HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 5/1/1997r I-
`
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES '= `
irl
May 1, 1997 9l MAIN N A 11' 49
E = 11SH
iIb -rail
Present: Thomas French, Chairman; Planners Bernie Dolan; Marydee Flynn; Dujr� ,S r C 11U SET TS
Frederick; and Kenneth Torman. Also present was Shaun Burke, Director of Pla mg' ''
and Development. Mr. McShane arrived later in the meeting.
Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Mrs. Flynn volunteered to be acting clerk in the absence of Mr. Sullivan.
Correspondence
1. Minutes of April 16, 1997
Motion: To approve ( Torman- Frederick) 5 -0 PASSES
2. ZBA Applications:
Steven and Hally Whalen for Variance from Section 4.2.1 Side Yard Setback for
an addition at 15 Surrey Drive in an R -1 Zone. Mr. Burke suggested that the
Board send a negative recommendation. Mr. Dolan noted that the present abutter
doesn't object to the granting of the variance, but that perhaps the next owner
would. Mr. Frederick stated that the deck is already there and that it's not going
to change anything very much. Mr. French said that he suspects they want to
replace the current deck and that may be the reason for the increase in size. Mr.
Burke suggested that the lot is not an odd shape, as stated in the application, but
that the way the house is situated on the lot is odd. Other board members felt that
the present deck is already too close and that it never should have been allowed in
the first place and that extending it another two feet would be a further
encroachment.
Motion: To send a negative recommendation to the ZBA.
(Dolan- Torman) 3 -2 PASSES
Stephen and Janet Girard for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 Side Yard Setback for
a garage addition at 15 Surrey Drive in an R -1 Zone. Mr. Burke suggested that
the Board send a negative recommendation because the applicant could eliminate
the breezeway and put the deck against the house or build a detached garage,
either of which could be done without a variance. Mr. Frederick, a former
member of the ZBA, noted that it would probably get approved by the ZBA
because they would rather see a garage attached to a house and further away
from the property line.
Motion: To send a negative recommendation to the ZBA
(Flynn - Dolan) 4 -1 PASSES
3. Letter from Andres Gazzolo re: request for extension of landscaping agreement for
/ Player's Choice Soccer Bubble.
l Motion: To send a letter to the Building Inspector indicating the Board's under-
standing of the situation and recommending that the applicant be given
an extension for the completion of the landscaping requirements until
the time that the new membrane is in place.
(Frederick - Flynn) 5 -0 -1 with Mr. McShane abstaining because he
was not present at the start of the discussion. PASSES
Mr. Cook and Mr. Mangiaratti were present to discuss the site plan approval process. Mi
Cook explained that the present process calls for him to schedule a department head
meeting, at which each department gives input regarding the application, and that the
Planning Department usually has the longest list. Mr. Dolan stated that when the
Planning Board approves a site plan with recommendations or conditions, it appears that
those conditions get ignored and that the board members don't understand why they
bother to take the time to review the plan and make a recommendation. Mr. Cook said
that some of the recommendations and conditions suggested by the Planning Board are
applicable and that others are not. He further stated that sometimes it's a matter of time
and that he gets busy and doesn't have a chance to get back to the Planning Board to let
them know that he's not requiring something they've recommended and the reasons for
his decision. Other things are open to interpretation. In the case of daycare centers, the
State has granted some protection which supersedes local enforcement authorities.
Mr. French asked Mr. Cook what happens when the Planning Board imposes a condition
which he believes to be unenforceable. Mr. Cook said that in situations such as that, he
usually checks with Town Counsel. He also said that he tries to work things out with all
parties and that he also doesn't go ahead and grant a constructive approval when the
Planning Board is not able to make their recommendation within the allotted time and
that he then requests an extension of time from the applicant.
Mr. McShane asked if Mr. Cook could let the board know when he believes something is
a matter of right so that they don't waste their time establishing conditions which can't be
enforced. He also asked whether a permit is invalid if the by -law says the Planning
Board has to go through the process of making a recommendation and the Building
Inspector grants the permit without conditions recommended by the Planning Board and
does not let the Planning Board know. Mr. Mangiaratti explained that the permit is valid
and that language in MGL Chapter 40A Section 7 under which Mr. Cook grants the
permits is directive and not mandatory. He further stated that it would probably be a
good idea for the Building Inspector to adopt a practice for letting the Planning Board
know when he is not following their recommendations on site plan review.
Board members expressed their frustration in dealing with the Old Colony Motors
situation whereby conditions the board set during site plan approval were not enforced.
2
Mr. Cook explained that Old Colony Motors first came for site plan approval and,
following that process, immediately filed for and were granted a Special Permit by the
Zoning Board Appeals which superseded the site plan approval. He went on to say that
the specific instances with which board members had had a problem were unusual
situations, and also that part of the problem was miscommunication. As another example
he cited the Soccer Bubble landscaping whereby the Planning Board was looking for
required landscaping to be completed and there were other factors he had to consider in
enforcing the requirements.
Board members remarked that their concerns were usually based on situations they deem
as public safety issues- -such as the stop sign coming out of the daycare facility on School
Street and the curb cuts they requested be kept at a minimum for Old Colony Motors.
Mr. Mangiaratti explained the differences between site plan approval, special permits
granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and special permits granted by the Planning
Board. He also explained the Planning Board's right of appeal when they believe the
Building Inspector has granted something which is in violation of the Town's Zoning By-
Law.
Mr. Burke noted that the Planning Board looks at the site plan from a more global
perspective, whereas the Building Inspector looks at it as a zoning enforcement officer
and that if something is not enforceable, he doesn't require that it be done. He suggested
that the board needs to make a distinction between what would be nice to have done and
what is actually enforceable. He also stated that their input is valuable and, even though
something they request to be done is not enforceable, the applicant often decides to do it
anyway and the town is better for it.
Board members and Mr. Cook continued to discuss the process of site plan review and
whether the by -law should be changed to make it a Planning Board responsibility. Mr.
Cook stated that site plan review is necessary for almost every project, with the exception
of one and two- family homes, and that the workload would be overwhelming and time
consuming for the Planning Board.
Mrs. Flynn expre:_: ;d the frustration she encounters when dealing with quustions she gets
from people around town that she doesn't have the answers to. She stated that when you
look in the zoning by -law to see what's supposed to happen, it's a simple case of it's
stated in black and white and that in real life situations, interpretation of what's in the
zoning by -law enters into it.
The discussion ended at 9:05 p.m., with Mr. Cook agreeing to put something together to
assist in better communication with the board.
Application of Lawrence and Diane Mahoney for two lots on Hope Street owned by
Christian & Feck. Lot V would go to the Mahoneys to make their lot conforming. Mr.
Burke advised the board that the plan is in order and warrants endorsement.
Motion: To sign the Form A plan. (Dolan - Flynn) 6 -0 PASSES
1. Public Hearing Notice - Sharon Planning Board
2. Public Hearing Notice - Easton ZBA
3. Public Hearing Notice - Norton Planning Board
4. Preserving Family Lands: Book 11 - order form
5. Workshop invitation - New Tools for Community Wastewater Management
6. "Currents" newsletter of the Taunton River Watershed Alliance
7. 1997 Public Works Education Conference announcement
8. Access New England newsletter
9. Robinson & Cole course announcement
10. New England Planning
11. Journal of the American Planning Association
12. Citizens for a Sound Economy Education Campaign
13. SRPEDD Meeting Notice - Regional Information Systems Committee
Article 28 - Wireless Communications
Industry consultant, Phil Rudnick, stated that he is comfortable with a 120 to 150 foot
height limitation, but that at 130 feet, the ability for collocation is reduced and the end
result is more antennas. Board members reviewed the height of other antennas in the
surrounding area for comparison purposes. Mr. McShane questioned why they were
being allowed only in the Industrial 1 District and not in Industrial 2 and Industrial 3.
Mr. Burke responded that locations along transportation corridors are better suited for the
purpose and that, in Mansfield, the Industrial 2 and 3 Districts are located in other areas.
Also discussed was the possibility of eliminating a specific maximum height and leaving
4 to be determined during the Special Permit process. Mrs. Flynn felt Town Meeting
would be more comfortable voting on a definite height restriction rather than leaving it
undetermined. Mr. Burke advised the board that without a number, it could be
considered arbitrary and capricious and that anyone unable to live with the height
limitation has the option of going to the ZBA for a variance.
The article was further reviewed, with the following changes being made:
3.6.7.2.1 - "...allowed by right in the Industrial 1 district and by Special Permit in the I -2
and I -3 zones.
3.6.7.4.2 "The setback of a monopole from the property line of the lot on which it is
located and from the nearest existing monopole shall be at least equal to the height of
the monopole."
3.6.7.4.3 - "...height of a monopople may be increased by ten (10) feet for each
collocation up to a maximum height of one hundred fifty (150) feet."
3.6.7.4.4 - Change "twenty (20) feet" to twelve (12) feet.
3.6.7.4.10 - eliminate "announcement signs" and add ... "required sign placed at the base
of the pole..."
Article 31- Permitted Density
Changes made at previous meetings were reviewed.
Article 45 - Mini - Storage
Mr. Burke clarified the fact that "warehousing" is already an allowed use in all Industrial
Districts and that this by -law, sponsored by the Clemmeys, seeks to add "mini- storage" as
a specific use.
Article 29 - Landscaping of Commercial Parking Lots
A letter was read from the Industrial Development Commission in which they invited the
Planning Board to attend their next meeting to discuss the article. The IDC has concerns
with the article and is considering opposing it at Town Meeting.
Motion: To send a letter to the IDC explaining that Article 29 does not change
the parking requirements for commercial or industrial development, but only
changes the landscaping and buffering requirements, making them in compliance
with those of the Industrial 1 zone as intended.
(Flynn- Frederick) 5 -0 PASSES
Article 30 - Waterbody Setback
No additional changes.
Article 31 - Cluster Residential Permitted Density
5.6.6.3(b) Take out "traffic control devices" and "improved roadway geometrics"
Article 32 - Scheduled Development
Mrs. Flynn read a letter received from Mallory Digges of O'Brien & Meeks.
The following changes were made after discussion:
4.2.3.2 Change "dwelling units" for senioi citizens to "Also excluded complexes for
senior citizens..."
4.2.3.3 To read, "...When the total number of building permits issued during the calendar
year does not reach the maximum allowed by this by -law, exclusive of the fifteen (15)
reserved as described in the preceding paragraph, the total number of unissued permits
may be rolled over into the following year, provided, however, that the maximum
number of issued building permits regulated by this by -law does not exceed one hundred
thirty -five (135) in any one year."
4.2.3.4 Discussion took place as to who was going to determine whether an individual
held an ownership.
Motion: Add, "Applicant must provide a sworn declaration stating all such legal
relationships at the time of application."
Motion: To support Articles 28 through 32 as amended.
(Dolan- Torman) 6 -0 PASSES
Letter from Peter DeGirolamo re: Homefield Estates - Excess
Letter was read from Town Engineer verifying calculations on amount of material
to be removed. Board members discussed hours of operation and notification of
neighbors.
Motion: To set hours of operation for 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday.
(Flynn - Dolan) 4 -2 with Frederick and French opposed. PASSES
Motion: To approve the permit as amended.
(Flynn- Dolan) 6 -0 PASSES
2. Request from Alan Brown for release of surety balance of $2,938 for Perkins Avenue,
with memo from Dan Clifford recommending release.
Motion: To release the balance of $2,938. (Flynn- Frederick) 6 -0 PASSES
3. Form J Release for Canterbury Estates - hold until next week for action
4. Request from SRPEDD for appointment of delegate - hold until next week for action.
lroundtheTable..wMs x �+ Offl-hehis}
Mr. French advised the board that he will be at the May 12th Annual Town Meeting but
that should it go longer than one night, he will be away after that. Mr. McShane said that
he would be unable to attend on the 12th, but that he would be at any subsequent
meetings. All other members present said they would be able to attend.
Mr. French said that the Planning Board needs to discuss Mr. Devine's scheduled
development by -law for the Special Town Meeting within the Annual.
Motion: To send Mr. Devine a letter and a copy of our proposed by -law as
amended, asking him to attend our meeting next week to review the two articles
and to see if he would be willing to support the Planning Board's article.
( Frederick- Torman) 6 -0 PASSES
Motion: To send a letter to Mallory Digges saying that we appreciate her taking the time
to send in a written statement regarding the scheduled development by -law and that the
board, at her request, amended their by -law to allow the total number of unissued permits
to be rolled over for one year, provided that the maximum number of issued building
permits regulated by the by -law does not exceed one hundred thirty -five in any one year.
Further, that the Planning Board was happy to receive her written comments since none
of the other builders in the town of Mansfield had taken the time to provide theirs.
(McShane- Dolan) 6 -0 PASSES
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m.
Date of Next Meeting: May 7, 1997
6-IWl 7
ignature of Clerk Date of Approval