Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 03/14/01 (' TOWN~r~~'YED C' Planning Board Minutes . -... \ X SO, FI CE March 14,2001 0' MAY 25 AM 10' 1 g Present: Bernie Dolan, Acting Chair, Roger Achille, Acting Clerk~ Tliomas NItShane, Kenneth Torman, Scott Frank Mark Cook HANSF 1. Minutes February 21,2001 Motion: To approve as submitted (Dolan-Cook) All in favor. PASSES 2. Castle Hill special permit to be signed. Mr. Burke explained the plan has changed because another branch of the river was found~ several lot lines have been changed. (Mr. French arrived) Mr. Burke explained the question is whether the special permit can be issued with reference to the revised plan, or whether the plans should go through public hearing again. He said nothing substantial had changed, so he did not think another public hearing was necessary. ('1 Dr. Torman asked if anything else may have been missed that might cause problems later. Mr. Burke said the banks and river area are well defined, so he did not think there would be an issue. Motion: The changes are not substantial enough the require a new public hearing, but a new set of blue lines are required showing the revisions before signing (Dolan-Cook) All in favor. PASSES (Mr. McShane arrived at this time.) 3. Memo from Mike Ahern suggesting putting off street acceptance until the fall because of the early date of spring Town Meeting. Motion: To notify developers that the Planning Board will not recommend acceptance of any streets at Spring Town Meeting, and request they withdraw their petitions and resubmit for the Fall Town Meeting. (Dolan-Achille) Six in favor. Frank abstained. PASSES School Street - Springbrook Cemetary. The cemetery corporation will convey the house lot on School Street to a private party. Mr. Burke explained the lot has sufficient frontage and area~ they have also requested a fee waiver. Motion: To sign the Form A (Torman-Cook) AlIi n favor. PASSES Motion: To waive the filing fee (Dolan-Cook) One in favor. Six opposed. FAILS The clerk read the public hearing notice. r Planning Board Article I 4.4.4.9 Entrance/Exit Drive Widths and Location [Original A deleted, subsequent paragraphs relettered] A. The minimum distance between an entrance or exit drive at the street (right- of-way) line and the curb line of an intersection street shall be fifty (50) feet in all directions. r B. The maximum width of an entrance or exit drive at the street (right-of-way) line shall be twenty-four (24) feet in a Residential district and forty (40) feet in any other district. If the driveway is divided to separate entrance and exit movements, the combined width may be increased to sixty (60) feet. C. The Planning Board may authorize departures from the above standards as follows: a. In Industrial, Business and Planned Business districts, the Board may authorize more than two access driveways if it determines that such additional driveways are necessary to provide adequate area for safe vehicular turning movements and circulation. In any case, there shall be no more than one additional access driveway for each one hundred (100) feet of frontage, and all two-way access driveways on a single lot shall be at least one hundred (100) feet apart measured from the centerline of each access driveway. b. In Industrial, Business and Planned Business districts, the Board may authorize a driveway with a greater width than provided for herein when the Planning Board finds that such width would facilitate traffic flow and safety. c. No increase in the number or width of driveways shall be granted unless the Planning Board specifically finds that the proposed design would provide a higher level of traffic safety than a design conforming to the design standards set forth herein. r Mr. French explained the Planning Board has recently seen several industrial plans with driveway issues~ this amendment would give the board the authority to allow two driveways where they are needed. Public Comment Karl Clemmey suggested the article refer to "radius" rather than "curb line" and said "right of way" should be defined. He suggested allowing industrial zone driveways to be wider to accommodate larger trucks. Mr. Clemmey was concerned this article would give the Planning Board a lot of power, and asked if an applicant would still be able to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special permit. Mr. French explained that if the Planning Board did not find it necessary to waive the landscaping standards, an applicant could still apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance, then return to the Planning Board to complete the process. r Planning Board Article II 4.3.5 Modification of Specific Standards A. In the event an applicant desires to deviate from the specific standards for landscaping and screening set forth in this section, the Planning Board may approve alternative plans when it determines that the general purpose and intent of the landscaping and screening requirements are met. B. No such permission to modify landscaping and screening standards shall be granted unless the Planning Board finds that the proposed landscaping ( arrangement meets the general purpose, intent and objectives of this section and in addition makes one of the following findings: a. The alternative landscaping arrangement proposed by the applicant is clearly preferable for the site and surroundings than one strictly conforming to the standards of this section. b. It is impractical to provide the specified depth of landscaped areas due to the size, shape or other characteristics of the parcel beyond the control of the applicant, and the alternative arrangement proposed by the applicant provides equivalent benefits to the site and surrounding areas. Mr. French explained this would allow the board some discretion with regard to the landscaping standards, and would avoid having to send applicants back to the Zoning Board of Appeals to waive those standards. Public Comment Mr. Clemmey asked if an applicant would still be able to apply for a special permit if this were passed. Mr. French explained if the Planning Board did not find it necessary to waive the landscaping standards, an applicant could still apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance, then return to the Planning Board to complete the process. (' Planning Board Article m 4.3.11 Design for Pedestrian Circulation A. Pedestrian Access Through Buffers and Screens Landscaped buffers should, to the greatest extent possible, serve as usable open space, providing an environment for pedestrian access between uses. Therefore, buffers shall be designed to include appropriate means of pedestrian access and crossing, both along the landscaped area (i.e., in a parallel direction with the property line) and across the buffer (i.e., providing pedestrian access to the site, separate from vehicular access points when the Planning Board finds such access points to be safe, useful and beneficial to pedestrians). Buffers and screens shall provide for appropriate hard-surfaced pedestrian access points and walkways where property lines abut existing or planned public streets, whether or not such streets have been constructed, unless the Planning Board finds such access points unnecessary. Mr. French explained this article is similar to Article II, which allows the board some discretion to find where a pedestrian access is appropriate, and where it is not. Mr. Frank suggested leaving the access "required" and the board can make a finding to waive the requirement~ this way an applicant has to justify why such an access is not needed. Consensus was to make that change, as reflected above. r Planning Board Article IV 3.6.7A Exterior Wireless Communication Towers and 3.6.7B Interior Wireless Communication Towers 3.6.7.1 Purpose The purpose of these regulations include: minimizing adverse impacts of wireless communications towers, and antennas on adjacent properties and residential r neighborhoods; minimizing the overall number and height of such facilities to only what is essential, and promoting shared use of existing facilities to reduce the need for new facilities. This section does not apply to satellite dishes and antennas for residential use. For the purposes of this by-law, a wireless communication facility shall mean a facility for the provision of wireless telecommunication services regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and described as "personal wireless services" as defined in the Federal Telecommunicaitons Act of 1996 as amended, and may be an internally or externally mounted repeater, antenna or array; or may be a free-standing monopole for the provision of cellular telephone services, personal communication services, paging services, and specialized mobile radio. 3.6.7.2 General Requirements 3.6.7.3 No wireless communications facility, which shall include monopoles, shall be erected or installed except in compliance with the provisions of this Section. In all cases, a Special Permit is required from the Planning Board (the "Board"). Section 5.5 Special Permits of these By-Laws shall apply to these applications. Any proposed extension in the height, addition of cells, antenna or panels, or construction of a new or replacement of a facility shall be subject to a new application for a Special Permit. (" Notwithstanding the foregoing or any provision to the contrary in this section, wireless communication antennas (including panels) may be mounted on or attached to existing non-residential structures, including, but not limited to, water towers, buildings, church steeples by right in the Reservoir District, Planned Business District, and Industrial 1 District and by Special Permit in the Industrial 2 and Industrial 3 Districts provided that they are properly screened and conform to Section 3.6.7.4 Design Guidelines and provided that the wireless communication antenna, including panels and supports are: 1) finished in a manner designed to be aesthetically consistent with the exterior of the building or structure. 2) and affixed to said building or structure in a manner that does not: a) obscure any window or exterior architectural feature~ b) extend above the highest point of the structure by more than twelve (12) feet in height~ 3) and the surface area, individually or in the aggregate, of the antennas or panels facing streets or adjacent properties does not exceed fifty (50) square feet. r 3.6.7.3.1 Interior mounted wireless communication facilities are allowed by right in all Industrial, Business, Planned Business Districts, and the Reservoir District if such facility and all equipment is located entirely within an existing building or structure and entirely concealed from view from the exterior of the building or structure. In Residential Districts, interior mounted wireless communication facilities may be allowed by special r permit within existing non-residential structures, including, but not limited to, steeples, bell towers, cupolas, and spires of non-resident buildings or structures existing before January 1, 2001. Provided, however, all equipment is located entirely within an existing building or structure and entirely concealed from view from the exterior of the building or structure. 3.6.7.2.3 Only free-standing monopoles, with associated antenna and/or panels are allowed as specified in Section 3.6.7.4 below. Lattice style towers and similar facilities requiring three or more legs and/or guy wires for support are not allowed. 3.6.7.2.4 Wireless communications facilities located in the Reservoir District, Planned Business District, and the Industrial 1 zoning district shall be suitably screened from abutters and residential neighborhoods. r 3.6.7.2.5 Where approval involves a free-standing monopole owned or controlled by the applicant, approval of radiolink equipment shall be conditioned upon the agreement of the applicant to reasonably cooperate with other wireless communications services providers in permitting collocation of antennas on such structure on commercially reasonable terms, unless: (a) there are structural or other limitations which make it unfeasible to accommodate the proposed facility: or (b) the proposed facility would interfere with the wireless communications of one or more existing occupants at the site, including the applicant. 3.6.7.2.5 Structures shall be removed within one (1) year of cessation of use. Annual certification demonstrating continuing compliance with the standards of the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Aviation Administration and the American National Standards Institute and required maintenance shall be filed with the Inspector of Buildings by the Special Permit holder. SCHEDULE OF PRINCIPAL USE REGULATIONS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 1 2 3 ] BUSINESS DISTRICTS 1 2 3 P 1 B D INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS 2 3 A SPA 3.6 INDUSTRIAL USES 3.6.7a Exterior Wireless Communication Facility NNNY NNNYYSSNY r 3.6.7b Interior Wireless Communication Facility ~ ~ ~ Y YYY Y YYYNY {' 3.6.7c Free-Standing Wireless Communication Facility N N N ~ N N N ~ ~NNNY [The balance of the Schedule of Principal Use Regulations, Industrial Uses, is unchanged] Mr. Burke explained this would allow wireless communications facilities, fully enclosed, by right in the RD and PBD~ and fully enclosed, by special permit in existing, non- residential structures in residential districts. The intention of the by-law is to avoid the need for wireless companies to build new towers~ this way, they could install new antennae in church steeples or similar structures. Dr. Torman asked why an antenna couldn't be installed someplace like the top floor of the Millhaus apartment complex. Mr. Burke said the by-law would be limited to existing, non-residential structures~ this way the number and location can be limited. Mr. McShane asked whether any new information is available regarding the effects of electromagnetic fields. He also asked why the facilities were being allowed in the RD by right~ Mr. Burke explained the RD is a small parcel of land between industrially-zoned parcels, and other than its proximity to the water, isn't any more special than its neighbors. (\. Mr. McShane was concerned with an applicant filing a multi-story project on the land known as the Point, then installing antennae on top of that. He said he would be more comfortable with special permit in that zone. Mr. Frank suggested coming up with a better definition of "wireless communication facility"~ he added he wasn't sure whether interior mounted antennae could be regulated on private property at all. Mr. Achille was concerned that the way the article is written makes it sound like they would only be allowed in churches and nowhere else. Mr. Burke said he would add "included but not limited to" in order to clarify that. Consensus was to add a new definition of "wireless communication facility" to the article, to leave it by right in the RD, and change it to by right in the PBD, since it was by right when that was zoned 11. These changes are reflected in the above article. Public Comment There was no public comment on this article. Planning Board Article V r 3.4.9 Aviation: Activities including and related to the operation of a general aviation airport for the operation, fueling, maintenance and storage of aircraft. (' Mr. Burke explained Mass Aeronautics is concerned about the creation of the PBD, and the fact that it does not allow aviation. He said it appears Mass Aeronautics has the legal ability to reject the Zoning By-Law because of that fact. When the Airport district was created under the Master Plan, aviation was precluded in all zones except the Airport zone. Mr. Burke explained to Wayne Kerchner of Mass Aeronautics that aviation would be allowed as an accessory use; for example if a company has a helicopter pad on its roof However, if aviation were the primary use, it would have to be conducted in the Airport zone. The new Aviation definition specifies "general aviation airport". Motion: To close the public hearing (Torman-Cook) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Trowbridge explained he had previously done a Form A plan, breaking out one lot on East Street. He showed the board a sketch of a conventional subdivision with two lots and a 300-foot cul-de-sac roadway, explaining he has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance from lot size requirements, since under a residential compound, each lot has to have 80,000 square feet. Mr. Trowbridge explained the hardship is the shape of the site. (' The town owns land abutting this site for the Dustin Well~ the owner still owns the Form A lot on East Street, and will convey some land so the new lots meet frontage requirements. Mr. Trowbridge said if he did a traditional subdivision, the town would end up with another road to maintain. Mr. Burke said the 80,000 square foot requirement was put into the residential compound regulations as a quid pro quo; the developer saves money on the roadway, and the town gets some open space and larger lots. Mr. Burke asked why, if the Form A lot has not been conveyed, why didn't the developer include it on this plan? Mr. Trowbridge explained the owner wanted to begin building on that lot. Mr. Frank said if the applicant is granted a variance, he would rather see a compound than a traditional subdivision~ Mr. Cook agreed. Zoning Board of Appeals Request for Variance: The applicant is requesting a variance under 5.7.2.1, less than required tract size in a residential compound. The lots are approximately 2,012 square feet short. r '\ Mr. Dolan said if the variance were not granted, the applicant would have to do a traditional subdivision, which he has demonstrated he can do, and which would not be in the best interest of the town. Motion: To send the Zoning Board of Appeals a positive recommendation because a residential compound is a better option than a traditional subdivision. (Dolan-McShane) Mr. McShane said a residential compound is a good idea, but he believes it has been misused by applicants who cannot make a traditional subdivision work. He said while it might not apply to this particular site, no matter how small the site it, these applicants try to fit in a residential compound in places where houses should not be built. He suggested eliminating the regulation entirely. . . r r r \ ) ,., Mr. Dolan said he thought this was a good location for a residential compound. Mr. Frank said he could not support a variance because he does not see a demonstrated hardship. Mr. Burke suggested a negative recommendation because there is no hardship. Six in favor. Frank opposed. PASSES Mr. Frank asked about the Sweetlands revision. Mr. Burke said revised plans have been submitted, and Town Counsel's opinion says the 75 foot setback does not apply to this property . Mr. McShane asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals had been notified regarding the board's zoning amendments. Mr. Burke said they had been, along with the IDC, but neither board had responded. The board discussed whether one member should attend the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, in case of any questions. Motion: To adjourn at 9:45 p.m. (Torman-McShane) All in favor. PASSES Date of next meeting: March 21,2001 at 7:30 p.m. ~--"t;;9D~ e of Clerk ~~ ~ 2-tfl/) te of Approv (