Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Brd Min_5171995PLANNING BOARD MR TUTES MAY 17, 1995 D PRESENT: Chairman French, Clerk Sullivan PLANNERS: Bonda, Dolan, Flynn, McShane Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development 1. Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. 2. Master Plan Discussion The board discussed the priorities to be given the nine elements of the Master Plan. ivhr. Burke suggested the board should be clear as to where it wants to go with the update before the process begins. Planner McShane said he thought the other items on the Master Plan process list were important as well. Mr. Burke explained Dr. Mullin will be doing a lot of that. Planner Dolan suggested setting up the advisory committee first. Planner Flynn disagreed, saying the board should establish the priorities, then give them to the advisory committee. Discussion will continue June 7, 1995. 2. Discussion of George Frain Estates Attorney Alan Gottleib, representing Kevin Kelley of Bull Contracting, explained his client would like guidance from the board on a proposed modification to the plan to use an 850 foot cul -de -sac. He said Bull plans to buy the entire subdivision, but wants to develop the front seven lots at this time. Planner Flynn said she was not in favor of doing the subdivision in two parts. Planner Bonda agreed, saying that would be subdividing a subdivision, and she did not like mixing current and prior zoning. Mr. Burke told the board the plan was originally approved in two phases. Attorney Gottleib said Bull planned to post surety for the whole original fast phase. ivhT. Burke asked why, in that case, they didn't build out the whole fast phase. Planner Dolan said he had no problem with Bull's proposal. Mr. Burke suggested Bull be required to finish the fast lots by the end of this construction season and the rest of the original fast phase by the end of the next. Attorney Gottleib said they could do all of the utilities and pave by the end of the next construction season, and do the first 850 foot section within 60 days. Mr. Burke suggested that could be done as a field modification. Clerk Sullivan said it would be the same phasing as the originally approved plan, but done over two years. 1\,h•. Burke explained the regulations say he has two years anyway, and that he would be more comfortable with the developer posting surety for the whole first phase. Attorney Gottleib said they would still like to be able to get releases on the first seven lots when the 850 foot section is complete. Public Comment Sandy Richardson, Bird Road, said she would like a new agreement with the developer for an easement, feeling the original agreement she had with MIT. Frain would be void if the land were sold. .Attorney Gottleib said they were willing to discuss that. Pat Wbih, 518 Bird Road, said he would like to see the road built but was concerned about the effects of construction on his well, foundation and septic system. He had spoken with Bull who said they were willing to work it out. but Mr. WhIll said he would like it in writing. He also mentioned there would be a 25 foot easement on his property for a stone wall and asked whose responsibility that would be after the street is accepted. Attomey Gottleib told him full inspections of the houses on either side of the road would be conducted prior to the start of construction. ivhr. Burke said it would be up to the developer to work out the easements with the abutters. Planner Flynn said she would like to see agreements with the abuttersAbefore the board decides anything. c'- Mr,m_i< d 3. Public Hearing Continued - Shawmut Ridge The clerk read new correspondence, amemorandum from the Engineering Department. Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins- Trowbridge Associates.. said he had met with the engineers and worked out the water issues. He also told the board a piece of one of the lots had been conveyed to an abutter. ivh-. Trowbridge said he was requesting waivers on the sidewalks, cul -de -sac radius and cul -de -sac island, and the FIR. Board Comment Planner Flvrm asked if this project had anything to do with a recent water pipe break in the area. hlr. Feck explained the break was caused by sewer installation and had nothing to do with this project. Planner Flynn said she did not know what the benefit would be of a smaller cul -de -sac. Clerk Sullivan was concerned about the elimination of the sidewalk and a smaller cut- de- sac, but said he recognized there is currently no sidewalk on Shawmut Avenue. He suggested it may be of benefit to the town to connect a sidewalk from the cul -de -sac out to the sidewalk on Brook Street. Nh•. Feck said he had no problem with that, but said the smaller cul -de -sac was an attempt to keep the road as far away from existing abutters as possible. Nlr. Trowbridge added a smaller cul -de -sac would be better for drainage in that area. Clerk Sullivan said he would be in favor of a smaller cul -de -sac with no island, but would like to have the sidewalk start at the fast driveway and go out to Brook Street, Planner Dolan agreed. Planner Flynn did not want A -h•. Feck not think the Planning Board is trying to hold him up for a sidewalk, and said he did not have to put it in. Mr. Feck said he understood and had no problem installing the sidewall<. Motion: To close the public hearing. (Sullivan - Bonda) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To approve the subdivision plan and accept the developer's offer to install a sidewalk from the first driveway on the cul -de -sac to connect with the existing sidewalk on Brook Street in lieu of a sidewalk around the cut -de- sac. The board grants waivers for a 60 foot cul -de -sac with no island. as shown on the plan. (Sullivan - Dolan) :U1 in favor. PASSES 4. Public Hearing - Special Permit - Nick Anagnos Planner Bonda abstained from the discussion. The clerk read the legal advertisement and a letter from the applicant requesting a waiver of the fifing fee. Ralph Matoon. REM Engineering, explained the proposal for 15 existing parking spaces to be used for the display and sale of cars. There will be no new construction and will still be enough room for employee and customer parking. Mr. Burke said this would simply be a change in use of the existing parking spaces. Planner Dolan asked if the Cumberland Farms entrance would be blocked. Mr. Burke reminded him there are cars parked there now. He added the site complies with the parking requirements for the current uses. Public Comment Delores Benson, 38 Pleasant Street, was concerned with all the activity on the site with no protection for the abutters. She said because the site abuts another business zone and not the residential zone, the applicant does not have to comply with the landscaping and screening requirements, which she would like him to be made to do. Mr. Burke said the special permit is for a change in use, and the issues Mrs. Benson brought up are ones of enforcement. Planner Flynn would like the dumpsters along Garden Street enclosed. Planner Dolan said these are separate issues and asked Mr. Anagnos' representative, Tom Whitley, if he was willing to put up some screening. Mr. Whitley said they were willing to work with the abutters, adding there is currently a chain link fence separating the properties, but it is in need of repair. Mr. Burke suggested if the applicant were willing to repair the fence, add slats to stop blowing debris and break up the site line, and maintain the fence, the board could make that a condition of the special permit. Mr. Whitley said he did not think that would be problem. Planner McShane asked if there would be any new signs. Nh•. Whitley said there would not. Clerk Sullivan asked if the spaces would need striping. Mr. Whitley said they would not. Planner Dolan said he would like to make the fence and screening issues a condition of the special permit. Clerk Sullivan said he would like a letter from Mr. Anagnos by the next meeting committing to fixing the fence, installing slats and maintaining the fence. He would also like to limit the number of spaces on the special permit to 15 as shown on the plan. Motion: To close the public hearing. (Sullivan- Dolan) All in favor. PASSES 5. Public Hearing Continued - Back Bay Circle The clerk read new correspondence from Attorney Mangiaratti and Mr. Burke. Attorney Edward Valenzola, representing the applicant, said he was surprised Attorney Mangiaratti said in this new letter that the board does not have to consider modifications, when his last letter said the opposite. Attorney Valenzola said the board has to look at if the Arenstam case applies, and the board wants changes trade to plans, does that automatically change every plan the board has changes made to? He said the new plan reduced the number of lots and tried to answer all of the board's questions, and asked if the changes couldn't be made, what was the point of the public hearing? John Mahoney, the applicant and an attorney, said in the Arenstam case, the plan was disapproved and then changed. He said he had tried to work with the neighbors in trying to develop the land, and four single family homes on nine acres is a better plan than the original one for condominiums. Mr. Mahoney said if the plan is disapproved, he would have to look at all the lots in town which were changed after the original submission. Chairman French explained the board had to decide if the changes made to this plan were substantial enough to make it a different plan. Attorney Marc Antine, representing abutters Sthrey and Blandon, said Town Counsel's opinion in the newest letter is the same as the one expressed in the memorandum given to the board by Attorney Roster at the last meeting. He said the preliminary plan was filed in April 1994, before the zoning change at Town Meeting, which would freeze the zoning so the April 1994 change wouldn't apply to the preliminary. Attorney Antine said zoning could be locked in by filing a definitive plan and having it approved within a certain amount of time. He explained the Arenstam case was about what zoning will apply to definitive plans filed after the seven month period, and this case is very similar. The developer froze his zoning by filing a definitive plan right before the seven month period was to expire, but by waiting until that close to the end of the time frame, took a risk that the plan better be right and conform with the regulations, and if it doesn't, that's the plan with the zoning protection, not a revision to that plan. He said he thought the Arenstam case said if the plan is not approved within seven months, it can come back for modifications, but they will be subject to the new zoning. Attorney Antine added the April 1995 revision to the original plan doesn't meet either the new or the old zoning because the lots don't all have adequate frontage. Attorney Antine suggested if the board wanted to be congruent with the Arenstam case, it could vote to disapprove the original, October 1994 plan, then disapprove the April 1995 plan because it doesn't conform to the new or old zoning. Attorney Valanzola argued the Arenstam case involved a denied plan, followed by an amended plan, which is not the case here and the board couldn't deny the fast plan so it could vote on the second. Mr Mahoney said the public hearing was still open to changes by the applicant, board and the public. Cheryl Stapleton, 84 Charles Street, read a letter concerning the number of children in the area, her safety concerns and the already poor server system. Richard Blandon, 30 Kingman Avenue, said he has water in his cellar he didn't have before some new houses in the area were built. Board Comment planner Flynn said the revised plan constitutes substantial changes to the plan and she was prepared to vote to disapprove the plan. Clerk Sullivan said Attorney Mangiaratli referenced \1.G.L. 41 8111, indicating the board has the option to disapprove the plan. He asked Mr. Trowbridge about the Mr. Burke added that the revised plan differed from the original in that the turnaround as shown as an easement, and if it is a new plan, all of the lots don't conform to zoning regarding frontage. Planner Dolan said the plan doesn't meet the regulations as a revision to the original plan, but he did not think it was a new plan. Clerk Sullivan asked if there was any transmittal sent with the revised plan explaining what it was. The clerk found nothing in the file indicating what the second set of plans was. Five in favor. One abstention. PASSES 6, Correspondence 1. Memo from Dan Clifford RE: Surety release - Beaumont's Pond Motion: To release the recommended amount (Dolan- Sullivan) All in favor. PASSES 2. Memo from Dan Clifford RE: Surety release - Rosewood Court Motion: To release the recommended amount (Dolan- Sullivan) Five in favor. One abstention. PASSES 3. Memo from Shaun Burke RE: Balcom Ridge II and III Curbing Motion: To allow the substitution of cape cod berm for sloped granite curbing in the Balcotn Ridge Estates II and III subdivisions to keep continuity with the rest of the subdivision, but to change the standard 50/50 split in light of inflationary times so the town gets 70% and the developer 30 %. This Will encourage developers to do subdivisions the way they should be done and gives the town a more substantial reason for granting waivers. (Flynn - yhr. Burke explained that the actual cost would be half of the bonded amount, so when the town gets $7.50, the developer is actually donating 100% of his cost. Clerk Sullivan thought the offer in this case was sufficient, but that the board should look at its policy. Motion Withdrawn Motion: To accept Mr. Burke's recommendation (Sullivan - Dolan) All in favor. PASSES 4. Letter from SRPEDD RE: 1995 -96 District Delegate I jotion: To reappoint Leonard Flynn delegate (Bonda- Sullivan) All in favor. PASSES 5. Minutes May 3, 1995 \_lotion_ To approve as amended (Flynn- Bonda) Planner Flynn requested the minutes be amended to say she changed her mind on the South Main St. parking site plan after hearing information from Chief O'Neill on tv and that she felt obliged to make the Planning Board aware of the chiefs concerns as expressed on television. Clerk Sullivan asked to add that he disagreed Planner Flynn was in en•or in making the original motion. All in favor. PASSES 6. Letter from Shaun Burke RE: Stearns Hill Estates sidewalks Planner Flynn was concerned about the board making deals with developers who have complained about the Planning Board infringing on their Fifth Amendment rights because they feel the fees are too high: Mr. Burke said if the board wants to make not waiving the sidewalks a policy decision, it could do that. Bill Madan, Winthrop Street, warned the board to be cautious about granting waivers for cash donations before having the cash in hand. Planner McShane suggested the sidewalk should flow along one side of the subdivision so it could be traveled without leaving the sidewalk. Planner Flynn suggested Town Meeting could appropriate money for sidewalks if it felt they were needed. Motion: Not to support Mr. Burke's recommendation to waive one sidewalk on Stearns Hill Estates and require the developers to install on both sides. (Flynn- Bonda) Clerk Sullivan thought the sidewalk plan could be modified to get better flow. - Chairman French asked if the board could modify the length of sidewalk and therefore the gift amount. Mr. Burke said the developers had already done some sidewalks and are building and landscaping yards to the back edge of curbing anticipating not installing sidewalks. All in favor. PASSES 7. Form J Release - Jameson Farm Motion: To release lots 5, 14, and the lot formerly known as 4 but changed by Land Court to 16 (Sullivan - Flynn) All in favor. PASSES 8. Form I Covenant - Winslow Estates Motion: To accept the covenant (Sullivan - Dolan) All in favor. PASSES 9. Surety release request - Stearns Hill Estates Motion: To release $69,957.50 (Flynn- Sullivan) All in favor. PASSES 10. Surety release request - Hodges Brook Estates Motion: To release $16,000 (Sullivan - Dolan) All in favor. PASSES 11. Memo from MBC RE: School Projects Site Plan Motion: To send the N1BC it letter the board is disappointed it wont have site plans for the May 24 meeting and encourage it to submit the plans as soon as possible if it intends to meet its construction schedules. The Planning Board will put the lviBC on the first available meeting when the plans are ready. Request the MBC let the board know what action it wants to see. (Sullivan - Flynn) All in favor. PASSES 12. Letter from MBC to Architect 13. Letter from William Williams from the MBTA RE: Parking 14. DPW plan to construct a salt shed on Fruit Street. The board would like to see a more complete site plan. 15. Letter to Dianne Royle from the MBTA RE: Parking Motion: To send a letter supporting the proposal negotiated between the T and Selectmen as outlined in the Ts letter of May 8, 1995. The board, as it has followed the progress of this, feels downtown is the logical place for the station for both businesses and residents. The Planning Board recommends the Selectmen use these assurances by the T as a framework within which to work with the T to keep the station downtown. Point out the existing infrastructure downtown, incorporate a direct discharge onto Route 106, maintenance and security costs to be incorporated by the T, safeguard the integrity of downtown, and the parking facilities should comply with the landscaping and screening regulations. The board encourages the Selectmen to continue a dialog with the T to keep the station downtown because of concerns about a station's impacts on W Mansfield. Motion Revised - The Planning Board agrees that downtown is the preferred location to West Mansfield for all of the above reasons. (Flynn- Sullivan) All in favor. PASSES 7. Around the Table Planner Flynn asked Mr. Burke to find out what the Planning Board's responsibilities are concerning blasting, and would like to put blasting on the work list. She also asked who paid for the letter on the Eastfield Village water pressure problem. IVh•. Burke said the town paid because the town asked the consultant to do it, but the developers will pay for any follow -up. Planner Bonda asked about the status of Weaver Lane. Mi-. Burke said the developer anticipates it will be complete in 60 days and will be doing a deeper sub - surface drain. She also asked about the Woodland Park traffic study and a letter from Representative Barbara Hyland on day care issues, neither of which have been received. Planner Bonda suggested the board schedule a few site walks. 8. Adjournment Motion: To adjourn at 12:00 A.M. (Dolan- Sullivan) All in favor. PASSES Date of nest meeting: June 7, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. Signature of Clerk Date of Approval