HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNINGbrd_7112012Planning Board Minutes
July 11, 2012
Present: Tom French, Chair, Beth Ashman - Collins, Clerk, Michael McClanahan,: Don Near > C F F ICE
Alternates: Ralph Penney, Rod Oreste + -i
Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development; Jennifer Davis, Adminisf aiive� ' i ? A - ;'O: 21
Secretary
1. Meeting called to order at 7 :00 p,m.�, ` x
2. Correspondence
1. June 20, 2012 Minutes
Mr. Penney asked to add he said the CSX crossing has been investigated and pursuing the
crossing may be fruitless, so the town would not be following that path. Mr. Burke said that
is true, and he plans to pursue a grant for other means of egress, build -out and utility
capacity.
Mr. Penney said DEP wants the Town to amend the Zoning By -Law to limit growth so
population does not exceed the sewer capacity, and asked how likely that is. Mr. Burke said
if zoning were scaled down to equal capacity at the plant, DEP would give the town a zero
percent SRF loan for the sewer plant construction. He said Xia Gin is working on the build -
out map now. He said assuming the household size in the Residential 1 zone is the same in
the 2010 census, the low end population increase would be 2,400- 3,800. I-Ie said in the
downtown areas, some redevelopment proposals will have retaittcommercial on the first floor
and residential on the three or four floors above. He said Mansfield knows how much sewer
capacity it will sell to Norton and Foxboro; those towns will both have to sign onto the plan.
Mr. Penney asked what would happen if the town fails to comply with the terms of the zero
percent loan.
Motion: To approve as amended (Penney - Collins) Allin favor. PASSES
2. 31 Oxford Road Special Permit to be signed
Motion: To sign the special permit ( McClanalan- Cleary) All in favor. PASSES
3. Public Hearing notices — Attleboro, Easton, North Attleboro, Norton
Mr. Burke said lie has spoken with Mr. Feck about Rolling Fields Village; he noted there are
only four members present who are eligible to vote, and if the board does not act on the special
permit tonight, it will receive a constructive approval. That would allow the developer to put the
most recently submitted plan of land (dated June 11, 2012) on record with the Town Clerk's
signature. He said typically, it is not in a developer's best interest to record a special permit
without Planning Board signatures because it could cause problems at the Registry of Deeds and
with potential lenders. He said he has spoken with Mr. Feck, who told him if the plan gets a
constructive approval tonight, lie would come back to amend the special permit. Mr. Burke
noted the plan shows a waiver request for bituminous cape cod berm where the by -law calls for
vertical granite; Camden Lane has sloped granite berm, and he said if the two subdivisions are
meant to be are, they should have the same curbing. Mr. Burke noted there is also a waiver
requested on the roadway cross- section. He said the cross- section on the plan goes above and
beyond what the town requires, which he is uncomfortable with. He said DPW:requested that
detail because of an expected change in DOT paving standards, which is going to require thicker
asphalt for roads with more vehicle trips per day. He said the proposed roadway would not meet
}
that standard. Mr. Burke suggested the special permit get a constructive approval, followed by
i the developer filing a modification, which he said would be in the developer's interest. He said
he is confident Mr. Feck will file the special permit modification promptly. Mr. Michael Feck
said they will be filing the special permit modification for the curbing and roadway cross - section
in the next few days and asked to schedule the public hearing for August 15, 2012. Mr. Burke
explained the plan will receive a constructive approval at 8:00 p.m. on July 11, 2012, so the 20-
day appeal period will begin on July 12, 2012. He said it will be the applicant's responsibility to
notify the Town Clerk and abutters.
3. Form A (ANR) Plans:'
The clerk read the legal advertisement. Mr. French explained how the public hearing would be
conducted.
Wissam Samrout explained the application for a vehicular dealership at the gas station his family
has owned since 1983. He said he intends to sell three or four cars at a time, and there is room
on the existing lot for the additional cars, separate from the cars stored on site for repairs. Mr.
Samrout explained there are 15 existing parking spaces on the site
Mr. French explained the Planning Board special permit would only allow the use, and the
applicant would still have to get a license from the Board of Selectmen. He said the Planning
Board special permit could limit the number of cars allowed on the site. He said the current uses
on this site require nine parking spaces, including employees.
Department Head Comments
The clerk read memos from Police, Engineering, Fire and Conservation. Mr. Samrout said the
cars for sale will be displayed on the left sid, or North Main Street side, of the site.
Board Comments
Mr. Penney said this site is located at one of the busiest intersections in town and the existing
curb cut goes right onto North Main Street. He said this is a small lot and noted the parking
spaces are shown as 18'x7' and asked if that is acceptable. Mr. Burke said that is the size of a
compact car. Mr. Penney asked about the possibility of removing one of the gas dispensers.
Mr. Oreste asked how many cars are currently kept overnight on the site; Mr. Samrout said
usually four or five.
Mr. Penney asked if the cars parked overnight would restrict emergency vehicle access to the
rear of the building. Mr. Samrout said emergency vehicles could access the site from the
property next door.
Mr. Cleary said there wouldn't be more cars on the lot than currently, so he said he doesn't see
any negative.
Mr. McClanahan said the site contains a number of junk cars that should have been cleaned up
prior to the public hearing. Mr. Samrout said he plans to rearrange the lot to clean it up and
make room for the sale cars. He said he has other properties he can take the cars to.
Ms. Collins asked if additional signage is proposed. Mr. Samrout said he would like to add
signage if he gets the permit. Mr. McClanahan said he does not think additional signs would be
allowed on the site. Mr. Samrout said if it is a problem, he would not add signs.
Ms. Collins explained the board has to find the benefits outweigh the detriments and asked the
applicant to explain what the benefits would be. Mr. French said there would be revenue to the
town from the annual license and the sale of cars in town would be convenient for residents. Mr,
Samrout said it would be more convenient for his customers to be able to both buy and sell cars
and he would be cleaning up the lot. Mr. Burke said there is a benefit to competition. He
suggested if the board were to grant the special permit, it limit the number of cars for sale to
four, require the site be cleaned up and kept in state of good repair, and not allow junk cars to be
kept on site for more than 48 hours.
Motion: To approve the special permit to operate a vehicular dealership at 54 Chauncy Street
(Map 22, Lot 9) in the Business 1 (B 1) Zone with the following conditions:
1. Sheet 1 of 1 of "Site Plan Mansfield Gas 54 Chauncy Street' dated April 27, 2012 by
Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc. are incorporated into this special permit
decision by reference and shall be recorded with the special permit decision.
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. No junk cars (no cars unfit for operation on the street) will be stored on site for more than 48
hours.
5. The number of cars for sale at one time shall be limited to four.
6. The site shall be cleaned up and kept in a state of good repair.
7. The total number of cars on the site shall be limited to the current number of parking spaces,
15.
8. The applicant shall talk to the Building Inspector before adding any additional signage.
(McClanahan - Cleary)
McClanahan —In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments because the applicant is willing to
clean up the site to help his business.
Collins — In favor. The vehicular dealership special permit will not change the total number of
cars on the lot, is consistent with the businesses already there, and the special permit conditions
will ensure the benefits outweigh the detriments.
Cleary — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments because the existing site will be cleaned
up.
Penney — Opposed. This is a small piece of property with access problems, and selling used cars
would make it worse.
Oreste — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments.
French — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments. The special permit will improve the
appearance of the site, there will be benefits in convenience to residents, increased revenue to the
town, and the number of cars on site will not increase.
Five in favor. One opposed. PASSES
Motion: To close the public hearing ( Oreste- Penney) All in favor. PASSES
5. S►Udivisiop Public FIearing continued -- Lii►coln Place —10 Lots off,Branch Street =_
.Morse 'i
Ms. Collins will not participate in the public hearing.
Motion: To appoint Mr. Cleary Acting Clerk (McClanahan - Oreste) All in favor. PASSES
Earl Chartier, RIM Engineering, explained the changes to the plans. The Town Engineer's
issues have been addressed, including the need to reflag the wetland line. Mr. Chartier
explained the road construction is more than 100 feet from the wetland line.
Mr. Chartier said they had requested a waiver to extend the sewer line halfway across the
Nicodemus property, but he said they do not feel it is necessary because there is an existing
trunkline they can tap into instead.
On June 6, 2012, the Planning Board voted on the following waiver requests.
1. Section 5.3.7.2, To allow a retention basin to be used for drainage outside of the
water protection district
Motion: To grant the waiver from Section 5.3.7.2
(Jodice- Ragazzo) All in favor. PASSES
Section 5.3.2.7.10, To allow the use of ductile iron concrete -lined pipe for
drainage due to minimum cover over pipes
Motion: To grant the waiver from Section 5.3.2.7.10
(McClanahan- Jodice) All in favor. PASSES
3. Section 5.4, To allow a sidewalk on the east side of Lincoln Road extending to
the driveway of Lot 7
Motion: To grant the waiver from Section 5.4
(McClanahan- Cleary) All in favor. PASSES
4. Section 5.5.1, To allow a monolithic cape cod berm in place of the required
vertical granite curbing
Motion: To deny the waiver from Section 5.5.1
(McClanahan- Jodice) All in favor. PASSES
Mr. Chartier said the curb cut for the Nicodemus driveway has been added to the plan; it is in the
same location as the existing driveway.
Mr. Chartier said the invert of SMH # 18 has been corrected from .75% to .5% and the grades
have been modified, so the invert is now above the shelf.
Mr. Chartier said all of Mr. Alves's comments have been addressed on the revised plans dated
June 27, 2012 and July 9, 2012 (page 3 of 7).
Mr. French asked if the access path from the back of the cul -de -sac to the bike path has been
removed. Mr. Chartier said that has been removed on the revised plans dated June 27, 2012 and
July 9, 2012 (page 3 of 7).
Department Head Comments
The clerk read a memo from Pthn. Lawson.
Mr. French asked about the location of the proposed driveway across Branch Street from Mr.
Courtemanche's driveway at 238 Branch Street. Mr. Burke said the Fire Department was
satisfied with the location of the driveway shown on the last plan; he said the revised plan was
submitted to the Police and Fire Departments. Comments were received from the Police
Department.
Arthur Courtemanche, 238 Branch Street, asked that the bench be moved to the other side of the
existing road, asked for a larger streetlight to be installed, and asked why the existing light pole
has to be relocated. Mr. Burke said the existing pole is in the sight distance triangle.
Mr. Courtemanche asked if there would be runoff from the bike path to his driveway. Mr. Burke
said he does not think it will. He said when Branch Street was rebuilt, it was super- elevated on
away from the drainage and toward Mr. Courtemanche's house. He said the runoff should be
caught in the gutter and not have enough velocity to get across Branch Street.
Mr. Burke said the bench should be moved further north of the Nicodemus driveway, on the
same side of Branch Street, so it will not be opposite Mr. Courtemanche's house.
Mr. Burke said he thinks Mr. Courtemanche's concern is how much runoff will go toward his
house. He asked for a spot grade to show the elevation will prevent runoff from doing that. He
said he has spoken with Mr. Maloon about ensuring this development will not add to the existing
( sheet flow.
Mr. Courtemanche said one of Mr. Alves's previous suggestions was to relocate his driveway.
He said he would like to have his driveway moved and to have six trees planted to reduce the
light glare from the street. Mr. Chartier said the applicant on this subdivision has changed, so he
does not know if the new applicant would be willing to do that. Mr. French said if the
subdivision is approved, that could be a condition and the new applicant would be responsible.
He suggested six Austrian pines, six feet high, be planted on Mr. Courtemanclre's property.
Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering, arrived at this time.
Barbara Rose, 9 Branch Street, said she is concerned about the location of this driveway at the
bike path. Mr. Maloon explained the bike path itself will be raised pavement, and there will be
two stop signs on the new roadway. Mr. Maloon said he has just met with the Board of
Selectmen, which is more concerned with the traffic going into the new subdivision than with the
traffic coming out of it.
Mr. Burke asked Mr. Maloon to do a spot elevation on the west side of Branch Street to ensure
the runoff drains southerly to the town's drainage, to verify there will be no sheet flowing to Mr.
Courtemanehe's driveway.
Kevin Nelson, 90 Stearns Avenue, asked if this subdivision crosses the bike path. Mr. French
said it does, and that is the only means of access to the property.
Board Comment
Mr. Penney said he was not at the June 6, 2012 meeting, but has read the minutes and
correspondence. He said Branch Street is curved at this location, but is shown as a straight line
on the plan. Mr. Maloon said the straight line is the right -of -way, not the pavement. Mr. Penney
said the new road configuration, coming off Branch Street at almost 90 degrees, is an
improvement. Mr. Maloon said Branch Street is 40 feet wide, and their pavement has a big
radius curve. Mr. Penney asked if the town's ownership of the bike path will change; Mr. Burke
said it will not.
Mr. Penney noted the chain link fence has been removed from around the drainage area. Mr.
Maloon said there drainage area has also been removed; the drainage will be recharged into the
ground.
Mr. Penney asked if the bike path will remain straight. Mr. Maloon said it will. He said he has
met with the Board of Selectmen, which wants to look at the issue of the new road crossing the
bike path.
Mr. Maloon said the guard rails have been removed.
Mr. Oreste said he is concerned with cars going over the bike path, but said the latest plan is the
best possible solution.
l
Mr. Burke said his questions have been answered and suggested the plan warrants approval as
modified.
Motion: On July 11, 2012, the Mansfield Planning Board voted to approve the Lincoln Place
definitive subdivision plan with the following conditions:
Prior to the issuance of any building permit and /or the sale of any lot in the
subdivision, or the commencement of work on the proposed roadway, the
requirements of the Inclusionary Housing By -Law, Section 6.0 of the Zoning By -Law, must
be complied with. This condition does not preclude the sale of the subdivision as a whole.
2. Prior to signing the approved plan, the applicant shall submit a covenant running with
the land, suitable for recording and written in conformance with the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land, Mansfield, MA and the Subdivision
Control Law.
3. The applicant shall submit, prior to the request for release of lots from covenant, a
tabular summary of all quantities of each construction item to be broken down in a
manner sufficient for the Planning Board or its agent(s) to estimate the cost of
construction for bonding purposes. Said tabular summary shall include, but may not
be limited to, all roadway work, landscaping, common areas, water, drainage, electric
(power and lights), and other construction proposed on the plan.
Prior to granting a release from covenant, in part or in whole, the applicant or
subsequent owner shall complete all the required improvements or submit a
performance bond, a deposit of money, or a bank passbook in an amount determined
by the Planning Board to be sufficient to cover the cost of all or any part of the
improvements required by this subdivision approval.
Said surety shall also include a twenty percent (20 %) contingency factor based upon the
value of the work remaining at the time of posting of surety.
All staff and board comments shall be addressed during the twenty (20) day appeal
period:
a. All department head comments shall be fully and satisfactorily addressed.
Specifically, the outstanding comments in the June 6, 2012 memorandum from Richard
C. Alves, Jr., P.E., Town Engineer /Assistant DPW Director and in the May 1, 2012
memorandum from Elizabeth Leidhold, Conservation Department, must be fully and
satisfactorily addressed;
b. All changes to the nrylar shall be done during the 20 -day appeal period.
6. All conditions of approval shall be added to the plan within the 20 -day appeal
period.
7. A spot elevation will be added to the plan to show the elevation at the edge of
Branch Street will prevent runoff from crossing Branch Street.
8. The gutterline along Branch Street will be designed to capture the runoff going
from the bike path to Branch Street.
9. The bench should be relocated to the north of the existing access to the Nicodemus
driveway, 245 Branch Street, on the same side of Branch Street.
10. Six (6) Austrian Pines, each six feet (6') tall, will be planted at the Courtemanche
property, 238 Branch Street.
11. Prior to the application for issuance of occupancy permits for any new dwelling
having its frontage on the new portion of Lincoln Road, the following items must be
complete.
a. The entire roadway within the subdivision shall be constructed tip to and including the
binder course of bituminous concrete and satisfactorily inspected.
b. All street drainage shall be fully complete and functioning with all grates and castings set
to grade.
c. The storinwater drainage area shall be operational, fully constructed and completed
according to plan.
d. Street lights shall be installed and operational. It shall be the developer's responsibility
to pay for the cost of lighting until the time of acceptance of the way at Town Meeting.
e. Sidewalks of Type V Portland cement concrete shall be installed prior to occupancy.
f All improvements shall be installed and inspected to the satisfaction of the Planning
Board's agent or other appropriate inspection authority according to Town of Mansfield
Subdivision Regulations.
12. Completion of all roadways, drainage areas, and other improvements required by
the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land shall be
accomplished within two (2) years from the release of the covenant or posting of
surety.
13. The applicant and/or subsequent owner(s) shall be bound by all conditions and
requirements set forth in this approval. Further, these conditions of approval shall
be written on that portion of the plan to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds.
14. The following shall be added to the plan to ease future acceptance as a public way.
"Title to each lot shown on this plan is subject to the right reserved to the common
grantor to convey to the Town of Mansfield an easement with respect to the streets
and ways shown on the plan for all purposes for which streets and ways are
commonly used in the Town of Mansfield, upon acceptance of such streets and ways
by the Town."
15. Should the applicant or subsequent owner desire that Lincoln Road be made a public
way, the following shall apply. Upon completion of all required improvements
according to Town of Mansfield regulations and prior to acceptance as a public
way, the applicant or subsequent owner shall provide a legal description of the ways
and easements shown on the plan and provide to the town a deed suitable for
recording conveying the ways and easements to the Town of Mansfield.
Five (5) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstentions. PASSES
Motion: To close the public hearing (McClanahan - Cleary) All in favor. PASSES
6. "Special Permit Public Heafing continued — I7 Pratt Street — 3-Unit Resid' ntial -
Cunninglram
Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering, explained this is a 3,900 square -foot lot on the corner of Pratt
and Crocker Streets. The building on the site burned down several years ago. The proposal is
for a 38'x48', three -unit residential building with six parking spaces, two of which will be
accessed through an easement on an abutting property. At the request of the Engineering
Department, catch basins have been added to the parking area to pick up the flow going from the
site toward Crocker Street.
Mr. Cunningham presented the board with a list of benefits, including:
- Betterment of the lot;
- Increase town tax base;
- Special permit allows for rowhouse yet not a duplex;
- Project provides more than required parking for units — 6 spaces;
- No retail parking needed on street thus avoiding additional congestion;
- Blighted area — new construction enhances the area;
Abutters are multi residential use;
From my knowledge special permits to be used for unusual lots such as this where by
right does not make sense for the neighborhood.
Kevin Nelson, 90 Stearns Avenue and owner of 46 Pratt Street, said he prefers the idea of
residential to more retail uses in the area.
Board Comment
Mr. McClanahan said he visited the lot and thinks it is too small, at less than 4,000 square feet,
for three units. The board discussed the possible by -right uses on this lot. Mr. McClanahan said
he thinks the cost to the town will be more than the tax revenue.
Mr. Cunningham said the building will be on slab and each unit will have two to three bedrooms.
Mr. Oreste asked what else is in the area; Mr. French said there are two - family, multi- family,
retail and mixed -use retail /residential buildings
Mr. French said the site is unkempt in its current condition, but disagreed with Mr.
Cunningham's description of it as blighted.
Ms. Collins said she does not think increasing the density on a lot this small would be beneficial.
Mr. Cleary asked if the board can limit the number of bedrooms. Mr. Burke said it cannot.
Mr. Cleary said the proposal seems to fit with the uses in the neighborhood.
Mr. McClanahan asked why the site cannot be used for retail or office. Mr. Cunningham said it
would not be financially feasible.
Mr. Penney said he is in favor of redeveloping this lot, but said he was concerned this proposal
may be too dense for the lot size. He asked if this is the best use for the site. Mr. Cunningham
said he believes it is. He said if had retail on the first floor, there would be two or three stories of
apartments above it, which would create more parking problems. He said that can be done by
right, but he doesn't think it is a better alternative than this one.
Mr. Oreste said this is a difficult site, and the addition of retail uses may actually increase the
existing congestion. He said a two - family would be a better option, but because that is not
allowed by the Zoning By -Law, there may not be a better alternative than this proposal. Mr.
Burke said without a change in zoning, a duplex cannot be built on this site, and the ZBA would
not be able to grant a variance. He said he does not think retail would work on this site because
of the parking issue and the location. He said as a practical matter, a residential use is probably
the only option.
Mr. French said this is a very small lot and he is concerned the proposed building will be too
large. I-Ie said he does not believe three units with two or three bedrooms each would not have a
positive impact on the town.
Mr. Cunningham said he thinks it will be more detrimental to the neighborhood to redevelop the
lot by right because it will cause more congestion. He said the residential proposal is a better
option and is what the neighbors want.
Motion: To deny the special permit because the benefits do not outweigh the detriments due to
the density of the proposal and size of the lot (McClanahan - Collins)
McClanahan — In favor. The benefits do not outweigh the detriments. The convenience and
general welfare of the community would be negatively impacted because of the proposed density
on this small lot.
Collins - In favor. The benefits do not outweigh the detriments. The density would be too
intense for the size of the lot, there will be no positive benefit to the neighborhood and no net
positive impact in revenues for the town.
Cleary - Opposed. I do not see this would have a negative financial impact to the town, it would
not hurt traffic because it has off - street parking, it is the preferred development of the neighbors,
and it is a difficult lot without a lot of options.
Penney — In Favor. I would like to see the lot redeveloped, but this proposal would overwhelm
the property. I do not think the benefits outweigh the detriments.
Oreste — Opposed. This proposed redevelopment would fit in with the neighborhood, as there
are a number of multi - family buildings in the neighborhood,
French — In favor. The benefits do not outweigh the detriments because this proposal is too
dense for the site. It would have a negative impact on the health, safety, convenience, general
welfare and amenities of the inhabitants of the town because it is too dense for the lot. The
Master Plan encourages business or mixed uses for downtown. I understand there are apartment
buildings next door, but that is on a larger lot. The apartments across the street are part of a
mixed -use development, which is more in keeping with the downtown area. With two to three
bedrooms per unit, the fiscal impact on the Town would be negative. I think the by -right retail
uses would be more in keeping with the neighborhood.
Four in favor. Two opposed. PASSES
Motion: To close the public hearing (McClanahan- Penney) All in favor. PASSES
4. June 6. 2012
Motion: To approve as submitted (Cleary- McClanahan) Four in favor. Two abstention.
PASSES
5. ZBA application for variance- 101 -103 North Main Street. The application is for relief from
the Floor Area Ratio requirements in the Business 2 zone where 10 residential units could be
built by right: the application is for 12 rowhouse units in two buildings. The buildings would be
12 feet off the North Main Street sidewalk, with 10 -foot sideyard setbacks and parking at the
rear. Mr. Burke said he does not see a hardship to the lot, which is regularly shaped and is larger
than many downtown lots.
Mr. Cleary asked about the downtown overlay district that allows additional density with the
provision of amenities like streetscape, public space and green design items.
Mr. McClanahan said the end units will have solid walls facing North Main Street, with the front
of the buildings facing one another inside the site. Ms. Collins said that would not be in keeping
with the work the board has done on downtown. Mr. Burke said 10 units could be done by right,
and would likely be configured the same way. He suggested sending the ZBA a
recommendation suggesting if it grants the variance, the design of the face of the building facing
North Main Street should be taken into account.
Mr. McClanahan said he has spoken with an abutter, who is concerned about the impact of this
development on his business, especially because there is no screening proposed and because the
building is only 10 feet off the property line.
Mr. Oreste said a variance requires a hardship, and the application says the lot is narrow and
deep with an abandoned railroad right -of -way at the rear.
Mr. Burke suggested sending the ZBA a positive recommendation with the suggestion that a
variance include conditions to require the front (front doors and porches) of the two end units be
turned toward North Main Street, and live screening be planted to provide a buffer for the
abutters to the north and south. The board has identified this type of development as beneficial
for the downtown area and it will make the development more attractive for the residents.
Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation on the variance application with the
suggestion that if relief is granted, the Zoning Board consider the following conditions:
1. The front doors and porches of two end units be turned toward North Main Street to
provide a more attractive fagade; and
2. Live screening be planted to provide a buffer for the abutters to the north and south.
The Planning Board has been working on downtown issues for a number of years and is in favor
of redevelopment for residential uses. However, the board feels the redevelopment should be
done in a way that is beneficial to the entire downtown neighborhood, while at the same time
makes it more attractive for the residents. The Planning Board feels strongly that if the applicant
is not willing to work with the Zoning Board on these changes, a variance should not be granted.
(Collins - McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES
8, Around the Table
Motion: To adjourn at 10:00 p.m. (McClanahan - Penney) All in favor. PASSES
Next meeting: August 15, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
v-/ 5 Z6
Date & Approval