Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 07/10/02 (' RECEI\/ED Planning Board Minutes r f ,...:; C! F Fie E July 10,2002 02. AIH~ - 8 Pt1 2: 44 Tom French, Chair; Bernie Dolan, Clerk; Roger Achille, Ken Torman, Mar1(tooK, Walter Jenkins Ii ,\ l, j ;.. L 0 . .~~~. :E>'13~k.~,l)irec~o! ()f.P~~. .atl~ J:)~elo .ll1eIlt............................... ~11~SS't\c:i::, ((.......... S ::!~~~~~ijgj~#iJm~m~MiJi#!:~~'~ij~~P~m~~'~~~~jj~n~~:~j~t~~:'~~~~jn~rjjj~jnj~t~~~~~:~j~~~:m~'j~~~tjj:j~jj~j~rjjj~j~nt~'~~j:j~~:~r r 1:~~~~~g~f:DP~~~i:~I:m~I:~~~~::::~rnm:~~m~I~~~~nr::::::::::::~:rm::m:::r:~:::~:~:n~r:::::::::~~:n:r::n:::::::::'In:rr::I:::t::n~:rl 1. Special Permit Decision to be signed - Marco Cragnale - 24-26 North Main Street Motion: To sign the special permit decision (Dolan-Cook) Five in favor. Jenkins abstained. PASSES 2. Request for Release of Surety - AI Endriunas - Ridgeview Estates I Memo from Mike Ahern recommending the release of $37,101.00 Motion: To release $37,101.00 (Dolan-Achille) All in favor. PASSES 3. ZBA Decision - Essex Street Conservation Land - Granted (positive recommendation) 4. ZBA Decision - 67-75 South Main Street - Granted (positive recommendation) 5. ZBA Decision - Highway Garage - Variance Granted (positive recommendation) 6. June Building Permit Summary 7. Minutes June 17 Chairman's Meeting 8. Meeting Notices: Attleboro, Easton 9. SPREDD Regional Review 10. TransReport newsletter 11. New England Planning newsletter 12. Journal of the American Planning Association r . . . ..... .. .. . .. .... .. .:.... I ~.:~~:.:~tr~rm:~:(~):glii::::::::::::::::::::::~'~.:~.:r:.::..~:::..::..:.~..:.::::....::....::..::.:::::::::~.::::'r:r.:.:.;::"..::;:::::'::::::.::::::.:::::::.:::::::..:: Oak Street - Reid. The applicant seeks to create two lots, one conforming, the other non- conforming. A variance has been granted for frontage and lot width on the non- conforming lot. Mr. Burke recommended the plan be endorsed. Motion: To endorse the Form A (Cook-Achille) All in favor. PASSES Ij:~::..:~i~:R~jg.~~:Bi~rili9~*.:~~AAt:m:~~~ij.:$ijm!!ij~..OCmm:~iti~r:......::.:....:..':::1 The clerk read the public hearing notice for the removal of one oak tree, approximately 24 inches in diameter, which must be done for the repair of a culver,t under the roadway. r Mr. Sullivan explained the plan for work to be done just beyond Canoe River. Two 30- inch concrete pipes run under the roadway, along with several other pipes and utility connections. One of the 30-inch pipes has been crushed and sink holes have developed in the roadway, so the pipe must be replaced. There is a 24-inch tree between the two 30- inch pipes. !vir. Sullivan said he would have like to have saved the tree, but the tree is only about four feet from where the pipe will be removed. The roots will have to be excavated for the work, so Mr. Sullivan is concerned about the tree collapsing. The area is heavily treed, and the adjacent land is owned by the town, so no abutters will be affected. Because of the drainage pipes and utilities, Mr. Sullivan does not recommend replacing the tree, and said he would leave the stump in place. (' Motion: To grant the scenic road permit to cut down one 24-inch tree on Mill Street and to leave the stump in place (Achille-Torman) Dr. Torman asked if leaving part of the stump would be a problem at a later date. Mr. Sullivan said there may be some minor growth, but the tree is mostly dead and will not grow back. Five in favor. Cook abstained. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Dolan- Torman) Five in favor. Cook abstained. PASSES r......................... ................ ..... .......... ................. .................................................................. ., :l~.:..'&~i'mil:~ij.!~:;g~~Mffl!Ff~.~~ii~~.ffi:g~nirt.Mr~:::::..~j:..::::..:....::..::::....:..:::.:~.: William Wolf explained he and his sister have owned the 15 acre site for 20 years. It is zoned Industria~ and they had intended to build a wholesale bakery on the property. This plan is for 2-family housing, which is permitted in 1-2 zones with a special permit. Mr. Wolf said a 26-10t preliminary subdivision was approved, but the definitive plan was denied by the board, he felt, because of issues with drainage, amount of fill, density and scenic road issues. A conceptual plan was subsequently discussed with the board, which the board was not enthusiastic about. Mr. Wolfhas hired a new engineering firm, Toomey-Munson Associates, to do a new plan, which he believes addresses many of the board's concerns. The new plan is 14 lots, four of which are Form A lots. r John Rhodes, Toomey-Munson Associates, explained the conceptual plan for a 14-10t subdivision in the 1-2 zone on Gilbert Street with 970 feet offrontage along the scenic road. Mr. Rhodes said the objective of the plan is to address the board's concerns, and he has met with Mr. Burke, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Lewis on the new proposal. Mr. Rhodes explained the plan includes 14 lots, with 4 Form A lots along Gilbert Street. A 460-foot cul-de-sac roadway is proposed with the other 10 lots. Six of the units are duplexes with footprints of about 1,600 square feet and eight are 3-unit buildings of about 2,600 square feet. The original plan included significant grading and tree cutting; to address that, he has looked at creating specific open space parcels. The northeast side of the site is open space of about .9 acres. In addition, there is an open space parcel beyond the cul-de-sac in the southwesterly corner of the site. These lots will be left natural to form buffers around the project. Three curb cuts are proposed on Gilbert Street; one for the roadway and two to be shared among the four Form A lots. Fifty-foot deep preservation easements will be retained between the Form A lots and Gilbert Street. There are also buffers proposed along the property lines of Lots 1 and 2. Approximately 35% of the overall parcel is dedicated to open space; including the drainage lots, the open space is approximately 46%. Mr. Rhodes explained the large amount of fill proposed in the original plan was due to r- the density and drainage issues. He said by reducing the density, less earth work will be required. There is a break in grade around the proposed roadway; so the front yards will r- have to be filled to drain toward the street. The fill will decrease toward the back of the lots so the drainage flows cross-country toward a detention basin or an existing wetland, depending on the side of the roadway. This will minimize the drainage going to the roadway, which may allow a smaller detention area than shown. This plan will take advantage of the natural contours of the land and reduce the amount of fill needed. The overall density has been reduced and the plan includes dedicated open space, which could be connected to adjacent developments to create a larger open space corridor in the future. Mr. Rhodes said he has spoken with Mr. Sullivan about the stormwater management issue; with less development, he said this issue is much easier to solve. Mr. Rhodes said the applicants intend to apply to the ZBA for a special permit for the use in the near future, and asked the Planning Board for its comments. He said the ZBA application would be done in two phases, with the Form A lots :frrst and the subdivision later. Mr. French explained the board is happy to see conceptual plans and provide comments, but said this is the first time the members have seen this plan, so any feedback will not obligate the board later. r- Mr. Jenkins asked about the plan for housing type; Mr. Wolf explained his concept was for intergenerational housing. His idea is to sell whole units to a family so older and younger generations could live together. He said the sales agreement or covenant could include that as a requirement. Mr. Jenkins said he may view the application differently if that were part of a covenant. Mr. Burke explained the Planning Board would be considering the scenic road and subdivision, but things like use and residency restrictions would be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Dolan said he was surprised by the applicant's plan to apply for two special permits; Mr. Rhodes explained he feels he needs to go to the ZBA fIrst to determine the use question. Mr. French said if the Form A lots are done separately, they will only come to the board for signature and a scenic road public hearing, which is much less stringent than the subdivision review will have to be. Mr. Rhodes said part of the rationale for permitting the Form A lots first is to test the waters with the ZBA before the applicant spends more money than necessary. Mr. Dolan said he appreciates the density being lowered and thinks that will help with the drainage issues, but said the cul-de-sac may not be large enough for the Fire Department's 35-foot turnaround requirement. Mr. Rhodes said he would be able to adjust that to make it accessible. r Mr. Rhodes showed the board a copy of the original plan, showing two roadways and 20 units. !vir. Burke asked about the difference in dwelling units between this plan and the original plan. Mr. Wolf said this proposal includes only duplexes for a total of 28 units in r- 14 structures. Mr. Burke said the idea of doing the Form A lots fIrst makes sense for the applicant. Mr. French asked about a possible vernal pool; Mr. Rhodes said the Conservation Commission did not determine it to be one. Mr. French said one of the big concerns had been drainage flowing toward abutting properties, but this plan does not seem to do that, but said that issue would need to be carefully considered. Mr. Dolan said the plan appears to be much better than the last one; Mr. Cook agreed. 1~:~~~:;~:~~~~'R~:~m~:Bi~gijg:~@~~.M)~~.:$tri@:i~~~,r:mm~~:::~~.::::t~.~.:~.~~.~.:~:~::::::::~::~:.~~~.~::~.:::1 The clerk read the public hearing notice for the removal and replacement of approximately sixteen feet of stone wall for the installation of a driveway. Mr. Delcea explained he would be reconstructing the stone wall along the returns in a horseshoe- shaped driveway so he does not have to back out onto Mill Street. Mr. Burke said there is one existing driveway opening; the proposed second opening will require the removal of a portion of the stone wall, but no trees. He recommended the board grant the scenic road permit. Motion: To grant the scenic road permit for the alteration of sixteen feet of the stone wall provided the stone wall is reconstructed along the curve of the driveway r- (Dolan-Cook) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Dolan-Cook) All in favor. PASSES 1::~~.::::Ii:~~!~Rm~~..~~I.~~i~~:ffi:~"#mmf:I#ff1::::jjj:.:::::::..::::~~.::::;':~.::::::..::::::..;I Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, explained the applicant proposes the construction of one 11,660 square foot building at the rear of the property. There was a house on the lot, which has been removed. There will be parking on both sides of the building with a handicapped ramp; 46 parking spaces are required; 48 are being provided. The site is on sewer and water. The plan with a much larger footprint and two buildings were previously approved by Conservation Commission. There are three detention areas, with a pipe crossing the access drive, and the existing flow continuing in the current direction. The drainage was designed for the 1 DO-year storm. The clerk read comments from Mr. Field indicating the drainage calculations are adequate and his previous comments have been addressed, and the Police Department regarding the original site plan. Mr. Richard explained he has told Officer Lawson this site will not be used for parking for the Tweeter Center. Mr. Burke explained the plan has changed since it was originally ftled; all of Officer /"'"" Lawson's concerns, along with the other staff comments, have been addressed under the new plan. He suggested the plan is ready for a positive recommendation. r Board Comment Mr. Achille asked what type of business would be in the building; Mr. Richard said he is an electrical contractor. Motion: To send the Building Inspector a positive recommendation as all staff comments have been addressed; note the latest engineering comments that the proposed drainage system is not designed to handle additional flow from future development. (Dolan-Cook) Mr. French asked if there was anything in Officer Lawson's comments about signage or a chain to avoid having Tweeter Center parking in this lot. Mr. Richard said he would rather not do that, but said he would address that issue if it becomes a problem. All in favor. PASSES ............._....-........................-....... ...............................--. - ...... ....... ....... . The clerk read the public hearing notice for the construction of a 12,000 square foot gymnastics academy, office, parking, utilities and drainage on an approximately 45,117 square foot parcel in the 1-2 zone. A special permit is required because the site also falls within the Surface and Groundwater Resource Protection District. r Mr. Trowbridge explained the plan for moving the gymnastics academy from down the street, where it has not had a significant impact on traffic. This site is currently vacant. Mr. Arnold explained the parking is sufficient; 13 spaces are required and 28 are provided. The clerk read comments on the revised plans from the Fire Department (no comments); Mr. Field's memo indicates his concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Mr. Gaffney's memo requires conformity to the water connection policy, along with several new valves. Mr. D' Ambra's memo on the original plan indicated he had no electrical data on the site. Public Comment Louis Certuse, abutting property owner, said he is not opposed to the development of the lot, but wants to be sure it will not impact his property. Attorney Mark Antine and Todd Piling, Registered Professioanl Engineer, representing Mr. Certuse, said his client has opposed previous development on this site, but said this proposal is not a problem for him. He noted there is a 1,600 square foot office shown on the site which Mr. Trowbridge has said is for the gymnastics academy. He said that could impact a number of issues, including parking. ~ Mr. Burke explained this is not a use permit, but the special permit is required because the site is within the Surface and Groundwater Resource Protection District. Mr. Arnold explained the office is strictly for the support of the gymnastics academy. Mr. Trowbridge said he took the maximum number of students and staff, and came up with a r total of 14 parking spaces; they have provided 29 spaces. Attorney Antine said under the Off Street Parking regulations, the use has to be determined; if it is a gymnasium, one parking space for each four seats of capacity must be provided. He said he believes this is proposed as a school, rather than a gymnasium, which has different parking requirements. Mr. Trowbridge said he thought the parking configuration had been set by the Planning Board for the existing site down the street, which is in the same zone. Mr. Arnold said there are no bleachers in the existing building and he does not propose any; if it is an issue, he can do his recitals off site. Mr. Arnold explained there is so much open space in the proposed building because of the equipment and the large amount of space needed for the activities. Attorney Antine said the Planning Board has to determine the seating capacity, and if this is an auditorium, it would require 50 parking spaces. Mr. Dolan said he does not believe this is an auditorium and suggested the board look at the proposal in light of what seating could be installed. Mr. French asked if that was something the board should look at; Mr. Burke explained the Building Inspector determines what the use is; if the use is not one listed in the by-law, the board would determine the parking required. Attorney Antine suggested asking the Building Inspector to look at this issue. r Attorney Antine noted the special permit is required when a project has 15% impervious surface; he said the impervious surface covers 57.4% of the site. Mr. Certuse is very concerned about the drainage; Attorney Antine said the building should be smaller and the parking reconfigured. He noted footnote (3) under 4.2.2 requires a 75-foot setback when Industrial uses are within 75 feet of a Residential use; he said he does not believe the plan meets that setback requirement. Todd Pilling, Pilling Engineering Group, said there are no downspouts shown on the roof. Mr. Trowbridge said there are none shown on the plan, but they are included in the drainage calculations. Mr. Pilling said all the drainage seems to be headed toward Oakland Street due to the grading of the parking lot, and water will dam up on the Troy and Certuse properties. Attorney Antine said he would like to see drainage structures shown on the plan to handle the water in that area of the site. Mr. Trowbridge said he would show a swale on the plan. Mr. Pilling asked if the entire site could be lowered; Mr. Trowbridge said they were not planning to do that. Mr. Trowbridge asked iffootnote (3) would apply if the Certuse property contains a business use, as it appears to. Mr. Certuse said that property does not contain a business. ,- Mr. Arnold said he wanted to be sure all the abutter's concerns have been presented so when he addresses them for the next meeting, there will be no surprises. Mr. Certuse said he is very concerned about the drainage, as the area is already very wet, as well as parking, about which the Building Inspector will be consulted, and the footnote (3) setback issue. Mr. Arnold said he would ask the Building Inspector to look at the parking issue. Mr. Cook asked that the board be informed about the Building Inspector's r determination, and if the board will have to make the determination, perhaps some of the members could tour the existing facility. Board Comment Dr. Torman asked what the parking determination was on the soccer bubble; Mr. Burke said most of that building is play area with a small viewing area. Mr. Jenkins said the question should be what the primary use of the facility is. Mr. Jenkins asked about footnote (3). Mr. Burke explained the footnote; Mr. Jenkins asked if that would be required if this were a pre-existing use. Mr. Burke said it would be. Mr. Dolan asked if the comments could be addressed by the next meeting, August 7, 2002 at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Trowbridge said they could be. Mr. Burke suggested Mr. Trowbridge send a copy of the revised plan to Mr. Pilling so that before the next meeting, they are in agreement. Motion: To continue the public hearing to August 7, 2002 at 8:30 p.m. (Achille-Cook) All in favor. PASSES I........................................................................................................................................................................................1 :~,~::::~qijij~:~.:WiWir::~...:.::..:..::::::..:..::::rr::.::~.~......:..:...::.:::::..........:...:::::::::..:....:...:r::::::::........::::::..:.:....:r..::::....:::..:........:::::.:..::...... Mr. Dolan asked if there had been any word on Erin's Centre. Mr. Burke said there has r been nothing submitted. Mr. Dolan asked what was happening on the lot adjacent to Ro- Jack's. Mr. Burke said that site has been cleared, but no plans have been submitted. Mr. Jenkins asked about progress on the downtown traffic discussion; Mr. Burke said that would probably best be a meeting held in the fall rather than the summer. Mr. French said he thought the downtown business community should set that up. Mr. Burke said he will contact Mr. Barrows. 1..?:..:.Sij.wijH~iW.t...:::.........:......:.:....:.::...:..:.::.....:.......:l:....:::..:..:..:.....:....:......:::..:::::;..:::..:..:....::....::::..:........::.......:..::::l:..:....~.:........:I::::..:~.::..:::..:....~...::I Motion: To adjourn at 10:45 p.m. (Torman-Achille) All in favor. PASSES ? I ?/62 Date of Approval r