Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 03/26/03 Planning Board Minutes r March 26, 2003 Tom French, Chair; Bernie Dolan, Clerk; Roger Achille, Mark Cook, Doug Annino, Walter Jenkins, Fred Armstrong Shaun P. Burke, Director ofPlannin and Develo ment 1. M ailed to order at 7:30 m. I 2. Correspondence 1. Minutes March 12, 2003 Motion: To approve as submitted (Dolan-Annino) Six in favor. Cook abstained. PASSES 2. Letter from Office of the Attorney General re: Access to Public Meetings 3. March 19, 2003 letter from Fred Armstrong re: Appearance of Conflict Disclosure 4. ZBA decisions - 42 Riverside Drive (positive Recommendation); 285 Pratt Street (No Recommendation); 18 Henry Street (No Recommendation) 5. Public Hearing notices - Attleboro, Easton, North Attleboro, Norton, SRPEDD 6. SRPEDD newsletter - The 100 Most Dangerous Intersections in Southeastern Mass 7. The Trust for Public Land New England newsletter 8. Planning magazine r I 3. Form A (ANR) Plans Elm Street - Mr. Burke explained a similar plan has been before the board previously. The first plan showed three lots, and was not supported by the board. This plan shows one non-conforming lot, which will be joined to the existing house, and one conforming lot. Mr. Burke said the plan has the requisite frontage and area and warrants endorsement. Motion: To endorse the plan (Achille-Cook) All in favor. PASSES 4. Spedal Permit Public Hearing continued- Lennon Family Development - 3 Lot Residential Compound ofl'Ware Street Mr. Jim Burke, civil engineer with Coller and Colantonio, explained the revisions to the plans following the first public hearing, and addressed the department head comments. He said the maximum cut in the area of the detention basin is now two feet, with a one- foot berm to protect Mrs. Stocking's property. The drainage will be captured and retained within the system, and will not flow offsite. Department Head Comments The clerk read memos from Mr. Field and Mr. Lewis. Both indicated their comments had been satisfied. Mr. 1. Burke said all the requested revisions have been added, and he will resubmit the plans. r Regarding the board members comments and public comment, Mr. J. Burke has corrected the lot incorrectly labeled "Margolin," and the existing and proposed houses are shown on the plan. Four streetlights are shown along the roadway, 100 feet off center on either side. There is an existing light pole at Ware Street. A conceptual landscaping plan has been submitted, and an intersection detail is included. Mr. S. Burke said this area is not identified as a "School Zone" and there are no existing signs. Mr. 1. Burke said his client r is willing to install a "School Zone" sign about 500 feet south of the property. He said he doesn't believe a Stop sign at the new driveway is necessary. The front yard setbacks are shown as 40 feet, the rear yard setbacks 30 feet, and sideyard setbacks are 25 feet. There is a 50-foot open space buffer all the way around the back edge of the property. Mr. S. Burke said typically, a sign would be required showing the name of the street, the house numbers, and indicating the road is a private way. Typical residential compound notes have been added to the plan. Mr. 1. Burke said he would be requesting two waivers, one for the drainage system less than 100 feet from a property line and another to eliminate the four-foot high chain link fence around the infiltration basin. He said the 100-year storm generates 1.4 feet of water and the slopes are 8-1, so a chain link fence would not be necessary for safety reasons. Public Comment Mrs. Stocking, 105 Ware Street, asked about the basins. Mr. 1. Burke explained two feet of soil would be removed and replaced with stone to retain water, which would then leach into the soil; he said there shouldn't be standing water for any length of time. Between storms, the basins will be dry. r Board Comment Mr. Annino asked what type of streetlights would be used; Mr. 1. Burke said they would be nine feet high and ornamental, and he will submit the design to the board before installation. Mr. 1. Burke said he chose shorter lights so they will appear residential in nature. Mr. Annino said the board would want to see the wattage and type of lamp, and be sure the lights wouldn't shine on abutting properties. Mr. Annino said he didn't like the planting plans. He said he would rather see five-gallon containers rather than three-gallon containers, and suggested some more work be done on the plans. Mr. 1. Burke said he would be happy to bring a new landscaping plan to the board. Mr. Burke said a stamped landscaping plan is not a requirement of the residential compound by-law. Mr. Annino said a note should be added about sawcutting the street for the installation of the bituminous concrete for the new roadway. Mr. Dolan said he was concerned about the board having to review the lighting and landscaping plans again. Mr. French suggested these plans be reviewed prior to the final vote. Mr. J. Burke suggested a condition regarding ornamental lighting with a cut off at the back of the light and zero foot- candles at the property line; and a revised landscaping plan. Mr. S. Burke said a condition could be added that both of those plans be submitted within the appeal period. Mr. Cook said he would be concerned about setting a precedent by approving things the board hasn't seen. Mr. Dolan said as long as the light doesn't spill onto abutting properties, it wouldn't matter what type oflight is installed. r Mr. Achille said he was concerned about avoiding nuisance to the abutting properties; he r suggested limiting the wattage of the streetlights. Mr. Burke said the Engineering Department requested additional elevations be added to the plan, but the other issues aren't highly technical. He suggested if the board wanted to see these items on the plan, it could be done quickly at the beginning of the next meeting. Mr. Jenkins said the neighbors have been concerned, so he would like to be sure the plan is done right and avoid ambiguity. He said he thinks the issues are minor, but he would like to see definitive resolution. Mr. 1. Burke said he would send the plans to a lighting company for a plan showing footcandles at various locations. Mr. Annino asked who would maintain the basins; Mr. S. Burke said the homeowner's association would be required to do that. Mr. Annino said the abutters are concerned about water flow and asked if the association doesn't maintain the basins and the abutters are effected, what would happen? Mr. S. Burke said that would be a violation of the special permit; if the repairs were not done, it could become a civil matter. Mr. 1. Burke said Mrs. Stocking has requested some additional buffer along the property line; he said he would add additional white pines to the plan (' Waivers 5.3.2.7.2 Chain link fence around detention pond. Mr. French asked the abutters their opinion. Mrs. Stocking said she was concerned about children's safety. Mr. J. Burke said he thought the wetland out back is more of a hazard than the proposed swale would be. He said the soils have good permeability. Motion: To grant the waiver (Jenkins-Annino) Six in favor. Armstrong abstained. PASSES 5.3.2.7.5 Retention pond 100 feet away from property line. The Engineering Department recommended the waiver be granted. Mr. Annino asked where the white pines would go; Mr. 1. Burke said they would be planted on top of the berm next to the swale on Mrs. Stocking's side of the property. Motion: To grant the waiver (Jenkins-Annino) Six in favor. Armstrong abstained. PASSES Motion: To continue the public hearing to April 2, 2003 at 7:45 p.m. (Achille-Annino) Six in favor. Armstrong abstained. PASSES 5. Public Hearing - Zoning By-Law Amendment - GIS Co.mittee The clerk read the public hearing notice. John Sullivan, Town Engineer, presented the proposed amendment to add a new Section 5.3.11 under "Site Plan Approval" as follows: r 5.3.11 The Applicant shall submit to the Building Inspector a final as-built of the site plan, stamped by the Engineer and Land Surveyor (as necessary) in both bard copy and digital fonnat (preferably in r AutoCAD DWG format, but DXF format will be acceptable). The media shall be a 3.5" floppy disk or CD. The plan Vertical Datum shall reference the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NA V088), and the plan shall contain a minimum of two benchmarks. The horizontal orientation shall reference the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). The plan shall show the locations and dimensions of the building foundation(s), and all utilities, including sanitary sewer, storm drain, water and electric. The location of the foundation(s) shall be shown with respect to the lot lines. The locations. of all utility connections shall include the elevation, the size and material of the connections, and the distance from the points where the services leave the foundation to the nearest foundation comer. For sewer and drainage, swing ties shall also be provided from at least two foundation comers to any sewer or drain structure, or change in horizontal or vertical line of the services and the distances from the nearest Town manhole to the points of connection to the Town mains. For water service(s), swing ties shall also be provided from at least two foundation comers to any bends, valves, fittings, curb stop and corporation stops. For electric service, swing ties shall also be provided from at least two foundation comers to any underground conduit bends, hand holes or manholes. The Engineer or Registered Land Surveyor shall certify that the construction conformed to the approved site plan or approved modifications thereto. Both the above as built plan and the certification must be received and approved prior to sign off of the Certificate of Occupancy. r Mr. Sullivan explained the proposal would go along with the requirement in the Subdivision Regulations for plans to be submitted in digital format. This would be a Zoning By-Law amendment, under the site plan approval process. The final as-built drawing for a site plan would be required in hard copy and digital format and would allow the town to update its GIS data. Mr. Sullivan said he expects GIS for the whole town to be available by June, and by getting new submissions on digital format, the system will be able to be updated quickly and inexpensively. He said most engineering fIrms use digital format now, and the town has a grant-funded GIS manager who will keep track of all the information. Board Comment Mr. Annino said he thought it was a great idea; Mr. Armstrong agreed. Motion: To support this article at town meeting (Dolan-Annino) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Annino-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES 6. Special Permit ModifICation Public Hearin - Castle Hill Estates - East Street The clerk read the public hearing notice. Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, explained the proposed modification to the previously approved Castle Hill Estates special permit plans, Sheets 1 - 6 of 6, dated August 22, 2000 and revised February 11, 2001, February 7, 2001, February 12, 2001, and February 27, 2001 (signed by the Planning Board on May 14, 2001) is amended to allow residents to construct or modify residential structures within a building envelope as shown on the plan titled Amendment to Special Permit for Castle Hill Estates, Sheet 1 of 1, dated January 16, 2003, revised March 20, 2003, prepared by Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, as follows: a. In Exclusive Use Area A, reduce the sideyard setback adjacent to Exclusive Use Area B from 20 feet to 15 feet. The sideyard setback adjacent to Common Open Space F remains 20 feet; r- b. In Exclusive Use Area B, reduce both sideyard setbacks from 20 feet to 15 feet; r- C. In Exclusive Use Area C, reduce the sideyard setback from 20 to 15 feet adjacent to Exclusive Use Area D. The sideyard setback adjacent to Common Open Space G remains 20 feet; d. In Exclusive Use Area D, reduce the sideyard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet adjacent to Exclusive Use Area C. The sideyard setback adjacent to abutting properties on East Street remains 40 feet. Mr. Trowbridge explained the plans have changed since the advertisement ran; the sideyard setbacks were originally 15 feet for all the lots, but are now as indicated above. He presented the revised plan. One of the new houses was built with a 17-foot sideyard setback; that plan was presented to the Board of Health for the septic system, then to the Building Office, where the violation was noted. Only lot B has a violation; the other houses have been constructed within the original setbacks. Department Head Comments The clerk read memos from the Fire, Police, Water, Conservation and Engineering Departments. Regarding Mr. Lewis's concerns, Mr. Trowbridge said the sideyard setback on Lot C has been changed back to the original 20 feet, and hemlocks have been added to the lot line of Lot B. Mr. Lewis's March 26,2003 memo indicates his concerns have been satisfied. Regarding Mr. Field's comments, Mr. Trowbridge said the recharge area is shown on the r plan adjacent to Lot A, with the original20-foot sideyard setback. Mr. Trowbridge explained the interior setbacks between Lots A and B and between Lots B and C will be 15 feet; and the sideyard setbacks on the outside of Lots A and C will be 20 feet; 40 feet on Lot D, with 15 feet on the outside setback on Lot B. Mr. Dolan asked ifthis would be an issue on future plans; Mr. French said he didn't believe so because this was something done during the construction phase of the development. Mr. Trowbridge said the houses were always planned to be 40 feet apart. Mr. Annino said the plans were approved with 20-foot setbacks, which was the envelope the board wanted the houses to be in. He said he thought the houses on these smaller lots are much too large, and said he was concerned about setting a precedent with this amendment. Mr. French said the town received a benefit with a large tract ofland adjacent to the river, which would otherwise have been developed. Mr. Annino asked how additions to these houses would be treated. Mr. Burke said any new construction would have to be kept within the building envelopes. He said the Building Inspector has stopped construction on the house on Lot B when the encroachment into the setback was discovered. r Mr. Dolan said if this had been the plan originally, would the town have received less r land? Mr. Trowbridge said he probably would have changed the location or the angle of the house to avoid the encroachment. Mr. Armstrong asked if the originally proposed house complied with the 20-foot sideyard setback. Mr. Trowbridge showed the board the original plan submitted to the Board of Health and the Building Department, which complied with the origina120-foot setback, along with the revised plan showing 17 feet on Lot B. Tim Bobola, TNT Building Corp, said he sold the house on Lot B and the homeowner wanted the plans revised, which resulted in the encroachment. Mr. Armstrong asked why the setbacks between the houses are being changed when only one house is involved; Mr. Trowbridge said he didn't want to ask for the waiver for just one lot. Mr. Armstrong said if this were a variance, it wouldn't be eligible because it is a self-inflicted hardship. Mr. Burke said in the case of Shady Brook Lane, the homeowner's association supported the sideyard setback change before one owner applied for a building permit for an addition that would encroach. He said the board set the setbacks after significant discussion during the public hearing, and amending the special permit could set a precedent. However, he said the only other remedy would be to cut off the corner of the house. He said the town now owns the abutting property, so the property line cannot simply be moved. r Mr. Jenkins asked if the other sideyard setback on Lot B complies with the setback; Mr. Trowbridge said it would be close. Mr. Dolan said he agreed this should have been looked at more closely, and he isn't happy with the way it was done. He asked if changes to the setbacks on all the lot was necessary. Mr. Trowbridge said they were not. Mr. French suggested the setbacks could be reduced for both sideyards only on Lot B. Motion: To amend the Castle Hill Estates special permit to grant the request for a change to the sideyard setbacks from 20 feet to 15 feet only on Lot B (Dolan-Annino) Mr. Jenkins asked about the landscaping requirements of the original special permit. Mr. Trowbridge said there is no landscaping shown on the plan. Mr. Bobola said he would be willing to plant some additional trees. Mr. Jenkins said he would be open to that offer. Mr. Cook said with 40 feet required between houses, the homeowner on the abutting lot may not have room to put on an addition later. r Mr. Trowbridge said they would be willing to plant four street trees; if the owners are unwilling to allow street trees, the trees could be planted in the open space. r Mr. Cook said there are roadway repair issues that could be addressed, especially where Castle Drive meets East Street. He said the areas around the water gates have settled and should be infrared repaired. Mr. Bobola offered to donate $2,000 to a gift account for the repair of this area. Amended Motion: To grant the request to amend the Castle Hill Estates special permit to change the setback from 20 to 15 on Lot B only and to accept the builder's offer of a gift of $2,000 to do the repairs to the utility tie-ins that have settled on East Street at the entrance to Castle Drive, as well as planting of the hemlocks on the west side of Lot Bas shown on the plan. (Dolan-Annino) Cook - In favor. The benefits of granting the reduced sideyard setbacks outweigh the detriments. Jenkins - In favor. The proposal to reduce the sideyard setbacks for Lot B solves the problem without setting a precedent. Armstrong - In favor. The proposal to reduce the sideyard setbacks for Lot B solves the problem. Annino- In favor. The proposal to reduce the sideyard setbacks for Lot B solves the problem. r Dolan - In favor for the above reasons. Achille- In favor. The benefits of granting the reduced sideyard setbacks outweigh the detriments. French - In favor. With the builder's generous gift to repair the settlement on East Street at the entrance to the subdivision, the benefits of reducing the sideyard setbacks outweigh the detriments. All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close public hearing (Annino-Achille) All in favor. PASSES 7. Special Permit Public Hearinl- Convenion of 2-Family to 3-Family - 86 Pratt Street - Patrick Fahy The clerk read a request from Mr. Maloon on behalf of Mr. Fahy to withdraw the special permit application. Motion: To accept the withdrawal of the special permit application (Dolan-Annino) Mr. Jenkins asked if there are three units there already. Mr. Burke said if the application is withdrawn, the use cannot be conducted and the applicant will not receive a certificate of occupancy. He said there is a distinction between the board's authority to grant a r special permit for the use and the authority the Building Inspector has for enforcement. I There will be no building permits issued without this special permit. If the unit if r occupied illegally, the Building Inspector will likely be notified by an abutter. He said the Building Inspector will not force the removal of the work that has already been done, but he will not allow any additional work to take place. Mr. Jenkins said he was concerned about setting a precedent. Mr. Burke said the Fire Department is of the opinion the building would need sprinklers installed, so the applicant could work that out and reapply later. He explained the violations of the building code are issues for the Building Inspector, not the Planning Board. The only issue before the board is the application to conduct the use, which cannot be done without a special permit. Mr. Annino suggested the abutter could be contacted and encouraged to keep the town informed of what is going on. Mr. Burke suggested sending a letter to the Building Inspector advising him the application has been withdrawn. Allin favor. PASSES Motion: To send a letter to the Building Inspector informing him of the withdrawal (Achille-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES I 8. Around the Table I Mr. Cook asked if the board should come up with standards for setbacks on residential compounds. Mr. French said the board typically asks the applicant to suggest setbacks. Mr. Jenkins said he thought the setbacks should be the same as the underlying zone. (' Mr. Annino suggested the setbacks could be tied to the height of the house, which would help reduce the scale of the development. Mr. French said that was a good idea, but said developers might not be willing to be creative because of marketing concerns. Mr. Burke asked whether the IDC supported the citizens' petitions rezoning articles. Mr. Jenkins said the board supported the rezoning of the property on the comer of West Street/140 and the Chauncy Street parcel. It also supported the proposal for two alternates to the Planning Board. Mr. French said Town Meeting will be Tuesday, May 6. He suggested scheduling a site walk to a variety of projects under construction, such as the Village at the Pointe and Castle Hill Estates, as well as a few completed developments. I 9. Public Comment 110. Adjournment. Motion: To adjourn at 10:00 p.m. (Cook-Annino) All in favor. PASSES Date of next meeting: April 2, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. ~--~ ture of cJ.i'f( -- /!1PA) L L. 2#r~ Date of Approval/ r