Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 04/06/05 t \/ C'" "~'\ :1 \' \... ~,~ -,., t),"'...,,,.... -', '.:1- r It t. r Pl80DlAoOpgnBOt068,rd20MOSioutes U'- :-'_, ...........t 'I., - 3 _ , c:;!.\ 9: 26 Present: Douglas Annino, Acting Chair; Fred Armstrong, Clerk; Walter Jenkins, Ken J.Q~\ ") John DeMassi, Frank Holmes ..~ .r. i~_ ~. ;' (~: llU (\:.IT T S 11,.\,.1'~'(".\.JI' .Jl... 11. Meeting caBed to order at 7:80 p.m. Motion: To appoint Mr. Annino Acting Clerk (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES 2. Public UeariDg- Zoning By-Law AlIleIIdumtts - S.3, Site PIau' Review - Planlliq Board The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. Annino explained how the public hearing would be conducted. Article 27 To see if the town will vote to amend the Zoning By-Law to the extent necessary to amend Section 5.3 Site Plan Review as follows: 5.3 Site Plan Review 5.3.1 Purpose The purpose of Site Plan Review is: to provide an orderly review procedure where site plans of proposed projects can be approved with reasonable conditions which wiD maintain the character and integrity or all zoning districts and adjoining zoning districts; to ensure that new, expanded or reconstructed sites are planned and designed to minimize impacts on the environment, abutters, and town services by proper design and construction of stormwater systems, parking and loading areas, waste removal, sediment and erosion ~ control, lighting, landscaping and buffering, points of access and egress, pedestrian access and signage. 5.3.2 IB iRstanees where site plan apPF9\'al is required, a site plan shall be submitted iR aeeomanee with the FequiremeRts of SeeDORS 5.5.2 and 505.J. 5.3.2 Applicability In all instances specified in Section 3 Schedule of Principal Regulations, indicating that site plan approval is required, no building permit shall be issued in any case where a building is to be erected or externally enlarged and no area for parking, loading, or vehicular service (including driveways giving access thereto) shall be established or substantially changed, except in conformity with a site plan bearing an endorsement of approval by the Inspector of Buildings after review thereof by the Planning Board. Site plan approval shall not be required in any case where a building is to be externally changed for the purpose of closing an entrance or creating a new entrance thereto and for other extension(s) to a building, which in total shall not exceed more than 15% of the gross floor area of the building or 10,000 square feet, whichever is less. Uses which require a site plan review and issuance or denial of a development approval by the Planning Board are identified by the letter "Y" under the column heading "SPA" of Schedule of Principal Use Regulations. 5.J.J Tile applieant shall submit sueh material 08 may be requiFed regarding meaSUFeS preposed te preveRt pollutioR of surfaee or groundwater, soil eresi9B, iHereased FUnoff, ellanges iR greundwater level, and f1oodiHg. ('. 5.3.3 In instances where site plan review is required, a site plan shall be submifted in accordance with Section 5.5.2 and 5.5.3 of this Zoning By-law, as well as the following which shall be required by the applicant for site plan review: a) locus plan; b) location of structures within 100 feet of property lines; c) existing and proposed buildings, showing setbacks from property lines; d) signage; Planning Board Meeting 1 April 6, 2005 (' e) existing and proposed contour elevations in two-foot increments; f) parking areas, driveways, and facilities for pedestrian movement; g) drainage system ; h) utilities and lighting; i) landscaping, including trees to be removed and retained; j) loading and unloading facilities k) provisions for refuse removal; I) existing and projected traffic volumes from the site and effect on the local road network; m) drainage calculations and soil tests for the location of the building(s), parking areas and drainage facilities; n) other information as may be necessary to determine compliance with the provisions of this bylaw. 5.J.4 TIle applieant shall submit material regaFdiag design featul'es inteuded to iategrate tile preposed new de\'elopment iRto tile existing landseape, to enllanee aesthetie as~ and te sereea objeetionable featuFes (rem aeighbors. 5.3.4 Review Procedure The Planning Board shall examine the following concerns in reviewing the site plans of the proposed development: a) proper drainage ofthe property; b) safe access to the development, minimizing the number and width or curb cuts; c) acceptance design and layout of ways, streets, and parking areas; d) that the projected traffic increases to the local road(s) is within the capacity of the existing network for both daily and peak hour volumes; e) proper lighting design for parking areas and abutters; f) that proposed use(s) will not have a detrimental effect on the abutting neighborhoods or natural ,--' environment; g) complies with the Mansfield Master Plan and Open Space and Recreation Plan. h) design features i) aesthetic assets j) screening ~ 5.3.5 The applicant shall submit such material as may be required regarding measures proposed to prevent pollution of surface or groundwater, soil erosion, increased runoff, changes in groundwater level, and flooding. ~ 5.3.6 The applicant shall submit material regarding design features intended to integrate the proposed new development into the existing landscape, to enhance aesthetic assets, and to screen objectionable features from neighbors. ~ 5.3.'7 The applicant shall submit such material as may be required regarding the projected traffic flow patterns into and upon the site for both vehicles and pedestrians and an estimate of the projected number of motor vehicle trips to and from the site for an average day and for peak hours. ~ 5.3.8 Prior to rendering its decision the Planning Board shall Sllomit te the lHsf)ootor ef BuildiRgs its '.witteR reeemmeaootioa OR the tee-lmieal ~' af the site ploos ood the advisability of approval after e-ensideriBg the reUewing matters: examine the technical quality of the site plans and evaluate the advisability of approval after considering the following matters: ,,-- ~ 5.3.9 Protection and enhancement of existing site features; Planning Board Meeting 2 April 6, 2005 r'". ~ 5.3.10 Protection of adjoining premises against detrimental uses by provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers and preservation of views, light and air; ~ 5.3.11 Convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site, the location of driveway opening in relation to traffic or to adjacent streets and, when necessary, compliance with other regulations for the handicapped, minors and the elderly; ~ 5.3.12 Conformance of the arrangement of parking and loading spaces in relation to the proposed uses of the premises to Section 4.4 of this by-law; ~ 5.3.13 Proper methods of disposal of refuse and other wastes resulting from the uses permitted on the site; applicant must demonstrate availability of adequate water supply and waste disposal systems; ~ 5.3.14 Relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape, existing buildings and other community assets in the area and compliance with other requirements of this by-law. ~ 5.3.15 Protection of environmental features, particularly groundwater resources, on the site and in adjacent areas, adequate protection to prevent pollution of surface and groundwater, soil erosion, increased run-off, changes in groundwater recharge or elevation and flooding. ~ ~ 5.3.16 The original and eleven (11) copies of the development application and plans shall be submitted to the Town Clerk, who shall give the applicant a dated receipt. Within three (3) days of the receipt of said application. the Town Clerk shaI1 transmit the original and all copies to the Building Inspeetor Planning Director for distribution and review. H-:8 5.3.17 The Building Inspector Planning Director shaI1 arrange for said site plan to be reviewed by, but not limited to, the following departments; Police, Fire, Engineering, P1anRiRg, Building/Zoning, Conservation, Electric, Water, Wastewater, Health, and Public Works. Written comments from the departments shall be forwarded to the Planning Board prior to the Planning Board's review. -H:9 5.3.18 If the Building InSJlector If the Planning Board, a:fter revi0'l. of the r-eparts from the PlamHng Board, detennines that said site plan complies with the purpose and specification of this bylaw, the Board shall approve the site plan with or without conditions. If the Board determines the plan does not comply with the specifications of this by-law, it shall be disapproved. or appFe\'ed '.vita ooaditioDS. , that being vlithoot complianee. When the Building Inspeeter's decision differs fr-om the recommendation ef the PlaBRing Boaro, the FeaSon shall be stated in writiflg within se'l-ElH (7) days of the decisioR. He shall also address SJlecifically the rooommendatiens of the Plan."1iRg Board in this letter. 5.3.10 The Building ln5peetor shall take actien0ll said plan after receipt efthe repert from the Planniflg Board, er tlHrty (30) days after receipt efthe site plan from the Town Clerk, wmehever is soaner. ;- 5.3.19 Appeals The Zoning Board of Appeals as established by Chapter 40A of the General Laws of the Commonwealth shall hear and decide appeals in regards to determinations or decisions made by the Planning Board in the enforcement or administration of this section. Planning Board Meeting 3 April 6, 2005 ,'-' Mr. Armstrong said the current by-law gives the Building Inspector site plan approval after review and recommendation by the Planning Board. He explained in most towns in Massachusetts, the Planning Board has both site plan review and approval rather than the Building Inspector. He said the board would like to have the authority granted to most other Planning Boards and said the board does the review now, but does not have the ability to approve the plans. Mr. Armstrong read a memo from Mr. Burke indicating the amendment is in keeping with many other towns in the commonwealth, and that it had been proposed to Town Meeting several years ago, but did not pass. Mr. Burke added he wasn't sure there would be enough time to build consensus on this article before Town Meeting. Board Comment Dr. Torman said he was on the board in 1999 when the article failed at Town Meeting, and said he feels it still has value. Mr. Jenkins said the board should have the ability to ensure its concerns are addressed. He said he has complete faith in the Building Inspector, but feels it would be helpful if the board has decision-making ability. He said the board is trying to move toward what is acceptable in most of the communities in the Commonwealth. He said he would be in favor of a collective review, which would give the Building Inspector the ability to add his opinion to the review. ,-. Mr. DeMassi said he has spoken with the Town Manager, who has asked that the board discuss this with him, the Board of Selectmen and the Building Inspector. He said the board handles site plans in a manner similar to special permit applications, and feels the board has had productive discussions with several applicants during that process. He said this will likely become politicized, but said it is not a power play by the board. Mr. Holmes said as a group, the board has a lot of good experience. He said he understands the concerns that this could make the process longer, but said he didn't believe that would happen. Mr. Annino said he presents plans to boards around the state, and it is usually the Planning Board that makes the decision on site plans. He said the group usually comes up with a good result at the end of the process. He said many of the plans that come before the board are incomplete, and applicants may not feel they have to be prepared because the board doesn't make the final decision. Public Comment Richard Gordon, 407 West Street, said he supports the proposal ~ George Dentino, Gladiola Terrace, said the Building Inspector acts as "chec~s and balances" and asked what would happen if the Building Inspector believes the plan violates he Zoning By-Law. He said to leave the Building Inspector out of the equation would do a disservice to the community. Mr. Annino explained that wouldn't be the case, and the Building Inspector would still be responsible for ensuring the plans comply with the Zoning By-Law. He said the Building Inspector would still have the ultimate authority to issue building permits, but the board would Planning Board Meeting 4 April 6, 2005 r- be looking at issues like lighting to determine whether the plan fits in with the planning process. He said currently, the Building Inspector does not have to enforce the board's concerns. Karl Clemmey, South Main Street, said the Planning Board doesn't have time to take care of the business on its agenda now. Motion: To continue the public hearing to May 4, 2005 at 7:30 p.rn. (Torman-Holmes) All in favor. PASSES [Dr. Torman left the meeting at this time] Article 50 To see if the town will vote to amend the Zoning By-Law to add the following to Footnote (2) of Section 4.2.2, Density and Dimensional Regulations, Business and Industrial Districts (change in bold): (2) Business and residential uses may be combined in the same, or separate buildings, provided that in the Business I and Business 2 districts retail, office, bank, restaurant or parking uses shall occupy the entire ground floor (see Section 3.7.2). r-' The clerk read a memo from Mr. Burke indicating the way the by-law was written precludes any use but the three specified, which was not the board's intention. Mr. Crugnale, Rumford Avenue, said he thought the intent of the board was to avoid residential uses on the first floor, and he would like to allow parking uses on the first floor in the Bland B2 zones. He said parking is difficult in the downtown area now, and allowing parking on the first floor would help that situation. Mr. Armstrong asked if the retail use would be eliminated from the fIrst floor; Mr. Crugnale said that was not his intent. Mr. Armstrong said he was concerned that the way the proposal is written, the entire first floor could be made a parking garage with residential uses on the upper floors. Mr. Armstrong suggested a second sentence could be added to the proposal to allow parking on the ground floor at a certain percentage. Mr. Holmes suggested the businesses should be along the frontage of the property. Public Comment George Dentino, Gladiola Terrace, said the article was tailor made for Mr. Crugnale's project on North Main Street, which has a sliver of retail along the front. He said the board had presented the original amendment to require business on the fIrst floor to protect downtown businesses. He said this would damage businesses and encourage nothing but multi-story residential uses downtown. ,,- Sandy Levine, 20 Walnut Street, said this could allow less conscientious developers to take advantage of the by-law and could limit the type and quality of business that could come to the downtown area. Planning Board Meeting 5 April 6, 2005 r Motion: Not to support the article as written (DeMassi-Armstrong) Mr. Crugnale said he had gone through the whole site plan review process and was successful, and feels the by-law is open to interpretation. Mr. DeMassi said the board is uncomfortable with the way the article is written because it would allow parking on the entire first floor. Mr. Annino explained the board has to vote on the article as written, but it could be amended at Town Meeting. Mr. Jenkins suggested continuing the public hearing to give Mr. Crugnale a chance to rewrite it. Mr. Annino said he didn't think the board would be able to vote anything other than what is on the warrant and suggested Mr. Crugnale work on rewording the article prior to the next meeting. Mr. Armstrong said the board could express its opinion on the rewritten article at Town Meeting. Mr. Clemmey said the rewritten article would have to be less restrictive in order to be amended on the floor of Town Meeting. All in favor. PASSES [Dr. Torman returned to the meeting at this time] I 4. Public Hearing- Zoning Map AmendJneat.- 100 Chauncy Street - Rich George The clerk read the public hearing notice. r- Article 49 To see if the town will vote to amend the zoning map to the extent necessary to rezone 100 Chauncy Street, Map 21, Lot 316 from its current designation of Residential 3 (R-3) to Industrial 3 (1-3), or take any action in relation thereto The clerk read a letter from Mr. George explaining his proposal. Ian MacDonald, the property owner, explained the location of the property, with commercial across the street on three comers. He said Mr. George has rented his garage for two years. The clerk read a memo from Mr. Burke indicating his concern that the rezoning of this small piece of land could be considered spot zoning, and his concern about industrial uses in residential areas. Mr. MacDonald said there are already commercial uses on two sides, the town's parking lot and the Jeep dealer. Board Comment Mr. Jenkins asked about the size of the lot; Mr. MacDonald said it is about 3,500 square feet. Mr. Jenkins said if the lot were rezoned and the garage knocked down, it could result in a variance nightmare. He explained his concern is about what could be done on the site in the future, when and if ownership changes. Mr. Annino said the zone and the natural zone line have to be considered, and it doesn't make sense to move an industrial zone across the street for this use. Mr. Jenkins said he understands the intent isn't to redevelop this as an industrial use. Mr. DeMassi said he didn't see a reason to have the zone line cross the street for that one ,,- property. Planning Board Meeting 6 April 6, 2005 r- \ Mr. Armstrong said he thought this would be spot zoning and would be encroaching on the natural boundary between the residential and industrial uses. George Dentino, Gladiola Terrace, said changing the zoning here would set a precedent. Motion: Not to support the article (DeMassi-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES 5. hlJlit Beariag - ZoDiAg Map A........JltI - CllaulltyStre6tlR6ut. 140 - Leonard Epstein The clerk read the public hearing notice. Article 48 To see if the town will vote to amend the Town's zoning map to the extent necessary to rezone from its present classification of Residential 2 (R2) to the classification of Business 3 (B3), the following parcel of land, or take any action in relation thereto. Beginning at a point of the southwesterly sideline of Chauncy Street, said point being at northeasterly end of the corner rounding where the sideline of Walnut Street meets the sideline of Chauncy Street; Thence running southeasterly by the southwesterly sideline of Chauncy Street 750 feet more or less to the corner of the westerly sideline of the relocated Mass Highway, Route 140; Thence running southerly by the westerly sideline of the relocated Mass Highway Route 140, 140 feet more or less to a point intersecting lot 151; r--- Thence running westerly 680 feet more or less to the easterly sideline of Walnut Street; Thence running northerly by the easterly sideline of Walnut Street 320 feet more or less to a point of curvature starting the corner rounding to Chauncy Street; Thence running clockwise 20 feet more or less by the sideline of Walnut Street to the point of beginning. Intending to encompass Parcels 147, 148, 197, 198, 149, 150, and parts oflots 146 and 151 on Assessors Map 20. Lester Epstein explained the location of the lots and said this is one of the few areas on Route 106 that is still residential. He said he has previously proposed this be changed to industrial, which was unsuccessful. The board noted that Lot 152 is not included in the rezoning, but is in the middle ofthose lots proposed to be rezoned. Mr. Epstein said businesses fronting the roadway with residences behind them is typical along Route 106 from Foxboro to Easton. He said he understands the residents are concerned that the land now provides them with a buffer, but said there is precedent along the Route 106 corridor for this type of use along the roadway. Mr. Annino said the rezoning would double the density, from 30,000 square foot lots to 15,000 square foot lots. Mr. Epstein said the houses could be redeveloped as businesses. r- The clerk read a memo from Mr. Burke with his concern about the lot in the middle of those being rezoned, which is not included in the petition, and his concern about the encroachment of commercial uses into residential neighborhoods. Planning Board Meeting 7 April 6,2005 r Board Comment Dr. Torman said he feels the residents should be involved in the changes proposed to their neighborhood He said there will be many residents who would be adversely affected by this change. Mr. Jenkins asked if Mr. Epstein owns Lot 151; he said he does. Mr. Jenkins asked about the extent of wetlands on Lot 140; Mr. Epstein said there are over four dry acres. Mr. Jenkins said there had been discussion the last time this was proposed about the potential for residential uses. Mr. Epstein said the board suggested it be rezoned as a business use rather than an industrial use; Mr. Jenkins disagreed and said the board had suggested a multi-family use. Mr. Annino agreed. Mr. DeMassi said he would be concerned about putting a business use in front of the existing residences, which would negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. He said he didn't think if it wasn't a thriving neighborhood, there wouldn't be as many residents in the audience. Mr. Armstrong said he couldn't support additional encroachment into the residential neighborhood. Mr. Epstein said Mr. Burke has always told him it should be rezoned. Mr. Annino said there are a couple of concerns, especially the proposal to rezone the area piecemeal. ,,-- Karl Clemmey said the Stop & Shop and the Sharon Credit Union are zoned PBD, and the residential properties are behind the land being proposed for rezoning. He said the zone line on Route 140 is in the middle of the street. Mr. Annino asked the depth of the land to be rezoned along Chauncy Street. Mr. Armstrong noted the public hearing notice indicates 750 feet on Chauncy, 140 on Route 140, 680 back to Walnut Street, 320 on Walnut. Mr. Epstein said the remaining land he owns behind what is to be rezoned is about 6 acres. Mr. Clemmey said it makes common sense to rezone the property. Public Comment Mr. Gordon said the properties proposed to be rezoned are currently being used as residences. Carol Gordon said Mr. Clemmey had expressed concern about children living along the 106 corridor, but he didn't have a problem developing the Erin's Centre property. Sandra Levine, Walnut Street, said the applicant had indicated there are no more residential zones along Route 106, but said that is not the case. She asked if the article as submitted includes all of the lots proposed to be rezoned; Mr. DeMassi said the article appears to include all the lots. Mrs. Levine said some of Mr. Epstein's properties are not well kept and could be improved. She said in the R2 zone, there are many development options that would not require a r zoning change. She asked why the proposed rezoning is for B3, which would allow lower level businesses, and asked why the proponent hadn't talked to the residents about reuse options. She said they are not opposed to reuse. Planning Board Meeting 8 April 6, 2005 r- Mr. Clemmey said Bl and B2 are not as restrictive as B3; he said the land across the street is B3, so it makes common sense to bring that zone up the street. Mr. Annino said it is true that B3 is the most restrictive business zone. Celeste Jones, 60 South Walnut Street, said B3 is on the other side of Route 140, with a fence and trees blocking Casa Drive and Walnut Street from Route 140. She said she is concerned the rezoning will continue. She said several of Mr. C1emmey's articles later in the evening are for changes to uses allowed in B3. Jeffrey Waites, 35 Walnut Street, said he is concerned about through traffic created by Stop & Shop and Erin's Centre, noting there are no sidewalks. He said increasing traffic on Walnut Street will make that problem worse. He said he also has concerned about trash and light pollution. Ron Webster, 96 Walnut Street, said there has been a lot of development in that neighborhood over the years, and he is concerned the neighborhood is in danger. Ron Sherman, 103 Walnut Street, asked who owns Lot 146. Mr. Epstein said he does, but said the rezoning does not include that lot. Mr. Sherman said he thought that was owned by Campbell and asked if it was recently sold. r Donna Winfield, 96 Walnut Street, said this would make existing traffic problems worse. Mr. Dentino said Lot 151 is very wet but suggested it could be usable. Brad Miller, 97 Walnut Street, said he lives in a great, conveniently located neighborhood with good neighbors who help one another out, and said he would like it to stay the way it is. Mrs. Levine said there are 70 homes in the neighborhood, which is sandwiched between many industrial and commercial uses, and which was in existence long before any of those uses appeared. She said the residents have established homes and lives in the area, and asked the board to help them protect their way of life. Mr. Clemmey said he agreed with Mrs. Levine and said he has suggested it is time for a new Master Plan. He said the state land is restricted up to his property, so access is through Mr. Epstein's land, which, with the required setbacks, could hold a 5 or 6,000 square foot building. Mr. Epstein said Mrs. Jones had mentioned the other side of Route 140 is fenced; he said this side of 140 is also fenced. Mrs. Jones said she had been referring to the other side when she spoke. Mr. Epstein said the state and town restrictions would restrict what could be built. Kristin Riondo, South Walnut Street, said she and her neighbors have made major investments in their homes and a town cannot have nothing but business and commercial uses. ..-- Mr. Gordon said he was on the Master Plan committee in 1989 and he doesn't feel it needs to be rewritten. Planning Board Meeting 9 April 6, 2005 r-- Mr. Epstein said he was born and raised in Mansfield and lost several acres of his land when the state constructed Route 140 through. Mrs. Jones said the South Walnut Street residents can see into the back of Erin's Centre and said she wouldn't want any of the other neighbors to go through that. Mrs. Gordon said the neighborhood has given up a lot over the years, with the industrial park, Route 140 and Erin's Centre. Board Comment Mr. DeMassi said the Master Plan is almost 10 years old and the board plans to get into it. He mentioned some of the goals from that plan. He said he understood the landowners want to do something to maintain the value of their properties, but said the residents want to do the same thing, and said there must be some way to work that out cooperatively between the parties. Motion: Not to support the article as written (Torman-Holmes) All in favor. PASSES I 6. PubHc BeariDg- Zoninl By-Law Amendments - William Clemmey The clerk read the public hearing notice. Article 43 To see if the town will vote to add to and amend the Town's Zoning By-Laws to the extent necessary to amend r' section 3.1.1 - Schedule of Principal Use Regulations, Industrial by adding to Section 3.6.2 Classification. Bulk Materials Stora~e/Sales. the words "Self & Mini Storage Facilities" in the definition, or take any action in relation thereto. 3.6 CLASSIFICA nON OF INDUSTRIAL USES 3.6.2 ."..,B~~~t:ria1Storage and Sales: Contractors yard, fuel oil/heating service facility, lumber yard,..,. MJJ\UP",~.}:f~, recreational vehicle center or similar establishment for open and enclosed, distribution or sale at wholesale and retail of material, merchandise, products or equipment provided that all smoke, odor, particulate matter, toxic matter, fire or explosive hazard, glare, noise and vibration shall be effectively confined to the premises or disposed of in a manner so as not to pose a present or potential hazard to human health, safety, welfare, or the environment. Mr. Annino asked if a definition of self & mini storage facility should be added to the by-law. Mr. Nicodemus said a definition would be helpful. The clerk read a memo from Mr. Burke indicating his concern about making changes to the Industrial 3 zone prior to the completion ofthe Hatheway-Patterson study. Board Comment Mr. Jenkins said the use should be addressed, but he is concerned about the unique use associated with a self-storage facility and said he was concerned about dimensional standards that might be used in the construction of these facilities. He said he thought it would serve a purpose in the town and could be a good thing if it is located in the right place, but said he was concerned about possible height issues. Mr. Nicodemus said there could be the same problem with the bulk storage definition. ~ Mr. DeMassi said agreed this could be a good use, but he was concerned about the dimensional issues. He said he thought the definition should be separate from Bulk Material Storage and Planning Board Meeting 10 April 6, 2005 ,-. Sales because they are different types of uses. He said he would like to see it as a special permit use so the board would have some say in the way the buildings are designed. Mr. Armstrong said the use should be added to the by-law, but would feel more comfortable if there was a definition included. Mr. Nicodemus asked if that could be added as an amendment on the floor of Town Meeting. Mr. Holmes said this would be allowed in B3, and there is a B3 area on Route 106, next to a residential zone. However, he said there are a number of other uses he wouldn't like to see near a residential zone that would also currently be allowed. Mr. DeMassi said he would prefer this be a separate use in the by-law, and said he would rather see it in industrial zones than in B3. Mr. Karl Clemmey said he had asked town counsel three years ago and was told it was not an allowed use in town. Mr. Clemmey said this would only be allowed in the 13 zone. Mr. DeMassi said if it is added to Section 3.6.2, it would also be added to B3, 11 and 12, which is why it should be a separate category. Mr. Nicodemus asked if such an amendment could be made at Town Meeting. Mr. DeMassi said he wouldn't support this as written, but with the amendment he would. Mr. Jenkins said this is somewhat of a retail use, which has been taken out of the 11 zone. Dr. Torman noted Mr. Burke's comment about the ongoing Hatheway-Patterson study and the r- inadvisability of changing zoning in 13 until that is completed. Mr. DeMassi said he agrees with part of what Mr. Burke is saying, that allowed uses shouldn't be shifted around before the study is completed, but said this article is to add a use to an existing category. Mr. Bill Clemmey said it sounds like the board would be amenable to creating a new section and restricting it to 13, which he would be willing to do. Mr. DeMassi said he would like to get Mr. Burke's opinion on that. Mr. Dan Clemmey said he has been working with the town on the Hatheway-Patterson study. Public Comment Mr. Dentino said the Hatheway-Patterson site shouldn't have anything to do with the discussion and he feels the storage use would already be allowed in the Zoning By-Law under the definition of Bulk Material Storage. Motion: To continue the public hearing to May 4 (DeMassi- Torman) Mr. Annino asked for the additional information and amendments prior to that meeting. Mr. Clemmey said he would provide those items to the office. All in favor. PASSES Article 39 To see if the town will vote to amend the Town's Zoning By-Laws to the extent necessary to change the Schedule of r- Principal Use Regulations for Business Uses for Fast Food Restaurants (Section 3.5.6) from current Not Allowed (N) to Allowable Use by Special Permit (S) in Industrial 3 (13) districts, or take any action in relation thereto. Planning Board Meeting 11 April 6, 2005 r- SCHEDULE OF PRINCIPLE USE REGULATIONS RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS P INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS DISTRICTS B DISTRICTS I 2 3 R I 2 3 D 1 2 3 A SPA 3.5 BUSINESS USES 3.5.5 (2) Restaurant N N N S 3.5.6 Fast Food Restaurant N N N N YYY NNN S SN Y · Y N SNN+S. Y Mr. Nicodemus said this is proposed as a special permit use, so there will be plenty of control over the use. The clerk read a memo from Mr. Burke reiterating the board's policy to keep fast food in 11 and noting the ongoing Hatheway-Patterson study. Board Comment Dr. Torman said the Hatheway-Patterson study is ongoing, and he would be concerned about making any changes before that is completed. Mr. Jenkins agreed with Dr. Torman's concern. Mr. DeMassi said he would be concerned about making this change at all in 13. Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Holmes agreed. Mr. Bill Clemmey said the board would have control over this use because it is proposed as a special permit use. Mr. Dan Clemmey said the Hatheway-Patterson study, funded through the EPA, found that site cannot be used. Mr. DeMassi and Dr. Torman said that is an incorrect r statement. Mr. Clemmey said that EPA study is over and found that because of contaminants, there is no use for the site until it is cleaned up, then attention was turned to other sites in the area. He said the town's consultant has applied for additional funds to continue the study and Mr. Nicodemus has attended meetings with that consultant. Mr. DeMassi said the board is not referring to the original EPA study, but to the continuing work being done in the area. Mr. Nicodemus said it is unknown when the town will fmd out about that additional funding. Public Comment Mike Riondo, South Walnut Street, said some of the proposals might make sense, but it is critical to keep an eye on all the areas that are similarly zoned, where the use might be allowed. He said the board shouldn't consider only one site, but should consider all the similarly zoned sites. Mr. Waites said he would be concerned with special permit uses because it could open up the town to lawsuits. Mrs. Levine asked the reasons for the proposed changes. Mr. Bill Clemmey said the purpose is to expand the uses of the land to allow like uses. He said fast food is allowed in 11, but not near the train station. Mr. Clemmey said none of the people in the audience are from the 13 area and he has no more comments. r- Mr. Jenkins said he feels the Hatheway-Patterson study is germane to the uses in the 13 zone. He said there is some 13 land on either side of the train station and he would have a hard time supporting the changes before the study is completed. Planning Board Meeting 12 April 6, 2005 r Motion: Not to support the article (Jenkins-DeMassi) All in favor.P ASSES Article 47 To see if the town will vote to amend the Town's Zoning map to the extent necessary to rezone from its present classification ofR-2 to the classification ofI-l, the following parcel ofland, or take any action in relation thereto. Beginning at a point on the northerly sideline of West Street, said point being at the southwest end of the corner rounding where relocated Mass Highway, Route 140 and West Street intersect; Thence running westerly by the northerly sideline of West Street for 375 feet more or less to the point where Assessors Map 20, Parcels 191 and 192 property line meets West Street; Thence running northerly by said property line 318.42 feet to the northwest corner of Parcel 192; Thence running easterly 432.5 feet by the northerly property line of Assessors Map 20, Parcels 192 and 5, to the westerly sideline of relocated Route 140; Thence running southerly by the westerly sideline of relocated Route 140, 175 feet more or less to a point of curvature; Thence running clockwise by the sideline of West Street, 160 feet more or less to the point of beginning. Intending to encompass Parcels 3, 4, 5 and 20 on the Mansfield Assessors Plat 20 and containing about 2.9 acres. r- Mr. Bill Clemmey said the parcels should have been 3, 4, 5 and 192, not 20. Lot 191 is not included. The clerk read a memo from Mr. Burke opposing the extension of retail and commercial. Board Comment Dr. Torman said this is another example of industrial zone pushing closer to residential zones. Mr. Jenkins agreed and said there would have to be a very compelling argument for him to not take the concerns of the neighborhood as the primary concern. Mr. DeMassi and Mr. Armstrong agreed. Mr. Holmes said this site is very visible and he wouldn't support rezoning. Ron Marchad~ 30 Casa Drive, said the neighborhood has been affected by the noise, lighting and traffic with recent developments, and he said this parcel is the last buffer between the residential and commercial zones. Mrs. Levine said the board's statements echo what the neighborhood feels. Motion: Not to support the article (Armstrong-Holmes) ,-. Mr. DeMassi said it is also the landowner's neighborhood and while he doesn't support this article, he recognizes his desire to reuse the property. He said he would encourage the neighbors to work together. Mrs. Jones said it has always been difficult to work with Mr. Clemmey, which is why so many people are opposed to his projects. Planning Board Meeting 13 April 6, 2005 r- Mrs. Riondo said the neighbors are frustrated because this happens every year. All in favor. PASSES Article 45 To see if the town will vote to amend the Town's Zoning By-Laws to the extent necessary to change the Density and Dimensional Regulations - Business and Industrial Districts for Industrial 3 Districts, the Maximum Floor Area Ratio, By Right, for Retail, Office, Other Non-Residential, Residential, and BusinesslResidential (Schedule 4.2.2) from its present allowance of 0.25 to the allowance of 1.0, or take any action in relation thereto. 4.2.2 Density and Dimensional Regulations - Business and Industrial Districts SCHEDULE 4.2.2: DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Bl B2 B3 ffiD 11 12 13 Maximum Floor Area Ratio By Right Retail Office Other non-Residential Residential BusinesslResidential (2) 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 .60 1.0 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.25 0.40 (1) O~2S" ~.O 0.>> .1.~ ole .'1.0 03; .. 1.0 0.25" 1.0 2.5 The clerk read a memo from Mr. Burke indicating his concerns that this issue should be looked at in the context of the Hathway-Patteyon planning process. r- Mr. Clemmey said he had asked for time to come before the board to discuss these articles before the public hearing. Board Comment Mr. DeMassi said he wouldn't be comfortable with this significant change without a compelling reason. Mr. Armstrong said he feels this should be addressed in a more comprehensive manner. Mr. Holmes said the density would be increased by a factor of four, and he didn't see how he could support it without additional information. Public Comment Mr. Gordon said this change would be contrary to the Master Plan. Motion: Not to support the article (Holmes- Torman) All in favor. PASSES Article 38 To see ifthe town will vote to amend the Town's Zoning By-Laws to the extent necessary to change the Schedule of Principal Use Regulations - Section 3.3, Residential in Business 3 Districts, from its present non allowance to allowance and to match allowances under Business 2 District for Sub Sections, 3.3.1 - 3.3.6. This article would also apply the B2 Maximum Floor Area ratios to B3 as they are in B2 for Residential Use, or take any action in relation thereto. ~ SCHEDULE OF PRINCIPLE USE REGULATIONS RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS P INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS DISTRICTS B DISTRICTS 1 2 3 R 1 2 3 D I 2 3 A SPA Planning Board Meeting 14 April 6, 2005 r- J.J 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 RESIDENTIAL Single Family Dwelling Y Y Y Y Two-Family Dwelling N N Y N Accessory Apartments S S S S Multiple Residence N N N S Rowhouse, Townhouse N N N S Cluster Residential S S S S S Y llfot'Y N N Y tf.'Y N S S N.S N S S N," N S y N~Y N S S N"S N N Yl Y NN Y N N S NN Y NN Y N 81 S N N N N N Y N Y N Y N N SCHEDULE 4.2.2: DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Bl B2 B3 PBD II 12 13 Maximum Floor Area Ratio By Rie:ht Retail Office Other non-Residential Residential BusinessIResidential 2.0 1.0 Q.ZS 0.40 0.25 2.0 1.0 Q,~ .60 0.40 0.25 0.25 2.0 1.0 ~~ .40 0.40 0.25 0.25 0.5 - . ....o.S (1) 0.25 2.5 1.5 0.25 The clerk read memos from Mr. Burke opposing the change and from Mr. Nicodemus in favor. Board Comment Mr. Jenkins said this would be a drastic change without much of a planning process. ~ Public Comment Mr. Gordon said this would make development too intense. Mrs. Levine said the article seems to go against the planning that has done so far. Mr. Armstrong said this would allow residential uses in areas that are largely surrounded by residential uses, but at a higher density. Mr. Bill Clemmey said this would allow residential use at the same density as B2. Mr. DeMassi said this would allow two-family and townhouseslrowhouses by right and multi- family by special permit, which may not be in character with the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Bill Clemmey asked if it wouldn't be better to have residential uses in the B3 zone than businesses abutting the residential uses. Mr. Armstrong said the practical impact on the outlying B3 areas would be minimal because they are primarily built out. Mr. Bill Clemmey said if the zoning requirements are applied to the remaining B3 land, there isn't much land that would be effected by this. Mr. Armstrong said if that is the case, he wouldn't have a problem with it. Mr. Holmes said he would be concerned about what might happen if the existing businesses in the B3 areas go away. r-- Public Comment A resident asked on which properties this would be allowed. Mr. Karl Clemmey said one of the parcels would be the lot next to Benny's. Planning Board Meeting 15 April 6, 2005 ~ Mr. Gordon said he was opposed to the additional development. Motion: To support the article (Armstrong-Annino) Mr. DeMassi said the applicant has stated that because of the setback requirements, the outlying B3 areas couldn't be buih on. He said the board sees waiver requests from many applicants that he wouldn't want to see come back on those B3 parcels. Mr. Annino said he liked the idea of multi-family next to Benny's; Mr. DeMassi agreed. Mr. Armstrong noted there are already multi-family developments in a few B3 zones, on East Street and on Chauncy Street. Mr. Jenkins said putting a residential use next to a commercial property can open up the business to difficulty with their residential neighbors. 4 in favor. 2 opposed. PASSES Article 40 To see if the town will vote to amend the Town's Zoning By-Laws to the extent necessary to change the Schedule of Principal Use Regulations for Business Uses for Fast Food Restaurants (Section 3.5.6) from current Not Allowed (N) to Allowable Use by Special Permit (S) in Business 3 (B3) District, or take any action in relation thereto. SCHEDULE OF PRINCIPLE USE REGULATIONS RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS P INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS DISTRICTS B DISTRICTS r- 1 2 3 R 1 2 3 D 1 2 3 A SPA 3.5 BUSINESS USES 3.5.5 (2) Restaurant N N N S 3.5.6 FastFoodRestaurant N N N N y y y S S N Y . Y N N N+S N S N N . Y The clerk read a memo from Mr. Burke opposmg the proposal. Mr. Karl Clemmey said no one would ever put a fast food restaurant on It because the land is too valuable. Mr. Bill Clemmey said there are only a few places fast food could go. Mr. Annino said he wouldn't want fast food next to Benny's. Mr. Armstrong said he doesn't like the idea of fast food in B3, but said it would make more sense in 13 as in the previous article. Public Comment Mrs. Gordon asked where it could go and if the Clemmeys planned to put fast food on the lot next to Benny's. Mr. Bill Clemmey said it could go anywhere in B3. Mrs. Levine said this seems to be contrary to the Master Plan. She said she understands the use needs to be allowed someplace, but it doesn't seem to be done in a cohesive manner. Mr. Dan Clemmey said because of the setbacks, there aren't any II parcels fast food could go on. Mrs. Levine said that could change when current uses change. r Planning Board Meeting 16 April 6, 2005 ,- A resident said she wouldn't want the area around Benny's to look like Route 152 in Plainville. Mr. Dan Clemmey said the landscaping and buffering requirements would not allow a new fast food restaurant to look like Wendy's. Mr. Dentino said the board shouldn't make decisions based on what might happen in the future or with a variance. He said the board should make its decision based on the how it would effect the district, and if it is the best use of the property. Motion: Not to support (Torman-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES Article 42 To see if the town will vote to amend the Town's Zoning By-Laws to the extent necessary to change the Schedule of Principal Use Regulations for Business Uses for Car Wash (Section 3.5.18) from current Not Allowed (N) to Allowable Use by Special Permit (S) in Industrial 3 (13), or take any action in relation thereto. SCHEDULE OF PRINCIPLE USE REGULATIONS RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS P INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS DISTRICTS B DISTRICTS 1 2 3 R 1 2 3 D 1 2 3 A SPA 3.5 BUSINESS USES 3.5.16 Auto Service Station N N N N 3.5.17 ..,A~t?RepairlBodY Shop N N N N 3~':1'i~~ N N N N 3.5.19 VehicuIarDealersbip N N N N S S N S S S N N S S S S N N N N S S S S S S NNN+S s s S * y . y N Y N Y ,- The clerk read a memo from Mr. Nicodemus in favor of the proposal and one from Mr. Burke opposing it until the Hatheway-Patterson planning study is complete. Mr. Bill Clemmey said this would allow additional uses in the 13 zone if the Hatheway-Patterson study doesn't happen. Board Comment Mr. DeMassi said he didn't think this would be an incorrect use for that zone. Dr. Torman said he would be concerned about making any changes before the Hatheway- Patterson study is complete. Motion: To support the article (Jenkins-Armstrong) Five in favor. One opposed. PASSES Article 44 To see if the town will vote to amend the Town's Zoning By-Laws to the extent necessary to change the Schedule of Principal Use Regulations - Section 3.7.2, Mixed BusinesslResidential in Business 3 Districts, from its present Not Allowable to Allowable and to match allowances under Business 2 District. This article would also apply the Maximum Floor Area ratios to B3 as they are in B2 for Mixed BusinesslResidential Use, Section 4.2.2, or take any action in relation thereto. SCHEDULE OF PRINCIPLE USE REGULATIONS RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS P INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS DISTRICTS B DISTRICTS I 2 3 R I 2 3 D I 2 3 A SPA 3.7 CLASSmCATION OF OTHER USES 3.7.1 01derBuildingReuse S S S S S S S N S S S · Y 3.7.2 MixedBusIR.es. Use N N N N Y S N.S N N N S · Y ,- 4.2.2 Density and Dimensional Regulations - Business and Industrial Districts Planning Board Meeting 17 April 6, 2005 r- SCHEDULE 4.2.2 DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Bl B2 B3 PBD II 12 13 Maximum Floor Area Ratio By Right Residential BusinesslResidential - 0.5-- 2.5 1.5:~~.1.S (1) 0.25 -- 0.25 Mr. Bill Clemmey said this would make the use allowed by special permit in the B3 zone and would make the floor area ratio the same as in the B2 zone. He said this is allowed in 13 with a special permit, but at less density. Board Comment Mr. Armstrong said it might not be a bad idea, but said he is concerned about the density. Mr. Jenkins said the B3 setbacks would be 50 front, 20 side, with a 15,000 square foot minimum lot size. He said a business/residential mixed use would be allowed by special permit at 1.5 FAR; he said this would be six times denser than what is currently allowed. Mr. Karl Clemmey said they would have to comply with the parking requirement for the residential uses. Mr. Jenkins said he thought he could support it, but not at 1.5 FAR. Mr. Armstrong agreed. The clerk read a memo from Mr. Nicodemus in support of the change. r Mr. Holmes said he would be uncomfortable with 1.5 FAR because of the location ofB3 areas. Public Comment Mrs. Gordon said a lot of the changes are special permits and she was concerned about the possibility of variances after the fact. Motion: Not to support the article as written, but to support it at 1.0 (DeMassi- Motion withdrawn Motion: To continue the public heating to May 4 (Jenkins-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES Article 46 To see if the town will vote to amend the Town's Zoning By-Laws to the extent necessary to change the Density and Dimensional Regulations - Business and Industrial Districts for Business 3 Districts, the Maximum Floor Area Radio, By Right, for Retail, Office, and Other Non-Residential (Schedule 4.2.2) from its present allowance of 0.25 to the allowance of 1.0, or take any action in relation thereto. 4.2.2 Density and Dimensional Regulations - Business and Industrial Districts SCHEDULE 4.2.2: DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Bl B2 B3 PBD 11 12 13 Maximum Floor Area Ratio By Right Retail 2.0 1.0 0.40 0.25 ;- Office 2.0 1.0 .60 0.40 0.25 0.25 Other non-Residential 2.0 1.0 .40 0.40 0.25 0.25 Planning Board Meeting 18 April 6, 2005 ~ The clerk read memos from Mr. Nicodemus supporting the change and from Mr. Burke opposing the proposal. Mr. Jenkins said he wasn't comfortable with 1.0, but was unsure what the FAR should be. He said this would allow four times the density currently allowed. Mr. Karl Clemmey said the recommendation from the Cecil Group for 13 will be for aFAR of 2.5, which he said he thinks is too dense. Mr. DeMassi said he would be concerned about increasing the density in B3. Mr. Armstrong said he thinks an increase in the FAR may be appropriate, but doesn't know what the number should be. Mr. Holmes said he thinks this is the same as the previous article and should be continued. Public Comment Mr. Gordon said this is a decision as to how the town will look and the board should be careful. Motion: To continue the public hearing to May 4 (Armstrong-Holmes) All in favor. PASSES r Article 41 To see if the town will vote to amend the Town's Zoning By-Laws to the extent necessary to change the Schedule of Principal Use Regulations for Business Uses for Auto Service Station (Section 3.5.16) from current Not Allowed (N) to Allowable Use by Special Permit (S) in Business 3 (B3) District, or take any action in relation thereto. SCHEDULE OF PRINCIPLE USE REGULATIONS RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS P INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS DISTRICTS B DISTRICTS 1 2 3 R 1 2 3 D 1 2 3 A SPA 3.5 ltS.16 3.5.17 3.5.18 3.5.19 BU.~INESS USES ;Ai_;."~~ -,:~>~-~;~) /-",..<..:' Auto RepairlBody Shop Car Wash Vehicular Dealership NNNN NNNN NNNN NNNN S S '.8 N S S S * y S S S N S S S * y N N S N N N N N y S S S N S S S N y Mr. Bill Clemmey said the use is allowed in all the other business and industrial zones. Mr. DeMassi said he would be concerned because B3 zones abut residential areas. The clerk read memos from Mr. Nicodemus and Mr. Burke. Mr. Dan Clemmey said there are similar uses allowed in the B3 zone by special permit. Board Comment Dr. Torman said he wouldn't support this use in the B3 zones because of the residential abutters. r- Public Comment Mr. Gordon said the B3 land next to Benny's abuts residential uses on Central Street. Planning Board Meeting 19 April 6, 2005 ~ Mrs. Levine said the B3 zones have a different character than the other business zones. She said there doesn't seem to be a cohesive reason for some of the changes and many of the proposals don't seem to serve the town as a whole. Mr. Dan Clemmey said they have put a lot of thought into these articles. Mr. Bill Clemmey said they would have liked to have met with the board prior to the public hearing. Mr. Karl Clemmey said the board represents 25,000 residents and should understand the articles better. Mr. Annino suggested sending a letter to the chairman asking for time on the agenda. Mr. Gordon said the board has to strive to do things above board and not do anything that would appear improper to the public. Mr. Dentino said he didn't think the majority of people would support a service station in B3, but similar uses are allowed in that zone now. Motion: Not to support the article (DeMassi-Holmes) All in favor. PASSES Article 37 To see if the town will vote to add to and amend the Town's Zoning By-Laws to the extent necessary to amend Section 3.1.1 - Schedule of Principal Use Regulations, Residential by adding or amending Note 1 as associated with Section 3.3.1, Single Family Dwelling, under Industrial-2 (12) District to change "at density allowed in Residence 1" to "at density allowed in Residence 2," or take any action in relation thereto. ~ SCHEDULE OF PRINCIPLE USE REGULATIONS RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS P INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS DISTRICTS B DISTRICTS 1 2 3 R 1 2 3 D 1 2 3 A SPA 3.3 RESIDENTIAL USES 3.3.1 Single Family Dwelling Y Y Y Y S Y N N N YI Y N N 1 = South of Route 106 only, [as a By-Right use] at density allowed in Residencet~2 density. Mr. Bill Clemmey explained he would like to change the footnote to allow single family homes in the 12 zone south of Route 106 to be built at Residential 2 density, rather than Rl density. Mr. DeMassi said different types of housing are proposed by developers all the time and asked why something that wouldn't require a zoning change couldn't be done here. Mr. Clemmey said there is a river on the land and could only have one house lot. The clerk read memos from Mr. Nicodemus supporting the proposal and Mr. Burke opposing the change. Board Comment Mr. DeMassi said he would like more information about the history and intention ofthis footnote before making a decision. Mr. Jenkins said the 12 land on Gilbert Street will likely not be developed with an industrial use, _ and said he thought the residents would be happier with residential uses than with industrial uses. Planning Board Meeting 20 April 6, 2005 ~ Mr. Holmes agreed that a residential use would be better than industrial, but said there may be other landowners in the neighborhood with similar water problems, but would be required to have 60,000 square foot lots. Public Comment Mrs. Levine asked if the houses around the area are really less than 60,000 square foot lots. Mr. Annino said most of those houses are pre-existing, non-conforming. Mr. Dentino thanked the board for its work on the public hearings. He said he thought the board's recommendations on the 13 zones were wrong because the Hatheway-Patterson redevelopment grant has expired. He said there is no second study at this time, so the board shouldn't have voted based on the possibility of a future study. Mr. Karl Clemmey said the Town Manager is not a planner. He said he has hired Mr. Nicodemus to develop a plan, and they do not intend to go along with the Town Manager's plans for the redevelopment of the area around the train station. He said they are not in favor of the Cecil Group's proposal for the Clemmey Tank and Ditchman sites and said he would be willing to work with the Planning Board. Mr. Dan Clemmey said the zoning must be in place prior to the grant money being given. He said the overlay district Bergmeyer has put together is the most cohesive plan. ~ Motion: To continue the public hearing to May 4 (DeMassi-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearings on which votes have been taken (DeMassi-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES I 6. AdjolU'lUllen~ Motion: To adjourn at 12:15 a.rn. (Torman-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES Next meeting: April 13, 2005 at 7:00 p.rn. 4?~~ Signature of Clerk 25 tfJt7 JOr Date of Approval ,- Planning Board Meeting 21 April 6, 2005