HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 09/01/04
Planning Board Minutes
r September 1, 2004
Present: Tom French, Chair; Fred Armstrong, Clerk; Waher Jenkins, Ken Torman, John
DeMassi, Frank Holmes
August 24, 2004 minutes
Motion: To approve as submitted (Torman-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES
2. August 25, 2004 minutes
Mr. Holmes noted that in the 31 Oxford Road discussion, the .2% refers to the slope
of the handicapped parking spaces, not the footcandles
Motion: To approve as amended (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES
Dr. Torman asked if it might be wise to invite the ZBA and Board of Selectmen to the
School Street public hearings. Mr. French said that was possible, but thought the
hearings are very well publicized already. Dr. Torman said he didn't want the board to
go through the same difficulties it experienced after the Erin's Centre
Motion: To fonnally request participation of representatives of the Zoning Board of
Appeals, Conservation Commission and Board of Selectmen particularly in large projects
such as School Street (Torman-Holmes) All in favor. PASSES
r-
Mr. Holmes said Mr. Sullivan's memo about School Street had suggested hiring an
independent traffic consuhant. Mr. French said the board has hired outside consultants to
look at traffic before, and there is a mechanism for having the applicant pay for that
study. He said if the board decided it wanted to do that prior to the beginning of the
traffic portion of the public hearing, it would have to be soon. He said the other option
would be for the board could listen to the applicant's traffic engineer, and if there are
additional questions, consdier hiring an outside consuhant. Mr. DeMassi said he would
like to have an independent outside review of the traffic situation.
Motion: To ask Mr. Burke to obtain proposals from three:firms, including fees, to do a
peer review on the School Street traffic study (Holmes-Armstrong)
Mr. DeMassi said it would be good to know the relationship between the :firms we get
proposals from and the applicant to determine whether there are any conflicts.
Mr. Jenkins asked to contact the applicant about this prior to the September 15 meeting.
He said it would be helpful to come to an agreement with the applicant prior to that
meeting and have the peer review start prior to the traffic portion of the public hearing.
All in favor. PASSES
r-
r-
l.~...liIi..j.giIRC~._!j);;;.;..
3. Draft special permit for 31 Oxford Road
Motion: To sign the special permit as drafted
(Armstrong-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES
The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. French explained how the public hearing
would be conducted, that the special permit would require a super-majority vote of the
board and notified the applicant the board is one member short.
William Buckley, Jr., Bay Colony Engineering, explained the plan for the construction of
a 29,000 square foot, three-story office building. The Great Woods Office Park currently
has two office buildings on a 5.7 acres parcel of land. Mr. Buckley explained this
building was permitted in 2000 but the permit lapsed, so a new special permit is required.
He said this plan is almost exactly the same as the 2000 plan.
Mr. Buckley explained the building has a 9,000 square foot footprint, surrounded by
existing building and parking. There will be new construction at the Reservoir Street side
of the site, which is served by water and sewer. The parking configuration is the same,
wrapping around the building on three sides, but the 2000 plan showed parking on the
outside of the lot; that parking is now next to the building.
r- Mr. Buckley said the site is flat and wooded, with no storm water leaving the site and no
wetland areas. He said this building will use up the rest of the property, so there is no
room for a detention basin. Instead, there will be an underground drainage system
located under the existing parking lot. The system is designed to take the 100-year storm,
with an overflow in the event of a larger storm.
Mr. Buckley explained there are two existing access points, Qne from Reservoir and one
from South Main Street, and no new access points are planned
Mr. Buckley explained he has applied for a variance because they do not meet the
required landscaped buffer; he has proposed an alternate design with hardwood trees,
which will break up the building. He said there is an existing line of arbor vitae along the
property line for the Village at the Pointe.
Mr. Buckley said there are existing traffic issues in the area, primarily because of the
Tweeter Center. He said there is a sight distance issue along the right side of the parking
lot adjacent to Reservoir Street due to mature landscaping. They plan to trim that down
to provide adequate sight distance. Mr. Buckley said Patrolman Lawson pointed out
intersection issues, so as part of their analysis, they researched the mitigation the new
office park in Norton will do. He said that construction will include a full light at the
northbound ramp, a full light at the southbound ramp, and widening of Route 140 to four
lanes in both directions. Mr. Buckley said his project is too small to warrant additional
r- mitigation, but said the Norton mitigation will be done in the next year.
r Mr. Buckley said he met with staff and addressed all the comments with revised plans.
Department Head Comments
The clerk read memos from Mr. Gaffney, Ms. Langille, Mr. Sullivan and Ptlm. Lawson.
Mr. Buckley said they have agreed to all of Mr. Gaffuey's comments, including changing
the water line from copper to plastic, applying for a water connection permit and
changing the tap.
Mr. Buckley said they have added a note to the utility sheet that the installation of the
transformer pad will be coordinated with the Light Department. He said they would file
the service request when they know what the loads will be.
Mr. Buckley said Patrolman Lawson noted that no major traffic problems will be caused
by the construction of this building, but there are existing traffic problems. Mr. Buckley
said this project is not adding enough volume to the area to require new signalization;
however, as mentioned previously, the Route 140 improvements for the Norton office
park will improve that intersection within the next year. He said they will be cutting
down the landscaping at Reservoir Street, which is a problem for sight distance.
Mr. Buckley said he will make all of the changes requested by Mr. Sullivan on the final
set of revised plans.
r-
Board Comment
Mr. Jenkins asked about the ZBA application. Mr. Buckley said that is a special permit
for a 15- foot landscaped buffer zone where 22 feet is required along Route 140 and
Reservoir Street. Mr. Jenkins asked if it is appropriate for the board to approve the
special permit without the ZBA decision. Mr. Buckley said he is meeting with the ZBA
on September 21, 2004. Mr. French said if a special permit were approved, it would be
conditional on getting ZBA approval for the special permit. Mr. Buckley said he didn't
have a problem waiting for the board's decision until after the ZBA decision.
Mr. DeMassi asked if the parking lot outlined in blue is existing; Mr. Buckley said it is
but will be altered to add the drainage. He said they need 298 parking spaces for the
entire site, which they will be providing. The lane widths and parking space sizes will
remain the same. Mr. DeMassi asked about handicapped parking; Mr. Buckley said he
would have to double-check the requirement for the new building.
Mr. DeMassi asked about trash removal and loading docks. Mr. Buckley said there is no
loading dock, but there is a designated loading area for the whole site. He said the site
does not use large delivery trucks. There is an existing shed in that area, which will be
removed. Robert King, Essex River Ventures, said there is a dumpster on the site near
the Village at the Pointe property line. Mr. Buckley said it could be relocated to between
the buildings. Mr. DeMassi said that will need to be fenced.
r-
Mr. DeMassi asked about the air conditioning unit for building 3; Mr. King said they
r- would probably be rooftop units. Mr. DeMassi said if they are on the ground, they
should be shown on the plan and screened.
Mr. DeMassi asked about the transformer; Mr. Buckley said there is an existing
transformer next to the existing shed.
Mr. Jenkins asked about lighting. Mr. Buckley said the new lighting will match the
existing lighting with 20-foot tall poles on sonotubes. Three lights will be added for the
new building and will be shoebox lights that shine downward with little glare.
Mr. DeMassi asked about utilities; Mr. Buckley said the electric service will be
underground and he will coordinate the transformer location with the Light Department.
Dr. Torman asked about a plan to replace the plantings that will not be used in the
landscaped buffer. Mr. Buckley said there will be some additional landscaping created,
and some islands will be moved and one will be removed. He said they will still have 42
percent open space.
Mr. Armstrong asked for elevations for the building. Mr. Buckley said there were
elevations with the 2000 submittal, but at this time they do not have a concept.
r-
Mr. Armstrong asked if the additional traffic would meet the warrant for signal on
Reservoir Street; Mr. Buckley said it would not.
Mr. Armstrong asked what is between the site and Route 140; Mr. Buckley said there is
about 60 feet of grass and trees in the right-of-way. Mr. King said there are some
transformers in that strip which do not belong to his development.
Mr. Armstrong said he was concerned about internal traffic circulation. Mr. DeMassi
asked what the primary access is to this site. Mr. Buckley said most people use the Route
140 entrance, but some use the Reservoir Street access. Mr. Buckley explained access to
the rear parking lot is from Route 140 and around the south side of building #792, which
can also be accessed from Reservoir Street. Mr. Armstrong said he was concerned about
the traffic flow around the proposed loading area between the buildings. Mr. Buckley
said when he has been at the site, the traffic was not dense and said the loading area
would only be used 3-4 times a day for short periods. He said that configuration may
also force drivers to slow down and suggested some signage might be helpful.
Mr. DeMassi asked if they had considered swapping the new building and the parking
area. Mr. Buckley said they had not considered that, and he did not believe that would be
a good idea because of abutting residences, as well as from a marketing point-of-view.
,-.
Mr. Holmes asked if any thought had been given to opening up the existing island at
Reservoir Street for access. Mr. Buckley said they had not because of turning radius
issues. He said it might be possible to put a cut in the island nearest the entrance to
building #3, but he would lose several parking spaces. Mr. Holmes suggested the spaces
r- could be made up in the area where the loading dock is proposed. Mr. King said there is
a berm at the existing building #800, which is where the mechanical system for that
building is located, so it would be difficult to do anything between the two buildings.
Mr. Holmes asked if the handicapped spaces should be eight feet wide to be van
accessible. Mr. Buckley said if they only had one space, it would have to be van
accessible, but with more than one, they do not all have to be that wide. Mr. Holmes said
he though there should be one van accessible space for each building.
Mr. Holmes asked about the lighting; Mr. Buckley said the lighting detail is on the plans
and show a white light.
Mr. Holmes asked about snow removal. Mr. Buckley said he does not know how that is
done, but said the company owns land adjacent to this site, which can be used as a snow
storage location. He said there is also some room within the Route 140 right-of-way.
Mr. Holmes asked if an easement would be needed because the drainage flows to off-site;
Mr. Buckley said his client owns that lot, so no easement would be needed. Mr. Holmes
asked about the land set aside for overflow; Mr. Buckley said his client owns that.
Mr. French asked about the driveway at the front door of the existing three-story building
and whether that is one-way. Mr. Buckley said that is 20 feet wide but he does not know
r- ifit is one-way.
Mr. French asked if a fire truck will be able to get through the site. Mr. Buckley said the
Fire Department's concern at the staffmeeting was about the location of hydrants, but
said he would ask them to look at the truck access issue.
Motion: To continue the public hearing to October 6, 2004 at 8:00 p.rn.
(Torman-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES
[Mr. Holmes left the table at this time]
Mr. French explained there are only five members present and asked the applicant ifhe
wanted to go forward this evening. Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering, said he had spoken
with his client and he would like to go forward.
Mr. Maloon said there had been discussion about building envelopes, no touch zone and
lighting at the last meeting. He said he has added a 20- to 30-foot no touch zone around
the site. He said the original plan showed a tree line, and the revised plans calls out the
trees more specifically. He said Mr. Burke had requested screening at the larger
depression; Mr. Maloon said he proposes to replant some of the cedar trees.
r-
Mr. Maloon said the plans show a building envelope for each lot, 30 feet off the property
.r- line in most places except at the back of the site nearest the wetlands, where he has added
a 50-foot buffer. The sideyard setbacks are shown as 20 feet.
Mr. Maloon said the stone wall at the entrance is shown on the plan, using the Michael
Estates wall as an example. He said one of the waivers he asked for was for sloped
granite curbing, but when he started working on the detail of the wall, he found he
couldn't use sloped granite against the existing concrete sidewalk. He said he would like
to use vertical granite curbing at the beginning of the site, then transition to sloped.
Mr. Maloon said there are three lighting poles shown on the plan, one at the end, one at
the middle of the stre~ and one at E~ Street. He said the Electric Department wants
him to use town standard street lights.
The large depression for surface water has been reduced and a small catch basin has been
added, which he said Mr. Sullivan has approved.
Department Head Comments
The clerk read a memo from Mr. Field indicating he is satisfied with the revisions.
The clerk read a memo from Mr. D' Ambra indicating the standard light pole will have to
be used. Mr. Jenkins asked about the utilities; Mr. Maloon said they would be
underground. Mr. Jenkins asked why the standard light poles would be necessary.
r-
Board Comment
Mr. Jenkins asked about the open space. Mr. Maloon said he was working with the
Conservation Commission about that donation. If they do not want it, he will approach
the Natural Resources Trust.
Mr. Maloon said there is a note on Sheet 2 indicating that if any two abutters want to
penetrate the no touch zone, they could cut out a 20-foot cart path. Mr. French suggested
that should be put in writing.
Mr. Jenkins asked about the setbacks and whether the building envelopes are the same as
the setbacks. Mr. Maloon said the setbacks for each lot are shown on the plan, but are
not the same for each lot. Mr. Jenkins said these lots will be much smaller than would be
required in the underlying zone and he would be uncomfortable granting the special
permit without a condition about variances. Mr. French suggested a condition that any
proposed building outside the envelope would require a variance and a modification to
the special permit. Mr. Maloon noted there is a zone line running through the site.
Mr. Jenkins asked about accessing Lots 1 and 6 from the new road; Mr. Maloon said they
intend to do that. Mr. Jenkins said that could be a condition of the permit.
r-
Mr. DeMassi asked about the drainage easement between Lots 5 and 6, which says there
is a 2000-gallon oiVwater separator. Mr. Maloon explained the water enters the septic
tanks and exits through a pvc pipe, which is "T'd" with the inlet 6" from the bottom. The
r- liquid is taken from the bottom and gas or oil are separated out.
Mr. Armstrong asked about the drainage easement along the frontage of Lot 6 and asked
how a driveway would go through there. Mr. Maloon said all the drainage will be
underground so the driveway would cross the easement. Mr. Armstrong said the
easements would have to be created in the deeds.
Public Comment
Frank Steele, East Street, asked ifhe would be able to purchase Lot 4 and access the back
of his parent's property. Mr. French said it would be necessary to record an agreement
regarding building a driveway through the no-touch zone.
Motion: To grant the following waivers: from Section 3.3.2.11, for the elimination of a
signature block for the Board of Health;
from Section 3.3.2 to allow a 1 "=30' scale rather than a 1 "=40' scale and a
vertical scale of 1 "=3' on the profiles;
from Section 4.1.5.2 to allow a 120' cul-de-sac diameter in rather than the 160'
diameter required;
from Section 5.2.2 to allow for a twenty foot pavement width rather than the 24
foot width as required;
from Section 5.5.1 to allow the use of sloped granite curbing rather than vertical
granite curbing as required
__ from Section 5.3.2.7.5 to allow the infiltration system to be 40 feet from a
property line rather than 100 feet as required.
(Jenkins-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES
.-
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 conditions of approval shall be met and all department head comments shall be
fully and satisfactorily addressed within the 20-day appeal period.
2. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans;
3. All primary structures shall have front, rear and side yard setbacks as shown on the
plans dated August 26, 2004;
4. Any above-ground structure on any lot which is proposed to be constructed outside the
building envelope shown on the plans dated August 26, 2004 will require a variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals and a modification to this special permit;
5. The "Remaining Land," shown as 15.879 acres of upland and 4.508 acres of wetland,
including five (5) vernal pools, shall remain open space and during the 20-day appeal
period, shall be offered to the Town of Mansfield under the provisions ofMGL 40
Section 8C and of Amendment Article 49 and Article 97 of the Massachusetts
Constitution, to be managed and controlled by the Mansfield Conservation
Commission. If the Mansfield Conservation Commission refuses this land, it shall be
offered to the Natural Resources Trust. This open space shall be owned and
maintained in its natural state in perpetuity. The vegetation within the open common
(' space shall not be cut, ahered or disturbed in any way.
6. Deed restrictions shall be included on lots 1-6 inclusive in order to maintain the ''No
Touch Zone" shown around the perimeter of the site (with the exception of Lot 6 and a
portion of Lot 5) on the August 26, 2004 plans;
7. Any penetration of the ''No Touch Zone" between lots within the subdivision or
between any lot in the subdivision and an abutting lot will require a written agreement
between the parties;
8. Lots 1 and 6 shall have their driveway access from the new roadway, not from East
Street;
9. The drainage easements shown on Lots 1 and 6 shall be referenced in the deeds to
those lots;
10. Street trees shall be a minimum of 12 feet tall and have a minimum 2 ~ inch caliper
when planted;
11. There shall be no permanent trash dumpster placed on site;
12. 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."
13. That portion ofthe plan to be recorded shall contain a note referencing the recorded
special permit decision and where said decision may be found.
14. All conditions accompanying the approval of this special permit, as well as the above
waivers from the Mansfield Subdivision Regulations, shall be written on that portion
of the plan to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds.
.~ 15. 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 six (6) lots approved in this permit."
16. This cluster residential development is approved by both this special permit in
accordance with the Zoning Act and this Planning Board Certificate of Action under
Subdivision Control Law.
17. Prior to signing the approved plan, the applicant shall submit a covenant running with
the land, suitable for recording and written in confonnance with the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land, Mansfield, MA and the Subdivision
Control Law.
18. The applicant shall submit, prior to the request for release oflots from covenant, a
tabular summary of all quantities of each construction item to be broken down in a
manner sufficient for the Planning Board or its agent(s) to estimate the cost of
construction for bonding purposes. Said tabular summary shall include, but may not
be limited to, all roadway work, landscaping, common areas, water, drainage, electric
(power and lights), and other construction proposed on the plan.
19. Prior to granting a release from covenant, in part or in whole, the applicant or
subsequent owner shall complete all the required improvements or submit a
performance bond, a deposit of money, or a bank passbook in an amount determined
by the Planning Board to be sufficient to cover the cost of all or any part of the
improvements required by this subdivision approval.
r-
r-
Said surety shall also include a twenty percent (200,/o) contingency factor based upon
the value of the work remaining at the time of posting of surety.
r-
20. Completion of all roadways, drainage areas, and other improvements required by the
Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land shall be accomplished
within two (2) years from the release of the covenant or posting of surety.
21. 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
completed according to plan.
d. Street lights shall be installed and operational.
e. Sidewalks shall be installed to binder course of bituminous concrete.
f. All improvements shall be installed and inspected to the satisfaction of the
Planning Board's agent or other appropriate inspection authority according to
the Town of Mansfield's Subdivision Regulations.
22. Should the applicant or subsequent owner desire that the new roadway be made a
public way, the following shall apply. Upon completion of all required
improvements according to the Town of Mansfield regulations and prior to
acceptance as a public way, the applicant or subsequent owner shall provide a legal
description of the ways and easements shown on the plan and provide to the town a
deed suitable for recording conveying the ways and easements to the Town of
Mansfield.
23. The following shall be added to the plan to ease future acceptance as a public way:
"Title to each lot shown on this plan is subject to the right reserved to the common
grantor to convey to the Town of Mansfield an easement with respect to the streets
and ways shown on the plan for all purposes which streets and ways are commonly
used in the Town of Mansfield, upon acceptance of such streets and ways by the
Town. "
(Torman-Armstrong)
Jenkins - In favor. The applicant has done a good job addressing the board's concerns,
especially with the no touch zone and building envelopes. The benefits outweigh the
detriments and the development will meet the special permit criteria.
DeMassi - In favor. The applicant has done a good job putting together a nice
subdivision with a large piece of open land and the fact that it will remain open is a nice
benefit. This will be a nice addition to the area and will fit in well with the character of
the neighborhood. The benefits outweigh the detriments.
~
Torman - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments with the town getting a large
piece of open land and this appears to be a well-planned subdivision.
r- Armstrong - In favor. The benefrts outweigh the detriments. This is a good way to
develop the land with the large parcel of open space, will help maintain the character of
the neighborhood, and the vehicle and pedestrian access will work well.
French - In favor. The cluster development is a beneficial alternative to a conventional
development in this case because of the available large parcel of open space to be
maintained by the town or the Natural Resources Trust. From an economic point-of-
view, there will be less roadway for the town to maintain, and it will have a better impact
on the natural environment with the reduced width of pavement.
All in favor. PASSES
Motion: To close the public hearing (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES
[Mr. Holmes returned to the table at this time]
r-
17 '.'A......"'"...-:"'"___~ ~ 'I
..".::...:.,:/:"..:_ '...,i' ........
Motion: To adjourn at 10:00 p.rn. (Tonnan-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES
Next meeting: Wednesday, September 15,2004 at 7:30 p.rn.
ic/
~{,- I ~ 'JDD~
Date of Approval
,-