Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutplanningbrdmin12082010 Planning Board Minutes December 8, 2010 Present: Tom French, Chair; Beth Ashman-Collins, Clerk; Michael McClanahan, Anthony Jodice, Don Cleary, James Ragazzo Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development .., ':'J 11. Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. I 2. Correspondence 1. Minutes November 17,2010 Motion: To approve as submitted (McClanahan-Cleary) All in favor. PASSES 2. Copy of deed transferring the Autumn Park open space in to the Conservation Commission 2. Request for release of surety - Autumn Park Phase I / Memo from Mike Ahern recommending the release of $5,640.00 Motion: To release $5,640.00 from the Autumn Park Phase I bond (McClanahan-Cleary) All in favor. PASSES 3. Request for release of surety - Autumn Park Phase II / Memo from Mike Ahern recommending the release of $16,420.80 Motion: To release $16,420.80 from the Autumn Park Phase II bond (McClanahan-Cleary) All in favor. PASSES 4. Meeting notices Attleboro, Foxboro, Sharon Mr. Cleary said Foxboro only had seven applicants for their 120-space train station parking lot at the Hatheway-Patterson site. Mr. Burke said that lot has a very steep entrance off of County Street, which will likely make it difficult in the winter, and it is quite far from the train station. I 5. Form A (ANR) Plans I I 4. Preliminary Subdivision Review - Dolan Estates - 4 Lots off Ware Street I Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering, explained the plan for a 24-acre site on the west side of Ware Street with eight acres of upland in the middle. The plan shows a four-lot cluster subdivision with a common area; Mr. Maloon showed the board the conventional layout with each lot having 60,000 square feet of upland. Mr. Maloon said soil testing has been done with suitable perc results; the cluster plan shows the location of septic systems and houses. The driveway will have to cross a wetland; they have had a MEP A hearing, will have to go to the Army Corps of Engineers and are currently before the Conservation Commission. Based on the MEP A hearing, they have been asked to minimize wetland impact as much as possible. The plans submitted show 4,700 square feet of wetland filling and a number of waivers. Mr. Feck said MEPA was adamant they do everything possible to get the wetland filling under 5,000 feet. Mr. Maloon said even under 5,000 Planning Board 12/9/2010 square feet of filling, they will have to apply to the Army Corps. Mr. Feck said the army Corps usually sends back "no action required" for projects under 5,000 square feet. Mr. Maloon said the cul-de-sac is 180 feet diameter with no center island. Mr. Maloon explained there are additional trees proposed to screen the abutters, and the pavement has been brought down to 44 feet. Ms. Collins asked if going over the stream is the only way to access the site. Mr. Maloon said the roadway has a 70-foot layout. Mr. Feck said the original plan had the paved area closer to the drainage area, and MEP A doesn't want them to disturb more than 50 feet of bank. Therefore, the roadway has been moved away from the wetland. Mr. Feck said he understands the board is concerned about precedent, but said he doesn't believe granting waivers on this site will do that. He said he is being ordered to do some of the things that result in the waivers by other agencies, so any waivers would be specific to this site. Ms. Collins asked about the waiver for less than 150 feet from an intersection; Mr. Feck said they would have been a few feet short regardless of the road location. Mr. Jodice asked how far the road would be from Canoe River Drive; Mr. Maloon said it would be around 380 feet. Mr. French asked when the existing Ware Street lots were built; Mr. Maloon said he thought they were built during the 1960s or early 70s. Mr. Feck said he does not know if they were originally part of this property. Mr. Maloon said that stream used to be much smaller, but the culvert has been enlarged and the schools shed in that direction. Department Head Comments The clerk read comments from Fire, Light, Conservation and Engineering. Board Comment Ms. Collins asked about the sidewalk waiver; Mr. Feck said with a sidewalk, the roadway would have to be wider, which would require more wetland filling. Ms. Collins asked if there is an existing driveway to this site; Mr. Feck said there is not. Mr. Feck said the road will be very short and the houses will be set quite far back from the end of the cul-de-sac. He said he will request a waiver for an 18-foot wide roadway. He said there are other 18-foot wide roadways in town, which service much larger subdivisions than this. Mr. French said he is concerned about precedent because more and more properties with significant wetland issues are coming before the board. He asked if this could be built without the waivers; Mr. Feck said he believes so, with a number of permits from other agencies like MEPA and the Army Corps. Mr. Burke said if the Planning Board denied this, the developer would appeal it, then the Corps or MEP A could either support the developer's argument or not. Mr. Jodice said he would be concerned that would open the town up to a lot of suits from developers with wetlands on their property. Mr. Feck said the Conservation Commission would likely deny the application without the Planning Planning Board 2 12/9/2010 - Board waivers. He said with a limited access project, the town cannot prevent access to the upland, but it can decide the impact of that access would be detrimental. Mr. Burke said a possible settlement may be to allow access to one large lot rather than to four lots. Mr. Burke said the court would look at whether the developer made a good faith effort to conform to all of the state and local regulations. Ms. Collins asked what could be built without the waivers. Mr. Maloon said the two big waiver requests are the roadway width and the sidewalk. Mr. Cleary said he would like to see sidewalks and suggested making the grass plots along the roadway smaller. Mr. Feck said there would still be a problem with the slope off the back of the sidewalk. Mr. French asked about a retaining wall; Mr. Feck said that would result in more wetland disturbance. Mr. Burke said an 18-foot roadway is as narrow as the board has allowed. Mr. Ragazzo said he would like sidewalks, and he is concerned about the road width. Mr. Jodice said he would like to see another way to access the land; Mr. Feck said buying a Ware Street lot wouldn't help the situation because they are small lots. Motion: To open and continue the 17 West Street public hearing (McClanahan-Cleary) Five in favor. Collins abstained. PASSES Mr. Cleary said he is concerned about the width of the road, and said he would like to see at least one sidewalk. Mr. Burke said he would look at other roadways for which the board has granted waivers. Ms. Collins said she is uncomfortable with granting a series of waivers just to make the construction of more lots possible. Mr. McClanahan said he would like to see a 20-foot roadway. Mr. Burke asked what would happen with a retaining wall instead of a 2-1 slope. Mr. Feck said it would be a similar situation. Mr. Burke said it could be a similar situation to a bridge; Mr. Maloon said with a retaining wall, the sidewalk could go on the other side. Mr. French said he thinks the board is concerned about the width of roadway and the sidewalk waivers, and with granting waivers that would allow the permitting of something that otherwise wouldn't be permittable. Mr. Feck said he plans to use wells on this site. Motion: To continue Dolan Estates to January 26,2011 at 8:30 p.m. (Cleary-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES Planning Board 3 12/9/2010 ~ 'l'/I"' [Mr. Penney arrived at this time] 5. Special Permit Public Hearing - 17 West Street - Interior Wireless Communication Facility - Congregational Church Ms. Collins excused herself. Motion: To appoint Mr. Cleary Acting Clerk (McClanahan-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES The clerk read the public hearing notice. Attorney Scott Lacy, Prince Lobel Glovsky & Tye, LLP, explained the plan for four interior antennae installed within the steeple of the Congregational Church. The cables will be connected to a tray mounted on the exterior of the church, then to the equipment cabinet in the basement. There is existing mesh screening within the steeple; the antennae will be at 53 feet within the steeple and will be painted white. The equipment cabinets will be in a 14'x 14' area within the basement and there will be a small hvac unit on a concrete slab at the back of church. Mr. Lacy explained MetroPCS is in the process of building its network. They currently have three sites in Mansfield, at 33 Suffolk Road, 241 Francis Avenue and SOO South Main Street. Their gap in coverage is in the downtown area, so this equipment will close the gap without disturbing the neighbors. Mr. Lacy showed the board the "before" and "after" coverage maps, which show the gap being closed with the installation of these antennae. Mr. Lacy explained they looked at alternatives including the First Baptist Church and the Methodist Church, which do not have tall enough steeples, as well as the office building at 127 North Main Street, where there is an existing antenna which would interfere with this equipment. Mr. Lacy said the board can make a finding that there is a significant gap in coverage. Mr. Lacy said they had to contact the Massachusetts Historic Commission, which suggested the antennae could be painted grey instead of white and placed further back from the screening, resulting in a shadow effect. Correspondence The clerk read memos from the Light and Fire Departments. Mr. Lacy presented a letter from MetroPCS's radiofrequency engineer indicating their equipment will not interfere with public safety communication equipment because they operate on a different frequency. Public Comment Fred Armstrong, 27 Necco Road, explained the church is in favor of this proposal and feel MetroPCS has designed a plan that will not impact the exterior of the church. Planning Board 4 12/9/2010 Board Comment Mr. Ragazzo asked if there are any bells in the steeple. Mr. Lacy said there is a working bell, but this equipment will not impact its use. Mr. Ragazzo asked if the Police Department has been informed of this; Mr. Burke said it has. Mr. Ragazzo asked if the FCC requires the applicant to avoid interfering with public safety communication equipment. Mr. Lacy said their license requires them to operate on a specific frequency, which is different from public safety frequencies. Mr. Ragazzo asked if there are any harmful effects of the radio waves. Mr. Lacy explained the FCC sets standards for emissions, which is far below what is known to be harmful to humans. Mr. Ragazzo asked if the congregants are comfortable with that. Mr. Armstrong said they are. Mr. Jodice asked if the board is allowed to bring public health into its deliberations. Mr. Burke said it is not. Mr. Jodice asked what would happen if something happens to the steeple. Mr. Lacy said they would have to return to the board for another special permit. Mr. Cleary asked what the cable tray would look like. Mr. Lacy said the wires will come down inside the attic to a vertical cable tray, lay flat along the roof and down to the basement. All equipment will be painted to match the church. Mr. Cleary asked if this equipment would be made available to other carriers. Mr. Lacy explained their installation does not preclude anyone else from using the church, but they would need their own antennae. Mr. Cleary asked about the coverage maps. Mr. Lacy said the green on the maps is the coverage area; the white areas are uncertain coverage areas, especially indoors. Mr. Penney asked if this is a cell tower. Mr. Lacy said it is not; it is an interior wireless communication facility, which includes only the antenna portion. All four antennae both send and receive. Mr. Lacy said the FCC regulates this sort of equipment; if it were an actual tower, Mass Aeronautics would have also regulations. Mr. Penney asked when the technology would change so much that this type of facility wouldn't be needed. Mr. Lacy said he thinks this type of technology will be around for the foreseeable future. He added that these facilities have leases, after which the equipment will have to be removed. Mr. Burke explained wireless facilities are allowed in some zones, but if a carrier can prove a significant gap in coverage, they can petition for a special permit to locate the use in a zone where it wouldn't normally be allowed. Mr. Penney asked if the abutters have been notified. Mr. Burke said they have been notified by certified mail. Planning Board 5 12/9/2010 - Mr. Burke said this is the kind of proposal the by-law anticipated, to encourage location of wireless facilities within existing structures. Motion: To make a finding that there is a significant gap in coverage and that the applicant's plan would rectify that condition (Jodice-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES Bob Watson, site acquisition specialist, said the initial lease is for five years with four options to renew for additional five year periods. Motion: To grant the Special Permit under Section 3.6.7b, Interior Wireless Communication Facility, of the Mansfield Zoning By-Law for the installation of four (4) antennas within the existing steeple at an antenna height not to exceed sixty feet (60') above ground level 17 West Street. The interior mounted antennas will not increase the height of the steeple and will be painted to match the steeple and the cable tray will be painted to match the surface to which it is attached. The existing screening will be replaced with screening made of radio-frequency friendly materials, and ancillary communications equipment cabinets will be located within a 14'xI4' lease area within the basement. The HV AC system will be located outside at the rear of the church. This special permit is granted with the following conditions: 1. The plans of "BOS0631 B OCC- West St - Mansfield 17 West Street Mansfield Ma 02048 Bristol County" dated September 8, 2010 and revised September 16, 2010, prepared by Turning Mill Consultants, Inc. are incorporated into this special permit decision by reference; 2. All above-referenced department head comments shall be fully and satisfactorily addressed during the 20-day appeal period. Specifically, the Fire Department's concern that this facility will not interfere with emergency dispatch communications must be addressed; 3. The interior wireless communication facility to be owned and constructed by Metro PCS Massachusetts LLC at 17 West Street shall be limited to a maximum of sixty feet (60') above ground level within the existing steeple; 4. Metro PCS Massachusetts LLC or its successor, owners or assigns shall remove the antenna panels, cable trays and covers at the equipment owner's expense within one (1) year from the date of cessation of use; 5. The transmitting frequency shall not interfere, conflict with or interrupt any Town of Mansfield radio or communications device or system. 6. If the structure within which the antennas are to be located is torn down, falls down, or meets some destructive fate brought about by a natural or manmade disaster, this permit shall not allow a new interior or exterior wireless communication facility to be at that location without a new special permit; Planning Board 6 12/9/2010 - 7. There shall be no signs placed upon the steeple except as required by state or federal regulations (eg:, FCC, FAA, OSHA); 8. Should a temporary emergency generator be located on this site, the emergency generator shall have a noise suppression muffler and cabinet enclosure to mitigate nOIse Issues. (Penney- McClanahan) McClanahan -In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, and the project will be a win-win for the community and the church. Penney - In favor The by-law allows the board the ability to rectify significant gaps in coverage Issues. Cleary -- In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, and this project will be good for the church. Jodice - In favor. The project will have no negative impacts on health, safety, convenience, general welfare and amenities and will have a positive fiscal impact. Ragazzo - In favor. There will be no negative impacts, and the application meets the requirements of the Zoning By-Law. French - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, the applicant has proven that a gap in coverage exists, and the project will provide a service to town with both increased revenue and increased communications. All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (McClanahan-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES 6. Special Permit Public Hearing continued - 905 South Main Street - Commercial Parking Lot The clerk read a request from the applicant's attorney to continue the public hearing to January 26,2011 Motion: To continue the public hearing to January 26, 2011 at 8:00 p.m. (McClanahan-Cleary) All in favor. PASSES I 7. Adjournment Motion: To adjourn at 10:00 p.m. (McClanahan- ) All in favor. PASSES ry 12,2011 at 7:30 p.m. Feb. q JOlt Date of Approval ' Planning Board 7 12/9/2010 -