Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 10/16/02 .r-" r',' Ci"\ I ':/~ '~f1 i I,",. L ~ j,' lJ Plannifig Bo;rd M:i~u;~ f: ICE O~4)tm!:Ji~ 12op~ 1: 38 Bernie Dolan, Acting Chair, Roger Achille, 'J{ciing Clm-tc; ten Torman, Mark Cook, Walter Jenkins, Tom McShane I i UJ Shaun P. Burke, Director ofPlannin atld~~~. '.@[ . Motion: To appoint Mr. Dolan Acting Chair and Mr. Achille Acting Clerk Cook-Jenkins All in favor. Passes 1. Minutes October 2, 2002 Motion: To approve as submitted (Cook-Achille) Jenkins abstained. PASSES 2. Request for Partial release from surety - Ridgeview Estates - AI Endriunas I Memo from Mike Ahern recommending the release of$30,481.00 Mr. Burke suggested the board vote to release this much tonight, and the balance ift the roadway is accepted at Town Meeting Motion: To release $30,481.00 and the remaining 10% contingency if the street is accepted at the October 22, 2002 special town meeting (Achille-Cook) All in favor. PASSES 3. ZBA application for Variance and Special Permit - 30 Chauncy Street - Cumberland Farms. The current building houses both Cumberland Farms/gas station and a pizza/sandwich shop, which the applicant proposes to raze and reconstruct. The new structure will be smaller, a 4,134 square foot Cumberland Farms, only with one new 8,000 gallon and two new 12,000 gallon gas tanks, six gas islands with two fuel dispensers at each, new fuel lines, monitoring and alarm system, and a new canopy with lighting. The existing sign will be retained. The special permit is requested for the modification of a pre-existing, non-conforming use and to modify the pre- existing, non-conforming parking. The variance is requested for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces and/or requisite configuration of the parking plan. The site currently has 14 parking spaces. The application does not specify the size of the existing gas tanks. The new plan shows one fewer space at the building. Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation on the application and ask if the change in the size and number of tanks requires a separate special permit (Achille-Cook) All in favor. PASSES r [Mr. McShane arrived at this time.] 4. September Building Permit Summary 5. Meeting Notices: Foxboro, North Attleboro 6. New England Planning newsletter 7. Journal of the American Planning Association 8. The Trust for Public Land newsletter 9. Planning magazine Gilbert Street - Brown. Lots A and B are pre-existing, non-conforming lots. Lot IB-l is being added to Lot lA to become Lot A, and Lot IB-2 is being added to Lot 2 to become ~ Lot B. Both lots are pre-existing, non-conforming, and will remain so after the land f swap, but were created before the 1989 zoning change. Mr. Burke said the plan conforms and recommended it be endorsed. This change does not make either lot subdividable. Motion: To sign the Form A plan (McShane-Jenkins) Ail in favor. PASSES The clerk read the public hearing notice for the conversion of an existing office use to a residential use in the B 1 zone. Dr. Torman, an abutter to this project, excused himself. The first floor of this building was originally residential, but was converted to an office many years ago. Mr. Crugnale said he has tried to rent the space as an office, but believes the best use is residential. After this conversion, there will be four apartments with six parking spaces. Mr. Dolan asked about a dumpster; Mr. Crugnale said the trash is being picked up curbside. Mr. Cook said the town will pick up trash for up to four units. No changes have been made to the parking area to create the required number of spaces; no other changes have been to this site. There will be no exterior alterations. The building will have six bedrooms altogether. The clerk read a memo from the Police Department requesting all parking be offstreet. Motion: To grant the special permit with the following conditions: 1. All department head comments must be addressed within the 20-day appeal period. r (Achille-Cook) Cook - In favor. The proposal will not be a detriment to the neighborhood. Jenkins - In favor. The proposal supplies a needed housing type in the downtown area which will support local businesses and the tax base. McShane -In favor. The proposal is in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning By-Law and enhances the Master Plan goal of encouraging residential uses downtown. Achille - In favor. The proposal is in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning By-Law and is in keeping with the Master Plan goal of encouraging residential uses downtown. Dolan - In favor. The proposal is in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning By- Law and is in keeping with the Master Plan goal of encouraging residential uses downtown All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close public hearing (Achille-Cook) All in favor. PASSES r- [Dr. Torman returned to the meeting at this time.] ,r-- The clerk read the public hearing notice for the following zoning by-law amendment: To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning By-Law, Schedule of Principal Use Regulations, Section 3.3, Residential Uses. to change 3.3.2, Two-Family Dwelling, 3.3.4, Multiple Residence, and 3.3.5, Rowhouse, Townhouse from Special Permit uses in the Industrial 2 (12) zone to Prohibited uses in the Industria12 (12) zone, south of Route 106 and to allow residential development at Residential I (Rl) density only, and to change the Schedule of Principal Use Regulations as follows: SCHEDULE OJ!' PRINCIPAL USE REGULATIONS RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS P INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS DISTRICTS B DISTRICTS 1 2 3 R 1 2 3 D 1 2 3 A SPA D 3.3 RESIDENTIAL 3.3.2 Two-Family Dwelling N N Y N N Y N N N NYN N 3.3.4 Multiple Residence N N N S S S N N N NYN y 3.3.5 Rowhouse, Townhouse N N N S S y N N N NYN y And to amend Footnote I, which appears on Page 22, 23 and 24 of the current edition of the Zoning By_ Law, as follows: l-=Soutb of Route 106 only, at density allowed in Residence 1 district. r I Mr. Burke explained the Master Plan provided for a density bonus for residential use in the I2 zones south of Route 106, such as Ispo/Compo, Tracy Circle. several properties on Gilbert Street, and Richardson Manufacturing on Otis Street. In 1989. Town Meeting voted that these I2 zones are isolated and they should be converted to residential use without downzoning the land; by adding the density bonus, it was thought the land would be taken out of industrial use. These parcels have remained largely undeveloped, except for Mr. Wolfe's land on Gilbert Street; the Planning Board had a proposal before Town Meeting two years ago to rezone the land to Rl, which failed. This proposal does not seek to eliminate any of the industrial uses currently allowed, but rather would allow residential use with a special permit to Rl standards, which would fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. The footnote in the by-law currently allows residential development to R3 standards, which requires 7,500 square foot lots for multi- family units, or 10,000 square foot lots for single family homes. This amendment would prohibit twe-family, multi-family, and townhouse/rowhouse uses in the I2 zone. Single family at Rl density would be allowed with this change, without effecting the landowners' industrial options. Public Comment Karl Clemmey said he owns 10 acres on Gilbert Street and pays taxes on the land; he said this change would reduce the value of his land. He said he didn't believe the article should be on a Special Town Meeting warrant, and suggested the issue should be looked r- under a Master Plan update. He suggested the board should discuss articles like this with the landowners. He said he offered his land to the town, which refused to purchase it, f and is spending much more than that for Electric Department storage land. William Wolfe, Gilbert Street landowner, asked what the intent of the change is. Mr. Burke explained the main intent was to make the land similar to the surrounding residential neighborhood. He said during the Master Plan process, it was discussed that the land had more value as industrial than as residential land, so the density bonus was added. Now, however, the land may be just as valuable as residential, so perhaps the need for a density bonus is not as great. Mr. Wolfe said he was concerned the rights of the landowners would be reduced with this; Mr. Burke said he believes the board feels that density is an issue, since there is no longer an inequity between the value of industrial and residential land. He said allowing residential use at a decreased density is in keeping with the Master Plan goals; none of the industrial options would be eliminated, and residential uses would still be allowed, but at higher density. Mr. Wolfe said the surrounding area was Rl when he bought the land, at 30,000 square feet of area required. At that time, he could have built in eight Form A lots; now that number would be reduced to four. He said he has had his land appraised at a higher value for industrial uses than for residential, and that this would be a disincentive for residential uses. He said if the original purpose was to make industrial land more valuable than residential, this would make residential use a disincentive. Mr. Burke said he believes the board's amendment indicates a change in market conditions such that industrial and residential land are approximately equal in value. Mr. Wolfe disagreed. Mr. Burke said r- one of the issues discussed at the last Capital Improvements Committee meeting was the potential need for portable classrooms. He said the potential number of units on the existing 12 land, built at R3 density, could present a burden on the School Department. He said while this was not an issue originally discussed by the Planning Board before proposing this amendment, it is a legitimate public policy issue. Mr. McShane said the board discussed four issues before the article was proposed: compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, encouraging a lower density, less fiscal impact, and retaining the provision that residential uses are still an option. He said development of new residential properties is a losing proposition for the town, with increased services required for new residents. Mr. Jenkins asked the landowners' views about the residential use being a by-right rather than special permit. Mr. Burke said that was originally a special permit was because of the density issues; Mr. Jenkins's suggestion was that if everything around the land is Rl, perhaps this could be a use by right rather than a special permit. Mr. Clemmey suggested using the R2 standards, which is closer to the existing lots in the neighborhood. Mr. McShane asked if the landowners felt a change to by-right would be beneficial. r Mr. Achille asked if the Gilbert Street parcels would be the only ones effected; Mr. McShane said any of 12 parcels in town are developable, although the Branch Street properties have environmental issues and the Richardson Manufacturing site on Otis Street would be subject to the Rivers' Act. r Mr. Clemmey said he did not believe simply making Rl-sized lots a by right use would be beneficial, and suggested using R2 standards. Mr. Cook asked about changing the article at Town Meeting; Mr. Burke said as long as the change (from special permit to by-right at Rl standards) was less restrictive than the original proposal, the moderator would probably accept it. There would be a question as to whether the change would effect the advertisement; Mr. Burke said he did not believe it would, since the change would simply be in process. ,r' Mr. Wolfe said he had been before the board with an extensive project including 40 units; after several revisions, the plan was denied on the basis of many issues. He said he had spent about $150,000 developing those plans and has come back to the board with conceptual plans at vastly reduced intensity. He said this would make the land industrial again as far as value goes, because there would no longer be an incentive to develop it as residential. Rather than providing an incentive for taking outlying industrial areas and making them more like the surrounding areas, this would be a disincentive. He said if he came before the board with an industrial use, the neighbors from Gilbert Street would be opposed. He said lots at Rl standards would not be similar to the surrounding areas, many of which are on much smaller lots. Mr. Burke said that is true, but that new plans in that area would have to conform to current density and frontage requirements. Mr. Wolfe said this would be taking away owners' property rights, and moving from R3 to Rl standards would be unfair, as he has been trying to modify his original plan. Mr. Clemmey suggested the board reconsider, withdraw the article, and bring it back in the spring. He said he and Mr. Wolfe's properties are really the only owners affected. Mr. Cook asked whether the article would be more acceptable to the landowners if it was at R2 density (30,000 square feet) as a by-right use. Mr. Wolfe said R2 would be still require larger lots than what he could have done prior to the adoption of the density bonus. He said he would not be in favor ofR2 density, either. Mr. Clemmey said R2 by right would be a better alternative than Rl by special permit. Mr. Burke said he appreciates the exchange of ideas, and said he likes the idea ofRl density as a by-right use, adding if lot sizes are changed, all the existing lots become non- conforming. He said he would buy the argument that a smaller lot size might provide an incentive for a development like Mr. Wolfe's, but not the argument that the change should be someplace between R3 and Rl. Mr. Jenkins said even if an application meets all the special permit standards, it could be possible to fail the "benefit" test. Mr. Wolfe said he hadn't spoken during the board's proposed change from industrial to residential a few years ago, but had spoken much earlier than that when he wanted to use the land for a wholesale bakery. At that time, he didn't want the land rezoned because he still hoped to do that. At the time of the Planning Board's proposed rezoning to Rl, the IDC was opposed to taking any industrial land out of circulation. r- , r Motion: To close the public hearing (Achille-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To amend the article to allow R2 density by right in the I2 zone. (Achille- Torman) Mr. Achille said he believes it is important to reduce the number of new houses, and this would allow the new homes to be more compatible with the existing homes. Mr. Burke said he would speak to town counsel and the Attorney General's office about whether residential uses can be conducted by right in industrial zones. Mr. McShane said he understood the benefit to the landowner, but doesn't see any justification to changing the zoning to R2, and would oppose it. He said town meeting denied the last proposed zoning change to Rl. Motion withdrawn The discussion will continue following the end of the next meetings. ~~~~~~~~~~iP,iiii~~;~_~ The clerk read the public heanng notice for the application of Cellco Partnership, dba Verizon, for the co-Iocation of a wireless communication facility on an existing structure at 241 Francis Avenue. The parcel is owned by V AM Realty Trust in the 12 zone. r The clerk read memos from staff; no comments were received. Michael Giamo, Robinson & Cole, explained this plan for a co-location on the existing structure. Antennas would be placed on the structure, and the equipment would be placed behind an existing retaining wall. Cables will run up a cable tray to the railing level. Mr. Giamo said the application package meets the requirements of the by-law and the site would provide additional coverage for the Mansfield area. Mr. Burke said this sort of project is exactly what the board had in mind when it adopted the wireless by-law, the co-location on an existing structure and the prevention of another monopole. He said all the comments have been addressed, and suggested the special permit could be granted. Mr. Dolan asked if the site was fenced; Mr. Giamo said two sides of the site is fenced, and the other two have retaining walls. Mr. Giamo said there are 18 six-inch wide antennas being proposed. Motion: To grant the special permit with the following conditions: 1. The plans for "Proposed Cellular Communication Facility, East Mansfield, MA, 241 Francis Ave., Mansfield, MA 02048, Bristol County, Verizon Site No. 0101100249" dated September 18, 2002 and prepared by Westcott and Mapes, Inc. the special permit decision; r 2. Ail above-referenced department head comments shall be fully and satisfactorily r addressed during the 20-day appeal period; 3. Antennas shall only be located on the existing structure in accordance with the above- referenced plan and shall not extend above the roofline; 4. Antenna panels, cable tray cover and ladder shall be painted to match the existing color of the existing concrete structure; 5. This permit shall only apply to Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon and is non- transferrable without the issuance of a new special permit by the Planning Board; 6. Antenna panels, cable trays and covers shall be removed from the structure by the applicant within one (1) year of cessation of use; 7. If the structure the antennas are to be located upon is torn down, falls down, or meets some destructive fate brought about by a natural or manmade disaster, this permit shall not allow a new stand-alone wireless communication tower, structure or monopole to be at that location; 8. Approval of this special permit is subject to satisfactory review by the Building Inspector of utility cross-sections; 9. Weekly testing of the UPS system shall be conducted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. r and 5:00 p.m. as approved by the Planning Director. (Torman-Achille) Mr. McShane asked if the applicant had considered the visual impact from Ridgeview Lane; Mr. Giaimo said this site is southwest, and from that direction the antennas will be flush against the building. There are no lights on the structure. Mr. McShane said when this use was adopted in the zoning by-law, there was discussion about allowing antennas on town buildings or non-profits. Mr. Giaimo said they had considered that, but there was nothing tall enough. He added they may need more coverage in the future, and would look at those types of buildings first. Mr. McShane asked if the applicant had any bands for public safety; Mr. Giaimo said the building owner would be the one to approach on that and said Verizon's antennas are not on the correct spectrum. Mr. McShane said he didn't see any benefits to the town; Mr. Giaimo said the benefit would be to the residents who use Verizon. He said improved coverage is also a benefit to businesses that may locate in Mansfield. Mr. McShane asked if the applicant had approached the town or any industrial park businesses to tell them about the new service. Mr. McShane suggested the applicant consider a mailing to tenants of the park informing them of the new coverage and services. ~ Torman - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments. (' Cook - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments. Jenkins - In favor. The proposal provides additional service to the town without any detriments. McShane - In favor. The proposal is consistent with the by-law, especially with the co- location and because the applicant has pledged to consider a mailing regarding the new service to industrial park tenants in cooperation with the IDC. Achille -In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, especially with the extra servIce. Dolan - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments. All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Achille-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, explained the applicant's intent is not to add viewing rooms, but rather to enlarge the existing two viewing rooms. In 1999, the Planning Board found that the existing 18 parking spaces were sufficient, provided no r new viewing rooms are added. This will be a one-story addition with a flat roof and a railing around the top, with no additional entrances or exits being added. The addition will be set back from the street approximately 41 feet. The addition will be on the side of the building closest to Mr. Cedarfield's home. Mr. Trowbridge said he has spoken with Mr. Sullivan about drainage and will do a test hole prior to a building permit being issued to confirm the soil types. He said in that area, groundwater does not tend to be a problem, and the amount of runoff this addition will generate would be minimal. He will add subsurface galleys to handle the runoff Department Head Comments The clerk read comments from Mr. Burke, which have been addressed; and Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Trowbridge explained some of Mr. Sullivan's comments concerned additional parking, which is not proposed. Mr. Trowbridge will address his other comments, including a test hole and galleys. There are no plumbing changes proposed for the addition, but there will be a new sewer lateral installed in the near future. No additional lighting or landscaping is proposed. Motion: To send the Building Inspector a positive recommendation with all department head comments addressed, specifically Mr. Sullivan's concerns. (Torman-McShane) Ail in favor. PASSES /"""'. ,,-- ( The board discussed requiring site plans to be submitted in digital format. Mr. Burke suggested a spring Town Meeting amendment to the Zoning By-Law. Joseph Santos, representing the petitioner, Dr. Lester Hartman, trustee of LMK Realty Trust, explained the site is within the PBD and will be developed by remodeling an existing residence built in 1962 into a doctor's office. The office is currently located into the building to the left of this site. Additional off-street parking will be added. Mr. Santos explained the site will be in compliance with density and dimensional regulations, although it is on a 30,000 square-foot lot in a zone where 40,000 square feet is required. However, the structure existed prior to that zoning change, and the by-law provides for a legal lot of not less than 5,000 square feet or 50 feet of frontage if it existed prior to the zoning change. Sufficient open space has bee provided; 58 percent of the site will be impervious surface is included, and setbacks are exceeded. Mr. Santos explained the site will have more parking than is required for the building's 12 employees. No off-street loading will be done. A plan prepared by a Registered Landscape Architect has been submitted. The plan shows a minor change in grade for the development of some parking spaces; 130 cubic yards of earth will be removed. Mr. Santos has discussed this earth removal process with the Building Inspector. Mr. Sullivan had raised a question about what will ,-- be put into the sanitary sewer system; Mr. Santos read a letter from Dr. Hartman explaining normal sewerage would go into the system. Mr. Burke asked if there would be any exterior alterations to the structure; Mr. Santos said there would be a porch to facilitate handicapped access. Department Head Comments The clerk read comments from the Electric Department, Police, Health and Planning. In response to Mr. Burke's comments, the applicant's engineer said no free-standing signs are proposed, the drainage calculations have been submitted, no stormwater will enter the site from Chauncy Street, he feels there are sufficient catch basins to accommodate the runoff, and a lighting plan has been added. Mr. Sullivan's concerns were about the drainage calculations. The Fire Department had been concerned about signage; two signs have been added. The Police Department had been concerned about sight distance; a note has been added that the shrubbery be kept trimmed. Board Comment Dr. Torman asked if there is a plan for the removal of x-ray materials; Mr. Santos said he doubted there would be x-rays done on site. ~ Motion: To send the Building Inspector a positive recommendation with all the department head comments addressed, specifically Mr. Sullivan's concerns. r (Torman-Achille) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Achille suggested his original motion to re-start the discussion. Motion: To amend the article to R2 density as a by-right use (Achille- Torman) Dr. Torman said 60,000 square foot lots might be extreme, and agreed with Mr. Achille's suggestion that 30,000 might be more in keeping with the existing neighborhood. Mr. McShane asked how many units could be built; Mr. Burke said under R3, duplexes or multi-family homes can be built on 7,500 square feet per unit or 10,000 per single family, so there could be eight multi-family units on one Rllot. If the lot size goes from 60,000 to 30,000, there could be four multi-family units. Mr. McShane said when the board went through this before, he had pushed to change the zoning to allow 55 and older housing, and the argument at the time was that the board wanted to go with lower density housing. He said to go to R2, all the use options are preserved, but the density isn't lowered as much as it would have been with Rl. Mr. Achille said the R2 density would be more compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Dolan said the article should not be withdrawn because it would eliminate multi- r family construction in 12 zones, so the remaining issue is one of lot size. Mr. McShane said there would also be an issue of by-right or special permit uses. He said the Master Plan specified these areas have both industrial and residential options, and the last time a rezoning was proposed, Town Meeting denied it. Mr. Dolan said he didn't think Town Meeting fully understood that high-density residential uses are allowed there now. Mr. Burke said he did not think Town Meeting fully understood the issue of density in these areas. He said there are infrastructure issues on the Gilbert Street 12 parcels because there is no sewer there. He agreed with Mr. Dolan that if the lower lot size is chosen, it should remain a special permit use. Mr. Achille said 30,000 square foot lots would be consistent with the neighborhood and asked what the point of the special permit would be. Mr. Dolan said this is industrial land, so if that use is going to be varied from, it should be a special permit use. Mr. McShane said he didn't believe adding additional 30,000 square foot lots by right would be in the best interest of the town. Mr. Jenkins said regardless of the lot size, the same size house is likely to be built. Mr. Cook said he would rather not add another special permit use. Dr. Torman said with a special permit, the board would have a little more control over the construction. Mr. Jenkins suggested dropping the special permit requirement at Rl density and letting Town Meeting decide. r- r Motion Withdrawn None of the members were in favor with 60,000 square foot lots by right. Mr. Cook and Mr. Achille said they were willing to discuss 30,000 square foot lots by right. Mr. McShane said he would rather stay with 60,000 square foot lots. Mr. Cook said R2 by special permit would take options from the landowners, developers will still come in with Form A lots along the existing way, and the board would never see the building plans for the type of house. Mr. Burke said developers would go to the ZBA fIrst for the use special permit, then come to the Planning Board with the Form A plan. Motion: To amend the article to allow residential construction at Rl density as a by- right rather than special permit use. (Cook-Jenkins) Five in favor. Achille opposed. PASSES Mr. McShane and Mr. Dolan said they would be out of town for Town Meeting. Mr. McShane said he had spoken with Bruce Montgomery regarding the parking special permit, which was denied. The Tweeter Center attorneys feel the board was in error and they would like to return. Mr. McShane told Mr. Montgomery that the board didn't feel there was any public benefit to the plan. .( Mr. Dolan asked whether the alterations to the Fresh Catch should have been reviewed by the board; Dr. Torman said they had been a restaurant previously, this was just an enlargement. Mr. Burke said that project did not trigger site plan because the enlargement was not large enough. Mr. Dolan asked about the number of cars parked at Times Past Autos on Copeland Drive; Mr. Burke said cars have been sold on that site for years. Mr. Dolan said there have been cars parked and someone collecting money at the dirt lot on the curve on Rumford AvenuelThomas Street next to the consignment shop. Mr. Clemmey said not all the houses in town have children in the school system, so not all residential uses cost the town money. Mr. McShane said he was referring to new construction, not existing construction. Motion: To adjourn at 11:15p.m. (Torman-Achille) All in favor. PASSES r- /d/7o/02 .