Burke said he has a meeting on Monday with a SPREDD representative about Mansfield's priority development and priority protection areas through the South Coast Rail land use plan. 3.Form A ANR 'Plans 4. Public Hearing = Citizen's Petition Zoning Article — Rezone 23 Church Street - Prior The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. French explained how the public hearing would be conducted and that the board would be making a recommendation to Town Meeting. The petition is to amend the zoning map to rezone 23 Church Street (Assessor's Map 24, Lot 180) from its present classification of Residential 3 (R3) to Business 2 (B2). Ms. Prior explained her property is on the corner of Church Street and Bristol Street; properties across Bristol Street are B1 and B2 and properties next to and behind her are R3. The house used to be the residence and business office for the former St. Mary's Church, which is now Al Noor Academy. Ms. Prior said her parents bought the large house in in 1965 and had 10 children; Ms. Prior now owns the house and is a small business owner. She said she would like to use the house as her residence and business by rezoning it to B2, which allows mixed use. Public Comment Deanna Silverio, 79 Walnut Street, asked what the property on the corner of Samoset Avenue and Bristol Street is used for. Ms. Prior said that is a two - family home; she said there is a three - family behind her house. Board Comment Mr. McClanahan asked how many employees Ms. Prior would have. Ms. Prior said there would be one or two office staff and she would see clients in her office. She said most of her business is done in the field. Mr. McClanahan said he was concerned about this being spot zoning. Mr. French said there is a school across the street, which is not a residential use. Mr. Burke said that parcel is zoned residential, but the school use is exempt. He said there are a lot of non- residential uses, including a parking lot for the school, on adjacent lots. Ms. Prior said that building was never a residential use. Mr. French asked how many parking spaces are on this site. Ms. Prior said there are four single spaces with room for six or seven with tandem parking. 2 4/17/2013 Mr. French said if this were rezoned as a business use, the building inspector would have to determine the appropriate number of parking spaces based on the size of the office. If there was not enough room for parking, the proposal would have to be reduced or require a variance. Mr. Penney said her direct abutters are multi - family uses and the school; she said there are mostly single - family homes on Samoset Avenue. She said most of her direct abutters are in favor of the proposal and signed her citizens' petition. Ms. Collins said she is glad to see business uses proposed downtown. Mr. French explained the board would vote its recommendation either tonight or at some point before Town Meeting. Motion: To close the public hearing (Penney - McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. French explained how the public hearing would be conducted and that the board would be making a recommendation to Town Meeting. The petition is to amend the zoning map to rezone the following parcels at Route 140 /Chauncy Street/Walnut Street: Assessor's Map 20, Lots 147, 148, 197, 198, 150, 152, part of 151 from their present classification of Residential 2 (R2) to Business 3 (W). Mr. James Epstein, 900 Maple Street, explained his proposal to rezone several parcels across Chauncy Street from Stop & Shop, which runs 24 hours a day and has a lot of traffic. He said the residential properties are difficult to rent because of the traffic and location, and rezoning to business would bring in more tax revenue for the town. Cindy Bisciotti, 30 Casa Drive, said she does not see lot 150 on the map and asked if that is correct. [Lot 150 is shown on the assessor's map.] Ms. Biscotti said lot 149 is not included in the legal advertisement; Mr. Burke said the GIS map shows that as part of lot 150 and the two lots have likely been combined by the Assessor's Office. However, he said if that is incorrectly described, there may be a procedural defect. He said he would check on it. Mr. William Clemmey said the Assessor's map shows lots 149 and 150 combined as one. Kevin Holbrook, 45 Casa Drive, said the west side of Route 140 is a residential neighborhood. He said he understands Mr. Epstein's desire to use his property, but said the residents have trouble with traffic now, and rezoning this property and making the neighborhood smaller will not help the residents' problems. 4/17/2013 Mr. Epstein said rezoning this property would not impact the neighborhood's traffic problems, and said Mr. Holbrook would not see the business from his property because he plans to leave two residential properties between the existing residences and the new business. He said lots 20- 146 and 144 are not part of the rezoning proposal and would be left as a residential buffer. Mr. Burke noted the building setback for a business would be 50 feet, part of which is a 15 -foot landscaped buffer. Mr. Epstein said there is a residential use in the business zone and his proposal does not come any further down Walnut Street than that property. Richard Gordon, 407 West Street, said he has been against rezoning from residential to business in this area for 35 -40 years. He said he is concerned about commercial creeping into the residential area. Tina Silverio, 79 Walnut Street, said she is not anti - business, but said there is no master plan for this area, so every few years someone tries to rezone another few lots. Ms. Bisciotti said once the land is rezoned, anything that is allowed in the new zone would be allowed, regardless of what the owner says he plans to construct. Mr. William Clemmey said there have been several large developments that were not included in the Master Plan or Strategic Plan, like Mansfield Crossing. He said any rezoning proposal would impact someone's neighborhood. He said Mr. Epstein's property is along Route 106, which is a highway business zone, and the proposal is to use other properties he owns as a buffer for the existing residences. He said those buffer properties have wetlands and would be unlikely to be built on in the future. He said other than this corner, the intersection of Route 140 and Route 106 is all zoned business. He said each proposal should be looked at independently with regard to what is best for the town; he said the town has to think about ways to increase revenue. He said empty houses do not bring in the revenue that a businesses would. Ms. Silverio said the issue isn't only the fact that this property is along Route 106. She said once the zoning is changed, it would only be a matter of time before other lots are rezoned, and the residents are concerned about being squeezed out of their neighborhood. Ms. Bisciotti asked if Mr. Epstein's houses on Route 106 are rented now. Mr. Epstein said two are rented and a family member lives in one. Ms. Bisciotti said the town's focus should be on the business park. Kim Foley, 25 Casa Drive, said the rezoning proposals are very stressful for the neighborhood. Dory McPherson, 10 Casa Drive, said traffic travels very fast in the area now, and more businesses will add to the problem. 4/17/2013 Board Comment Mr. Penney asked why the proposal is to rezone the land to B3 rather than PBD. Mr. Epstein said people in the business recommended that would be the best option. Mr. Penney said he appreciates Mr. Epstein's effort to maintain a buffer, which appears to be about 135 feet. He said he understands the rezoning would increase the tax base and bring in jobs, but said it would encroach on the existing neighborhood. He said the number of people at the public hearing is an indication of the neighborhood's concerns. Mr. Penney said the commercial tax base has decreased significantly in the last 20 years or so. Mr. Burke said that has been a function of the increase in new home construction and the decrease in new commercial construction. Paul Kilroy, 25 Walnut Street, said he does not believe business uses like chain restaurants will attract jobs for residents. He said a restaurant or fast food will increase the traffic problems on Walnut Street. Mr. Cleary said he understands the abutters' concerns and asked if Mr. Epstein would consider donating the parcels he plans to use as a buffer to an organization like the NRT. Nh•. Epstein said there are existing houses on both residential properties; he said he could talk with his lawyer. Mr. Cleary asked about closing off one end of Walnut Street. Mr. French said that would have to go to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Oreste said he understands the residents' concerns. He asked if there is a standard for the board's recommendation to Town Meeting. Mr. Burke said there is not; the board is simply required to report to Town Meeting that a public hearing was held in accordance with the statute. Mr. McClanahan said he understands the residents' concerns, but also understands Mr. Epstein's desire to use his land. Mr. Burke said there is no guarantee the buffer lots would remain undeveloped. He said Mr. Cleary's suggestion to donate the buffer parcels to a non -profit or put a development restriction on the land may be a good idea. He said landowners have the option to petition Town Meeting to rezone property, which could happen in the future. Mr. Burke said there is no comprehensive plan for development and redevelopment in this area. He noted the land Mansfield Crossing is on was zoned industrial, but was developed as retail. He said the town has to look at potential future uses of a parcel. Karl Clemmey said the former Town Manager wanted to use a parcel in this area for the animal shelter. 4/17/2013 Lester Epstein, Walnut Street, said the Casa Drive residents live closer to Route 140 than they do to Route 106. He said people who live on Route 106 have problems with traffic as well. Mr. Holbrook said the type of commercial development should be considered when discussing the need to increase the tax base, and noted the amount of currently empty commercial land. Sandra Levine, 20 Walnut Street, said this portion of land is all residential; she said there is a quality of life issue, not simply a question about whether a business brings in a certain amount of revenue. She said the board's mission is to try to maintain the integrity of neighborhoods, especially older neighborhoods like this one. Mr. French explained the board would vote its recommendation either tonight or before Town Meeting. Motion: To close the public hearing (McClanahan - Oreste) All in favor. PASSES 6. Public Bearing — Citizen's Petition Zoning --Article - Multiple Residence in 12 and Older ;Building Reuse - Mulkern The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. French explained how the public hearing would be conducted and that the board would be making a recommendation to Town Meeting. The petition is to amend the Zoning By -Law to change the Schedule of Principal Use Regulations, Section 3.3.4, to allow Multiple Residence in the Industrial 2 (12) Zone as a special permit use in accordance with Section 3.71, Older Building Reuse; and To amend Section 3.7.1, Older Building Reuse as follows: 3.7.1 Older Building Reuse: The Planning Board may grant a special permit to convert (i) any building containing more than two thousand (2,000) square feet of floor area and built prior to February, 1953, (ii) a public school building, (iii) or other municipal building, in its entirety for uses (A) allowed in the district in which it is located regardless of development density provided (1) there is sufficient parking in accordance with Section 4.4 of this by -law, (2) the Planning Board finds that the site, architectural and landscape plans and conditions of approval are sufficiently advantageous to the Town to grant a special permit, and (3) no additions to the building are allowed, except for minimal additions necessary to comply with building, safety and health codes, or for the reasonable use of the building or (B) allowed by special permit in conformance with the provisions of Section 5.5 of this by -law and the density criteria outlined in this Section 3.7.1. Joe Mulkern explained he would like to renovate the existing building at 150 Oakland Street as apartments, with 100% market rate units and 20% workforce housing, which means working residents making under $68,000 a year. He said he would like to attract working couples and over 55 residents who do not want to move to an age - restricted facility. Mr. Mulkern said his current proposal is for 109 units - 79 one - bedroom and 30 two - bedroom. He said if the zoning 6 4/17/2013 amendment is successful at Town Meeting, the project would require a Planning Board special permit. Mr. Gordon asked how many children this development would attract. Mr. Mulkern explained he is hoping to attract young working couples who take the train. He said the Baker Chocolate Factory in Dorchester, a similar residential reuse with 68 units, has about six children. He said this area of town will attract people who walk to the train station, and with 79 one - bedroom apartments, the development will be unlikely to attract families with children. Mr. Mulkern said this would be a $20 million project, and right now the property is devalued. Mr. French asked what the property currently pays in taxes; Mr. Mulkern said he does not know. Mr. French asked how much the redeveloped property would pay; Mr. Mulkern said he does not know. Public Comment There was no public comment. Board Comment Ms. Collins asked if the whole property will be residential. Mr. Mulkern said he only wants to change the existing building to residential and would leave the rest of the property industrial. Mr. McClanahan asked about a fiscal impact study; Mr. Mulkern said that would be done as part of the special permit process. Ms. Collins asked if that could be done for Town Meeting. Mr. Mulkern said the building will be renovated with historical tax credits and will be brought back to its 1903 condition. Mr. French asked if this proposal is for 109 residential units. Mr. Mulkern said the proposal is for residential reuse of the existing building only and the remainder of the property would be left industrial. Mr. McClanahan asked who would be developing the project. Mr. Mulkern said he is partnering with Wynn Development, but they have not chosen a builder. Mr. Mulkern showed the board photographs of the Baker Chocolate factory renovation and said he has letters from officials in other towns where this has been done. Mr. Mulkern said there are already several large empty industrial buildings in town. He said the chocolate factory is a nice building and he wants to bring it back to its former appearance, and it is unlikely another business is going to invest in the building in its current state. 4/17/2013 Mr. Cleary said if someone were to buy the property, they would probably tear the building down. He said redeveloping the building as residential wouldn't preclude the rest of the property being redeveloped as industrial or commercial. Ms. Collins said losing this historic building would be unfortunate. She said this would be an opportunity to provide housing for older residents who want to downsize and stay in town. Mr. Mulkern said it would be an alternative to a 55 and over development. Mr. Mulkern said he does a lot of work like this in old buildings in Boston, and thinks this could be a positive thing for Mansfield. He said redeveloping the building is going to be a long -term project, and he wanted to do it with a partner who specializes in historic renovations. Mr. Penney said he appreciates what Mr. Mulkern is trying to do, but said the tax rate has shrunk significantly and this would remove 15 acres of land, with a rail siding, and which used to provide 200 jobs, from the industrial zone. He said 100 apartments would require a lot of town services. He said he 2010 census showed 2,316 renter- occupied units in Mansfield, which has around 6,000 total housing units. He said Mansfield is above the state goal of 10% affordable housing and needs more jobs, not more housing. He said the Strategic Plan recommended protecting industrial land, which brings more to the town than it takes. Mr. Penney asked if the same article will be heard twice; first, the one submitted for the Special Town Meeting warrant, which was not held, and second, the one on the Annual Town Meeting warrant. Mr. Burke said there is no Special Town Meeting warrant; everything from that warrant will be on the Annual Town Meeting warrant. Mr. French explained the board would vote its recommendation either tonight or before Town Meeting. Motion: To close the public hearing (McClanahan - Collins) All in favor. PASSES Mr. William Clemmey distributed a chart showing the proposed TOD overlay district floor area ratio and said the maximum number of units that would be allowed per acre is 15. He said an apartment would be around 900 -1,200 square feet, which would result in 18,000 square feet of residential use, or a.41 FAR. He said the board's proposal shows a.50 FAR; he said to arrive at that, the 15 apartments would have to be 1,400 square feet each. He said the 15 units per acre is 25 -50% of what is currently allowed in the B 1 zone. He said the current I3 FAR is .25, which would allow nine units. Mr. Burke said the intent is not to build only residential, but to build 4/17/2013 mixed use. Mr. Clemmey said he has spoken with developers who construct mixed -use projects, who said it cannot be done. Mr. Penney asked if the biggest problem is the number of units per acre and asked what Mr. Clemmey's recommendation would be. Mr. Clemmey said the FAR for mixed use is .20 with parking and retail on the first floor. The maximum height is 45 feet, which would be four stories with 6,000 square feet of parking and/or retail on the first floor. He said with 18,000 square feet of residential in a 24,000 square -foot building, the most FAR possible is .83. He said first floor parking cuts the FAR further. Mr. Clemmey said there would have to be 60,000 to 180,000 square feet of retail to get to 15 residential units. He said the retail component is too high and the residential is too low. Mr. Clemmey said the density of new buildings recently constructed downtown would be 37 -59 units per acre and the reason nothing has been built in the train station area is because the density does not work. Mr. Penney asked what Mr. Clemmey thinks the density should be. Mr. Clemmey said that should be determined by a professional brought in by the board or landowners; he said it isn't 50 or 100, but may be 30 units per acre. He said the 15 units per acre is the limiting factor in the board's TOD by -law. Mr. Clemmey said his analysis is an FAR analysis, not a zoning analysis of the entire parcel. Mr. French said the recently constructed downtown buildings are on small lots, so the ratio would be more units per acre. He noted several of those buildings have parking and retail on the first floor. Mr. Burke said the idea of the TOD zoning is to provide a sense of place and create a place of civic engagement with things like wider sidewalks and public art. He said there are many other uses allowed in the zone besides retail, like office and medical; he said the intention is for mixed use developments. He said no one envisions 135,000 square feet of retail on the site. Nh•. Burke said people were concerned during the previous zoning public hearing that the proposed 100 units on 17 acres is too much, but in this public hearing, people seem concerned that 15 units per acre is not be enough. He said TOD is an effort to work on the future of the town's development. Mr. Burke said because of the difference of opinions of the board members and the public, he recommended at the last meeting, and would recommend again, that the TOD article be 9 4/17/2013 withdrawn before Town Meeting. Ms. Collins said she thinks more work needs to be done to get the residents involved in this process.. Mr. Burke said he has spoken with Miryam Bobadilla from DHCD about available funding for the public engagement portion of this process; Mr. French suggested asking Dr. Mullin to assist with that. Mr. French said board has done a remarkable job on the zoning issues over the last year. He said there is support for the articles from the Board of Selectmen, Finance and School Committees. Mr. Cleary said 15 units per acre would seem to push TOD toward larger units, which may not be the intent of the overlay district. Mr. Burke said the by -law allows studios and live /work space, which are typically larger than apartments. Mr. Penney asked how many artists live in the area and how practical that would be; Mr. Burke said the town should make the effort. Mr. Clemmey said the density would have to be such that a development project would be economically feasible. He said he is in favor of the TOD mixed -use area, but said there should be more time spent working it out. Mr. Penney asked how many units per acre Mr. Clemmey thinks would work. Mr. Clemmey said he doesn't think it is as much as 100 or 50, but said there residential may have to be allowed on the first floor. Mr. Penney asked about the 45 -foot height restriction. Mr. Clemmey said the density is the issue. Mr. Penney asked if the landowners are in agreement with the TOD zone lines. Mr. Burke said he thinks most of them are. Mr. Karl Clemmey said he has spent a lot of time on this. He said he had lunch with Martin Healy, who wrote a book on zoning, who said there is no TOD development going on right now. Mr. Clemmey said the access location should be determined. He said he would be willing to hire the consultants to come to a meeting to discuss this. He said it isn't the right time for business because of the ongoing recession. Mr. Clemmey said the board and Mr. Burke have done a lot of work on the zoning articles. Motion: To close the public hearing (Penney - McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To withdraw the TOD by -law from the Annual Town Meeting warrant (Penney - McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES 10 4/17/2013 The board discussed whether to vote on the three citizens' petitions for which it held public hearings earlier in the evening. Consensus was to vote on them. Rezoning of 23 Church Street from R3 to B2 Motion: Not to support the rezoning of 23 Church Street because of spot zoning concerns (McClanahan - Cleary) Mr. McClanahan said this could result in zone creep and impact the residential uses. Mr. Penney said there were no objections to the proposal from the abutters. Mr. Feck said if the zoning were changed, the property could be redeveloped as any use allowed in that zone, not simply what the petitioner is planning to do. Mr. Penney said this would be a way to increase the commercial tax base; he said there are a lot of businesses on Cottage Street now. Ms. Collins said she is inclined to support this because of the number of businesses in the area now. Mr. McClanahan said he is concerned about future rezoning proposals in the neighborhood. Mr. Oreste said the abutters had the opportunity to voice their opinion and there was no opposition; he noted Town Meeting will make the decision. Mr. Burke said Ms. Prior operates her existing lead abatement business as a home occupation and cannot have employees or students come in. He said if use variances were still allowed, this would be a perfect candidate; however, rezoning opens the property up to whatever uses are allowed in that zone. He said he would not encourage rezoning the property. Mr. Feck asked if there would be a way to allow something like this to occur without needing a zoning change or a use variance. Mr. Burke said he spoke with someone today who is not in favor of TOD, but suggested some of the uses in that proposed zoning should be added to the Table of Uses. He said a new definition of "Home Occupation" might be possible to include things like Live/Work and to allow employees. Three in favor. Four opposed. FAILS Motion: To support the rezoning of 23 Church Street (Penney- Oreste) Four in favor. Three opposed. PASSES Rezoning of Map 20, Lots 147,148, 197, 198,150,152 and part of 151 (140 /Chauncy/Walnut) from R2 to B3 Motion: To support the rezoning of Chauncy/Walnut/Route 140 (McClanahan- Collins) Mr. Cleary said the applicant has made an effort to scale the project down and increase buffers; he said he would still like to look into donating the buffer land or adding a deed restriction. Mr. McClanahan said this will increase revenue and will not impact residential neighbors. Mr. Penney said the value of this property for retail is its access to Chauncy Street. Mr. Feck said he understands the residents' concerns; however, he said the area feels like a commercial area. He said leaving the buffer behind the commercial lot will help protect the residential lots. Mr. Oreste said he appreciates the abutters coming out and understands their concerns, but said it is not a desirable residential property. He said he hopes the residential lots will be left there to help 11 4/17/2013 buffer the residents. Mr. Burke said he is not supportive of the proposed zoning change; he said he understands the neighborhood has changed over the years and West Street and Route 106 handle more traffic every day, but he said that does not mean the areas around those streets should be rezoned. He said even busy neighborhoods can retain their residential character and maintain their quality of life, and there would be an impact to the residential uses with a change to commercial. Ms. Collins said she doesn't think this change would impact the traffic; Mr. Burke said the neighborhood will be impacted. Ms. Collins said the parcel is definitely in a highway business area, and the petitioner has proposed a buffer between this parcel and the residences. Mr. French asked what the allowed uses are in B3; Mr. Burke explained the by -right and special permit uses allowed in the Zoning By -Law. All in favor. PASSES Multiple Residence in I2 and Older Building Reuse Motion: To support the multiple residence in 12 and Older Building Reuse amendment (Oreste- Cleary) Mr. McClanahan said he agrees with Mr. Penney's concerns about the loss of industrial land and the increased demand on the town's resources. Mr. Cleary said he is concerned that if someone else buys this building, it will be torn down. Ms. Collins noted the remainder of the parcel will remain industrial. Mr. Feck said he would hate to see the building torn down. He said he understands the concerns about losing industrial land, but said he would like to see the building renovated. Five in favor. Two opposed. PASSES 9. Around the Table Motion: To adjourn at 10:45 p.m. (McClanahan- ) All in favor. PASSES Next Planning Board meeting: April 24, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. Signature of Clerk Date of Approval 12 4/17/2013