Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 04/11/01 ~.,. , ,.,"" . r RECEIVED ~l ow:~~ CI ERKS OfF ICE Planning Board Minutes ~ ,: i. . - -. ' April 11, 2001 0 I HAY 25 AM 10: 22 Present: H. Thomas French, Chairman, Bernie Dolan, Clerk; Tliomas McShane; Kenneth Torman; Mark Cook; Scott Frank . H S FIE L 0 1. Minutes April 4, 2001 Motion: To approve as submitted (Dolan- Torman) Three in favor. French, Frank abstained. PASSES 2. Zoning Board of Appeals - 2 Jean Road. The application is for a variance for a 5'8" sideyard setback, where 25 feet is required, and from the 40' rear yard setback. Mr. Burke said although the lot is oddly-shaped, the house was built on the most regularly-shaped part of the lot, and suggested a negative recommendation. Motion: To send the Zoning Board of Appeals a negative recommendation because a 5'8" sideyard setback is not appropriate in the RI zone and derogates significantly from the intent of the Zoning By-Law; because the rear yard setback of 40' should remain, as the lot behind this one could be built on; and because the oblong shape of the lot does not make it unique, there is no hardship evident. (Frank-Dolan) All in favor. PASSES 3. Zoning Board of Appeals decisions - 66 Baybrook Road - Granted; 267 South Main Street - Granted; 15 Hidden Lane - Granted; 144 High Street - Granted 4. Meeting notices Plainville Planning Board; Plainville Zoning Board of Appeals; North Attleboro Zoning Board of Appeals; Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals; Attleboro Zoning Board of Appeals; Attleboro Planning Board 5. SRPEDD Meeting NoticeDHCD Workshop - Comprehensive Permit Law 6. The Beacon 7. Planning magazine r I Mr. Frank asked about driveways on adjacent commercial parcels; Mr. Burke said ideally, abutting businesses would share driveways, but most do not. He said there are requirements for minimum distance to intersections, but not driveways. Mr. Burke explained the Finance Committee has asked for additional cuts in the Capital Improvements budget; the School Department, DPW, and Recreation have offered to defer several requests to the fall, which will help balance the budget. He reminded the members that Town Meeting is April 24 and 25. [Mr. McShane arrived at this time.] ~ The clerk read memos from Mr. Burke and Mr. Sullivan to the Zoning Board of Appeals, along with memos to the Planning Board from Mr. Burke, Mr. Sullivan, Officer Lawson, Mr. D' Ambra, Lt. Towne, and Mr. Gaffney and responses to same from Tibbetts Engineering. In addition, the clerk read correspondence from Doranco, Inc. and Richardson Manufacturing. r-., r I Mr. Burke reminded the board the Zoning Board of Appeals is hearing this application for a special permit for the use, while the Planning Board is hearing the subdivision and scenic road public hearings. Robert Rodgers, Tibbetts Engineering, said he had new information regarding the water table, which will be incorporated into the plans. The roadway and detention basins will be elevated. Mr. Rodgers said he is looking for input on his waiver requests. r ( The waiver requests are as follows: 1. Sidewalks. Mr. Rodgers suggested that requiring one sidewalk rather than two would reduce impervious surface, and would also make the road less expensive to maintain. He said he didn't care which sidewalk is eliminated. Mr. French suggested running the sidewalk around the outside of the roadway. Mr. McShane said he was opposed to removing a sidewalk. Mr. Cook, Mr. Dolan and Dr. Torman said they were not opposed. Mr. French said because of the high density of this project, there should be two sidewalks. Consensus of the board was three for and three against the waiver; Mr. French suggested the applicant plan to install sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. 2. Drainage. Mr. Rodgers proposes to use ductile iron pipe rather than standard reinforced concrete pipe with two feet of cover rather than three. Consensus of the board is for the waiver. 3. Catch Basins at Intersections. Mr. Rodgers is requesting a waiver for the catch basin at Scott's Drive and Bethany's Way because there will be a high point at that intersection, so a catch basin wouldn't gather much water. Mr. Sullivan is in support of this waiver, provided catch basins are installed at Bethany and Gilbert, and at Scott's and Gilbert. Consensus of the board is for the waiver. Mr. Rodgers said there had been a question about the alignment of the roadway with the Doranco driveway; he said he did not think there would be sufficient traffic at either place to make the alignment an issue. Consensus of the board was that the alignment would be acceptable provided Officer Lawson was comfortable with it. r Regarding the open space, Mr. Rodgers said the drainage areas have been incorporated into lots, and will be owned by the landowners. Following the reconfiguring of the drainage areas, the number of lots has been reduced to 20, or a maximum of 34 units. He explained he is using the area between the property line and the detention basins as the open space, and that the detention basins are located at least 100 feet off the property lines. He said they would consider installing playground-type facilities in the open space areas, which he said add up to 1.7-1.8 acres, as required. f' Mr. Burke said the Subdivision Regulations require the open space be offered to the town for sale prior to construction, but if this open space is in the ownership of the lot on which the drainage area is installed, it could not be offered for sale. Mr. Rodgers explained the open space would be protected by deeded rights to the lot owners, who r I will have an open space easement on the property and restrictions that it cannot be sold or built on. He said he did not include the basins in open space calculations. Mr. Frank asked if this would require a waiver from the "no-build for three years" requirement. Mr. Burke said he thought it would, since it doesn't conform to the by- law, unless it is specified those lots will not be built on for three years. Mr. Frank said he thought this would put a lot of burden on the homeowner. Mr. McShane said he wanted to look at the open space issue more closely, but said this idea could be a more permanent benefit to the neighborhood. Dr. Torman asked who would be responsible for maintaining the open space. Mr. Rodgers said he saw this as a two-family community, with elderly and young members of families working together. Mr. Frank said there could be liability issues for the homeowners if active recreation were to be allowed in the open space. Mr. Rodgers said passive recreation uses could be specified. He concluded by saying this issue does not effect the design of the plan, so the board could think about it. Attorney Gay said the Zoning Board of Appeals had continued its public hearing until May, but does not want to make a decision until the Planning Board does. r Mr. McShane said the board would go through the subdivision review as quickly as possible, but he didn't see why the Zoning Board of Appeals felt it had to wait until after the Planning Board's decision, since if the Zoning Board of Appeals denies the special permit for the use, the Planning Board will have wasted a lot of time. Mr. Burke said he thought the Zoning Board of Appeals was being cautious, since it has not done this before. Public Comment Joe Doran, Doranco, said large trucks use both of his driveways, and the sight distance already makes it difficult to get in and out of his site. Jack Jacobi, attorney for Doranco, said if the open space is part of someone' s lot, it appears to be illusionary. He said normally, there is a neighborhood association to maintain the open space, and this would put a lot of burden on those lots with both the drainage basins and the open space. r Mr. Rodgers asked that the public hearing be closed. Mr. Frank said he thought it was too early, since the board will need to see the final drainage, revisit the open space issue, and other things. r- Mr. Cook asked the size of the largest retention area. Mr. Rodgers said it is approximately 8,000 square feet. Mr. Cook asked about a tie-in for public water. Mr. Rodgers said they did not have one yet, and he understands there is a moratorium on new connections, so they will get a waiver or wait until they are allowed to tie in. r ( Motion: To continue the public hearing until May 23,2001 at 8:00 p.m. (McShane-Dolan) All in favor. PASSES [Mr. Cook left the meeting at this time.] Consultant Brian Leahy explained they are seeking approval of the landscaping plan as part of the positive recommendation to the Building Inspector for Phase 1. He said the final landscape plan has been stamped by a Registered Land Surveyor and an opaque screen with arbor vitae has been added along the residential side of the site. A 50-foot buffer has been provided on the West Street side and on the Route 140 side. A schedule ofplantings has been included on the plan, and Mr. Burke's comments have been incorporated. Mr. Burke said the revised landscaping plan appears to include the changes as requested, and it seems to conform with the intent of the landscaping regulations. He added the revised plan is a tremendous improvement over the original plan, and suggested it is very close to what the Planning Board was looking for. r Mr. Frank asked if there were any specific technical requirements that plan did not meet; Mr. Burke said there were none he was aware of Mr. Frank asked whether Section 4.3.9, landscaping adjacent to buildings, refers to the main public access to the site, or to each entrance to each building. Mr. Burke said he believes that means the main access, but said that section is open to interpretation. Mr. McShane asked about fencing along the back property line. Mr. Leahy said there is currently a fence, but the by-law says no fence is required if six-foot plantings are being added. Dr. Torman asked who would be responsible for the plantings; Mr. Leahy said the retail companies will maintain the landscaping. The clerk read a letter from Attorney William O'Connell. Mr. O'Connell explained he had filed a request for enforcement with the Building Inspector regarding the landscaping and buffering, for which he is still waiting. Mr. O'Connell said there are outstanding issues, such as whether the landscaping is 50' wide as required when a commercial site abuts a residential zone, and whether land not owned by the applicant is being used to meet the landscaping and open space requirements. Mr. Leahy said there is a 50-foot landscape buffer where the site abuts residential properties, and explained the Quirk property is under the same ownership as this site. Mr. Burke suggested the applicant could do a new Form A to make the lines concurrent. r Mr. O'Connell said the lot lines of the whole plan seems to have changed, including the building sizes and locations. Mr. Burke agreed there had been some changes. Mr. Leahy said there had been minor modifications made to the plan. Mr. O'Connell said he thought they were substantial changes, and there should be a new site plan submission. r- r Public Comment Kristen Riondo, 8 South Walnut Street, said she did not think the existing fence or the proposed plantings will be sufficient to screen the neighbors from traffic, noise, trash, etc. Mr. Leahy said they would be restricting the delivery hours and constructing a noise barrier on the roof to reduce noise. Kim Foley, 25 Casa Drive, suggested constructing a wooden fence. Mr. Burke said the regulations require a fence, an opaque barrier, or an earthen berm. The applicant is using arbor vitae as an opaque screen, and if a fence were constructed, the plantings would have to be on the residential side. Bob Jones, 60 Walnut Street, asked if the plantings would be on a raised berm. Mr. Leahy said it would be on grade, with the plantings six feet high when planted. Celeste Jones, 60 Walnut Street, asked how high the arbor vitae would grow. Mr. Leahy said he was not certain, but he thought 10-15 feet. He said he understands they will have to comply with the Zoning By-Law or they will be appealed. He said there is an existing 30-foot knoll, which will be landscaped as well. Mrs. Jones asked why they were not installing a berm; Mr. Leahy said a berm would cause drainage problems. r ( Michael Riondo, 8 South Walnut Street, said this project would damage property values, and was concerned that the arbor vitae would not help with noise and odor. Mr. Leahy said there are more trucks on this site now than there will be in six months under this proposal. Carole Shoen, 430 West Street, asked if the arbor vitae could be extended out to West Street; Mr. Leahy said it could not because of sight distance issues. Mr. Clemmey said he would have the existing fence repaired if it is necessary. Board Comment Mr. Frank said he was concerned with the Quirk parcel, and said he would agree with Attorney O'Connell if this were a special permit rather than a site plan, but said if the Building Inspector finds the plan has changed, it is an enforcement issue. r Mr. McShane said the landscaping plan was drastically improved over the first submission. He asked about the Quirk property issue; Mr. Leahy said they have been advised they are meeting the letter of the law. Mr. Frank said he was concerned because the owner of the Quirk parcel is not an applicant in this project, and suggested the issue could be resolved with a permanent easement between the two lots, or with a Form A creating a single lot under single ownership. Michael Bliss, attorney for the applicant, suggested the board make that part of its recommendation. r- Mr. McShane suggested the Building Inspector determine whether the land under the applicant's control defines "the parcel." Mr. McShane asked what the abutting r ( properties would see from the knoll area. Mr. Leahy said the area is flat, but he did not think they should bother putting trees on the knoll, but it is required. He said there are mature trees along the rear property line, but not many along the Riondo' s property line; he suggested moving the trees they would have planted on the knoll to that location. Mr. McShane asked about the buffer between the residents and the loading docks. Mr. Leahy said there is an opaque screen of six-foot high plantings. Mr. McShane said there is nothing to prevent the applicant from building an additional landscape buffer on the other side. Mr. Leahy said they had done a significant amount of landscaping in order to make the site as aesthetically pleasing as possible, and asked the board to be reasonable if it asks for more. He said they could add some landscaping in line with the loading dock. Mr. McShane said the loading area, which is closest to the residential properties, should be screened as completely as possible. Mr. McShane said he would rather have had a berm at the back of the site with plantings on top. Mr. Leahy said the building will be 24 feet high, so that wouldn't have helped, and may cause drainage problems. Mr. Burke suggested Mr. Leahy could commit to planting some extra trees, such as 8- 10 foot sugar maples, which will grow quickly and have full crowns, to give the residents some relief r ( Mr. Clemmey said he was willing to plant some trees along the existing chain link fence at the Quirk property line. Sandra Levine, 20 Walnut Street, said she was not sure the applicant was fulfilling the regulations by adding plantings to an adjacent property. She asked if that landscaping would take away from the landscaping requirements if and when the Quirk property is developed. Mr. French said that would be a separate action. Mr. Leahy suggested rather than additional plantings on the Quirk property, the applicant provide plantings to the neighbors. r Motion: To send the Building Inspector a positive recommendation on the landscaping plan for Phase I with the following conditions: 1. The applicant should provide trees to the abutting residential properties to the rear of the Erin's Centre site. 2. The applicant should get a determination from the Building Inspector regarding the status of the Quark Trust LLC property adjacent to this site; specifically, whether the inclusion of all or part of the Quark property on the Erin's Centre landscaping plan is a change to the site plan, and whether a Form A (ANR) plan should be required to bring both parcels under the same ownership. (Dolan-Torman) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Leahy explained that following the morning's staff meeting, the plan will not be a site plan, but rather a special permit; therefore, this will be an informal presentation. f' r t Mr. French read a letter disclosing the company he works for does work for Home Depot, and he stepped down from the chair and left the table. Motion: To make Mr. Frank Acting Chair (McShane- Torman) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Leahy explained they have filed with MEP A, and will be required to provide information on traffic mitigation and noise. The proposal is for a Home Depot, a restaurant, and another building. The site is bounded by Norfolk Street, with PBD and residential zones in back and across the street. The site will be accessed through a new signalized intersection at Norfolk Street and a dedicated turning lane from Route 140, which will be the major entrance to the shopping center. Mr. Leahy said industrial park traffic will also be able to use the Norfolk Street intersection. Mr. Leahy explained the Home Depot would be 118,000 square feet with a garden center and loading area, which will be designed to keep the trucks as far as possible from the residential areas. Noise attenuation will be provided on the rooftops so the noise will be equal to or less than the current levels. Because the store will be over 100,000 square feet, the project will come under "Mall" and require a special permit. The restaurant was described as a "theme" restaurant, such as an Olive Garden or Applebee's. The third building may be a bank. He said the site drains to a detention basin at the front of the site; the water will be retained on site, then perc into the ground. The landscaping for this phase will comply r with the Zoning By-Law. The clerk read a letter from MassHighway indicating that agency has no opposition to signalizing Norfolk Street. Mr. Leahy said there are several other Home Depot stores in the area, so there shouldn't be as much traffic here as is normally generated by that store. He added there will be a maintenance building at the back of the site, to be owned by Mr. Clemmey. The clerk read memos from the morning's site plan meeting from Mr. Sullivan, Officer Lawson, Mr. D' Ambra, and Mr. Burke. Mr. Leahy said he would respond to each department head comment and intends to comply with all Zoning By-Law requirements. Public Comment Mrs. Jones presented the board with photographs taken from the neighboring properties showing no buffer between the residents and this site. She said she would like some additional trees planted; Mr. Leahy said they intend to provide the required buffer. r Rob Woodard, Rizzo Associates Transportation Engineer, explained there would be a full traffic study for the project build out, which will be mitigated with the Norfolk Street access. Some of the West Street traffic problems will be eliminated with that access, as industrial park traffic, as well as traffic to this site, will be able to use Norfolk Street. They also intend to upgrade the traffic signals at School and West Streets, which will help traffic flow and speed. The are also looking at lights at a number of surrounding r- r intersections for a possible corridor study, and anticipate 80 percent of trips to this site I' will use Norfolk Street. Signal improvements have been identified for Copeland Drive, and the new Norfolk Street intersection will have two through lanes and a left turn lane, anticipated to function at a level "B" service with minimum delays. Mr. Jones asked if additional truck traffic is anticipated with industrial park companies using Norfolk Street. Mr. Woodard said the thinks a significant portion of industrial park traffic will chose Norfolk Street. Mrs. Levine asked whether the signs on Route 140 are provided by the state or the town. Mr. Woodard said he did not know, but said it would not be a problem to install additional signage, and said the Draft Environmental Impact Report would allow public comment on issues like that. Mr. O'Connell submitted a memo regarding Phase II. Mrs. Jones asked if the driveway from West Street is two lanes to all the buildings; Mr. Woodard said it is. Mrs. Jones said the Norfolk Street entrance is a good idea that should help the West Street residents. r Mr. McShane asked about the project's MEPA status. Mr. Woodard said they already have the ENF and local study, which will likely become the EIR submission. Mr. McShane asked that traffic-calming options for West Street be investigated, and said there is new legislation being proposed regarding lighting, which should be kept in mind. Mr. Leahy asked that the site plan fees be credited toward the special permit application. Motion: To adjourn at 11:45 p.m. (Torman-McShane) All in favor. PASSES Date of next meeting: April 18, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. ~~~w~ Signature of Clerk l ~ .- ?J ~() ) Date of Approval r r-