Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 09/18/02 (' Planning Board Minutes September 18, 2002 Tom French, Chair; Bernie Dolan, Clerk; Roger Achille, Ken Torman, Mark Cook, Walter Jenkins, Tom McShane Shaun P. Burke, Director ofPlannin and Develo ment Motion: To appoint Mr. Dolan Acting Chair and Mr. Achille Acting Clerk Torman-Cook All in favor. Passes 1. Minutes September 4, 2002 Motion: To approve as submitted (Torman-Achille) All in favor. PASSES 2. September 12, 2002 memo from John D' Agostino re: Special Town Meeting date 3. Meeting Notices: Attleboro, Foxboro, North Attleboro, Plainville, Sharon, SRPEDD 4. Citizen Planner Training Collaborative Course Listing 5. TransReport newsletter 6. Request for release from surety - South Meadow Estates - Michael McClanahan Memo from Mike Ahem recommending the release of $17,500 for stone wall and monument surveying Motion: To release $17,500 (Torman-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES 7. Request for Finding - 971 West Street - Reconstruction of pre-existing, non- conforming home. The applicants would like to renovate the second floor. Mr. Burke explained the footprint of the existing structure would not be altered. Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation (Torman-Achille) All in favor. PASSES r [Mr. Cook arrived at this time] 8. Request for Variance - 15 Mystic Lane - Sideyard Setback for farmer's porch, resulting in 12.2 foot sideyard setback. Mr. Burke explained a variance for the addition has already been granted, resulting in the 12.2 foot setback; this application is for the farmer's porch, which will not increase the existing non-conformity. [Mr. French arrived at this time] Mr. Burke explained the grant of the first variance does not make this site eligible for a finding on this application. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation (Torman-Cook) Four in favor. Achille opposed. French abstained. PASSES 9. Request for Variance - 512 South Main Street - Sideyard Setback for addition, resulting 8.75 foot sideyard setback. Mr. Burke explained the abutter has agreed to sell the applicant some land in order to build the addition. Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation on this application (Achille-Cook) All in favor. PASSES r r 10. Request for Finding, Variance and Special Permit - 171 Ware Street - Minimum Lot Frontage. Mr. Burke explained the site currently contains several apartment buildings and frontage on the street, with several acres behind the apartments. The new owners want to use the existing frontage as the frontage for the apartment buildings, and construct a residential compound on the other land. There are no records of the grant of either a building permit or a special permit for the apartment buildings. Multi-family was an allowed use during the 1960s with a ZBA special permit, but none can be found. Three or four houses could probably be allowed in a residential compound on the back land. Mr. Burke said the issue is a very confusing one, and without the original special permit, there is no way to know what the conditions may have been. [Mr. McShane arrived at this time] Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation based on the fact that it is inappropriate for the town to grant any permit based on purely hypothetical assertions with no proof (McShane-Cook) All in favor. PASSES 11. ZBA decision - 515 Maple Street - Granted (Positive Recommendation) r East Street - Hawksley. Land is being conveyed to form two non-buildable lots which will be conveyed to abutting landowners. Mr. Burke suggested the parcels are appropriately identified and the plan should be endorsed. Motion: To endorse the Form A plan (Dolan-Achille) All in favor. PASSES Plain Street - Chambers. Parcel A is labeled non-buildable and is being conveyed to the abutting property owner. With the conveyed land, both lots conform to zoning. Mr. Burke said it might be possible to take down the existing house and subdivide the lot; however, most of the land is in the Zone I. Motion: To endorse the Form A plan (Cook- Torman) All in favor. PASSES The clerk read the public hearing notice for the board's proposed amendments to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. The proposals are as follows (proposed changes are shown in bold): r- *Proposed New Paragraph: 3.1.5 Within ten (10) days of recording the ANR Plan at the Registry of Deeds, the applicant shall notify the Planning Board in writing, presenting evidence of the recording of the plan, and eight (8) copies of the recorded plan. In addition, one digital me of the recorded Definitive Plan shall be submitted, preferably in AutoCad DWG, but DXF format will be acceptable. The media shall be 3.5" ftoppy disk or CD. The plan Vertical Datum shall reference tbe Nortb American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NA VD 88), and the plan shall contain a minimum of two benchmarks. The horizontal orientation shall be tied and referenced to the Mansfield GIS horizontal control monuments (North American Datum of 1983, NAD 83). Upon receipt of sucb notification, tbe Planning Board shall file one (1) copy of the recorded plan with the Building Inspector, the Board of Health, the Department of Public Works, the Town Manager, and the Engineering Department. The digital copy sbaD be filed with tbe Engineering Department. r David Field, Senior Engineer, explained this amendment was requested by the Engineering Department in order to keep the new GIS system up-to-date. The system will have parcel maps and a data link, so whenever there is a plan filed, the parcel maps can be updated. Mr. Field explained the system would be compatible with the Massachusetts GIS system. Mr. Sullivan suggested changing the paragraph to add one additional sentence to read: For an ANR Plan, the digitalfile shall be submitted uponfi/ing of the plan. Motion: To adopt proposed paragraph 3.1.5 as amended (Cook-Achille) All in favor. PASSES *Proposed: 3.3.2. Contents The Definitive Plan shall be prepared by a professional engineer and land surveyor registered in Massachusetts and shall be clearly and legibly drawn in black india ink upon tracing cloth. The plan shall be at a scale of one inch (l") equals forty feet (40'), or such other scale as the Planning Board may accept to show details clearly and adequately, and shall include plans and profiles of each individual street at a scale of one inch (1") equals forty feet (40') horizontal and one inch (l") equals four feet (4') vertical. All elevations shall refer to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NA VD 88) and be noted on the plan. Sheet sizes shall be twenty-four by thirty-six inches ways bounding, approaching or within reasonable proximity of the subdivision, showing both roadway widths and rights- of-way widths. r Motion: To adopt the proposed amendment to paragraph 3.3.2 (Torman-Achille) All in favor. PASSES .Proposed Amendments to 3.3.10 and 3.3.14: 3.3.10. Certificate of Approval The action of the Planning Board in respect to such plan shall be by vote, copies of which shall be certified and filed with the Town Clerk and sent by delivery or registered, return receipt requested, mail to the applicant. If the Planning Board modifies or disapproves such plan, it shall state in its vote the reasons for its action and shall rescind such disapproval when the plan has been amended to conform to the rules, regulations and recommendations of the Planning Board. Final approval. if granted, shall be subject to the construction specifications contained herein and shall be endorsed on the original drawings of the Definitive Plan by the signatures of a majority of the Planning Board with the Town Clerk and said Clerk has notified the Planning Board that no notice of appeal has been filed with his/her office. Endorsement by the Planning Board of the definitive plan drawings shall not occur prior to the expiration of the statutory appeal period following recording of the Board's certificate of action with the Town Clerk. In addition, endorsement of the definitive plan shall occur not more than forty-five (45) days after expiration of the appeal period. Failure of the applicant to provide the Planning Board with the requisite covenants or surety within the forty-five (45) days shall result in recission or modification of the plan, unless the Board grants an extension of this timeframe in writing. After the Definitive Plan has been approved and endorsed, the Planning Board shall return the original to the applicant. The Planning Board may extend the period of time permitted by statute between submission of the Definitive Plan and action thereon upon written request of the applicant. (' In addition, upon approval by the Planning Board signing the mylars, the applicant shall submit a plan of the subdivision at a scale of one inch (1") to every eight hundred feet (800'). The plan shall show the boundaries of the individual lots within the subdivision, subdivision streets and streets shown adjacent to the subdivision. r Approval of the Definitive Plan does not constitute the laying out or acceptance by the Town of streets within a subdivision. r Approval of all plans shall be upon the condition that all ways shown thereon and public utilities required to be completed and installed within two (2) years from the date of approval. The Board may decline to approve any plan unless the applicant agrees to complete the ways shown thereon and install the public utilities aforesaid within two (2) years from the date of approval. (Refer to Section 3.3.11.) Within ten (10) days of the recording of the approved Definitive Plan and covenant, if any, at the Registry of Deeds, the applicant shall notify the board, in writing, presenting evidence of the recording of the plan and the covenant; eight (8) copies of the approved and recorded Definitive Plan and a Certificate of Title duly searched and executed by an attorney or title company stating that the title to the premises shown on said plan and appurtenances thereto is in the applicant's name and free of all encumbrances. In addition, one digital me of the recorded definitive plan shall be submitted, preferably in AutoCad DWG; but DXF format will be acceptable. The media sball be a 3.5" ftoppy disk or CD. The plan Vertical Datum shall reference the Nortb American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NA VD 88), and the plan sball contain a minimum of two benchmarks. The horizontal orientation sball be tied and referenced to the Mansfield GIS horizontal control monuments (North American Datum of 1983, NAD 83). Upon receipt of such notification, the Planning Board shall file one (l) copy of the approved and recorded definitive plan each with the Building Inspector, the Board of Health, the Department of Public Works, the Town Manager and the Engineering Department. The digital copy shall be filed with the Engineering Department. 3.3.14. Acceptance by the Town The subdivider shall file with the Planning Board a final as-built plan and street acceptance plan on mylar and in digital format. The digital format shall preferably be in AutoCad DWG, but DXF format wiD be acceptable. The mylar shall be minimum three (3) mil. thick of completed street or streets together with proper legal descriptions and shall be submitted no later than November 1 for initiating an article in the Annual Town Warrant no later than November 1 lit pursuant to the acceptance of the ways by Town Meeting (See Sections 5.1.8, 5.1.9 and 5.1.10), and upon acceptance by the Town, the subdivider shall grant a deed to the Town of the streets as contained in the plan, said deed to be recorded by the Town Clerk upon acceptance of the streets by the Town Meeting. The acceptance plan shall clearly note on the mylar: "Owner: Town of Mansfield, MA." Motion: To adopt the amendments to 3.3.10 (Dolan-Torman) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To adopt the amendments to 3.3.14 (Dolan-Achille) All in favor. PASSES r *Proposed: 3.3 .11.2.J\pproval with Bonds. Surety or Passbook - The applicant shall either file a performance bond, a deposit of money, negotiable securities or a bank passbook, in an amount determined by the Planning Board to be sufficient to cover the cost of all or any part of the improvements specified in Section 5. not covered by a covenant under "5.2" thereof. The estimate of required securities shall be based upon the present construction cost value of the work to be completed, as well as a 20% contingency factor based on the value of the work that remains to be completed at the time of the posting of securities, which will cover any increase in construction cost during the time that the Planning Board is holding securities. Such bond security or passbook, if filed or deposited, shall be accompanied by an appropriate book and properly executed agreement prepared in the manner or fonn as they Board may require, and approved as to fonn and manner of execution by the Town Counsel and as to sureties by the Town Treasurer and shall be contingent on the completion of such improvements within one (1) year of the date of the receipt of securities by the Town Treasurer. Extension of time for completion of required improvements may be granted by the Mansfield Planning Board upon petition of the owner. The Planning Board shall require that the total surety or remaining balance of the surety shall be reviewed annually by the Board or its agent, and the applicant shall be required to increase the surety amount if necessary, to cover increased construction costs. Motion: To adopt the amendment to 3.3.11.2 (Achille-Cook) All in favor. PASSES (' *Proposed: 4.2.1 Driveways shall be at least ten feet (10') wide and have a curb return at the roadway of two feet (2') in radius, and shall have an opening of at least sixteen feet (16') at the gutter line. Driveway aprons shaD be paved with Portland cement concrete from tbe roadway gutter line througb the back edge of tbe sidewalk. Concrete sidewalks are already required, so this would make the driveways match. Mr. Burke explained this would only apply to new subdivisions, not to homeowners redoing their driveways. Mr. Dolan suggested referencing the requirements of 5.4.3 Motion: To adopt the amendment to 4.2.1 with the amendment to reference 5.4.3 (Dolan- Torman) All in favor. PASSES *Proposed: 5.1.8 As-bunt plans must be submitted to the Town Engineer and the Planning Board Agent when the stormwater management system has been installed, including all drainage structures, areas, basins and/or swales, and when then roadway has been constructed to a binder course of asphalt. r 5.1.9. At the time the street or way or portion thereof is ready for acceptance and to facilitate acceptance by the Town of Mansfield, the developer shall have prepared and certified by a Registered Land Surveyor an" As-Built" plan drawn with India ink on tracing cloth (size 18" x 24" or 24" x 36") showing widths, lengths, bearings of all boundary lines of streets and easements and radii, tangents and central angles of all curves in street lines and shall show all utilities. It shall show that all stone bounds have been set. The "As-Built" plan shall show the spindle elevations of all hydrants installed within the subdivision in relationship to the Mansfield Vertical Control System. A blank space (4" x 8") shall be provided on the lower right hand comer of the plan for a title block to be filled in by the developer. The Surveyor shall place a certification on the plan stating "The street (or way or portion thereof) is laid out and the bounds have been set as shown on this plan" and shall be dated, signed and the surveyor's stamp affixed thereon. The Plan shall be submitted to the Board of Selectmen. 5.1.10. The developer shall have the original plans and profiles that were submitted to the Planning Board and that are on file in the Planning Board office, corrected and certified by his Engineer to show the actual as-built location and grades of all utilities and roadway profile and any changes authorized by the Planning Board. 5.1.11 Three copies of a legal description of the way(s) and easements, if any, prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor. Also see Paragraphs 3.3.15 through 3.3.15.3 inclusive. Mr. Burke explained this amendment, along with 5.2.4 and 5.3.2.7.11, seeks to require as-built plans when the drainage system has been installed because of problems in the past with drainage areas being installed at the wrong elevation. *Proposed: 5.2.4 As-bunt plans must be submitted to the Town Engineer and the Planning Board Agent when the stormwater management system has been installed, including all drainage structures, areas, basins and/or swales, and when then roadway has been constructed to a binder course of asphalt. r 5.2.5: 685 Embankments outside the right-of-way shall be evenly graded and pitched at a slope of not greater than three (3) horizontal to one (I) verticaL Where terrain necessitates greater slopes, terracing, fencing or rip rap may be used either alone or in combination to provide safety and freedom from maintenance, but must be done in accordance with plans filed with and approved by the Planning Board. (' Whenever embankments are built in such a way as to require approval by the Planning Board, the developer must furnish to the Town duly recorded access easements free of encumbrances for maintenance of the slopes, terraces or retaining wall. All such slopes shall be grassed in accordance with the specifications for the area between the roadway and sidewalk or roadway and boundary of the right-of-way. *Proposed: 5.3.2.7.12. As-built plans must be submitted to the ToWD Engineer and tbe Planning Board Agent wben tbe stormwater management system has been installed, including all drainage structures, areas, basins and/or swales, and wben the roadway has been constructed to a binder coune of asphalt. 5.3.2.7.13 No backfilling of any pipe or structure shall occur until the installation is inspected by the Planning Board Agent or its designee. The Contractor, developer or project engineer shall have a level and rod set up at the time of the Agent's inspection to demonstrate proper slope and elevation. 5.3.2.7.14 All drain manholes constructed within groundwater shall be manufactured of precast reinforced concrete with rubber (O-ring) gaskets. These manholes shall be pressure tested prior to acceptance. The manholes shall have either a mounting pad or a tiedown to prevent lifting. Motion: To adopt amendments to 5.1.8, 5.2.4 and 5.3.2.7.11 (Dolan-Cook) All in favor. PASSES r *Proposed: 5.3.2.7.11. Cement concrete and reinforced concrete pipe shall be used under roadway pavement. All pipe shall be installed in accordance with Section 230 of the Standard Specifications. In the Water Supply Protection District, watertight pipe joints and watertight manholes and catch basins shall be used upgrade of the oiVwater separator. In the event the Planning Board grants a waiver from concrete pipe to plastic or ADS pipe, the pipe shall meet minimum specified cover requirements, and be bedded and completely covered with stone no larger than 1.5" (one and one half inChes) in diameter and wrapped in filter fabric. Motion: Adopt amendment to 5.3.2.7.11, including minimum 12" cover (Achille-Cook) All in favor. PASSES *Proposed: 5.4.3. All sidewalks shall be constructed of Type V portland cement concrete conforming to ASTM Standard C 150 with a maximum aggregate size of %" and a minimum of 7% entrained air to increase the resistance to freezing and salt damage. All sidewalks shall be constructed as generally specified by the Massachusetts Highway Department on a minimum 4" gravel base at a minimum thickness of 4" completed with a steel trowel to a non-slip finish even when wet. Sidewalks that cross driveways shall be 6" thick and further reinforced as needed. No calcium chloride or admixtures shall be added to the concrete without written approval from the Town. Only one brand of cement having the same color shall be used. Six-by- six wire mesb or fiber mesh shall be embedded in the concrete for reinforcement. Expansion joints shall be installed every 30 feet. The sidewalks shall be tooled and divided into squares. Each divide shall be scored to allow controlled relief Mr. Cook suggested allowing only fiber mesh, because wire mesh is often installed incorrectly. Mr. Sullivan said there could be as many problems with fiber mesh if not properly installed. Motion: To adopt the amendment to 5.4.3 and amend the cross sections (Dolan-Torman) All in favor. PASSES r *Proposed: 5.5. Curbs and Berms ( 5.5.1. Vertical granite curbing shall be provided along each side of the roadway throughout the subdivision. Granite curbing shall be Type V A4 (Subsection M9.04.I). 5.5.2. In instances where, in the opinion of the Planning Board, vertical granite curbing will not blend in properly with the existing roadway system, it may require cast concrete curbs as specified in Subsection M4.02.14, and granite curbing at the intersection along the roadway the distance of the arcs of the curbs plus a straight section at each end of eight feet (8') and on the inner sides of all curves with a radius less than one hundred and fifty feet (I 50'). Granite curb shall be Type V A4 (Subsection M9.04.I). A six foot (6') granite catch basin block shall be installed at each catch basin. Mr. Burke explained the proposed change came from DPW that sloped granite does not stand up well to snow plowing. Vertical granite is much more expensive, but much more durable. Mr. French was concerned that vertical curbing looks more urban than sloped curbing. Mr. Cook said vertical granite is more durable because much more of it is buried in the ground, making it much more stable than sloped granite. Mr. McShane asked if vertical curbing could be waived in favor of sloped granite if the developer made the argument that it wouldn't go with the neighbors, rather than having the developers requesting a complete waiver from sidewalks due to the cost. Motion: To adopt the amendment to 5.5 and amend the cross sections (Dolan-Cook) All in favor. PASSES "'Mr. Sullivan suggested adding a to-foot separation between sewer and water lines to the cross sections. Motion: To correct the standard cross sections to reflect the to-foot separation between r water and sewer, and to make the other dimensional adjustments as necessary (Dolan-Achille) All in favor. PASSES *Proposed (to be added to Fonn I Covenant): 4. Nothing herein shaU be deemed to prohibit a conveyance by a single deed, subject to this covenant, of either the entire parcel of land sbown on tbe subdivision plan or of all lots not previously released by the Planning Board. This paragraph comes out of the statute; it was somehow dropped from the Planning Board's copy of the Form I and should be replaced. Motion: To adopt paragraph 4 (Achille-Cook) All in favor. PASSES Adam Gaudette, Senior Land Planner, Heritage Design Group, presented the plan for an expanded parking lot. The site currently has a building 43 parking spaces; six will be eliminated to open a driveway to a new parking facility containing 74 spaces, for a total of 111 spaces. r Department Bead Comments Mr. Gaudette addressed the department head comments. An additional handicapped parking space has been added, as has access to the dumpster. Mr. Field's latest memo indicates his concerns have been addressed. Mr. Burke's concerns about the lighting and landscaping plan have been addressed. A pre- and post-development drainage study has r been done, and the system has been approved by Mr. Field. Mr. Burke said he believed the department head comments have been addressed. He said this is a relatively small proposal, and all issues have been resolved. He suggested a positive recommendation to the building inspector. Board Comment Dr. Torman asked why the new parking spaces are needed. Mr. Gaudette explained the building is being renovated and based on the change in employees, more parking is necessary. The number provided meets the requirements of the Zoning By-Law. Mr. McShane asked what sort of business this is. Mr. Gaudette explained it is a pharmaceutical distribution center, and the traffic is mostly employees. Mr. McShane asked about the existing condition of the proposed parking area; it is mostly grass and wooded, and will be cut back. The 50-foot buffer as required by the Zoning By-Law will be left in place, so it will not be seen from Norfolk Street. The site is relatively flat. Motion: To send the Building Inspector a positive recommendation (Dolan-Achille) All in favor. PASSES r Joseph Pereira. consultant for Sprint, explained the plan for the installation of antennas and related equipment cabinets attached to the existing stage house building at the Tweeter Center. The equipment will be located on the lower roof of the stage house and will be shielded by a screening wall made of the same material as the fascia of the building. The antennas will be located on the fascia and painted to match that surface. There will be eight on the inside of the building and one on the outside of the building, and will not rise above the roof of the facility. The facility will be unmanned other than one or two service visits each month, so there will be no impact on traffic on or off the site. There will be no site work other than the installation on the building, which will be minor. Mr. Pereira said he is working on the power issue with Mr. D' Ambra. Department Head Comments Mr. Burke said all the comments have been addressed, except for the outstanding Light Department issues, which Mr. Pereira is working on. Motion: To send the Building Inspector a positive recommendation (Torman-Cook) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Burke provided the board with copies of a proposed Zoning By-Law amendment to change Footnote 1 (page 22) to allow single family residential by Special Permit in the 12 zone south of Route 106 and to make two-family, multiple residence and r- rowhouse/townhouse prohibited in the 12 zone south of Route 106. Accessory r apartments are already prohibited in that zone. 12 zones south of Route 106 include Ispo/Compo, Tracy Circle, several parcels on Gilbert Street, and Richardson Manufacturing at the comer of Gilbert and Otis Streets. Mr. Burke explained the original intent of this footnote was to encourage residential uses in these industrial zones, but this amendment would lower the density, currently allowed to R3 standards, in those areas. On the other hand, he said this could be seen as encouraging 40B applications, though that could be done on these sites now. This would not preclude the land being used for an industrial use, but gives landowners the option for residential at a much lower density than currently allowed. Motion: To request the Town manager put this article on the Special Town Meeting Warrant (Cook-Dolan) Mr. McShane asked if there would be any benefit to allowing 55 and older uses on these 12 parcels. Mr. French said he was concerned about density in developments like that. All in favor. PASSES The board discussed the trailer storage use on South Main Street, and the fact that town counsel had changed his opinion to say that is an allowed use. r Mr. Jenkins said he had spoken with Mr. Burke about the apartment at 24-26 North Main Street being marketed as condos rather than rented. Mr. Burke said that is simply a form of ownership, not a form of use, and believes the building inspector can still enforce the special permit. However, he said the special permit may not be as clear as it could have been if the board had known the owner's intentions. Motion: To adjourn at 10:30 p.m. (Torman-Achille) All in favor. PASSES ext meeting: October 2, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. "~ /0/3/o#.- Date of Approval ('