Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 7/16/1997eCCIV[7[) ICE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES T JUL 3l -) �, 55 July 16,1997 Present:. Thomas French, Chairman; John Sullivan, Clerk; Bernie Dolan; Ma�Wdee�l -, i(t5 fir$ Flynn; Duane Frederick; Thomas McShane and Kenneth Torman. Also present was Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development Meeting called to order at 7:35 p.m. Correspondence 1. Minutes of June 18, 1997 Motion: To approve as presented. (Flynn - Sullivan) 7 -0 PASSES 2. Minutes of July 7, 1997 Motion: To approve as presented. (Sullivan - Dolan) 5 -0 -2 with Flynn and Frederick abstaining PASSES 3. Letter from Hutchinsfrrowbridge re: request to reconsider fee waiver for Form A Plan filed by the Commonwealth. Motion: Not to reconsider. (Sullivan - Flynn) 7 -0 PASSES 4. Letter from East Coast Development re: surety release for Tara I and II Motion: Not to grant the release because, according to the developer, the subdivision was complete as of June 8, 1997, and in accordance with the Planning Board regulations, Section 3.3.13, 10% of the surety will be held for twelve months following completion. (Sullivan- Flynn) 7 -0 PASSES 5. Copy of letter sent to Mr. Bonvie re: Balcom Ridge II and III completion 6. Memo from Fire Chief re: Donald Estates 7. ZBA Application - sign for Gerry Abbott Realtors. ZBA action already taken. No recommendation made. 8. Letter from Harry Blackey re: Baybrook Farm III and IV completion schedule 9. Memo from Bertram Cook, Building Inspectori re: request for legal opinion frc- Town Counsel on scheduled development by -law 10. Letter from Mass Highway re: Expansion of South Main Street Parking Lot Mr. McShane commented that he would like Mr. Burke or Mr. Azinheira to contact Mass Highway to see if they've talked to anyone in Environmental Affairs to ask for a review. He stated that the increased traffic produced by Norton should be taken into consideration. Other board members stated their position that we should not miss the opportunity to have qualified agencies review the environmental impact. Minutes of July 16, 1997 Motion: To send comments to EOEA with the Board's reasons for desiring a review and to contact Mass Highway to ask them to reconsider their decision that a review is not necessary or to explain why they do not feel it is necessary. (McShane - Dolan) 7 -0 PASSES 11. Public Hearing Notices (2) - Attleboro Planning Board 12. Public Hearing Notices (6) - Norton Planning Board 13. Public Hearing Notices - North Attleboro Planning Board 14. Public Hearing Notice - Attleboro ZBA 15. Public Hearing Notice - Foxboro ZBA 16. Notice of Decision - Foxboro ZBA 17. Public Hearing Notice - North Attleboro ZBA 18. Bulletin of Environmental League of Mass. 19. SRPEDD Joint Transportation Planning Group Meeting Notice 20. SRPEDD News Release 21. Taunton Registry of Deeds Newsletter 22. Letter from EOEA Conservation Services re: new guidelines 23. Small Towns Institute Seminar announcement 24. Vortechnics "StormWatch" 25. Commonwealth of Mass. HOME Project -Based Homeownership Program information 26. TASH Conference information 27. SRPEDD regional information systems committee meeting cancellation notice 28. AIA /CES Accreditation information 29. Wireless Buildout Regional Conference Series announcement 30. The Planner Library order form 31. Beals and Thomas letter re: qualifications to provide engineering and plan review services 32. Hit Show Club discount ticket information 8:00 p.m. Scenic Road Public Hearing -Williams Street A Public Hearing was held to consider changes to be made to Williams Street, a scenic road, in realigning the public way for the reconstruction of the Williams Street Bridge. Mr. Sullivan read the hearing notice, which appeared in the Mansfield News June 27th and July 4th, 1997. Lee Azinheira, Town Engineer, as well as Gerard Grippe and Sophie Brown of A. G. Lichtenstein & Associates, Inc., were present to make the presentation. Mr. Azinheira explained that residents were not happy with the previous plan and another plan was prepared after convincing MassHighway to reduce the requirement to 25 mph and keep the alignment closer to the original bridge. The firm of A. G. Lichtenstein was Minutes of July 16, 1997 then hired to redesign the project, using Chapter 90 funds. The plan submitted is at the 25% stage and needs endorsement to move forward. Mr. Grippe reviewed the differences between the original and present plans, stating there has been a reduction in the area of the wetlands which will be disturbed and that the replication area will be shown on the next submission. A 24 -inch oak will also be saved by shifting the road over a couple of feet. Mr. Azinheira stated that the current plan will require the cutting of three trees and that they are able to avoid a large clump of trees which would have been cut under the previous proposal. Underbrush will also be cut, providing a nicer view of the large clump of trees, and an old foundation will also be avoided. The new design also provides for a new spillway. Gabion walls will be incorporated into the design to blend in the new construction and to allow for steeper slopes, resulting in less impact on the wetlands. Mr. Dolan asked how far the existing roadway will be moved and was told it would be 85 feet from the center line. Leonard Flynn remarked that this plan was a vast improvement over what was presented previously. He questioned the aggregate facing, stating that this is one of the most scenic points in Mansfield, and that a granite facing would be better. Sophie Brown, of A. G. Lichtenstein, replied that the stone size in the aggregate proposed would be similar to that of the stone in the gabion wall. It would be flat and 4 to 8 inches. Mr. Flynn also asked about an easement within Forest Park and the materials to be used in the construction of the approach to the bridge. He was advised the rails would be steel on timber posts and that the steel would be painted to blend into the area. Walter Meehan of 292 Williams Street remarked that it is a nice plan, but can't be built because there is an easement for power and water lines only and deeded conservation land. Shirley Hanlon, Chairperson of the Conservation Commission, replied that it does not touch any of the conservation property. Mr. Azinheira explained that when the realignment is finalized, Town Counsel will review the situation and determine what action will be necessary for Town Meeting to take. Once there is a definitive plan that the majority of the town supports, they will go tc Town Meeting. Arnold Harchik of 426 Williams Street asked about the safety of the current bridge. Mr. Grippe replied that you can't drive over it, but that it's not going to fall down and that you could walk over it with confidence. Fran Goffredo of 256 Williams Street asked about the elevation, top to bottom. Ms. Brown said it would be 12 feet, Minutes of July 16, 1997 Dr. Torman asked about the painting process of the steel and how long we could expect it to last. Mr. Grippo and Ms. Brown said that the paint is sprayed on and that the paint specification was from Sherwin - Williams, with a life expectancy of 10 -20 years. Maintenance will be required, however. Mr. McShane asked what standards were to be met under the Scenic Roads Act. Mr. French said we should be concerned with what trees have to be cut and any stone walls which have to be relocated, and that a finding must be made that it is in the public interest to do so. Mr. Burke said the by -law is based on Chapter 40C, Section 15. Mr. McShane then noted that no wetland replication area is shown. He also questioned whether the bridge exemption of Chapter 131, Section 40 was being used. Mr. Azinheira responded that wetland replication is being provided and has been included as part of the project cost. He also believes that the exemption will be used, but that is a MassHighway call. As it stands, Chapter 90 funds are being used. Mr. McShane also asked how we can go about getting a decision that the existing bridge not be tom down and the pavement removed and that the Town be given the option of deciding what to do with the land. Mr. Azinheira said that a pedestrian and bike crossing could be provided if they were asked to go in that direction. Mr. McShane commented that such a crossing would be a nice amenity and a public benefit. In response to Mr. McShane's questions regarding trees and stone walls to be moved, it was stated that the stone wall on the westerly end will be relocated and evergreen trees will be removed. They will work with property owners to provide an adequate buffer. Mr. Azinheira said they will be following up with MassHighway after this meeting, but they have been waiting to see if anything else needs to be brought up. Mr. Sullivan pointed out that there were a number of tree wells proposed the last time and asked if they are still planned. He also asked how anything will grow with the gabion walls. Ms. Brown said there would be stone retainer walls around the trees. She said the gabion wall would be a tear -a -mesh system using filler fabric and would be seeded. Shrubs would be planted behind the baskets and would grow through them. Mr. Sullivan noted that if the intent is to provide larger stone in the retainer wall, it should be clarified. Mr. Grippo said that it will be written into the specification. Mr. Sullivan said that the plan detail should reflect what's iauicated in the specs so that anyone building from the plan will be aware of what's specified. Mr. Dolan noted that nobody on Williams Street seems to want the bridge finished and yet the police and fire departments have said they need it for rapid response for public safety purposes. Mr. Azinheira said that the Board of Selectmen held a public hearing a year ago on this project, at which time a formal vote was taken, based on input received, to continue to support the project to redo the bridge because it is a public safety issue. Minutes of July 16, 1997 Vincent Kelly of 268 Williams Street stated that the Fire Department said they need it for better access, but that it only saves a minute on their response time. He asked about just putting in a pedestrian bridge if the Town has to pay for it anyway. Mr. French stated that the Board of Selectmen has made the decision that it should be rebuilt and that it's not the Planning Board's decision to make. The Planning Board's purpose is to look at it from a scenic road point of view and that's how we have to look at it. He stated that the last time the design was terrible and the Planning Board refused to approve it under the Scenic Roads Act. This plan is 100 percent better than before and it's not our decision as to whether it should be done. Mrs. Flynn expressed concern that if the State gets involved in doing the bridge, it will turn into something that looks like the railroad underpass on Route 106 and we should expect something better than that. She stated that we have an opportunity to enhance the area. She said the design looks great, but that she believes it is important that it be stone sided and asked who has the final say as to what goes on the bridge. Mr. Azinheira said the funding comes from MassHighway. He believes what the Planning Board is looking for is feasible and will try to get them to fund what we're asking for. Mrs. Flynn said that she thinks concrete blocks look like a prison wall and that this is a rural area and deserves something nice aesthetically. Mr. Goffredo asked if the Town could make up the difference in cost to provide for additional items not included in the State project. Mr. Azinheira said they may be an option. Mr. Meehan asked about the number, size and location of trees to be cut. Mr. Flynn asked if the trees that are proposed to be taken down could be marked so people could identify them easily. Mr. Sullivan noted that everything inside the right -of -way that is going to be impacted should be shown on the plan. Another resident expressed concern that there may be other smaller trees taken down which are not being shown. Mr. French noted that according to the submission requirements, all trees over 11/2 inches in diameter should be shown on the plan and they are not. It was agreed that all trees to be cut within the right -of -way would be flagged. Mr. Frederick asked if the engineers would be able to proceed to a 75% submission without the Board granting a Scenic Road Permit. He suggested that it would be more cost effective if they were allowed to proceed and include all the trees on the plan at the next stage. Mr. Sullivan noted that they are looking for a scenic road permit at the end of this year. Mr. Azinheira stated that they applied at this stage simply because of concerns about the plan that were raised the last time. Mr. McShane indicated that he thought they were looking for direction. He stated that he thinks the design is better than the last one, but that it's still a bad project and that for $1 million, he doesn't see the benefit to the Minutes of July 16, 1997 town. Mr. French responded that this is not the finding the Planning Board has to make and that we are not being asked to determine whether the bridge should be replaced. Dr. Torman said that it is his understanding that our responsibility is to determine how this affects a scenic road, not how it affects the town. Mr. Sullivan said that the main purpose of the scenic road by -law is to protect trees and stone walls and that is what has to be addressed. He went on to say that he believes the engineers should take the comments received tonight and come back at the 75% stage for the actual permit. A straw vote was discussed. Mr. Burke noted that a scenic road permit gives them the knowledge that it is permissible to go off the road in one location and come back in another location. He suggested the Board identify their concerns and continue the public hearing indefinitely, stating in a letter their willingness to issue a permit when additional information is added to the plan at a date yet to be determined. He suggested that the Board needs to indicate their willingness to have the engineers move forward with this. Motion: To support the realignment as shown on the submitted plans with comments that will be given to the applicant by means of a copy of the minutes for consideration in the next step of the project and to indefinitely postpone the hearing until the 75% plan is submitted for action on a scenic road permit. (Sullivan - Flynn) 6 -1 with Mr. McShane opposed. PASSES Mr. Frederick asked where we start to ask how much a pedestrian bridge will cost and whether we can get that at the 75% stage. Mrs. Flynn asked that the Engineering Department stay in close touch with the Planning Board so the Board of Selectmen can be lobbied for their support at the appropriate time. Shirley Hanlon of the Conservation Commission asked if Attleboro has been contacted regarding the impact of the flow of the river down to them. Mr. Azinheira said he will advise them. He is not, however, looking for Attleboro's permission, but rather advising them of what we are doing. The hearing closed at 9:45 p.m., at which time the Board took a short recess. Public Hearing -Residential Compound off Bird Road The public hearing was opened at 9:55 p.m. with the Clerk reading the hearing notice which appeared in the Mansfield News on June 27th and July 4th, 1997. Mr. Burke stated that he wanted to clarify at this point that this hearing is for a special permit and that the proposal being considered does not contain a proposal for active recreation in the area. He stated that this has been a major concern of abutters and has been the focus of many phone calls received regarding the proposal. Minutes of July 16, 1997 Present on behalf of the applicant were: Michael Perreault, Engineer, and David Johnson, Planner, for P.M.P. Associates; Marie Green, Trustee of Chatham Realty Trust; and Attorney Oppenheimer. Mr. Perreault stated that this a two -step process and that, in order to obtain a special permit, the Zoning By -law requires them to demonstrate that they can do a traditional subdivision on the parcel. He therefore is first showing a plan containing a six lot subdivision with two cut -de -sacs. A Form A plan was done, leaving two fifty foot necks on Bird Road and Maple Street. Their first option was a standard subdivision. Marie Green applied to the ZBA for a frontage variance and was denied. They then looked at two other options and felt that a subdivision road going between two existing houses was not a good alternative. It was then determined that a residential compound would be a better alternative. Conservation has agreed with the line shown on the plan. Six single family homes are being proposed on the highest point of the land within the wooded area where there has already been some clearing. The proposal calls for a compound with access off Bird Road using an 18 foot driveway. This enables them to have 300 feet less roadway. The end result would be six single - family detached condos. Neither the Recreation Commission nor the Conservation Commission are interested in the remaining open space land. As a result, there are two options available for use. The first is that it be held in common ownership by the condo association. The second option would be to look at other open space uses for the parcel that would be acceptable to those involved, such as tree farming. The current pile of dirt would be leveled out and would be left for forest use. The Clerk read correspondence and comments received from the following Town Department Heads concerning the project: Lt. Joseph J. Sarro, Jr. of the Fire Department Pltm. L. M. Lawson of the Police Department Robert Morrison, Acting Assistant DPW Director Lee M. Azinheira, Town Engineer Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development Lorilee Fish, Park and Recreation Director Richard Lewis, Environmental and Conservation Planner Read simultaneously was a letter from P.M.P. Associates, responding to the comments received from each of the Department Heads. Mr. Perreault said they would like to be able to do something with the open space and not be encumbered by a homeowners' association. If not, it would become part of the parcel. Wendy and Andy Barbeau of 41 Bird Road said they are concerned about the drainage plan, stating that they have a lot of water in the spring and had to get help from the Minutes of July 16, 1997 Conservation Commission with their backyard. They stated that they were not happy with the solution proposed by the developer. Mr. Perreault said the area subjected to flooding is an isolated area. They propose to put in a paved roadway, but that it will be less than that which would have been required in a traditional subdivison. They will be trying to slow the flooding down by letting it get into a sedimentation pool and seeping into the ground. Mr. Barbeau said he did not think the proposed drainage plan would handle the additional volume created and that they are concerned about flooding in their backyard. Mr. Perreault said they are not putting in much impervious surface that will create runoff and that any additional runoff can be calculated and accommodated. Richard Belmont of 23 Bird Road commented that the area proposed for drainage is totally ledge. Brian Kuras of 37 Bird Road said their lot is next to the Barbeau's and that they will get all the water that runs off the Barbeau's property. He stated that as a landowner he has the right to do things with his land, but he's bound by Conservation Commission regulations and that it seems to him that the developer is trying to set as many houses on the land as possible and not abide by ConCom regulations. The plan shows that, from his backyard, he will be looking at four houses right together in a small area and he is concerned that with such a residential compound, cutting of trees will be necessary that will expose all the high tension wires to his view. Mr. Perreault explained that they are not taking the fast track to get the plan approved. They have the right to come in and do a traditional subdivision and everyone in the town will incur the cost of maintaining the roads within the subdivision through their taxes. He suggested that this is more of a benefit to the town and that the wetlands will act as a vegetative buffer between the Kuras home and the power lines, as trees don't have to be cut under this plan except in the areas of the driveway and for house placement and septic systems. Jim Perella of 31 Bird Road said that there are many children in the area and he thinks making the entrance narrower will create a more dangerous situation for them. Mr. Perreault said that the Police Department has reviewed the plan and had no problem with the proposed driveway. He further said that Bird Road is quite chopped up now and that the developer has created a strip that will be given to the Town so they can make improvements and clear some of the brush. Mr. Perella stated that Bird Road was only chip surfaced and he was concerned that the increased traffic coming from additional development would result in deterioration of the road which the Town would be responsible for maintaining. 8 Minutes of July 16, 1997 Frank Caridi of 56 Bird Road asked about the sign that would be placed at the end of the driveway, specifically whether they could put up any kind of sign they wanted and who ( would be responsible for maintaining it. He also asked about the common area and what the homeowner's association would be allowed to do with that. Mr. French replied that the Planning Board puts strict controls on what can be done and that there would be a restrictive covenant in place to which they would have to adhere. Mr. Johnson said the sign would indicate street addresses for the homes in the compound and would not be used for advertising. Richard Belmont of 23 Bird Road commented that a road was made through his lot and cars were driving up there all the time. Marie Green said that was a path that had been there for thirty -five years and that it will be graded. Mr. Perreault explained that Mr. Belmont would have to give Mr. Bertarelli permission to go in there. He noted that the homes on Bird Road are all Colonials built on Form A lots where there were no lot development costs involved. He explained that the proposed developer has a roadway to construct and utility costs to incur with the development of the six houses. The houses to be built would therefore not be small, inexpensive houses but would rather be something nice and that the residents should not be fooled by the term "condo." In this case "condo" refers to a form of ownership. Mr. and Mrs. Barbeau asked who would be doing the surveying and if they would re- survey if they (the Barbeaus) were not in agreement with the findings of the surveyor relating to wetlands and drainage. Mr. Perreault said the developer would be paying for the survey and that the Barbeaus were welcome to hire and pay their own surveyor if they disagreed with the findings. Mr. Dolan commented that he was surprised that none of the abutters to the path asked about the developer's willingness to convey a portion of the access road to those directly abutting it. Mr. Sullivan noted that he is concerned about the drainage area, stating that there is a lot of water out there now and that 1,100 feet of driveway 18 feet wide is not a minor _addition of impervious surface. He stated he would like to see some drainage calculations and some mitigation. Mr. Perreault responded that they are trying to keep the high point as close to Bird Road as possible to alleviate what's flowing there. Mr. Sullivan noted that he would like to see that they are not exceeding the limit of run off with the proposed site and what the sight distances are. He would also like to see the location of the water line on the plan. He asked about restoration of the gravel pit and whether any blasting would be necessary with the amount of ledge in the area. Mr. Perreault replied that they hope not to blast, but if they hit ledge for the water line, they'll have to. Mr. Sullivan suggested they dig a couple of extra test holes in places where they 9 Minutes of July 16, 1997 think they might hit ledge so we know if there will be blasting. He asked that the j developer also provide a drawing of what the sign at the entrance might look like. Mrs. Flynn said that she will take both plans home and look at them very carefully. She stated that it seems to her that a conventional subdivision might be preferable. She also stated that she foresees problems with the plan presented regarding the length of the road, separation of the open space land, drainage, and sight distances and that she will never vote to approve a plan that asks for commercial use of open space land. Mr. Perreault said that he put out the commercial use of the land only as an option and that he never meant to imply that it would be a commercial use. He had in mind something more in line with allowing a county agricultural school to use the property. Mrs. Flynn restated her position that the people who are buying lots should all hold the open space land and pay taxes on it. Mr. Burke suggested that, assuming the public hearing is to be continued, a site walk be scheduled. He stated that there were many issues raised that could be better addressed by an on -site visit. Mr. Sullivan agreed, stating that it would give board members a better idea of what the limits of clearing will be. He suggested that, if the septic systems were going to be in the front, minimal clearing distances from the house might give abutters some degree of comfort in that a natural buffer might be retained. It was further suggested that the developer consider narrowing up the pavement width, going to 14 feet with perhaps two 2 -foot shoulders, thus cutting out 4 feet of impervious surface and decreasing runoff. It was also suggested that perhaps the driveway could be re- pitched away from the houses for the first 100 feet. Mr. Johnson replied that they were proposing cross sloping from the high side to the low side and that it was pitched from the existing roadway and back up, using the same design standards as a conventional subdivision. He suggested that the plan could be constructed in the field. Mr. French said he would like to see the calculations and design to make sure there is no increase in the runoff potential. He would like also to see drainage mitigation, sight distance calculations, and assurance that the easement will conform to Town requirements. Motion: To continue the Public Hearing to August 6, 1997 at 8:00 p.m, and to do a site walk on Saturday, August 2, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. (Sullivan- Dolan) 7 -0 PASSES 10 Minutes of July 16, 1997 N ayhew Farm Special Permit Decision A draft decision for the Mayhew Farm Cluster Residential Special Permit was reviewed. On page 3, number 3 - suggested that statement be made more specific to read, "...with the exception of the area of the drainage Swale..." Motion: To grant the request for a waiver from Section 5.2.2 of the Mansfield Subdivision Regulations allowing for a twenty (20) foot pavement width. (Dolan - Flynn) 7 -0 PASSES Motion: To grant the Special Permit in accordance with the provision of the Zoning By- law of the Town of Mansfield and subject to all of its regulations unless specified otherwise within this decision. (Dolan- Flynn) 7 -0 PASSES Mrs. Flynn - in favor because the proposal encourages the permanent preservation of open space and is in keeping with the Zoning By -law. It is also in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Sullivan - in favor because the cluster is a better subdivision than a conventional subdivision and is in keeping with the neighborhood and the entire area. Mr. McShane - in favor because the plan is better than a conventional subdivision, it reduces the density of development and preserves open space, and the the developer was very cooperative in the site plan effort. Mr. Dolan - in favor for all of the above reasons and also feels that the development will create a tendency for people to slow down when driving in the area and will eventually decrease the number of motor vehicle accidents which occur. Mr. Frederick - it, favor because the plan does what we want it to do and me applicant did a good job with the plan. Dr. Torman - in favor for all of the above reasons and believes it shows what can be done in preserving the environment. Mr. French - in favor for all the above reasons. 11 Minutes of July 16, 1997 Mr. Frederick stated that he does not believe residential compounds are in the Town's best interest. He thinks the by -law is too loose and that the Board should take a closer look at it before the next Town Meeting. Mr. McShane asked if there was anything new on the Great Woods proposal. Mr. Burke said that he has not yet been contacted and that he will fill out Mansfield's end of the grant application and get together with the Norton Planner and Richard Lewis to talk about it. He will start out assuming there will be no road through Great Woods, taking the position that there is more to the Great Woods than transportation access and developable land. Mr. McShane pointed out that the developer will be required to study the issues related to transportation and that if the Town is going to get anything from the State, it should not be something someone else should be doing. Mr. Sullivan advised the Board that he will not be able to attend the July 30th meeting. Motion: To sign the mylars for streets accepted at Town Meeting in the Planning Department at the convenience of Board members. (Dolan - Flynn) 7 -0 PASSES Motion: To adjourn at 12:05 a.m. Signature of6Cferk > - -30-95 Date of Approval Date of Next Meeting: July 30,19917 @ 7:30 p m " 12 Minutes of July 16, 1997