HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 3/26/1997Ii FECEPV F-0
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OFFICE
March 26, 1997 97 APR 10 P11 2- 36
Present :Thomas French, Chairman; John Sullivan, Clerk; Planners Bernie Dolan, (Q°1 IrL[l
Marydee Flynn, Duane Frederick and Thomas McShane. Also present was Shaun )Uctt� t`t } [j Sc TTS
Director of Planning and Development.
Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Correspondence
1. Minutes of March 5, 1997 - amend to correct: page 13 "Mr." Flynn to "Mrs. ";
page 1 "20 foot" should be "22 "; page 12 delete the word "common" in
"common goals."
Motion: To approve as amended.
(Sullivan - Dolan) 4 -0 -2 with Frederick and McShane abstaining. PASSES
2. Minutes of March 19, 1997
Motion: To approve.
(Flynn- Sullivan) 5 -0 -1 with McShane abstaining. PASSES
3. Letter from Bird Road, Inc., requesting modification of Fram Estates
Motion: To waive the requirement for 18 inch berm and allow 12 inch
Cape Cod berm in its place.
(Sullivan - Dolan) 6 -0 PASSES
Motion: Not to waive the requirement for two sidewalks as shown on the
approved subdivision plan.
(Sullivan- McShane) 6 -0 PASSES
The Board discussed the request for permission to close on four houses prior to
the installation of sidewalks. Mrs. Flynn voiced concern about problems that
have developed when such waivers have been granted in the past. Mr. Frederick
stated that bituminous sidewalks take a beating with equipment driving over
them during construction. Mr. Burke explained that they will only be at binder
coat and that they will be coming back and topping them. Mr. McShane said
that he is going under the assumption that the lots were sold during the winter
months when the asphalt plants were closed and that the buyers may be waiting to
close on them and move in.
Motion: To grant the request to close on the four properties within the site prior
to having the sidewalks installed, provided that these are the only four properties
for which this will apply and that the sidewalks in front of these four properties
be completed by June 1, 1997.
(Sullivan - Flynn) 6 -0 PASSES
4. ZBA Decisions:
Charles Sarakin Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses - granted. There was
no Planning Board review and recommendation requested.
Michael Kelley. 17 Fruit Street - granted for addition to rear of garage. Planning
Board recommendation was positive.
Anneal of Building Inspector's Decision Diana Cole 437 West Street for
( operation of auto repair and body shop business. Appeal denied.
Planning Board recommendation was to uphold Decision of Building
Inspector.
Charles and Leann Campbell - variance granted for residential lot near 136 Oak
Street. Planning Board recommendation was negative.
William Lorigan (Wendy - special permit granted for expansion of
pre- existing non - conforming use. Planning Board recommendation was positive.
5. Copy of letter to Norton Town Planner regarding joint grant application
6. Public Hearing Notice - Sharon Planning Board
7. Public Hearing Notice - Attleboro ZBA
8. Public Hearing Notice - Norton Planning Board .
9. SRPEDD meeting notice
10. SRPEDD memo re: EOEA/DCS Self -Help Grants for 1998
11. Environmental League of Massachusetts Bulletin
Form A (ANR) Plans
Mr. Sullivan stated that he would be abstaining from the discussion and vote of the plan
presented because his son has a potential interest in the property. Mrs. Flynn was
Acting Clerk during this discussion. Board members reviewed a plan for the creation of
four lots totaling 581,919 square feet on Fruit Street owned by Anthony and Eleanor
Delulis. All lots have the required frontage; Lot 3, however, is non - conforming due to
insufficient lot width. Mr. Burke suggested that the plan warrants endorsement.
Motion: To endorse the Form A Plan with the stipulation that Lot 3 show it as
"non- conforming due to lot width" and be noted on the plan as "unbuildable"
and to authorize Mr. Burke to release the signed plan once it is re -done with
the proposed notation.
(Flynn - Dolan) 4 -1 with Mr. McShane opposed. PASSES
8:00 p.m. - Public Hearing on Planning Board Zoning By -Law Amendments
Article 28
Clerk Sullivan read the notice of the public hearing as advertised in the Mansfield News
on March 7, 1997 and March 14, 1997. Mr. French advised those present that the hearing
is held for public input, questions and comments on the proposed by -law amendments
which will be on the warrant for the Annual Town Meeting scheduled for May 12, 1997
and that the Planning Board is asked to report to Town Meeting on zoning articles. He
stated that the board has agreed to table discussion on the Scheduled Development by -law
until April 9, 1997, and will be having a roundtable discussion with the
builder /development community on April 2, 1997. The balance of the Planning Board's
by -law amendments will be discussed at this hearing.
The first by -law discussed was to amend Section 4.0 - Intensity Regulations, Paragraph
4.1.4 - by adding reference to "radio towers,... broadcasting and television antennas ... and
other appurtenances ... as accessory uses" and to add a new section titled "3.6.7 - Wireless
Communication Towers." It is the intent of the amendment to restrict the location of
( wireless communication towers to the Industrial 1 Zone only by Special Permit and to
establish a maximum height of ninety (90) feet and establish performance standards,
including setbacks and buffers.
Attorney Thomas Schnorr of Palmer and Dodge spoke, representing AT &T Wireless
Communication Services. He stated concern about the emphasis on monopoles while
other sections allow for antennas on existing poles and roofs, and limiting monopoles to
90 feet and roof top antennas to 20 feet. He said that this conflicts with other goals of the
by -law regarding collocation. He stated a need for 10 to 15 feet of separation between
antenna arrays and that some carriers would need to be 100 to 120 feet. The trade -off in
limiting the height would be the need for more sites, He also said the "fall zone" concept
was not necessary as the new antennas do not pose a public safety danger because they
are designed to withstand 150 mph winds with 2 inches of ice. He explained that
AT &T's typical broadcast range is two miles and that CellOne and Nextel use a different
frequency. By limiting antennas to the Industrial zone, it is likely that AT &T won't be
able to offer service to many parts of town.
Attorney Michael Giamiao, representing Bell Atlantic, stated that their frequency
transmits over a somewhat broader range but that height is a concern if we're trying to
foster collocation. Towers of a greater height allow more equipment to be mounted
above the tree line and results in fewer towers. He stated that line of sight is essential to
their operation and you can't have them screened in to make them invisible from abutting
streets. He questioned the pro -rata reimbursement provision and was advised by Mr.
Burke that the intent is to encourage collocation.
Discussion continued regarding the height and location of existing towers in town. The
importance of getting seamless coverage throughout town was emphasized, with the need
for higher antennas to allow for collocation above the tree line and line of sight
considerations due to tall trees and hills throughout towns in this area. Carrier
representatives acknowledged that they realize the need to get along well with each other
to accomplish collocation.
Philip Rudnick of Norton, an industry consultant, stated that he sees a bit of confusion in
the by -law and that towers and building towers is not the only solution. He said that
carriers are not out to dot the landscape with towers and that they're looking for suitable
sites on existing structures upon which they can mount. He cited roof tops, water tanks,
silos, church steeples and existing flag poles as examples. He stated that there are many
ways to camouflage installations on existing structures whereby they are aesthetically
pleasing and virtually undetectable.
Karl Clemmey of South Main Street spoke in opposition to the by -law the way it is
written and stated that he believes antennas belong only in the Industrial zone. He said
that he does not want to see every church in town with a tower on it.
Attorney Schnorr said that AT &T can provide coverage to 95 and 495 with sites in the
Industrial Zone, but that additional sites are needed to serve residential areas unless they
can circle Mansfield in abutting towns. Their range is only 1-11/2 miles and restrictions
would make it difficult to provide coverage for residential areas not close to the Industrial
Zone.
Mr. Rudnick stated that the phrase "for the time being" is a correct statement since
additional sites will be required for the new PCS technology offering better services and
features. The intention is to provide service not only to the motor customer, but also to a
World Wide Zone number and that cordless phones, which currently have a range of
1,000 feet, would convert to wireless PCS technology. Wireless representatives also
referred to the Telecommunications Act, whereby every community has to provide for a
reasonable location so coverage can be supported throughout the area.
The hearing on this proposed amendment closed at 8:55 p.m.
Article was read to amend the Zoning By -Law to the extent necessary to amend
Section 4.3.3. Applicability by adding a second sentence reading, "The requirements of
this section shall also apply to all commercial parking lots and parking facilities as
defined in Section 3.5.20 of this by -law." Karl Clemmey stated that he is very opposed to
this by -law but would like to wait and debate it on Town Meeting floor.
(
Article 30 - to amend the Zoning By -Law to the extent necessary to amend Section 4.0
Intensity Regulations, by amending Section 4.8, Waterbody Setback and Wetland
Protection, Paragraph 4.8.4, Wetland Protection. Mr. Burke explained that this is
"housekeeping" to bring the required minimum lot area in line with current requirements
as changed in 1994. The second part of the amendment adds the word "contiguous."
Karl Clemmey stated his opposition to the amendment and said he would like to save his
information to debate the article on Town Meeting floor.
Mr. Sullivan pointed out that in the "To" section, under Residence 3 /Sewer should be
13,000 and Residence 2 /Sewer should be 15,000 and that it appeared the numbers had
been transposed. It was also pointed out that "Reservoir District" should also be added to
the proposed amendment and that there should be a comma following "...Soil
Conservation Service" and the "U" in "Unless" should be changed to a lower case "u" in
"unless..."
Article - to amend Section 5.6 Cluster Residential Special Permit Section 5.6.6
Permitted Density by increasing the lot area used to calculate density. Mr. Burke
explained that the proposed amendment is in two parts - -the first part being found on page
57 of the Zoning By -Law which uses the old numbers and does not reflect the 1994
change. The intent is to bring our density calculations in line with the by -law and state
statutes. In addition, we need to provide language to introduce a density bonus of up to
( 10% in exchange for additional open space, traffic or pedestrian improvements, or other
amenities such as active recreational facilities. This will address the State statute
4
whereby you can't give a density bonus without getting something in return. The article
( further seeks to amend Schedule 4.2.1 Density and Dimensional Regulations Residential
Districts by proposing to grant a density bonus of up to 10% in the Residence 1 District
and up to 5% in all other Residential Districts..
Mr. Sullivan noted that "Reservoir District" should be added in Section 5.6.6.1. Mr.
Clemmey stated that he is also opposed to this article and once again, would prefer to
wait and debate it on Town Meeting floor.
Article 32 - Scheduled Development
Motion: To continue the hearing on this by -law amendment to April 2, 1997 at
7:30 p.m. (Dolan McShane) 6 -0 PASSES
The public hearing closed at 9:10 p.m.
Public Hearing on Zoning By Law Amendments proposed by Karl and Carole
1 mmey_by Citizens Petition
The hearing opened at 9:15 p.m. with the Clerk reading the hearing notice as it appeared
in the Mansfield News on March 7, 1997 and March 14, 1997. It was noted that
Article 45 - to amend Section 3.1.1 Schedule of Principal Use Regulations by adding the
words "mini- storage facilities" to Section 3.6.2 Bulk Material Storage and Sales and to
allow such mini - storage facilities in all Industrial Districts and the Business 3 District -
would not be heard at this time. Due to an advertising error, the public hearing on this
article was re- advertised and will be heard on April 9, 1997 at 8:00 p.m.
Article 4 - to amend Section 3.1.1 - Schedule of Principal Use Regulations - by adding
3.6.7 Open Air Flea Market and to amend Section 1.5 Definitions, by adding a new
definition 1.5.49 Open Air Flea Market and to allow open air flea markets in the
Industrial 1 Zone. Mr. Clemmey explained that this was simply "housekeeping."
He stated that he has a letter from Town Counsel which says that it is already allowed
under the current Zoning By -Law under retail establishments, but that the Building
Inspector disagrees because it is not specifically listed. Mr. Burke suggested that the
board look up the definition of "retail" on page 13 of the Zoning By -Law and compare it
to Town Counsel's letter. Mr. Sullivan noted that all the documentation Mr. Clemmey
was presenting in support of his argument was dated "1992." Mr. Clemmey replied that
he had tried this in 1992 and it didn't work. He chose to try it again using the same
documentation, with the belief that it was just a housekeeping matter. Mr. Burke
suggested that it is up to Town Meeting to determine whether to allow the operation of
open air flea markets in the Industrial District. He further stated that he disagrees with
Town Counsel and that he sees flea markets as being significantly different from retail
business and that it is not specifically listed in the allowable uses.
Mrs. Flynn asked Mr. Clemmey if his intention is to hold flea markets in his South Main
Street parking lot. He said that is his intention and that presently another business in
town does this but circumvents the by -law by allowing non - profit organizations to use the
property, then charges for parking and concessions. He would like to give Midget
Football the opportunity to do this and give them half of the proceeds. He further stated
that he just wants to do this a couple of times per year. Upon further questioning, Mr.
Clemmey stated that he doesn't want to have to get a special permit to conduct this use
and he wants to allow for flexibility in the number of times per year he could hold a flea
market, as well as the circumstances under which the operation could be conducted.
Article 47 - to amend the Zoning Map to the extent necessary to rezone a parcel of land
on Cobb Street from its present classification of R -2 to the Classification of R -3. Mr.
Clemmey showed a map of the parcel, indicating the lots that he owns. He stated that
with 100 ft. frontage and 10,000 sq.ft. lots, the lots would all conform and would look
more like the other lots already in that area.
Article 48 - to amend the Zoning Map to the extent necessary to rezone a parcel of land
on West Street from its present classification of R -2 to I -1. Mr. Clemmey explained his
proposal, stating that he wants to move the zoning line over 50 feet. This would give his
driveway better sight distance and would allow him to move the buffer. He claimed that
in doing so he would be losing 100 feet. Discussion followed as to whether he would
actually be losing any area and where the buffer would be located.
Article 4 - to amend Section 4.2.2. - Density and Dimensional Regulations - Business
and Industrial Districts by reducing the minimum amount of open space in the I -1, I -2
( and I -3 Zones from the current amount of 35% to 15 %. Mr. Clemmey stated that the
current percentage doesn't make sense. He stated that he thinks the board should take a
look at it because we're taking money out of our pocket at 35 %. Mr. Burke responded
that landscaping and buffering areas, and landscaped islands in parking areas all count
toward the open space requirement. Mr. Clemmey countered that there is no open space
requirement in the Business Districts and that people would be going for abatements if
they can't use their property. Mr. Burke stated that he does not agree that the land has no
value and that the landscaping and open space contributes to the aesthetics and image of
the property in the Industrial Park. Mr. Clemmey said that he is not going to fight this at
Town Meeting, but thinks the board should take a look at it.
Motion: To close the hearing at 10:10 p.m.
(Sullivan - Flynn) 6 -0 PASSES
Around the Table
Mrs. Flynn brought up a letter received from Representative Barbara Hyland regarding
impact fee legislation. Mr. Burke cited the differences between Mrs. Hyland's legislation
and the proposal considered by the Planning Board, stating that hers ties the impact fee to
the capital plan. With regard to new development and conservation land, conservation
land must be mentioned in the capital plan to be considered for funding. Mrs. Flynn
suggested that the Capital Improvements Program Committee may want to consider a
policy based upon this information.
l
Mr. McShane asked what happened to the Bike Path in the capital plan, to which Mr.
Dolan replied that priorities had to be set. Mr. McShane commented on the fact that it
was a recommendation in the Master Plan and that we run the risk of not getting it funded
if it's not given a high priority.
Mrs. Flynn asked about the Building Inspector's letter to Carrigans regarding expansion
of their daycare facility on School Street and why it has not come back to the Planning
Board for additional site review. Mr. Sullivan questioned why the Building Inspector's
approval had not included the Planning Board's recommendation of conditions. Mr.
Dolan advised the board that there still is no stop sign at the exit of the property as had
been required by the Planning Board and that Mr. Carrigan has no intention of putting
one up bemuse the Building Inspector is not requiring him to do so. Board members
asked if there is any legal recourse available to them. Mr. Burke suggested that they
could sponsor a by -law amendment to make site plan approval the responsibility of the
Planning Board.
Motion: To send a letter to the Building Inspector advising him that the Planning Board
has strong reservations about increasing traffic to the daycare center and is concerned
about public safety which was discussed in detail previously. The Planning Board also
requests the Building Inspector to clarify his intentions regarding the granting of
permission to expand without further site plan review. The Planning Board further
requests that a legal opinion be obtained from Town Counsel as to what recourse the
board has when their recommendations are not included in the approval process.
(Sullivan - Flynn) 6 -0 PASSES
Motion: To send a letter of appreciation to Ralph Penney for his contribution to the
Planning Board. (McShane - Sullivan) 6 -0 PASSES
Mrs. Flynn reported that the Board of Selectmen had been given a report on Phase 2 of
the Sewer Plan Update and asked if the Planning Board has any input. Mr. Sullivan
replied that they said they would be in touch with the Planning Board. Mr. McShane
responded to what had been reported in the newspaper regarding the meeting and
questioned whether the goals conflict with those of the Master Plan.
Motion: To send a letter to the Board of Selectmen with a copy to Camp, Dresser &
McKee and the Industrial Development Commission restating the Master Plan
Committee and Planning Board position that existing sewer plant capacity be
reserved to encourage industrial growth and that extending sewer lines to
existing undevelopable residental land would serve to create more development.
(McShane - Dolan) 6 -0 PASSES
Mrs. Flynn asked about a comment made by CDM at the Board of Selectmen meeting
regarding inflow and infiltration from a few new subdivisions. Mr. Burke replied that
two areas had been identified, one being Plymouth Street and the other Mill Street. It is
believed that Mill Street could be the result of a crushed pipe. He also reported that a
problem had been identified on Tremont Street and on Pilgrim Lane and that the Route
106 manhole was
functioning as a catchbasin. Mr. Dolan commented that it was also mentioned at one
time that people were tying their sump pumps into the sewer. Mr. Burke reported that a
smoke test had been done the previous night which determined that the water was coming
from three houses and that further testing will be carried out.
Mr. Burke reported that he had spoken with the Norton Planning Director and that they
had not filed the joint grant application.
Motion: To send a letter to the Board of Selectmen explaining the Planning Board's
decision not to support the joint grant application and their continued support
for the preservation of the Great Woods.
(McShane - Flynn) 6 -0 PASSES
Mr. McShane asked if we could check to see if the booster pumps in Massapoag Estates
had been successful in increasing water pressure. Mr. French commented that we had
received a letter from the developer stating that he had contacted the residents and that
most of them didn't want the pumps.
Adjournment
Motion: To adjourn at 11:10 p.m.
(Sullivan- McShane) 6 -0 PASSES
Date of next meeting: April 2, 1996 at 7:30 p.m.
Signature of Clerk
,s.
y %W?7
Date of Approval