Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutplanningbrdmin05112011 Planning Board Minutes 'RECEIVED May 11,2011 TOWN CLERKS OFFiCE Present: Tom French, Chair; Beth Ashman-Collins, Clerk, Michael McClanahan, Shawn MacDonald, Don Cleary, James Ragazzo, Ralph Penney, Alternate 2011 AUG 21.1 A ~ 11 Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development l't\HSfIELD At 6:00 p.m., the Planning Board visited the Hatheway~Patterson property on i.. ,. CHUSETTS County Street, then returned to Town Hall. 11. Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. I 2. Correspondence Motion: To appoint Mr. Cleary acting clerk (McClanahan-MacDonald) All in favor. P ASES 1. Minutes April 27, 2011 Motion: To approve as submitted (Cleary-MacDonald) Five in favor. McClanahan abstained. PASSES 2. May 10,2011 letter from Jay Zola re: Stanley Place Water Main Mr. Burke told the board construction has begun on Stanley Village and reminded the members the water is being looped back on itself rather than through Mary Dee Lane. The original plan was to loop the main through an abutting property on Mary Dee Lane, but Mr. Zola has been unsuccessful in his attempts to contact the landowner since their original discussion. Therefore, the line will be entirely in Stanley Village. [Ms. Collins arrived at this time] The board discussed sending a letter to the EP A asking that the board receive a copy of the initial draft of the Activities Limitation Use document for the board's comment. Motion: To send the letter to David Lederer (Cleary-MacDonald) Mr. Penney asked about the CSX easement. Mr. Burke said there is a facility in Connecticut with the 1800s railroad maps, which he may visit. He said town counsel will research Foundry Street and the town will contact CSX. Mr. Penney suggested talking to Mike Ahern before doing that because Mr. Ahern has indicated the EP A and Army Corps both researched the property before the Hatheway-Patterson cleanup. Mr. French said if Foundry Street is town-owned property, the town could simply build an access there. Mr. Penney asked about the alternative traffic plans for the train station. Mr. Burke said he has a list of the plans and will bring them to the board. Mr. Ragazzo said the Historical Society has a lot of maps that might be helpful. 4. ZBA application for Variance - 3 Dustin Court - rear yard Mr. Burke explained this property has been granted a variance and the proposed addition squares off the back of the house. That variance was specific to the first Planning Board 6/28/2011 ... addition, so the building inspector had the applicant go back to the ZBA for this one. Mr. Burke said this addition would not increase the encroachment. Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation (Cleary-Penney) All in favor. PASSES 5. ZBA application for Variance - 27 Chestnut Street -lot width and frontage Mr. Burke explained the application seeks to create a second lot that lacks lot width and frontage. Both lots would have sufficient area. Mr. Burke noted many of the lots in that neighborhood are small. Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation. (Collins-MacDonald) All in favor. PASSES 6. April 25, 2011 memo from Mr. Burke re: inclusionary housing requirement 7. April 25, 2011 memo from Mr. Burke to Mr. Ross re: Design Review Committee draft 8. April 26, 2011 letter from Mr. Burke to Scott Kleibor, Kohl's re: security Invitation to May 21 Walsh/Albertini Wells Groundbreaking 10. Public Hearing notices - Attleboro, Easton 11. SPREDD Annual Meeting notice 12. The Beacon 13. Wildlands News I 3. Form A (ANR) Plans I 4. Public Hearing - Planning Board Zoning By-Law Amendments Mr. Burke said these articles came about after new town counsel reviewed the Zoning By-Law, and they are primarily housekeeping items. Article 41: 1.5.48 and 3.4.10, Temporary Use Motion: To support Article 41 (Penney-Ragazzo) All in favor. PASSES Article 42: 3.3.1, Single Family Dwelling and 3.3.6, Cluster Residential Motion: To support Article 42 (Penney-Ragazzo) All in favor. PASSES Article 43: Schedule of Principal Use Regulations and 4.2.1, Density and Dimensional Regulations, Residential Districts Motion: To support Article 43 (Penney-Ragazzo) All in favor. PASSES Article 44: 6.0, Inclusionary Housing Requirement, 6.2.6, Local Initiative Program and 6.2.11, Subsidized Housing Inventory Motion: To support Article 44 (Penney-Ragazzo) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (McClanahan-Collins) All in favor. PASSES 4. Site Plan Review - Special Permit Public Hearing - 55 and Over Development - 68 Spring Street The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. French explained how the public hearing would be conducted. Planning Board 2 6/28/2011 111II Attorney Edward Valanzola introduced James Lazzara. Attorney Valanzola explained the vacant lot in the R3 zone, for which a Planning Board special permit is necessary, will remain vacant. He said the ZBA has granted a special permit for 68 Spring Street, in the R2 zone, for the expansion of a non-conforming use. The Planning Board special permit application is for the vacant land, and the site plan review is for the reuse of the mill building at 68 Spring Street. Attorney Valanzola said they have met with the department heads and responded to most of the comments. He said he understands the town engineer has outstanding concerns. Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc., showed the board an elevation of the rear of the building, including an existing gravel parking lot. The site has existing sewer. There will be an addition. The Fire Department will be able to get its largest piece of equipment onto the site. The Fire Chief has asked the plantings around the cul-de-sac island be low-growth and berms be low enough for trucks to get around. Mr. Trowbridge said everything from Spring Street slopes toward the Rumford River. Mr. Alves has suggested if both manholes are not used, the unused one be sealed. Mr. Trowbridge explained the main entrance is at the back with handicapped spaces, a walkway and a portico. With 22 units, 44 parking spaces are required; they have 49 plus six handicapped spaces for a total of 55. The evergreens along the lot line and the buffer along the back of the lot will be kept. Mr. Trowbridge explained there will be subsurface drainage with catch basins. Department Head Comments The clerk read a memo from Engineering, Fire, Electric, Planning, Conservation. Mr. Lazzara said they would be using the existing footprint and would not be doing any work that would trigger Conservation Commission review. Board Comment Mr. Penney asked why the existing sewer lateral is not being used. Mr. Trowbridge said there are two laterals, and they are using one. Mr. Penney said that appears to be in the floodplain. Mr. Lazzara said the lateral they are using would require fewer changes. Mr. Penney asked when the building was last used for manufacturing. Mr. Lazzara said Mr. Nelson used it until 8 or 9 years ago. He said there was a proposal before Town Meeting 10-15 years ago to use the building for a 32-unit multi-family development, which failed. Mr. Penney said he would like to see the property reused. Mr. MacDonald asked if there will be a streetlight at the entrance. Mr. Trowbridge said there is an existing streetlight, which is either broken or has been turned off. Mansfield Municipal Electric has said it will not turn it back on, so the applicant will add one. Planning Board 3 6/28/2011 111II Mr. MacDonald asked what would happen to the garage; Mr. Lazarra said it would be used for maintenance equipment. Mr. MacDonald asked about putting in some screening on the six-foot chain-link fence. Mr. Trowbridge said they would add slats to the fence. Mr. Cleary asked about work in the wetlands. Mr. Lazarra said there is none. Mr. Cleary asked if the applicant understands the affordable housing requirements. Mr. Lazarra said he does. Mr. Cleary asked if the lots would be combined. Mr. Lazarra said they would be. Mr. Cleary asked the height of the building; Mr. Lazarra said it is 34 feet. The addition will not be any higher than the existing building. The building will be sprinklered. Ms. Collins asked about plans to improve the fence and plantings along Spring Street. Mr. Trowbridge said that will all be cleaned up and the area loamed and seeded. There is no new fence being proposed. Mr. Burke said staff discussed the entrance and the problem of providing enough light at the driveway without being intrusive for the abutters or the Spring Street intersection. The applicant is going to come up with a lighting solution to solve all those problems. The Light Department has said it will not pay for any lights on this site. Mr. Lazarra said he plans to use 10-foot light poles on a two-foot concrete posts. Public Comment Gil Lahlum, 189 Union Street, said the town engineer's memo mentioned drainage concerns at his address. Mr. Trowbridge said there is an existing swale, but Mr. Alves suggests extending it so the water stays on this property and doesn't sheet flow south to the abutting properties. Kent Eckhart, 13 James Street, asked for a fence across his and his neighbors' properties to avoid people cutting across their land. He said he likes the lower light poles. Ann Baldwin, 56 Benefit Street, asked if there will be a driveway through to Union Street. Mr. Lazarra said he does not plan to do that. Howard Fiske, 73 Spring Street, asked ifthere would be a passcard system for cars going in and out of the lot. Mr. Lazarra said he doesn't plan to install one. George McIntyre, 52 Spring Street, asked ifthere would be a stop sign at the driveway. Mr. Trowbridge said the Police Department will require a stop sign. Mr. Ragazzo asked if this is for a self-contained apartment limited to 55 and over residents, and if there would be other services available. Mr. Valanzola said this will not Planning Board 4 6/28/2011 '11II' be an assisted living facility. He said the site will have rental units, but they could become owner-occupied units. Mr. Ragazzo asked who would manage the property; Mr. Lazarra said he would. Mr. Ragazzo asked if the tenants will be allowed pets; Mr. Lazarra said they will not. Mr. Valanzola explained the property has not been rezoned, so if this project does not work and the applicant wants to do another type of use, the site would have to be repermitted. Any subsequent owners would have to do a 55 and over residential use. Mr. Valanzola said he would rather the board's decision not include a condition that the parcel remain open space in perpetuity because the owner may decide to put something like tennis courts or walking paths there in the future. Mr. French asked if Mr. Lazarra plans to cut down the trees. Mr. Lazarra said he does not. Mr. French said he would support uses on that property like small gardens for the residents, but he wouldn't want to see all the trees removed. Mr. Valanzola said if the applicant ever planned to put a building on the vacant parcel, he would have to come to the board for a special permit to conduct that use. He said whatever use happens on the vacant land will go along with the 55 and over use. Mr. French said he wants to put conditions on the special permit to protect the neighbors. Mr. Valanzola suggested they could delineate the trees that would not be removed. Mr. Penney asked how much of the second lot is necessary to meet the density requirements. Mr. Valanzola said he wasn't sure, but it isn't the whole parcel. Mr. Penney said the thinks the board should be somewhat flexible about the conditions. Ms. Collins read the open space definition, describing what is allowed in open space. Mr. Cleary suggested delineating a distance back from Spring Street as the open space and therefore subject to the conditions of the open space definition, and beyond that would be left undisturbed in its natural state. Motion: To approve the special permit application to use the vacant parcel (Map 28, Lot 165) adjacent to 68 Spring Street (Map 28, Lot 71) for the purposes of the density calculation for the proposed renovation of the existing building at 68 Spring Street for twenty two (22) one-bedroom, one-bathroom units for residents fifty-five years of age or older. The vacant parcel, Map 28, Lot 165, is located in the Residential 2 (R2) zone and requires a special permit. The parcel at 68 Spring Street, Map 28, Lot 71, is located in the Residential 3 (R3) zone and requires site plan review. The special permit application is approved with the following conditions: 1. Sheets 1 through 6 of Plans of "Spring Street Mill Apartments" dated February 28, 2011 by Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc. are incorporated into this special permit decision by reference and shall be recorded with the special permit decision. Planning Board 5 6/28/2011 111[ 2. All above-referenced department head comments shall be satisfactorily addressed within the 20-day appeal period. 3. Any changes to the plans shall be made within the 20-day appeal period. 4. A portion of the vacant parcel (Map 28, Lot 165) adjacent to 68 Spring Street shall be used for the purposes of the density calculations for the proposed renovation of the existing building at 68 Spring Street (Map 28, Lot 71). 5. That portion of the vacant parcel (Map 28, Lot 165) running parallel with the parcel's frontage along Spring Street, and beginning at a distance 350 feet back from Spring Street and extending to the rear property line, shall remain undisturbed in perpetuity. No trees shall be removed. The front of that parcel, that portion used for the density calculations, from Spring Street back toward the rear of the lot a distance of approximately 350 feet, shall be designated as open space and therefore be subject to the conditions of Section 1.5.31, Open Space, of the Mansfield Zoning By-Law. Improvements shown on this parcel, including the dumpster, as shown on the site plan, shall be permitted. 6. The vacant parcel (Map 28, Lot 165) adjacent to 68 Spring Street (Map 28, Lot 71) shall not be further divided or subdivided. (Penney-McClanahan) Ragazzo - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments and the project will be a benefit to the public. Penney - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments and the project will be an improvement over the existing situation MacDonald - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, the project will have a positive impact on the health, safety, convenience and general welfare and will have a positive impact on neighborhood Cleary - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments and the project will be a benefit to the neighborhood. Collins - In favor. The special permit will allow the redevelopment of the site, which will have a positive impact on the neighborhood. McClanahan - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments. The project will have a positive impact on the health and safety of the neighborhood, will improve the existing building and provide protection for the abutters. French - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, the project will have a positive impact on the neighborhood and will leave open space. Planning Board 6 6/28/2011 111II 7 in favor. 0 opposed. 0 abstained. PASSES Mr. Trowbridge said they would be able to address the outstanding department head comments. Mr. French said most of those comments seem minor. Mr. Burke agreed. [Mr. Cleary left the meeting at this time] Motion: To send the Building Inspector a positive recommendation on the site plan subject to the applicant satisfactorily addressing all department head comments, especially the town engineer's; screening of dumpster; chain link fence be screened; affordable housing by-law (MacDonald-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Collins-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES 5. Special Permit Public Hearing - Dolan Estates Residential Compound - 4 Lots off Ware Street The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. French explained how the public hearing would be conducted. Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering, explained the plan for a four-lot residential compound on the west side of Ware Street. The site is 23.69 acres, and is mostly wet, but has 8.18 acres of upland in the middle of the site. Mr. Maloon showed the board the conventional subdivision plan with four lots with 650 feet of road; each lot would have adequate lot width and area. The site has two open space areas; one will be owned by the homeowner's association because it includes the driveway and the other will be donated to the NRT. Mr. Maloon presented a plan showing the exclusive use areas outside the Conservation Commission's no-touch zones. Mr. Maloon explained they have changed from a concrete slab across the brook to a bridge over the brook. The intent is to avoid touching the brook at all. Because the brook will not be touched, the height of the 100-year storm has been amended. Mr. Maloon showed the board a detail of the bridge and guardrails, which will have to be designed by a structural engineer. The road has been raised Yz foot over the bridge. They have added a construction entrance, driveway cross-section, siltation control and hydrant. Mr. Maloon explained the road will be 18 feet wide and the cul-de-sac 44 feet. Mr. Maloon said the Conservation Commission's consultant is reviewing the revised plans, so they will have to go back to Conservation. Planning Board 7 6/28/2011 - Mr. Feck said he visited five residential compounds and found road widths from 10-14 feet with no drainage or cul-de-sac islands. The largest has six houses, a 12-foot wide road and no drainage. Mr. Feck noted his plan exceeds many of those developments. Department Head Comments The clerk read memos from Engineering, Electric, Fire, Conservation Mr. Feck said the Conservation Commission meeting will probably have to be continued. He said he would like the Planning Board to make a determination on the large issues like the width of the road. Board Comment Mr. McClanahan said the plan shows an 18-foot roadway and asked ifthere would be any curbing. Mr. Feck said there would not be, but there will be swales before and after the bridge. Mr. Maloon explained before the bridge, the pavement will be pitched to the left. After the bridge, it will pitch in both directions. He will use a silt sock on the advice of the wetland consultant, which is an 18-inch diameter tube filled with mulch, on both sides of the brook to protect the banks while the bridge is being built. There is a natural swale there now, but the tube will help create a water quality swale. Mr. McClanahan asked where the bridge idea came from. Mr. Maloon said they originally had a box culvert, then planned to use a slab. The Conservation Commission does not want them to touch the banks of the brook, so they will come in from the street and cross the brook with a steel plate with pilings driven on each side. Mr. McClanahan asked when the plan would be through Conservation. Mr. Feck said he hoped they would finish in June, but doesn't think Conservation would approve the plan until the Planning Board does. Mr. MacDonald said the turning radius appears to be on the Wallace property; Mr. Feck said it is not, and in fact part of the Wallace's driveway is on his property. Mr. Penney asked if four lots could really be built in a conventional subdivision. Mr. Feck said they could. Mr. Burke said the conventional plan sets the density at four lots. He added the lots would have to be permitted through Conservation. Mr. Penney said the Fire Department is concerned about the 18' width of the private way. Mr. Feck said this is a limited access project, and the regulations require the wetland impacts to be minimized, which includes using all zoning tools available. He said he didn't want to do a residential compound, he would rather do a residential cluster. However, he said he didn't think he would get a cluster with an 18' private way permitted. He said the compound has the least amount of impact on the wetlands. Mr. Penney said he was concerned about the Fire Department's comment about two cars being unable to pass on the roadway. He said he was also concerned about there being no Planning Board 8 6/28/2011 - sidewalk. He said he would like to see a 25-foot right-of-way. Mr. Feck said the private roadway would only be for the four houses. Mr. Penney asked about the direction of the drainage. Mr. Feck said the brook on this site is fed by water shedding from the direction of the school property. Mr. Penney asked about cleaning the drainage swales. Mr. Feck said they would have to have an operations and maintenance plan. Public Comment Arthur O'Neill, 269 Ware Street, said the river appears to run through one of the lots on the conventional plan. Mr. Feck said that isn't really a river, it is more a drainage ditch. Mr. O'Neill said it is a flowing river. Mr. Maloon said what is shown on the plan is the whole wetland area. Mr. O'Neill asked how much the lots will have to be built up. Mr. Feck said they would be built up four to five feet. Mr. Maloon said there is plenty of room on each lot for houses and septic systems. Mr. O'Neill said an 18-foot wide roadway is going to be a problem for emergency vehicles. He said fire vehicles have gotten much bigger, and one parked on an I8-foot wide road would block the path of an ambulance and police cars. Mr. O'Neill said Ware Street has been paved in the last five years, which will trigger the street-cut moratorium, so in the meantime, the houses will have to be heated with oil or propane. He said the trucks that deliver those products are very large. Mr. O'Neill said the existing culvert will not be able to handle the extra demand of a new road and four houses. He said Ware Street residents already get water in their cellars, and that will get worse. He said it isn't fair that the quality oflife of the existing residents is destroyed for a new development. Mr. O'Neill said the proposed swales will become ponds because of the high water table. Mr. O'Neill said he thinks the highest and best use would be conservation land. Mr. Penney asked what the minimum pavement width should be. Mr. O'Neill said it should be wide enough for two large vehicles to pass. Mr. Burke said the newest fire trucks are nine feet wide, so two would fill an 18-foot wide roadway. Mr. Feck said there will be a three-foot shoulder on each side of the road. George Wallace, 233 Ware Street, said he is concerned about the water. He said during heavy rain, the brook comes onto his property and he has a sump pump operating all the time. He asked how the area in the middle of this site could be dry when the property is so wet. Mr. French said the Conservation Commission has approved the wetland line. Planning Board 9 6/28/2011 111II Steve Greco, 271 Ware Street, said he is concerned about where the water is going to go post-construction. Mr. French asked if the plan addresses the volume of water that will be generated by the road and houses, and where the water will go. Mr. Feck said this would not make the existing water problems worse, and may even improve it because his drainage system would take some of the water out quicker, before it gets to the other lots. Mr. Maloon said the peak flow occurs in 90 minutes, so their area will shed faster. Mr. French asked if the roofs can be recharged; Mr. Maloon said they cannot. Mr. Maloon said the soils are poorly drained and have a very heavy water table to begin with; perc rates were 14-24 minutes, with high groundwater 24-36 inches down. Mr. Burke asked if the water would drain toward the wetland if the lots are filled. Mr. Maloon said currently, the lOO-year storm is 50.1, post-development 49.9. He said with the houses, the volume of water will increase, but the peak flow will not. Mr. Feck said on the east side of Ware Street, the soil conditions and groundwater levels change drastically. Mr. O'Neill said the problem is on the west side of Ware Street, and asked how the water situation could get better with more impervious surface. He said the water has to have somewhere to go, and during two 100-year storms in 2010, the residents had problems. Mr. Feck said he wanted to build up the banks of the brook to help drain the whole area, but the conservation regulations will not allow him to touch the bank. Mr. Maloon said the existing culvert would carry more water if it had the right materials. Mr. French asked if any detention areas are proposed. Mr. Maloon said there are none because that would make the existing problems worse. He said the best thing they can do for the abutters is to get the water through the culvert as quickly as possible. Mr. French asked about drainage swales; Mr. Feck said that is an issue they have to discuss with Mr. Alves. Mr. Maloon said there is a natural swale along the roadway. Mr. Feck said the purpose of the swales is to keep the water clean, not store it. He said there might be a small four-bay installed along the roadway. Mr. French asked about a guardrail along the roadway; Mr. Feck said they will have a guardrail on the bridge. Mr. French said it appears from the slope along the roadway, more guardrail may be needed. Mr. O'Neill said there are two water issues - the water table and stormwater. Ms. Collins asked if the board has to approve four lots on this parcel. She said if the lots along Ware Street were owned by the same person who owned this parcel, and the Ware Street lots were cut out as Form A lots, they created this hardship. Mr. Maloon said he wasn't sure if the person who owned this parcel owned the frontage land. Planning Board 10 6/28/2011 ... Mr. Burke explained the residential compound by-law is not intended to allow the development of land that cannot otherwise be developed. He said the developer has to prove a conventional subdivision could be built, which allows him to move forward with the residential compound. He said if a conventional subdivision meets the regulations of subdivision control law, the board is obligated to sign the plan. However, the board is not obligated to grant the special permit for a residential compound. Ms. Collins said she was uncomfortable that filling the site four or five feet will cause the existing abutters more water problems. Mr. French said he understands this is a difficult site and the board is struggling with it. He said he accepts Mr. Burke's position that the conventional subdivision does establish the density at four lots. Mr. French suggested the board attempt to determine the width of the roadway tonight. Mr. Burke said the paved way is 18 feet wide with a three-foot shoulder on each side. He asked what would happen at the bridge. Mr. Feck said the shoulder would be designed as part of the structure of the bridge, making the bridge wider than 18 feet. Mr. Penney said he would be more comfortable with a 20-foot paved surface. Mr. Ragazzo said he would prefer 24 feet. Mr. Burke asked how much filling would occur with a 20-foot paved surface. Motion: To continue the public hearing to June 15,2011 at 7:30 p.m. (Penney-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES I 2. Correspondence Continued Special Permit Decision - 905 South Main Street Commercial Parking Lot Motion: To sign the decision (Collins-Penney) All in favor. PASSES I 7. Public Comment I 8. Around the Table Mr. Ragazzo said he attended the South Coast Rail public hearing and it appears the Attleboro proposal has been eliminated. Mr. Burke told the board Annual Town Meeting is May 26, continued to May 31; he will not be at the May 31 session and said he will suggest at the pre Town Meeting meeting that if it goes to a second night, town counsel handle the zoning articles. PASSES u e 15,2011 at 7:00 p.m. 8-" t}~ l\ Date of Approval Planning Board 11 6/28/20 II -