Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 05/05/04 .r- ~ECEIVEI " CLERK.S OFF ICE Planning Board Minutes May 5, 2004 04 JUN 15 AM 8: 23 Present: Tom French, Chair; Bernie Dolan, Clerk; Doug Annino, K1!tl~~ Fred Armstrong, Walter Jenkins, John DeMassi MA ~ ~r It.LD Shaun P. Burke, Director of PI . and Develo ment 5.. ACHUSETT$ r- Motion: To appoint Mr. Annino acting chairman r, '_~i~~~~<r.>~;\ss~s 1. ZBA application for variance - 18 Cooper Road - rear yard setback. Mr. Burke explained the front and rear setbacks are 40 feet; the addition would reduce the rear yard setback to 26 feet. The application explains the hardships to the lot and that a variance was granted in 2000 for the deck within the rear yard setback. Mr. DeMassi suggested shifting the addition to create less of an encroachment into the setback. Mr. Dolan said this addition wouldn't make it any more non-conforming than the deck addition. Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation (Jenkins-Armstrong) Five in favor. Annino abstained. PASSES [Mr. French arrived at this time.] 2. April 14, 2004 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (Dolan-Torman) All in favor. PASSES 3. ZBA application for variance - 11 Colonial Drive - sideyard setback Mr. Burke said the application refers to the narrow, odd-shaped lot, with the house at a bend in the lot. A 25-foot sideyard is required, and the addition would be about 20 feet off the property line. Mr. DeMassi asked how close the neighboring house is; Mr. Jenkins asked about the topography of the lot. Mr. Dolan said the neighboring lots are wider than this lot and the addition will not effect them. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because the application doesn't include sufficient information about the abutting properties or whether the topography of the lot has some effect on the location of the addition. (Dolan-DeMassi) Mr. French noted the lot is narrower across at the point where the house is than at the frontage. Four in favor. French, Armstrong, opposed. PASSES r- 4. ZBA application for variance - 980 Maple Street - sideyard setback A 25..foot sideyard setback is required, with the addition to be 23 feet from the lot line. Mr. Burke said the addition could be reduced by two feet or angled differently to avoid encroaching into the setback. Mr. Armstrong said he didn't see a hardship due to the shape or topography of the land. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because there are other options for the addition that would allow it to conform to the setbacks (French-Armstrong) Six in favor. DeMassi abstained. PASSES S.ZBA application for variance - 97 Balcom Street -lot width, lot area, front, side and rear setbacks The existing house is to be demolished and rebuilt, along with the septic system. The lot is shaped like a triangle and is surrounded by wetlands. Mr. .- r- Burke suggested a negative recommendation be sent to the ZBA, because while there may be hardship due to the shape of the land, the need to replace a septic system doesn't require the existing house be demolished and a new house built. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because the proposed house appears to be too large for the lot (Dolan- Torman) Six in favor. Annino abstained. PASSES 5. Building Permit Summary - April 6. Meeting notices Attleboro, Easton, North Attleboro, Plainville, Canoe River Aquifer Advisory Committee 7. Access New England 8. SPREDD Regional Review 9.Mass Interchange newsletter 10. Planning magazine 11. The Beacon r- The clerk read the public hearing notice for the proposed Zoning By-Law amendments. Article 31 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning By-Law to the extent necessary to change Footnote (2) in Schedule 4.2.2, Density and Dimensional Regulations, as follows (changes in bold): Schedule 4.2.2 Density and Dimensional Regulations (2) Business and residential uses may be combined In the same, or separate buildings, provided that in the Business 1 and Business 2 districts retail, office, bank or restaurant uses shall occupy the entire ground floor (see Section l1.2). Mr. Burke explained the way the Zoning By-Law reads, "retail" is required on the ground floor street frontage. This amendment would expand the uses allowed on the first floor and would require business use, rather than residential, on the entire first floor, which was an outcome of the downtown workshops. Mr. Armstrong said this makes sense; Mr. Jenkins said the board's original intent with this footnote was to require business uses on the first floor, but the way the footnote reads now would allow residential uses in the back of the first floor. Therefore, this is simply a clarification. Article 32 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning By-Law to the extent necessary to amend Schedule 4.4.1, Off-Street Parking Schedule (downtown parking) as follows: Schedule 4.4.1, OfT-Street Parking and Loading Downtown Parking Existing B 1 Business Use 0 parking spaces per unit r- Proposed Business Use BI 1 parking space per 750 sq ft - :- Mr. Burke explained there currently is no parking requirement in the BI zone for business uses. There is a residential parking requirement for 1 ~ spaces per unit. During the downtown workshops, one of the concerns has been about the lack of parking, and this amendment would require parking for new buildings. The proposal is for one space per 750 square feet for business uses in the Bl zone, which is much more lenient than the requirements for businesses in other zones. Mr. Jenkins asked the Zoning By-Law currently doesn't address business uses under 25,000 square feet; Mr. Burke said if the use isn't identified, the Planning Board can decide how many parking spaces are required. Mr. French noted section 4.4.4.11 allows for the Bl parking exemption. Mr. Armstrong suggested an additional explanation that this would be added to the Off-Street Parking Schedule under General Business less than 25,000 square feet. Mr. Jenkins said he was concerned about supplying employee parking downtown. Mr. Annino asked whether the number should be 500 rather than 750 square feet. Mr. Dolan said he didn't want to make it too restrictive, and said a lot of downtown families don't have two cars because they use the train. Mr. Burke said many communities use 750 square feet as a standard for downtown parking. Mr. Jenkins said he doesn't want to restrict potential redevelopment of existing buildings by requiring too much parking. r- Article 33 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning By-Law to the extent necessary to amend Section 4.4.4.11, Business 1 Zone Exemption, by deleting the first and second paragraphs and retaining the existing third paragraph, as follows: Section 4.4.4.11, Business 1 Zone Exemption ,A..ll husiBesses prepesetl fer the IlusiBess 1 ZeBe Me enempt fram the reEjtiWemeBts ef eff street pllfkiBg \:Hlless a speeial peffRit is reE(llired. Sheuld the applieaftt Eieeiee te prwdEie fer eft skeet pMSg, it aka" ge SeRe iB aeeefEiftftee with SeetieR ~. ~ ef the ZeRiBg By Laws. Speeial permit applieatieBs reE(uire eae spaee fer eaeh 599 sEjtiMe feet ef gress BeB resiEiefttial !leer area. All businesses proposed for the Business 1 Zone may be exempted from the off-street loading requirements if in the opinion of the Planning Board, an unsafe traffic condition is not created. Mr. Burke said the third paragraph, off-street loading, is existing, and there are often problems with trucks parking and unloading downtown and blocking traffic. However, he said the business owners aren't always able to schedule deliveries at low-traffic hours, and most of the existing businesses don't have dedicated loading zones. Dr. Torman said even when the downtown business owners request drivers to use certain routes or come at certain times, those requests aren't always honored r- - .r- Article 34 To see ifthe Town will vote to amend the Zoning By-Law to the extent necessary to amend Section 4.4.4.3, Location, to add a second paragraph (shown in bold) as follows: Seetion 4.4.4.3, Location Required parking spaces and loading spaces shall be on the same lot as the principal use(s) served; or ifnot reasonably possible, on other property in the same zoning district within 200 feet ofthe principal building. This 200 feet shall be measured along a public way. Such off-premise parking shan be in possession, by deed or lease, ofthe owners of the use served. In the Business 1 district, all required parking shall be located at the rear of the principle building. Mr. Burke explained this would require parking at the rear of the building, an attempt to maintain the streetscape. Motion: To send Town Meeting a positive recommendation on Article 31 (Armstrong-Annino) Mr. DeMassi asked if there should be a definition of "ground floor." Mr. Burke said that isn't defined in the Zoning By-Law, but "ground floor" is used in the current footnote. All in favor. PASSES Motion: To send Town Meeting a positive recommendation on Article 32 Mr. Armstrong suggested explaining this further to Town Meeting to clarify the fact that this is being added to the existing definition and is not an amendment. (Dolan-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES .r- '"' I Motion: To send Town Meeting a positive recommendation on Article 33 (Annino-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To send Town Meeting a positive recommendation on Article 34 (Annino-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close public hearing (Torman-Dolan) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Jenkins said he is an abutter to this project, so he excused himself from the table. r Kevin Walker, K&J Engineering, explained the preliminary plan for a three-lot residential compound off East Street. There is an existing home, which would be removed in the conventional layout, with the infiltration flowing toward the center of the roadway. Mr. Walker said they would prefer the residential compound, with three houses, one of which would be the existing house. The right-of-way would be 200-250 feet long and 25 feet wide with an 18-foot travel lane. There would be almost 5 acres of open space, which is significantly more than required. The wetlands would be preserved in the open space, which would be conveyed to the town; Mr. Walker noted there is another subdivision near this, which would likely have some open space as well. They will tie into the existing sewer manhole on East Street. Mr. Walker explained this would ~ have much less impact than the conventional layout and would provide the town with much more open space. Mr. Dolan asked about the existing house not having access from the new roadway. Mr. Walker explained the house has an existing curb cut on East Street and said there is about 100 feet between the new road to Conrod Court, across East Street. Mr. Burke said the requirement for the intersection offset is 150 feet. Mr. Walker said he would ask for a waiver from that requirement. Mr. Armstrong asked ifthe existing driveway could be angled to connect with Roy Road, to eliminate the second curb cut. Mr. Walker said they could do that. Department Head Comments Mr. Dolan read comments from Mr. Lewis about the wetland line. Mr. Walker explained there would be no work within the 25-foot buffer zone. Mr. Lewis's memo questioned whether the traditional subdivision could be built at the density shown because of the wetland issues. Mr. Burke explained the applicant has to prove he can build the traditional subdivision at the density shown. Mr. Walker said there would be no discharge to the wetland, so there will be no adverse impact. He said the five acres of open space would be a benefit to the town. He explained everything will flow outside the buffer zone and recharge according to stormwater management policy. ,,-- Mr. French asked about the 50-foot buffer mentioned in Mr. Lewis's memo. Mr. Burke explained the Conservation Commission requires 25 feet, but can require 50 feet. Mr. Armstrong said the house at the back of the traditional subdivision shows frontage on Roy Road but access from East Street; Mr. Walker explained that was to avoid work within the 25-foot buffer zone. Mr. Lewis's memo noted this is in a state-listed estimated habitat site. Mr. Walker said that line does fall within this site. He said typically Natural Heritage focuses on the wetlands involved. Mr. Lewis's memo noted there may be vernal pools on this site. Mr. Walker said there are no certified vernal pools on the site. Mr. Dolan read memos from Mr. Field, Mr. Gaffney, Lt. Towne, and Ptlm Lawson. Mr. Walker said he would address these comments. Mr. Dolan asked ifthere is any town-owned land in this area. Mr. Burke said this site is within the ACEC, and the property behind it has recently been submitted as a definitive subdivision plan. That property has a significant amount of wetlands, and the owners have said they would consider giving that portion of the property to the town. f Board Comment Dr. Torman asked if the cul-de-sac would be required; Mr. Walker said he would prefer not to have the cul-de-sac and put the driveways off Roy Road. He said he would leave enough room for emergency vehicles to access the houses. Mr. Dolan said he was concerned about the 18-foot wide roadway. Mr. Walker said the shoulders would be ~ crushed stone, so they could be used as driving surface ifnecessary. Mr. Walker said the site is very flat. Mr. Annino said he was concerned about eliminating the cul-de-sac. Mr. Burke said the paved turnaround could be eliminated, there could be a hammerhead turnaround, or the cul-de-sac could be reduced in width. Mr. Walker said he would talk to public safety about his options prior to returning with a definitive plan. Mr. DeMassi asked where the abutting houses are; Mr. Annino said those houses should be located on a definitive plan. Mr. Annino said he was concerned about the intersection offset. He suggested addressing the streetscape, with trees and lighting, signage and radius at the entrance to the road. Mr. Burke suggested talking with the Building Inspector about the issues of access and frontage, and said he was unsure whether three lots would be possible in the conventional subdivision. Mr. French suggested reconfiguring Lot 1 to avoid the long driveway from East Street. Mr. Walker said he would look at that. ,~ Mr. French said with the questions raised by the Conservation Commission about the conventional plan, he asked whether this demonstrates the conventional plan could be done. Mr. Burke said before coming back with a definitive plan, the applicant should get together with Mr. Lewis and the Conservation Commission to address their issues, especially the buffer required in the ACEC. Mr. French said the board recognizes the compound is a more environmentally sensitive use, but questioned the mechanics of three lots being possible. Mr. DeMassi asked if the cul-de-sac would be necessary in the conventional layout; Mr. French said the board would have to grant a waiver for an alternate turnaround. Mr. Walker asked about comer rounding easements, like Baybrook Farm. Mr. French said that might work. Motion: To continue the discussion to June 16,2004 at 7:45 p.m. (Dolan-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES L.i.,.~_I""'.. .. Mr. Jenkins asked if the abutters should have been notified about the preliminary subdivision plan. Mr. French said they did not, because the point is for the applicant to get an idea ofthe board's feelings on the plan prior to filing a definitive plan. Mr. Burke said these preliminary plans show a lot more detail than many preliminary plans the board receives, so the department head comments were more detailed than in many. r- Mr. Jenkins said the TIF Committee has met several times and Medco has submitted an application for a TIF, which will be submitted to Town Meeting. The committee is -- r- putting together a TIF Policy, involving job creation, capital services and linkage to services for the town. Mr. Annino asked whether five signs are allowed at Erin's Centre. Mr. Burke said that development got a number of variances for signage. Mr. Dolan asked about the development at School Street and Route 140. Mr. Burke said a Draft EIR has been filed, which says the size of the proposal has been reduced from 500,000 square feet to 450,000. They would still like a movie theater and a hote~ but have not identified any tenants. There are two driveways rather than three and the buildings have been rearranged. The developers have asked for direct access from Route 140 to the site, Mass Highway has not responded. Mr. Burke said now that the DEIR is out, this is the time to comment on that issue and urge Mass Highway to allow direct access to the site from Route 140. Motion: To send Mass Highway a letter urging them to allow direct access to this site from Route 140. Send letters to state reps asking them to support the town's request. Encourage the Board of Selectmen and other boards and committees to respond to the DEIR as well Mr. French asked if that would set a precedent that would resuh in more curb cuts off Route 140. Mr. Burke said that was possible. ,,-- (Torman-Dolan) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Burke said he asked the developer to put together information packages for the board when they get ready to file for their local permits. The board discussed whether it would be a good idea to invite the developer to come in informally while the EIR is open. Mr. Burke said he would be concerned about doing that at the time when the special permit application comes in. I.....,~;~J, Motion: To adjourn at 10: 15 p.m. (Torman-Armstrong ) All in favor. PASSES Next meeting: May 26, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. (Village Landing public hearing continued) {~I /Llt44 '7& r 7bY( Date of Approv~l r- ,-