HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 04/02/03
r
I. March 26, 2003 Minutes
Motion: To approve as submitted (Achille-Dolan) All in favor. PASSES
2. Special Permit - TNT Building Corp - Castle Hill Estates special permit
Modification
Mr. Cook said there is a bond still in effect on this subdivision.
Motion: To sign the special permit (Annino-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES
3. Invitation to Groundbreaking Ceremony - Rails to Trails Bike Path - April 28
4. March Building Permit summary
5. Meeting notice - Norton, Easton, North Attleboro
6. The Beacon
r
Mr. Jim Burke, civil engineer with Coller and Colantonio, explained the amended plans,
which include landscaping and lighting plans. He said he had visited several subdivisions
to find examples of attractive landscaping, and explained the landscaping plan shows 13
white pines, 30 feet on center, as a buffer along the edge of the roadway. That note will
be added to the landscaping schedule.
Mr. Dolan read a memo from Mr. Field indicating his concerns have been addressed.
Board Comment
Mr. Annino asked how tall the trees would be; Mr. 1. Burke said they would be 5-6 feet
tall. Mr. S. Burke said white pines grow about one foot a year. Mr. Annino asked that a
three-inch bark mulch layer be added; Mr. 1. Burke said he planned on a four-inch layer.
Mr. Annino asked for additional rhodedendron; Mr. 1. Burke said he would plant three
more. Mr. Annino suggested bulbs with long life spans in the streetlights.
Public Comment
Mrs. Stocking thanked the developer and the board for their consideration to the abutters'
concerns.
r
r
r
r
Motion: To approve the above-referenced plan and issue the Special Permit in
accordance with the Zoning Act and Subdivision Control Law with the following
conditions:
1. All department head comments shall be fully and satisfactorily addressed within the
20- day appeal period. In addition, the landscaping plan shall be amended within the
20-day appeal period to add seven white pine trees along the drive and three
rhodedendron bushes within the cul-de-sac island.
2. The Master Declaration Reservations and Restrictions, Lennon Family Development,
A Residential Compound (facsimile copy dated February 24,2003), shall be recorded
with the special permit;
3. The roadway and drainage system and structures shall remain private and the Town of
Mansfield shall not be asked to accept or maintain the way or the drainage system or
structures;
4. The vegetation within the open common space shall not be cut, altered or disturbed in
any way;
5. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans;
7. The homeowner's association shall be responsible for trash removal and snow
plowing;
8. There shall be no permanent trash dumpster placed on site;
9. The homeowner's association shall own the open space and the homeowner's
documents shall be recorded with the special permit;
10. The drainage area shall be cleaned twice a year by the homeowner's association and
reports shall be submitted to the Town Engineer;
10. There shall be a sign installed stating that the roadway is a private way and listing the
house numbers on the private way;
11. That portion of the plan to be recorded shall contain the following note: "Any and
all conditions of approval contained in this special permit written decision shall apply
to any and all subsequent owners, in whole or in part."
12. That portion of the plan to be recorded shall contain a note referencing the recorded
special permit decision and where said decision may be found.
13. All conditions accompanying the approval of this special permit shall be written on
that portion of the plan to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds.
14. That portion of the plan to be recorded shall contain the following note: "This
subdivision, in part or in whole, shall not be resubdivided in a way which will create
additional buildable lots beyond the three (3) lots approved in this permit."
15. This residential compound is approved by both this special permit in accordance with
the Zoning Act and this Planning Board Certificate of Action under Subdivision
Control Law.
16. Prior to the application for issuance of occupancy permits for any dwelling having
its frontage on the private way, the following items must be complete.
a. The entire roadway within the residential compound shall be constructed up to
and including the binder course of bituminous concrete and satisfactorily
inspected.
b. All street drainage shall be fully complete and functioning with all grates and
castings set to grade.
c. The stormwater drainage area shall be operational, fully constructed and
r completed according to plan.
d. Street lights shall be installed and operational.
17. All plan revisions required after the close of the public hearing shall be completed
and reviewed prior to the Planning Board signing the special permit.
(Achille-Annino)
Mr. Cook -In favor. The benefits of the residential compound outweigh the detriments.
Mr. Jenkins - In favor. The applicant has done a great job addressing all concerns, and
the benefits of the project outweigh the detriments.
Mr. Annino - In favor. I think the configuration of the lots and the road, and keeping it a
private way, has a positive effect on the town and will add to the diversity of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Achille - In favor. The applicant has been cooperative, has met all of the technical
requirements and the benefits of the proposal outweigh the detriments.
Mr. Dolan -In favor. The benefits of the development outweigh the detriments.
Mr. French - In favor. This development alternative is in the best interest of town and is
the best use of property.
r
Mr. Armstrong - Abstain.
Six in favor. One Abstention. PASSES
Motion: To close the public hearing (AnninO-Achille) All in favor. PASSES
Mr. Cook asked whether he would be able to vote on the individual articles, since he had
excused himself from the public hearing; Mr. Burke said since he wasn't at the public
hearing, he probably shouldn't vote tonight.
Mr. French explained the board would discuss the articles in the same order they were
taken during the public hearing. He said the board would be asked to make a
recommendation to town meeting on these zoning articles.
,-...
Article 40 - Petitioned by Richard Devine:
6.2.2C.a: Special permits may be issued for attached Garages and/or Additions to Single Family
Dwellings only (section 3.3.1) from the terms of this By-Law, when such Garages and/or Additions
violate the Minimum Lot Frontage (ft) and/or Minimwn Setbacks (ft) requirements of Section 4.2.1.
To grant a Special Pennit the Zoning Board of Appeals must determine that the benefits of the
proposed project outweigh its detrimental effects on the neighborhood after considemtion of all
r
appropriate criteria and without regard to where, owing to conditions relating to the soil conditions,
shape of the lot or topography.
Mr. Devine was not present for this discussion; Mr. Burke said Mr. Devine had felt a
special permit would be an easier test to meet than the more stringent variance
requirements. Mr. Burke recommended the board not support the article; he said the
Zoning Act provides a means for relief when an applicant seeks to extend a structure
into the setback. However, he said the statute does not mention changing the setback
through a special permit. He said the more appropriate way to deal with this would
be to change the setbacks at town meeting.
Mr. Achille asked whether, if this article were passed, there could be different
setbacks in the same neighborhood. Mr. Burke said that could happen.
Mr. Jenkins said he thought changing from a hardship standard to what is proposed in
this article could be a problem.
Mr. Annino said he questioned the legality of the proposal. Mr. Burke said relief
refers to a variance, and there is no special permit mentioned in the statute. Mr.
Armstrong said he didn't think it was legal as written.
Motion: Not to support Article 40 at Town Meeting
(Dolan-Cook) All in favor PASSES
r
Article 43 - Petitioned by Karl Clemmey:
To amend Section 5.5, Special Pennit, by adding paragraph 5.5.7.1 allowing the Board of Selectmen to
appoint two associate members to the Planning Board for special pennit public hearings.
Mr. Burke said this is a policy issue for the board, rather than a technical issue.
Mr. Achille said he liked the idea, since there have been times when only five or six
members have been available for special permit hearings. He said he believes this
would make the special permit process more efficient and would be more in line with
the by-law, which requires 5 votes for the grant of a special permit. He also said
getting more people involved in town government would be a good thing.
Mr. Annino asked if one of the alternates would be automatically appointed if a
member resigned. Mr. Burke said the Board of Selectmen would have to make the
appointment, unless the article were amended to make an alternate member an
automatic replacement.
r--
Mr. Jenkins said he thought the concept was a good one, but there are several
unanswered questions, such as the appointment issue. He said the board is a diverse
group, which is a good thing, but suggested there be qualifications for associate
members, such as a certain level of experience. Mr. French said most members start
out without experience, and said as long as he has been on the board, the Board of
Selectmen has appointed excellent members.
r
Mr. Armstrong said he thought the idea was a good one, as a large project can involve
a difficult public hearing process, and taking a gamble with five or six members can
cost an applicant a lot of money.
Mr. Dolan said he supported the concept. He said there is a learning curve when new
members are appointed, and associate membership might be a good way for members
to get experience. He said he wasn't sure how much the article could be changed at
Town Meeting.
Motion: To support Article 43 at Town Meeting (Dolan-Annino)
Mr. Dolan asked that if this article passes, the Selectmen be encouraged to consider
appointing associate members to vacancies on the board. Mr. Annino said the Board
of Selectmen should be encouraged to look at associate members as future Planning
Board members. Mr. Dolan agreed.
Mr. French said the board has had an excellent attendance record, but he understands
issues can arise unexpectedly. He said he wasn't sure what the level of interest would
be for associate members, and whether those members would attend meetings with no
guarantee they would be able to participate.
r
Mr. Jenkins asked how the associate member would be appointed if a regular member
was absent; Mr. French said that would be up to the chair.
Mr. Dolan asked if this would be a change to the charter rather than the Zoning By-
Law. Mr. Burke said the charter identifies the Planning Board as having seven
members.
Mr. French suggested the board could include its suggestions for amendments with its
recommendation. Mr. Burke said articles can typically be amended to be less
restrictive, rather than moreso.
Mr. Armstrong asked whether the Selectmen would object to a request that associate
members be automatically appointed in case of an opening. Mr. Jenkins said that
might be difficult and suggested a term for the associate members. Mr. Achille said
with regard to qualifications, he was concerned that the best candidate for an opening
be appointed, Tather than automatically appointing an associate member. Mr. Dolan
said an associate member who doesn't attend the meetings should be removed by the
Board of Selectmen, which is what happens with regular members.
Motion: To the amend motion to include two associate members to be appointed for
a five-year term and said associate members be subject to the same rules and
regulations as the regular members
(Jenkins-Dolan) Six in favor. Cook abstained. PASSES
r
r-
Vote on Motion: To support Article 43 as amended
(Annino-Armstrong) Six in favor. Cook abstained. PASSES
Article 42 - Petitioned by Karl Clemmey:
To amend Section 4.2.2 Density and Dimensional Regulations, Business and Industrial District to
decrease the minimwn open space (%) required in the I-I District from 35% to 30%.
Mr. Burke said this article has been submitted to Town Meeting several times, and the
proponent said it would provide development flexibility and additional tax revenues.
He said while this change on a small site may not be significant, on a larger site, less
open space would make a big difference. He said he would not encourage the board
to support the amendment, as 35% was established in 1989 after a study of the open
space in the industrial park.
Mr. Annino said he agreed with Mr. Burke and wouldn't want to change the
precedent established by the industrial park. He said the existing regulations work,
and he doesn't see a reason to change them, because it wouldn't be consistent with
the way the town has been built out.
r
Mr. Achille asked if the roc had discussed this issue. Mr. Jenkins said that board
had discussed it, and they have heard from some business owners in the park about it.
He said the roc was told a good portion of the park currently has about 28% open
space. He said the roc voted to support the article. He said the roc hopes the park
can evolve to have more office or R&D space than warehouse space, and one of the
concerns raised by National Development is that it will be difficult to make that
change with the open space requirement, especially for parking. The parking
requirements are higher for office uses than for warehouse uses. He said the roc
discussed whether this change should apply only to the PBD, which is what most of
the industrial park is zoned now.
Mr. Dolan said the last time he spoke with Sherry Clancy of National Development,
he asked her about this issue and she told him the open space wasn't a big problem.
He said this article doesn't propose to change the open space within PBD, only the
Industriall zone. Mr. Jenkins said there have been changes to density requirements
in the PBD, but the open space wasn't changed to go along with it. Mr. Burke said
that density change was intended to allow flexibility for businesses to build up. He
said all the industrial and PBD zones require 35% open space, and asked why only
one of those zones should be changed.
Mr. Annino said a lot of the buildings in the park are in need of repair, but the
landscaping and open space really make the park attractive. He was concerned that if
the park continues to age and loses landscaping, it may become less of an asset. He
said there are ways to get additional parking without losing open space.
r
Motion: Not to support Article 42 at Town Meeting
(Annino-Dolan) Four in favor. Achille, Jenkins opposed. Cook abstained. PASSES
{
[Mr. Cook left the table at this time.]
Article 45 - Petitioned by Karl Clemmey:
To rezone the property at South Walnut Street and 396 West Street (Assessor's Map 11, Parcels 28 and
29) from Residential 2 to Industrial!.
Mr. Burke explained two residential parcels would be rezoned; he said the petition
indicates both parcels in their entirety are to be rezoned. Mr. Clemmey had said
during the public hearing that it was not his intent to rezone the "tail" of land between
the two residential lots. The article will have to be amended at Town Meeting.
Mr. Burke said he would not encourage the board to support the article. Rezoning in
the area has been proposed several times before, and he said he is concerned about
industrial encroachment into a residential neighborhood. He said even though the
neighborhood abuts a highway and industrial uses, it is still a residential area, which
would be eroded by additional industrial land. He suggested the rezoning should be
done neighborhood-wide, rather than piecemeal.
Mr. Annino said he agreed with Mr. Burke, and said taking an older, established
neighborhood and allowing industrial uses to encroach would be detrimental to the
residents.
r
Mr. Achille said when the neighbors came to the public hearing, their arguments were
compelling. He said they have had to adjust to the industrial uses already happening,
and this would negatively affect that neighborhood.
Mr. Armstrong agreed, and said a change to industrial zoning would be a significant
difference than what those residents bought.
Mr. Jenkins agreed, saying development on a residential basis, even at multi-family
uses, would be a better use of the land.
Motion: Not to support Article 45 at Town Meeting
(Dolan-Annino) All in favor. PASSES
Article 44 - Petitioned by Karl Clemmey:
*To rezone the property at 383 West Street (Assessor's Map 20, Parcel 3); 375 West Street
(Assessor's Map 20, Parcels 4 and 5); 395 West Street (Assessor's Map 20, Parcel 192) from
Residential 2 to Industrial!.
Mr. Burke explained this parcel is across the street from the Erin's Centre
development, on the comer of Route 140 and West Street.
Motion: Not to support Article 44 at Town Meeting (Dolan-Annino)
r
Mr. Annino said he couldn't support this article because of its potential effects on the
existing neighborhood; this rezoning would result in a much more intense use
bordering a residential zone.
r
Mr. Jenkins said the IDC voted to support this article; he said he voted for it, but after
visiting the area, he plans to change his vote at the next IDC meeting. He said he
realized the houses on Casa Drive were close to the road, but said the house on Lot
213 Casa Drive would take the biggest hit because of its proximity to the road.
Mr. Annino said for industrial use to jump across the road, using the road as a barrier
between the industrial use and residential use, doesn't make sense from a planning
point of view. He said that would create an island in an industrial zone.
Mr. Achille and Mr. Armstrong said their comments were the same as under the last
article.
All in favor. PASSES
Article 41 - Petitioned by Karl Clemmey:
*To rezone the properties at 115 Walnut Street (Assessor's Map 20, Lot 147); 376 Chauncy Street
(Assessor's Map 20, Lot 148); 372 Chauncy Street (Assessor's Map 20, Lot 198); 364 Chauncy Street
(Assessor's Map 20, Lot 197); 360 Chauncy Street (Assessor's Map 20, Lots 149 and 150) from
Residential 2 to Industrial 1.
Mr. Burke said these parcels are on Route 106 across the street from Stop and Shop. Mr.
Dolan asked what zone the Sharon Credit Union is in; Mr. Burke said that is in the PBD,
as is Stop and Shop.
r
I Mr. Annino said he recognizes there is an intense use across the street, and said his
comment regarding the industrial use jumping across the road applies here. He said he is
concerned about traffic in the area now, and is concerned about increased traffic on
Walnut Street. He said this is the entrance to a residential street, and multi-family use
may make a good buffer between the industrial and residential zones. He said he didn't
think industrial would be the highest and best use for that area, and rezoning would
require significant study.
Mr. Armstrong said a better case could be made for rezoning this parcel than for the
previous two because of the other industrial/commercial uses in the area. However, he
said he didn't think Industrial 1 would be the best use, saying perhaps a business zone
would be more realistic.
Mr. Jenkins said he agreed with Mr. Armstrong. He said the IDC voted unanimously not
to support the rezoning to II, but it would support a rezoning to B3.
,,-.
Mr. Burke said II doesn't include only industrial uses; he said B3 allows retail as a by-
right use, while II requires a special permit. Mr. Jenkins said he wouldn't necessarily
want to see some of the by-right II uses. Mr. Burke said during discussions in 1989
about rezoning land on Central Street to business, a residential abutter to the rear had
been strongly opposed; he said that was an example of opposition to business uses
abutting residential uses. He said while he didn't support the industrial change, there are
also uses allowed under business zoning that would be detrimental to the residential
r neighborhood.
Mr. Annino said this is an R2 neighborhood in the middle of industrial uses and a major
roadway; he said while that is a very small part of town, taking chunks out of that area
will effect the residents. He said from a planning perspective, this isn't the best place to
put retail or other business uses.
Mr. Dolan said these parcels abut West Street, with PBD on two sides, but no other 11
zone around it. However, he said he would consider support for a change to a business
district, but doesn't support rezoning to 11.
Mr. Achille said there is no doubt that this property is different than the previous two, but
said the neighborhoods should be allowed to adjust to the commercial activity going on in
the area. He said these neighborhoods are being disproportionately effected.
Motion: Not to support Article 41 at Town Meeting
(Dolan-Annino) All in favor. PASSES
[Mr. Cook returned to the table at this time.]
r
,
Mr. Burke said there is a comment period for 40B applications, and asked if the board
wanted to submit comments to the ZBA or Mass Housing Partnership. He said he
believed it was important to draw attention to valid planning issues, like sewer, wetlands,
road width, traffic speed and volume, sight distance and turning movements. The board
discussed putting the issue on the April 30 agenda; Mr. Annino asked if it would be
possible to get copies of the plans. The board will discuss the issue at its meeting of
April 30 at 8:45 pm
Mr. Jenkins said he will not be at the April 9 meeting, when the board will hear a
repetitive petition from the Tweeter Center for the Performing Arts. Mr. Burke explained
the process the board would be required to go through to take this issue up again.
Mr. French asked about scheduling a site walk to some approved and under construction
subdivisions.
Mr. Clemmey said he would be willing to have the parcels on Route 140 owned by Mr.
Epstein rezoned to Business rather than Industrial.
Mr. Clemmey said the IDC's COmments on the zoning articles should have been
submitted in writing. Mr. Dolan said the board had not received a letter from the IDC.
Mr. Clemmey asked where the planning in Mansfield is going if the board meets every
r- Wednesday without doing any planning for the future. Mr. French asked what sections of
r-
\,
r-
,-..
I
the Master Plan should be changed. Mr. Clemmey said the town needs a Master Plan to
get grant money. He said he told the board last week Franklin got a grant to do a Master
Plan, and asked if we could get a grant, why wouldn't we do it. Mr. Clemmey said Town
Meeting never adopted the 1997 Master Plan; Mr. Burke explained the Master Plan is
adopted by the Planning Board, not by Town Meeting. Mr. Clemmey said the Master
Plan shouldn't be done by just the seven members of the board.
Mr. Clemmey said it has been 12 years since he tried to rezone the land on Copeland
Drive, when he lost by 8 votes. He said when Mr. Burke mentioned Mr. Grant as the
residential abutter opposed to the proposed rezoning on Central Street, that land was later
rezoned under the 1989 Master Plan. Mr. Burke said he had not named the abutter to
whom he was referring. Mr. Clemmey said Mr. Burke was looking at him when he made
that comment. Mr. Burke said that abutter, an elderly woman, lived behind the proposed
LaDonna Restaurant. Mr. Clemmey told Mr. Burke it was time for him to leave town
and that he was "a child." He said he wasn't going to try to talk to Mr. Burke because he
wouldn't change; Mr. Burke thanked Mr. Clemmeyand said he hadn't changed either.
';I';~_ ,.ie..,.,:>.,:,' .,'.:;:;,;y"
Motion: To adjourn at 9:45 p.m. (Dolan-Annino) All in favor. PASSES
Date of next meeting: April 9, 2003 at 7:30 p.m.
~~~..O~
,.:;,.,-
~"'-'~",.:~,:,~'.;;:,'; ;,:> .~;
;;,:..~...'~.,i"..:.;;..,.
..... ."
,y~::";::<.'yL<':,,:,,
.. ;,"..~. _C','> :;,.-.; ;,....c.. "':;_::.""':"':'_'':.'>;''';';':'':,.,;''..:,:_:;.:::.
;:,.......:.;...;..,:<,\:.....,:.....L,.
~:>v.,""'-':,:.:.i(:,.,;:.i.;.
';j -~ -() ~
Date of Approval