Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning brd Min_941996t: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 1, September 4, 1996 0'- , S PRESENT: Clerk Sullivan PLANNERS: Dolan, Flynn, McShane, Penney (1 Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development ` 1. Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. Motion: To appoint Planner McShane Acting Clerk and Clerk Sullivan Acting Chairman (Flynn - Dolan) Four in favor. McShane opposed. PASSES 2. Correspondence Minutes August 28, 1996 Planner Penney questioned whether the discussion regarding the Old Elm Street scenic road had taken place during "Around the Table" on August 21, 1996, rather than during the review of minutes. It was decided that it was during the discussion of the minutes, but that under #4 on page 1, "three foot radius" should be "two foot radius." Motion: To approve minutes as amended (Flynn - Dolan) All in favor. PASSES 2. ZBA application for variance - 40 Lantern Lane with less than the required rearyard setback. Board questioned why application was for a variance rather than a finding when the proposed work was not going to change the footprint. Mr. Burke explained that the original building permit had been issued in error and that the applicant was now looking for a variance to correct the situation. Motion: To send ZBA a positive recommendation on the application. (Dolan- McShane) All in favor. PASSES 3. ZBA application for variance - 19 Noonan Street with less than the required frontyard setback, lot size, and rearyard setback. Mr. Burke commented that the sideyard setback is okay and that the applicant's problem is with the existing structures which, when connected, would become non- conforming. Mr. Burke suggested the board send the ZBA a negative recommendation. Motion: To send ZBA a negative recommendation on the application because the proposed alteration /addition would be an overuse of the lot in the R -2 Zone and tying in the accessory structure would further increase the non - conformity. (Penney - Flynn) All in favor. PASSES 4. ZBA application for a finding - 419 South Main Street. The board discussed the fact that the house is a pre- existing, non - conforming structure. The five foot sideyard will remain the same - -the proposed addition goes back an additional seven feet. The rearyard setback will be conforming. The board felt that there would be no encroachment on the existing non - conforming sideyard. Planner Flynn commented that while she is not opposed, it is tier opinion that it does increase the encroachment by seven feet. Mr. Burke recommended sending a positive recommendation. Motion: To send ZBA a position recommendation. (Dolan - Penney) All in favor. PASSES 5. Public hearing notice - Foxboro ZBA 6. Public hearing notice - North Attleboro ZBA 7. The Commission Newsletter 8. Meeting notice from Joint Transportation Planning Group 9. The TRANS Report of Metropolitan Planning Organization 10. Brownfield Opportunities conference schedule 11. MCCE Zoning and Land Use seminar notice 12. Letter from Folkman & Zola RE: Steams Hills Estates Phasing Mr. Burke gave the board a phasing map identifying the sections of Steams Hills Estates. Mr. Folkman explained to the board what areas are complete and updated the board on the status of the sections under development. He stated the "X's" are complete and that he's asking to add eight lots to Phase C. It is his desire to get the binder course of asphalt down with completion set for next spring. Mr. Burke stated that he saw no problem with this and that he would rather see the roads and utilities up to Stearns Avenue done in a timely manner. Planner Penney asked if there were any negatives. Mr. Burke responded that the only negative would be that they'd taken a road that doesn't go anywhere and made it longer with no tumaround. Planner McShane asked if there were any consequences to Section JB originally being the second scheduled and now going last. Mr. Burke responded that the situation would be resolved soon when we find out who'll be finishing Eastleigh. Motion: To approve the plan as requested by Paul Folkman going up to the intersection of Freedom and Colonial and, at the same time, building a hammerhead turnaround at the intersection. (Flynn - Dolan) Amendment: To add, " with the understanding that the binder coat be placed this year and the topcoat next spring." (Sullivan - Dolan) Four in favor. Penney abstained. PASSES 3. Public Hearing - Board of Selectmen's Special Town Meeting Warrant Article - Phased Development Acting Clerk McShane read the public hearing notice which appeared in The Sun Chronicle on August 21st and August 28th. Assistant Town Manager Christopher Marion presented Article 23 to the board, explaining that the Board of Selectmen views this as a planning tool to bring building in line with the service demands and capital needs of the town. He stated that this is not a new issue and that it has been addressed by the Master Plan and the Mullen report. Mr. Burke stated that this was the culmination of a long -term planning process and reviewed the actions leading up to this, all of which culminated with an attempt to get a handle on the rate of development by an attempt to limit the number of building permits to 125 per year with a limit of 12 permits being issued to any one developer in any consecutive 12 month period. This would not apply to existing approved subdivision lots which would be grandfathered. It would apply only to new subdivision lots being created after the adoption of the proposed by -law. A discussion ensued regarding the administration of the process should the by -law be adopted. Questions were raised as to whether there would be provisions made for hardship cases and single lot owners. The point was also made that the proposed by -law would not apply to additions and alterations. Paul Folkman of 190 Winter Street asked how the figure of 125 was arrived at. Mr. Burke responded that the figure was based on the rate of development over the years, taking into consideration approved Form A's and subdivisions, grandfathered lots, etc., and the fiscalimpact of buildouts with four bedroom homes according to the Mullin Study. Mr. Folkman commented that it was unclear with the proposed by -law whether or not grandfathered lots would be included in the limitation. He also questioned whether there was a process for larger developers to have petition rights for additional permits if the maximum number of allowable permits had not been issued in any twelve month period. The question was also raised as to whether there would be an appeal process through the ZBA. He expressed further concern about the difficulty of getting the needed financing to put in roads and utilities when it would be years before a subdivision could be completely builtout. Karl Clemmey of South Main Street commented that there were 1200 lots filed in 1989 due to the change in the by -law and it's possible they all could come in for permits the eighth year. He discussed the economic impact of this situation with regard to the loss of jobs that will occur if building permits cannot be obtained. Mr. Clemmey also commented that under this by -law, no banks will lend money for roads when the lots can't be completely built for ten to twenty years. He also expressed concern that some provision be made for people who own an individual lot and want to build a house for a family member. Planner Flynn expressed her concern that the wording in 4.2.3.2 of the proposed amendment would encourage development of multi - family units if only one building permit was needed for its construction. During the ensuing discussion it was noted that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to limit the number of families and 125 two- or multi - family dwellings would not help the situation. Mr. Burke suggested that it be amended so that each dwelling unit would require �` /LM✓Ne{L hCS/f�2 u'cYzo � Th+s N ✓�f�;e2 Steics .rrcr�. a building permit. Board members indicated that this would be more in line with the purpose of the by -law. Motion: To amend Section 4.2.3.2 to change the last sentence, "...two- family and multi - family permits.." to read "...each dwelling unit.." and to amend Section 4.2.3.3 to change "...single, two, and multi- family residential construction..." to read "...residential dwelling units... ... (Flynn- Penney) All in favor. PASSES Discussion on the proposed by -law continued with the focus on the number of permits being limited to 125 and how that number was arrived at. Questions were raised as to whether there were other ways to limit growth, such as limiting water connections. It was suggested that the Mullen Report and a building permit trend analysis supported this figure and that the Selectmen had made some attempts to control growth. Mr. Burke suggested that the number of permits could be changed, but the number needs to be a reasonable and defensible one. He recommended that the number not be set at less than 100 and that the historical trend be taken into consideration. Mr. Clemmey again stated his concern for the single lot owner who wants to build a house for a family member. He also expressed his belief that the cost of lots already approved would increase dramatically. The board voiced its concern that the limit of permits available to a developer would result in people forming multiple corporations and getting employees and individuals to apply for permits after the limit was reached. Also of concern was the permitting process and the fact that developers could conceivably file 100 permit applications at once to get them into the process, clogging up the system for years. Motion: To amend Warrant Article 23, Section 4.2.3.3, from 125 permits to 115 permits, with 15 of the 115 reserved for single lot owners only. (Dolan- Penney) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To support Article 23 as amended. (Penney - Dolan) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the Public Hearing at 10:12 p.m. (Penney- McShane) All in favor. PASSES Planner Penney reported that he will be unable to attend the meeting of September 18th, but will be at the Master Plan Committee meeting on the 12th of September. The board agreed by consensus to meet before Town Meeting on September 9th at 7 p.m. in the High School Cafeteria. Mr. Clemmey asked the board to take a look at page 23 of the Zoning By -law to assist him in determining where in town self storage units would be allowed. It was his contention that it would be a "similar" use to warehouses. After further discussion of the matter, Mr. Clemmey said that he would come up with something in writing for the board to take a look at. At 10:30 p.m. the board agreed to take a 5 minute recess. The meeting continued at 10:40 and it was decided to send board members copies of all correspondence in file #2 for review at the nett meeting. It was also decided to table the Homefield Farm Covenant until the September 18th meeting, with Mr. Burke doing a cover letter to the board. A Form A for a parcel of land on Winter Street was reviewed by the board. The parcel was being divided into 2 lots, with a small non - buildable lot being conveyed to an abutter on Franklin Street. The remaining lot area was conforming to today's zoning. Mr. Burke recommended that the board endorse the plan. Motion: To endorse the Form A plan. (Dolan - Flynn) All in favor. PASSES 4. Around the Table Due to time constraints created by the length of the meeting, the board deferred further discussion, with a reminder that they would be meeting in the High School Cafeteria prior to the start of Town Meeting on September 9th. 5. Adjournment Motion: To adjourn at 10:55 p.m. (Dolan- McShane) All in favor. PASSES Date of next meeting: September 18, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. 9/�9G Signature of Clerk e oat f Approval