Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 12/3/1997PLANNING BOARD MINUTES -- December 3, 1997 1 Q 1 Present: H. Thomas French, Jr., Chairman; John D. Sullivan, Jr., Clerk; Marydee Flynn; Scott Frank- and Kenneth H. Torman. Also present was Shaun P. Burke; Director of Planning and Development. iiA5S ;L, 11 ir:.ITS Meeting Called to Order at 7:30 p.m. Gorrgsponde�tCe ANR (Form A) Plans Form A for LMW, LLC (Great Woods Center for the Performing Arts) to remove the interior lot lines of Parcel A, Parcel B and Parcel C to form one parcel containing an area of 207.17 acres on South Main Street in an I -I Zone. Mr. Burke advised the Board that the plan meets all zoning requirements for the I -1 Zone and warrants endorsement. Motion: To endorse the Form A. (Sullivan - Flynn) 4 -0 with Mr. Frank not present. PASSES Karl Clemmey of 750 South Main Street arrived at the meeting at this point and, upon discovering that the Form A had been signed, asked to look at it. He advised the Board that the parcels are under different ownership and that he believes the Board should get a legal opinion regarding signing a Form A that includes Land Court land. Attorney Hoffman, who was present representing the applicant, advised Mr. Clemmey that they were not dividing any land and that all parcels are owned by the same entity. Mr. Clemmey then noted that he was disturbed that someone can bring in a plan at the last minute and have it acted on first on the agenda. Mr. Burke explained that Form A plans are handled with correspondence and, if the Board knows that someone is in the audience waiting for the endorsement of a plan, the Board as a courtesy will take it out of order. Mr. Clemmey reiterated that he doesn't agree with the Planning Board signing a Form A which contains Time Trust's Land Court plan. Form A Plan for Compo ChemicalNersacare creating two lots on Branch Street. Mr. Burke advised the Board that the plan meets all zoning requirements and warrants endorsement. Motion: To endorse the Form A plan- (Flynn-Sullivan) 4 -0 with Mr. Frank not present. PASSES 1. Minutes of November 5, 1997 Motion: To approve as presented. ( Torman- Frank) 5 -0 PASSES Minutes of December 3, 1997 2. Minutes of November 12, 1997 Motion: To approve as presented. (Sullivan - Torman) 5 -0 PASSES 3. Minutes of November 18, 1997. Motion: To approve as presented. (Sullivan - Torman) 4 -0 -1 with Mr. Frank abstaining. PASSES 4. Form J Release for Lots 48 -54 Mill Farm Estates. Mr. Burke explained that the lots are being released and immediately being placed back under covenant. Motion: To sign the Form J. (Sullivan - Flynn) 5 -0 PASSES Dan DeMarco was present at the Board's request to present Campanelli Companies' plans for the Great Woods Business Park which will be located on a parcel of land situated mainly in Norton. Mr. DeMarco introduced the other individuals with him: Dan Cleary of VHB; David Kelley of Bradford Savitz; and Mary Murphy of Campanelli Companies. He reviewed the company's background and history and presented a conceptual plan of the proposed business park. Mr. DeMarco noted that the development will require four wetland crossings and will be served by Norton sewer through their arrangement with Mansfield and that Norton's commitment for 400,000 g.p.d. of water has been reduced to 150,000. He pointed out that the parcel contains a small residential subdivision of 35 to 40 lots in Norton on the south end of the site and that there are 90 acres in Mansfield, most of which are wetlands with a small area of uplands that has no access, but could have some potential commercial value to the Great Woods Center for the Performing Arts. Dan Cleary of VHB stated that he is Director of Land Engineering and is responsible for the permitting process. He noted that two meetings have been held with 1VIEPA and a scoping session was held on site on November 6th. He advised that the comment period has been extended to December 15th to allow time to clarify some issues of process and to provide additional information regarding wetland issues and the Phase 1 �- Waiver. He stated that they are asking to be allowed to go forward with the permits for the initial 265,000 square feet of the project in the front area. He pointed out that the roadway has been placed to reduce the impact on the wetlands and that the Environmental Impact Report will cover the whole project, including the front portion on which the Phase I waiver has been requested. He noted that the draft decision on the waiver is expected January 10, 1998. Mr. DeMarco continued, explaining that they have taken the 1989 wetland delineations and started reflagging. Mr. Sullivan asked if the note "potential access" on the Mansfield parcel will be taken off 2 Minutes of December 3, 1997 the plan. Mr. DeMarco replied that it will be. Mr. Sullivan also asked if the parcel goes out as far as Oak Street on the Norton end and verified that the red dotted line is the r' zoning line between R -1 and R -2. He also verified that there is just one access from Route 140. Mr. Frank asked about the ownership structure and whether the buildings would be sold or leased. Mr. DeMarco said the Park will be developed by Campanelli Companies and that most of it will be leased, with Campanelli retaining ownership. Some will be sold directly to the users, but Campanelli Companies will maintain development control and management responsibility for the Park. Dr. Torman asked if there is any optional route planned for access to the Park. Mr. DeMarco said there is not. Mrs. Flynn asked Mr. DeMarco to confirm his earlier statement that the portion of the parcel on the Mansfield side might have some commercial value to Great Woods and he did so. Mr. Burke asked about the plans for the smaller parcel zoned for residential use. Mr. DeMarco said they haven't shown any development activity on that portion and would probably try to have it rezoned for commercial use at some point in the future. Mr. Burke also asked if they would be seeking access on Oak Street within the easement. Mr. DeMarco said that it is not wide enough for a roadway and is shown as a pedestrian path. Upon Mr. Burke's question of timeframe for construction, Mr. DeMarco said the project would be done in phases and would be on a limited basis until the end of 1998 with completion of the first phase sometime in the middle of 1999, and that the entire parcel would not be developed until late 1999 or 2000 - -after completion of the MEPA review. Mr. Burke also asked how Norton's reduced commitment down to 150,000 g.p.d of water affects the plan. Mr. DeMarco said they are in the process of determining what amount of development corresponds to that limit and have not yet reached their determination regarding the different intensities of uses. He further stated that 400,000 g.p.d. would support total buildout. Mr. French asked how important the improvement of the intersection of I- 495 /Route 140 is to their development. Mr. Cleary said it can be supported by the intersection that exists now and that, as they expand, they will have to study at what phase improvements to the intersection will be necessary. Karl Clemmey of South Main Street spoke in favor of the proposal, stating that this company has come in front of various boards and answered questions that most companies don't. He further stated that the proposed development will create a lot of jobs and be good for the tax base and that it preserves the area of the Great Woods since they are not interested in building a road through it. Mr. French asked if their study takes the proposed "Great Waves" into consideration. Mr 3 Minutes of December 3, 1997 C Cleary noted that the "Great Waves" project was announced after their proposal and that both projects will be required by MEPA to look at each other in a comprehensive manner. Mrs. Flynn asked if they have comnutted in writing not to put a road through the Great Woods. Mr. Cleary referred to the road that was proposed during the LegoLand discussions and stated that what they have said is that they have no intentions of pursuing that option. Mr. Sullivan asked if Norton has a problem with the length of the proposed cul -de -sac road. Mr. Kelly said that Norton's subdivision rules and regulations are set up by the number of lots as opposed to length and that the cul -de -sac was done to minimize the impact through the wetlands. Dr. Torman noted that if the cul -de -sac roadway was extended to the north, it would run out to Oak Street. Mr. Cleary replied that doing so would require crossing two residential zones and that zoning would not allow that for commercial access. The presentation concluded at 8:55 p.m. The public hearing was re- opened, with Mr. Sullivan reading correspondence received since the last public hearing as follows: • Letter of October 10, 1997 to John Jadhon from Airspace Safety Analysis Corporation • Letter of November 4, 1997 to Shaun Burke from John Jadhon regarding materials provided to the Airport Commission • Letter of November 4, 1997 to Roy Pyptiuk, Omnipoint Construction Manager, from Shaun Burke • Letter of November 7, 1997 to Shaun Burke from John Jadhon regarding the C -3 drawing • Letter of November 12, 1997 to Shaun Burke from John Jadhon requesting a continuance • Letter of November 21, 1997 to Airport Commission from David Fish, Project Manager for Campbell & Paris Engineers • Letter of December 3. 1997 to Shaun Burke from David Dinneen, Airport Manager Mr. Jadhon introduced his colleagues present: Roy Pyptiuk, Construction Manager, and Gideon Tella, Frequency Engineer. He then advised the Board that the revised plan shows the 500 foot radius and that the residence in question is 20 twenty feet outside of the 500 foot buffer zone. He also presented pictures of a tower showing one array and located in Philadelphia which is like the one proposed. He also addressed the question of frequency interference with the airport frequency used and stated they have filed with the FAA as required and have a letter of approval. The issues raised by the Airport Commission, he 4 Minutes of December 3, 1997 stated, have also been addressed point -by- point. He said the last concern was the tow line of the blimp becoming entangled in an array. He noted their attempt to produce a rough photo simulation of a rounded structure to encase the array which they had come up with 1. that would allow the tow line to bounce off the structure. He said the FAA has indicated that the height of the monopole is not a hazard. Mr. Siena pointed out that Airspace Safety Analysis Corporation rendered a determination based on the plans sent to them by Omnipoint and that the opinion from the Airport's engineers, Campbell & Paris, note their belief that the location of the airport's runways are depicted incorrectly on Omnipoint's plan. Mr. Jadhon said the turf runway was shown on the revised C -3 plan and that the plans were certified by a registered professional engineer, whose certification Omnipoint rests on. Mr. Siena also advised the Board that some of the materials requested arrived too late for their engineer to review prior to their meeting with Omnipoint. He also cited the Airport Master Plan's recommendation for paving the runway and the possibility of having to realign them, which would bring them closer to the proposed monopole. Mr. Jadhon indicated Omnipoint's willingness to take down the monopole should it become a problem for the airport at some time in the future. He stated that as it exists today, the FAA has said it is safe. David Dinneen, Airport Manager, stated emphatically that the FAA has not said that. Mr. Jadhon corrected himself, stating that "indications show it will in time." He said the Board could grant approval conditional on FAA approval and that Omnipoint has used Airspace Safety Analysis Corporation as a consultant on many sites and they have not been wrong yet. Mr. Siena noted that the clearance area between the minimum required and the height of the tower is only about 64 feet and that the Airport Commission still thinks it's a significant safety issue. Mr. Jadhon noted that the way the runway presently exists, they meet FAA standards with 64 feet to spare. Mr. Dinneen explained that it is necessary to maintain 125 feet from the center line on either side of the runway and that the flight paths have been established in an attempt to abate noise in the immediate neighborhood. He pointed out that the FAA is currently working to review 700 towers proposed in New England and that he doesn't foresee a quick approval from the FAA on this proposal. Mr. Siena pointed out that many of the problems with the siting of the monopole could have been avoided had Omnipoint contacted the Airport Commission during the planning process. Mr. Jadhon replied that the Airport wasn't notified because there did not appear to be an obstruction. If there had been anything within the buffer zone, they would have been notified automatically. Mr. Dinneen countered that this has not been determined yet and that State regulations require notification of anything 75 feet high within a 2 mile radius. Mr. Frank asked if we know it will come within the buffer zone if the turf runway is realigned, or if that still has to be determined. Mr. Siena said Omnipoint's consultant did not have a copy of the Airport Master Plan and, if they had first met with the Airport Commission, the problem could have been avoided. He said that if the monopole goes up and the runway is realigned, the FAA would deny their application for grant money. 5 Minutes of December 3, 1997 Mr. Jadhon advised the Board that Omnipoint would voluntarily remove the monopole if it becomes a problem and that they would be willing to accept that as a condition of the Special Permit. He noted that they have tried to address every concern as it comes along and that the Telecommunications Act states that the burden is on the permit granting authority to state why the permit should be denied. He pointed out that if the FAA says it's safe, this is no different than a neighbor saying they don't want it. Mr. French questioned whether the offer to take the tower down would be an enforceable condition and Mr. Burke replied that he has never seen that as a condition of a Special Permit. He noted that if we agreed to grant the permit with that condition, they could lease space to someone else and it would be litigated. Mr. Frank agreed that he didn't think we could influence future contingencies. Mr. Jadhon said that with the tower only being 90 feet, the likelihood of there being another carrier is not very great and that they would make anyone they lease space to aware of the possibility. He further noted that it would be no different than any other Special Permit when a condition is violated and that Omnipoint would be willing to post a bond to cover the removal. Mr. Jadhon restated that if the FAA determines it's a violation and airport funding is jeopardized, they would take the tower down and move it. Mr. Frank noted that the FAA is taking an average of 120 days to make a finding. Mr. Jadhon replied that they filed two months ago. Mr. Frank then asked, if permission to erect the monopole was granted tonight, what work they would be doing prior to FAA certification. Mr. Jadhon said they would start the foundation work at their own risk. Mrs. Flynn commented that the Board worked very hard on this by -law and that she l remembers providers' input on why collocation would be so great and that fewer towers would be needed because they could use church steeples and other high structures and that they could make them aesthetically acceptable. In light of that she questioned the applicant as to why they chose this area. Mr. Jadhon replied that the site meets all the criteria set forth in the by -law- -it's in an I -1 zone, meets setback requirements, is more than 500 feet from any residence and, at 90 feet, they can connect the signal with their network. Until they are located at that site, their network is limited. Mrs. Flynn asked what happens to their network if the tower is later removed and, if they can move it later, why can't they just do that now and avoid the problem in the future. Mr. Jadhon said there would be a hole in their coverage until they could find an alternate site and that it might require two sites instead of one. In the future there might also be a building in town on which they could locate, which doesn't currently exist. Mr. French stated that there still seems to be a question as to whose plan is right and asked what the Board would like to do. Mr. Sullivan said he would like to make sure the layout is correct and that the plan is not stamped by a registered land surveyor. Mr. Frank said he would like to wait until a final determination is received from the FAA prior to approval. Mr. Jadhon said if it's just the FAA approval, the Board could grant the permit now conditional upon FAA approval. Mr. French pointed out that when the FAA determination is received, it may very well be more than a "yes" or "no." Mr. Burke noted that a building permit would not be granted without FAA approval. Dr. Torman 6 Minutes of December 3, 1997 said that he doesn't feel that all the questions have been answered and that the FAA finding will not take into consideration the potential realignment of the runway. Mr. Jadlion asked what questions remain unanswered, to which Dr. Torman replied the issue of MedFlight helicopters which fly under adverse conditions and don't follow the established flight paths. He also pointed out that when you go for a private pilot license, you can be 100 feet off in distance and still pass the test - -and this is only a 64 foot buffer. Mr. Frank asked if we could get an opinion from Town Counsel to see if the condition that the tower be removed if it's a problem is enforceable. Mr. Burke said he's never seen it done before and that he's not comfortable with the idea. Mr. Sullivan said he would like to see the applicant put their offer in writing and present it to the Board for consideration. Mr. Jadhon noted that it's on the record. Mr. Sullivan replied that if it's attached as a condition, it would be the Board's acceptance of the applicant's offer to remove the tower should the need to arise. Mr. French said that it also provides clarity and that, if it's on the record, there's no question afterwards as to what was offered and accepted. Motion: To continue the public hearing to January 21, 1998 at 8:00 p.m. to allow the applicant to have the location of the runway on the plan verified and stamped by a registered land surveyor; to allow the applicant to present their offer in writing to remove the tower if necessary and to post surety for its removal; and to allow more time for the FAA determination to be received. (Frank - Flynn) 4 -0 -1 with Dr. Torman abstaining. 1�iat►ottalLttriihet` S9fePl�nRe�teai Jim Dunn of McKenzie Dunn was present to review National Readville Realty Trust's site plan for National Lumber's facility off Maple Street. He presented the plan, pointing out the area into which they would like to expand their operations for the storage of materials. Access would be through a proposed truck gate onto an asphalt surface. He also pointed out the stop sign shown on the plan coming out of the storage area and the area of white pine used for screening. He reviewed the lighting and the catchbasins with hooded outlets. Mr. Sullivan read correspondence received from Department Heads as follows: • Shaun Burke, Director of Planning and Development • Lance Lawson, Mansfield Police Department • Copy of Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission dated July 28, 1997 • Bob Morrisson, Assistant Director of Public Works Mr. French asked about the location of the nearest fire hydrant and was told it is right across the street. Mr. Sullivan asked what was on the other side of the access road and Mr. Dunn said it is the old Owens - Illinois building. Mr. Burke noted that the intended use is storage and that the plan has been modified to ( address all comments made at the site plan meeting. He suggested the Board send a 7 Minutes of December 3, 1997 positive recommendation to the Building Inspector. He further pointed out that they are outside of the Zone 2 and are using best management practices for stormwater. Mrs. Flynn questioned the height of white pines and suggested that a different species be used for screening. Mr. Dunn said that he would have no problem changing them to hemlocks. Motion: To send a positive recommendation to the Building Inspector on the plan as revised in accordance with Department Head comments and that the white pines shown on the plan be changed to 6 foot Canadian hemlocks. (Torman- Frank) 5 -0 PASSES ZBA Application of Motorola Information Systems Group for a Variance from the height and setback requirements for a 180 foot latticework telecommunications tower on West Street in the I -1 Zone. Mr. Burke suggested that the Planning Board send a negative recommendation on the request as it totally violates the intent of the recently adopted by -law. Motion: To send a negative recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals because the request does not conform to the by -law recently adopted with regard to height and setbacks, and the actual structure is of latticework construction which also violates the by -law. Also to be noted in the recommendation is the fact that the Planning Board held public hearings regarding the by -law, during which information was presented by various industry officials that was implemented in the drafting of the antenna by -law. (Sullivan- Flynn) 5 -0 PASSES 5. Letter from Barbara Mahoney requesting meeting to discuss proposed affordable senior housing (meeting scheduled for January 7, 1998 at 8:00 p.m.) 6. Copy of letter from Peter and Sarah Nesbeitt to Trudy Coxe re: Great Woods construction 7. Public Hearing Notice - Attleboro Planning Board 8. Public Hearing Notice - North Attleboro ZBA 9. Public Hearing Notices (4) - Easton ZBA 10. Public Hearing Notice - North Attleboro Planning Board 11. Public Hearing Notice - Attleboro ZBA - 12. Public Hearing Notice - Norton Planning Board 13. Notice of Special Permit - Easton Planning & Zoning Board 14. Public Haring Notice - Plainville Planning Board 15. Taunton Registry of Deeds newsletter 16. ICMA Publications and Services Catalog 17. The Beacon 18. SRPEDD Joint Transportation Planning Group meeting notice Minutes of December 3, 1997 19. LLRW Up -Front newsletter 20. Mass. Alliance for Economic Development seminar notice �- 21. Planning magazine 22. Community Development Digest 23. The Commissioner newsletter 24. Mass Interchange newsletter 25. Request for partial release of surety and recommendation from Dan Clifford on Stearns Hill Estates Phase IV Motion: To release $2,690.00, leaving a balance of $83,504.23 (Sullivan- Frank) 5 -0 PASSES 26. Request for partial release of surety and recommendation from Dan Clifford on Sturbridge Estates Motion: To release $36,910.17, leaving a balance of $104,271.83 (Sullivan - Torman) 5 -0 PASSES 27. Request for final release of surety and recommendation from Dan Clifford on Baybrook Farms Motion: Motion to release $12,000.00, leaving a $0. balance (Sullivan - Flynn) 5 -0 PASSES Mr. Burke pointed out that the situation also exists for Jameson Court and Fox Street and suggested that the Board also vote to release the remaining surety on these streets which have been accepted by Town Meeting. Motion: To release the balance of surety held for Jameson Court ($5,168.00) and Fox Street ($12,826.00). ( Torman- Frank) 3 -2 with Flynn and Sullivan opposed PASSES 28. Memo from Richard Lewis inviting the Board to attend the presentation of conservation grant funds on December 5th at 1:00 p.m. Ptbltc Comment Karl Clemmey of 750 South Main Street asked the Board if they would consider changing their meetings to a night other than Wednesday, stating that he doesn't think the Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board should be meeting on the same night because he needs to be at both meetings and it makes it difficult for him. Mr. Burke noted that meeting space is a problem other nights and agreed to check on availability. Mr. Clemmey also made the Board aware of zoning changes he intends to sponsor for the Annual Town Meeting relative to his properties on Copeland Drive and on West Street Minutes of December 3, 1997 and noted the final date for the comment period regarding the Great Waves proposal. Motion: To adjourn at 11:15 p.m. (Sullivan- Frank) 5 -0 PASSES ignature of Clerk l�Iext 14Tcetzn 17ecember �7„ �9�7 of � 3a m /Z /iZz � 7 Date of Approval 10 Minutes of December 3, 1997