Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 01/24/01 , RECEIVED E Planning Board Minutes TOW~~ CLFm\S OFF Ie January 24, 2001 -R -PM 2: 21 Present: H. Thomas French, Chair; Bernie Dolan, Clerk; Kenneth TormarP, ~g~FrID1k Shaun P. Burke Director of PI ann in and Develo ment 0 TTS r r, 1. Minutes January 10,2001 Motion: To approve as submitted (Torman-Dolan) All in favor. PASSES 2. Zoning Board of Appeals application for variance - 15 Hidden Lane - sideyard Mr. Frank said the addition could be put off the back of the house, and there is no hardship demonstrated. Motion: To send the Zoning Board of Appeals a negative recommendation because there is no hardship described in the application or shown on the plan, so there is no reason to derogate from the provisions of the Zoning By-Law. (Frank-Torman) All in favor. PASSES 3. Zoning Board of Appeals application for variance (Waterbody setback) and finding (expansion of pre-existing non-conformity) - Oakridge Avenue, North Attleboro Mr. Burke explained there is a hardship due to the shape of the lot and the fact that the house straddles the town line. Motion: To send the Zoning Board of Appeals a positive recommendation on the Variance for waterbody setback because the shape of the lot creates a hardship, and it would not increase the nonconformity because of an existing slab (Frank-Dolan) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To send the Zoning Board of Appeals a positive recommendation on the Finding because the addition will not increase the pre-existing nonconformity (Frank-Dolan) All in favor. PASSES 4. Form J Release from Covenant - Ridgeview Motion: To sign the Form J (Dolan-Frank) All in favor. PASSES 5. Letter from Attorney David Gay regarding Karl Clemmey's appeal of the Tweeter Center parking lot, suggesting the Planning Board is the most appropriate party to appeal this issue, and the board may want to ask the Board of Selectmen to reconsider their policy of not funding for appeals. Mr. French said they could ask for funding for an attorney's appearance, since the Selectmen's policy is not to fund active litigation. Following discussion, consensus was not to request funding. 6. Zoning Board of Appeals decision - 23 Lakeview Avenue - Granted (Sideyard) 7. SRPEDD Survey on Growth Management Legislation 8. Meeting notices Foxboro Planning Board; Attleboro Planning Board; North Attleboro Planning Board; Easton Planning & Zoning Board; Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals 9. Invitation to Statewide Community Preservation Act Conference (I Essex Street - Lawrence Winslow. Surveyor Otis Dyer resubmitted the plan following the board's request to see Lot 6 shown. Motion: To sign the Form A (Frank-Torman) All in favor. PASSES r r r The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. French read a statement disclosing he is a resident of Gilbert Street, but not an abutter to the site. Attorney David Gay introduced the applicant, William Wolf and engineer Bob Rogers from Tibbetts Engineering. Mr. Rogers explained the site is approximately 15 acres north of Otis Street, and is currently wooded. The Conservation Commission has approved the wetland line, and there will be one change to Flags 12 and 13, which will be connected. Perc tests were done in September, and all soils tested were good. The property slopes north to south at one-half percent. The water table is at 7-8 feet at the north part of the site, and 2 feet at the south corner. The proposal is for 22 lots with several drainage areas, around which the required open space will be arranged. There will 1,650 feet of roadway with two access points onto Gilbert Street. Because of high groundwater, some fill will be necessary in the road, and the grade will be brought to match Gilbert Street. No catch basins are proposed at the intersection of the subdivision roads and Gilbert Street because of high points in Scott's Drive and Bethany's Way, which will drain toward a retention area. Mr. Rogers will be requesting a waiver for that, but said he did not think catch basins would gather any significant runoff. There are no existing catch basins or drainage pipes in Gilbert Street, so they will create a low point in the road to direct drainage toward a second retention area. Because of the highly permeable soils, they intend to infiltrate the roof runoff, which is presumed to be clean and not require sediment removal. Mr. Rogers said he would be amending the typical tree-planting plan, and presented construction details showing standard cross sections and erosion control, along with pre- and post-development drainage plans. Attorney Gay explained the plan was drawn to meet R3 standards in the 12 zone, but while the lots are undersized for the Gilbert Street area, they are larger than they would have been as industrial lots. The residential use is subject to a Zoning Board of Appeals special permit, which they have not yet received. Mr. Rogers explained there would be alterations in Gilbert Street, a scenic road, for the two access roads, along with changes to an existing stone wall which has not been maintained. The original plan showed four lots with driveways onto Gilbert Street, but following the department head comments, those driveways will be relocated onto the subdivision roadway. Six large oak trees will be removed for the construction of the subdivision streets, and possibly one additional tree for sight distance purposes. Department Bead Comments The clerk read comments from Mr. Burke, Mr. Lewis, Officer Lawson, Mr. Sullivan, and the Fire, Water, and Electric Departments. r Mr. Rogers said he would be working on Mr. Sullivan's comments, especially the drainage issues; and if the board or Mr. Sullivan require catch basins to be installed, he would have to create drainage ponds for each. He said he thought it would be better to use flat top catch basins with ductile iron pipes. Mr. French said installing the catch basins would be very important because there are no existing drainage structures in Gilbert Street, and there will be additional pavement to be drained following construction. Mr. Rogers said water currently flows toward the back of the site, and even adding the post-development water to that, the water flow still does not exceed to the pre-development number. He said peak flow is determined by using the longest path traveled by the water; in the two and 10 year storms, the calculations show zero water leaving the site, which Mr. Rogers said is not practical. Public Comment John Jacobi, attorney for Duranco, Inc., said his client is concerned about the scenic road and drainage issues. There will be a large drainage structure located near a wetland area with a swale going back to the river, and they are concerned about water flowing across their property. They are also concerned about the retention pond having water in it all the time, and if that were to happen, would it be fenced and maintained? r Mr. Jacobi said they were also concerned about water pressure and traffic, especially where the proposed driveways enter onto Gilbert Street. He was also concerned about the new roadways being directly across the street from Duranco's driveway, and that the Environmental Impact Plan showed this project would increase traffic by 24% at peak times. Mr. Jacobi said none of the lots shown meets the requirements of the Zoning By-Law because according to Section 4.2.2, footnote 3, the rear and sideyard setbacks have to be 75 feet where residential abuts industrial. Mr. Frank said he did not think that is how the Building Inspector and Town Counsel interprets that by-law. Mr. Jacobi said he disagreed with Town Counsel and would appeal, since this whole parcel abuts a business and therefore cannot be approved as presented. Leonard Flynn was concerned about density because the site is in the Zone 3 and is close to the Zone 2. He said the property was proposed to be rezoned to Rl a number of years ago, and Mr. Wolf had made a speech about his plans to build a factory there and he did not want it rezoned. He said he thought the smaUlots derogates from the intent of the Zoning By-Law. He said the site is very flat, but then slopes down to the river, therefore the board should require a hydrologist to look at the septic systems. Mr. Burke explained that under Subdivision Control, the Board of Health reviews the plan and makes a report to the Planning Board; at this point, the board has not heard from the Board of Health. r r Karl Clemmey, an abutter to the south, said the basins should be shown 100 feet from the property line. Board Comment Mr. Frank asked why the project needs a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Burke explained it is not a use variance, but the thought behind the footnote would be to get several 1-2 areas into residential use without downsizing the land by providing a density bonus with a Zoning Board of Appeals special permit. Mr. Frank suggested the scenic road permit reference the driveway locations for future homeowners; Attorney Gay said that could be added. Mr. Frank asked about building envelopes; Mr. Rogers said they intend to address all department head comments, and are willing to work with the board on all issues. Attorney said if they receive the Zoning Board of Appeals special permit, they will show the lot and driveway locations on the final plan. Mr. Frank said the board would not support driveway cuts directly onto Gilbert Street. r Mr. Frank asked ifthe retention pond would be a water-filled all the time, and if so, what precautions would be taken. Mr. Rogers said it will be at or near seasonal high groundwater, so they are calling it a wet pond which will have 4-6 inches of standing water from January to May, and will be dry the rest of the year. He said the existing pipe under the road can only handle so much water, and because of its size, they would be unable to put water onto the Duranco property. Mr. Gay said how the pond is controlled is up to the town's regulations; it could be town-owned or owned by a homeowner's associations, in which case there would be a covenant. Mr. Frank asked about traffic. Mr. Rogers said they did real traffic counts using 36-38 dwelling units and found an existing 2,200 cars going north and south on Gilbert Street. He said there would not be enough traffic generated either by the subdivision or by Duranco to consider realignment issues. Mr. Burke said on a scenic road, the front yard setback is 75 feet, and by eliminating the Gilbert Street driveways and reorienting the houses to Scott's Drive, the setback issue should be addressed. He said the drainage basin mayor may not be a structure, and mayor may not be allowed in the front yard setback. Mr. Rogers said he disagreed with the 75 foot front yard setback. Mr. Burke suggested having the attorneys send the board their opinions on the setback issue; both said they would do so. Regarding the curvelinear drainage structure issue, Mr. Rogers said he would like to make it shallower and wider with a double-barrel sidewalk in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. He added he would likely ask to do one sidewalk, since Gilbert Street has no sidewalk. ( Mr. French suggested Mr. Rogers send the board a list of waiver requests, along with a narrative response to all department head comments. r Motion: To continue the public hearing to March 7, 2001 at 8:00 p.m. (Torman-Frank) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Burke explained a wireless communication amendment to allow towers in the Reservoir District within existing structures, such as church towers. Motion: To proceed with Planning Board articles 1,2,3, and 4 as draft articles (Torman-Frank) Mr. Frank asked if the board really wanted to pursue the pedestrian access article. Mr. Burke said it encourages the pedestrian access, but does not require it, and thought it was better than not having it at all. Mr. Frank said he thought the Sweetlands applicant should have a better prepared plan, saying he appreciates it when developers come to the board for input before they file their plans. r Motion: To adjourn at 10: 10 p.m. (Torman-Frank) All in favor. Date ne eti: February 7,2001 at 7:30 p.m. 'Z h"'~ 7 :? nJ ( Date of App, al r