Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 04/27/05 r ~" ,,,, t,"'" \ \ II" ~ i\LV:1 y tu ,"'<,,' ('1 t:;;;. ,(, r: , " './ I , '",.... Planning Board Minutes' Present: Tom French, Chairman; Fr~P:~~~~::5 Cle&Q ~~tt;r2Je;&k~: ~;n Torman, John DeMassi, Frank Holmes; Shaun P. Burke, Director of~l~ 4Uidlll>evelopment f:\SS 'HUSETTS 1. Meeting caDed to order at 7:00 p.m. I 2. Correspondence 1. April 6, 2005 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (DeMassi-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES 2. April 13, 2005 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (Armstrong- Torman) Three in favor. French abstained. PASSES 3. ZBA application for Finding - 152 South Main Street - MacKinnon Sideyard setbacks. Mr. DeMassi said this appears to be an improvement. Mr. Burke said the back ofthe addition isn't as close as the front, but the garage on the other side is only seven feet from the property line. Mr. DeMassi said he didn't feel the board has enough information to make a decision. Mr. Armstrong said the pre- existing non-conformity would not be increased [Mr. Holmes arrived at this time] r Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation but suggest the ZBA look at the mass of the addition compared with the size ofthe surrounding dwellings (Armstrong- Torman) All in favor. PASSES 4. ZBA application for Variance - 18 Tanya Drive Sideyard setback. Mr. Armstrong said there does not appear to be a hardship and said a smaller addition wouldn't require a variance. Mr. Burke suggested a negative recommendation because there is no hardship to the land. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation (Torman-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES 5. ZBA application for Variance - 3 Southpark Lane Sideyard setback. The application states the lot is oddly sized, with the septic system in the rear, preventing building off the rear ofthe house. Mr. DeMassi said if the addition were shifted, there would be less encroachment into the setback. Mr. Burke suggested a negative recommendation. Mr. Armstrong said he didn't believe the application meets the standards for a variance. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation (Armstrong-DeMassi) Mr. French said the shape ofthe lot substantially affects the homeowner's ability to construct an addition. Four in favor. French opposed. Torman abstained. PASSES 6. ZBA application for Variance -11 Gale Lane Mr. Burke suggested a negative recommendation to the ZBA because the application doesn't address the statutory requirements for a variance. Mr. Burke said ifthe addition could be relocated and avoid any encroachment. ---- Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation (Armstrong- Torman) All in favor. PASSES r [Mr. Jenkins arrived at this time] 4. Subdivision Publie Bearing continued - Roy Road - Three Lots ofT East Street - Stephen Wentzell The clerk read a letter from Kevin Walker, K&J Engineering, requesting the public hearing be continued to June 1,2005. Motion: To continue the public hearing to June 1,2005 at 8:00 p.rn. (Armstrong-Torman) All in favor. PASSES 5. Discussion with Town Engineer John Sullivan and Assistant Town Engineer David Field - NPDES Stormwater Regulations Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Field explained this is an EP A/DEP combined permit issued to the town. The town is under a five-year plan, which was approved in 2003 and has certain commitments that have to be met each year. The idea is to require towns to implement stormwater management plans to reduce discharge into water bodies before, during and after construction. Mr. Sullivan explained there are seven areas of concern - public education outreach, public involvement, detection of discharge, construction site runoff, post-construction stormwater management, and pollution prevention in municipal operations. r In the first year, the town used an SRF loan for GIS mapping to show where the town's drainage systems are, which made it easier to find out and fix the problems. Mr. Sullivan said the town had to look at all of its regulations to see what it has in place, and the Planning Board's and site plan regulations cover design issues, but the town lacks requirements for during and post-construction stormwater impacts. Mr. Field explained this is applicable to private site plans or private roadways the town doesn't maintain. Mr. Burke said the board requires maintenance plans for private roads and site plan projects, but said this issue is for a town-wide operations and maintenance plan. Mr. Sullivan explained that during the past year, other departments have become involved to see how the town could accommodate permit requirements and regulate stormwater issues without making too much more work for anyone department. He said the Conservation Commission has volunteered to take on quite a bit ofthe responsibility. Mr. Sullivan explained they have drafted a general by-law, rather than having each board add it to their regulations, which would require a Town Meeting majority vote. The by-law includes an illicit discharge by-law, which would be the responsibility ofthe DPW. The second part is a storm water management land disturbance by-law. The Conservation Commission has agreed to review any site over one acre and will have the authority to impose an operations and maintenance plan, which would be recorded. The r' applicant would be responsible for submitting annual reports. Mr. Sullivan said his department would still do the same reviews it does now. r Mr. DeMassi asked what conditions would be necessary in a special permit for a subdivision on a private way. Mr. Sullivan said the Planning Board regulations and the site plan regulations would have to reference the new by-law. Mr. Jenkins asked if it could be referenced in a manner similar to the way the Water Policy is referenced during subdivision review. Mr. Sullivan said it could be. Mr. Field said the homeowner's associations in residential compounds would be responsible, and this by-law would give the town the ability to enforce the by-law. Mr. Burke explained there are two fine structures; criminal disposition and non-criminal disposition. The town is authorized to charge up to $250 per day, per event, and under non-criminal disposition, staff can handle it so it is more expedient and less expensive for the town. Mr. French asked if there is a statement calling out who has to apply for this permit. Mr. Field said there are definitions in the by-law defining what a "disturbance" is. He said EP A wants the local officials to take over more enforcement duties and ensure the sites are stabilized after a disturbance. Mr. Sullivan said the disturbance would have to be of an acre or more. He said the Conservation Commission would also have to amend its regulations to reference this permit. r Mr. Sullivan explained they have already met with the Conservation Commission, will go . to the Board of Selectmen after Town Meeting~ then to the public for input and get the by-law on the 2006 Town Meeting warrant. Mr. Holmes asked what would happen if an Operations & Management plan weren't followed; Mr. Burke said the town would have two options~ criminal and non-criminal disposition. Mr. Sullivan said there would have to be a stamped, certified annual report submitted for each project. Mr. Field said this would allow the town to take faster action when there are problems. Mr. Holmes asked what would happen if the by-law failed at town meeting; Mr. Sullivan said there have to be regulations in place by the end of the permit's timeframe or there will be fines to the town. Mr. Jenkins asked how this would affect existing systems; Mr. Burke said it would change the municipal system for town roads and projects~ but would not affect approved permits. ~ Mr. DeMassi asked how much land this would affect; Mr. Sullivan said there have been build out analyses done. Mr. Burke said there are different methods to determine build out~ so it is hard to detennine what the final number will be. He said this is a good by- law to have in place because uses change all the time. Mr. Sullivan asked the board to review his draft and get back to him with comments. r 1....~.......~17;...~....~......;~.~..."...fe Glenn Ofcarcik, Tilton & Associates, explained he had been before the board informally in 2004 regarding this site. Mr. Ofcarcik explained the project includes two parcels of land, 27-122, which the applicants own, and 27-265, which the applicants have under option. The proposal is to preserve the existing house and add a cul-de-sac with three new lots, with the existing house in the middle. Mr. Ofcarcik said he would be asking for several waivers, but said the preliminary showed a plan without the waivers, to show they could meet the requirements. The waivers would be for no Environmental Impact study, a 40-foot roadway rather than 50, sidewalks on one side, concrete sidewalks rather than granite. Mr. French asked ifthe radius of the road conforms to the cul-de-sac requirements; Mr. Ofcarcik said it does. Mr. Burke said the minimum roadway curb radius would be 150 feet. Mr. Ofcarcik said the first time he came before the board, it had been to ask for the board's support for a zoning change to B2, which would have allowed five duplex units on the site. He said the board didn't support that idea. r Mr. French asked if the layout has been waived from 50 feet to 40 feet; Mr. Burke said only on roadways that had been laid out at that width previously. Mr. Ofcarcik said the right-of-way width of existing Webb Place is about 33 feet. Mr. French explained the board has to try to be consistent. He said the board has granted waivers on widths of roads where it feels it is warranted. He said the applicant's concerns may be addressed by a pavement width waiver; Mr. Ofcarcik said removing the sidewalk from the inside of the circle would also help with that. Mr. French said leaving the extra width on the road would push the buildings back and provide larger front lawns. Mr. Armstrong asked where the driveway for the existing house would go; Mr. Ofcarcik said it is currently on the west side of the house. The existing garage would be removed and the driveway moved to that side of the house, preventing it from being too close to the new driveway. Mr. Armstrong asked about street lighting; the property owner said he didn't know if there are existing street lights. He said the units would be duplexes, each with a one-car garage. Mr. Ofcarcik said it may be appropriate to ask that this be accepted as a public street, which would obligate them to conform with the town's road building standards. r' Mr. DeMassi said he could see the waivers for pavement width and sidewalk on one side. Mr. French asked about sloped granite; Mr. Ofcarcik said that is an alternative they could consider; Mr. Holmes said it would hold up better over time. Mr. French said that would be more appropriate if the roadway is going to be narrower than required. The consensus (' of the board was that street lighting should be provided. Mr. French said lighting would be required even if it was a private way. Mr. DeMassi asked about the length of the road surface; Mr. Ofcarcik said there would be about 400 feet of new pavement. Mr. Ofcarcik said he would like a waiver from the requirement to do an Environmental Impact Report. He said Webb Place already serves a significant number of units. Mr. Holmes suggested it could be a reduced scope study. Mr. Ofcarcik said he could include some basic information in the narrative for the definitive subdivisoin. Mr. Burke said the site has already been significantly disturbed. Mr. Ofcarcik said the regulations say a maximum number of 10 units on a dead-end street, and Webb Place already has a significant number of units. Mr. Burke said this would be six additional dwelling units. He said there would be 10 units on the southerly side of Webb Place and the condominiums on the northerly side. He said if that rule were strictly applied, there couldn't be any subdivision of this land. r Mr. DeMassi asked the zoning; Mr. Ofcarcik said it is R3. Mr. DeMassi aksed if the existing house would be removed and replaced with a duplex. Mr. Ofcarcik said that house would remain, and is already a duplex. Mr. DeMassi asked if there are environmental issues on the site; Mr. Ofcracik said there has never been anything hazardous stored on the site. Mr. Burke said he didn't remember the board ever granting a waiver for more than the number oflots allowed on a dead-end street. Mr. French asked if there is a second means of access to this property; Mr. Ofcarcik said there is not. Mr. French said granting that waiver may Set a precedent. Mr. Ofcarcik asked if the board would consider the waiver if he could prove a unique hardship specific to this land, which would not set a precedent. Mr. Burke said a similar waiver was granted on Bay Brook Farm because a second road could have been built, but was not because of wetland issues. Mr. Armstrong said the Subdivision Regulations describe a waiver as allowed when it is in the public interest, which he said this would be because it would make emergency vehicle turnaround easier. Mr. Holmes asked if the board has ever approved a cul-de-sac offa cul-de-sac; Mr. French said it has not. ~ Mr. DeMassi said some ofthe hardship may be caused by the existing house staying where it is. He suggested a frontage variance to allow four buildings in the back might eliminate the need for the cul-de-sac. Mr. Burke said if the applicant went that route, it wouldn't come under Subdivision Control Law at all and wouldn't have to comply with the regulations. r Mr. Burke suggested continuing the discussion and having the applicant get some additional information, including where the condos on Webb Place derive their frontage. Motion: To continue the discussion to June 1,2005 at 8:30 p.rn. (DeMassi-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES [Mr. Holmes left the table at this time] 7. Spteia) Permit PublieBeariDa e.-liDued -De ViDage at Gilbert Street - Four Lots off Gilbert Street - MassapoagReaJty Trust Mr. French explained there are five members present and asked if the applicant is comfortable going forward. Mr. Paglia said he would like to go forward. Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering, explained there had been a number of issues brought up by the board and department heads, which have been addressed. The homeowner's documents have been submitted. Department Head Comments The clerk read a memo from Mr. Field indicating his concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. ~ Public Comment The clerk read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Knight, 185 Gilbert Street, indicating their concerns about additional runoff from this site. Mr. French asked if the water from this site goes across Gilbert Street to the Knight land. Mr. Maloon said it does not. He explained the drainage from this site goes under Gilbert Street, into a culvert, and into a catch basin. There is a corrugated pipe without a structure, so it accumulates gravel. Over the years, the pipe was filled and they have recently cleaned it out. Mr. Maloon said they will be reducing peak flows through their detention system, which will be connected to the town's drainage system. Mr. DeMassi asked ifthat system is the culvert under the street; Mr. Maloon said it is, along with the catch basin that drains 700 or 800 feet of Gilbert Street. r' Mr. Burke asked what happens to the water from this site and at what point does it enter the existing systern. Mr. Maloon said it goes through two detention basins and a retention basin and the final overflow would go into the Gilbert Street systern. He said that would happen for the two-year storm. Mr. Burke asked about the quantity of water post-construction. Mr. Maloon said the pre-development numbers for the two-year storm are .6 csf, and post-development will be .5; he said the 10-year storm will also go down. He said the system will eliminate the sheeting across the road. He said for the portion of the land that is being developed, the water goes into a depression, through a pipe and under Gilbert Street. He said he is putting most of the water into the ground in retention basins as far as possible from Gilbert Street. r' Mr. French said he wanted to ensure the situation for the Knights wouldn't get worse; Mr. Maloon said it wouldn't get worse and may get better. He said there is a catch basin on Gilbert Street tied to the existing system, so there is always going to be some water. Mr. Maloon said there is currently a catch basin with a pipe that connects to a pipe without a manhole and dumps out near the Knight's property. He said they are proposing to add a manhole. He said there is a swale on the Knight's property that carries the water on their property. Mr. DeMassi asked ifthere is a way to improve the Knight's problem on their property and asked ifthere would be a way to move the water from the front of the site to the back of the site. Mr. Maloon said moving the water from the front to the back would require a pump. He said he didn't know how much the Conservation Commission would allow him to do near the wetlands. Mr. French said the calculations show a decrease in the amount of water going across the street; Mr. Maloon said that is true. He said he is proposing to rebuild the town's catch basin and add a manhole, which would help prevent the siltation of the pipe that occurs now. He said that wouldn't reduce the amount of water in the street. He said there is an area that acts as a detention basin, so his drainage study has compensated for that and the new roadway. r' Mr. Jenkins said there are two sources of water; Gilbert Street and this site. He said Mr. Maloon has reduced the amount of water leaving this site, but there is nothing he can do about Gilbert Street. Mr. Maloon said they would intercept some of the Gilbert Street water with the new structures. He said there will be no water going across the street from this site, but the existing catch basin in Gilbert Street may contribute to the water in the street. He said they will be improving the drainage situation as it exists. Mr. Maloon explained the changes he has made to the plans. Lot A will be conveyed to the abutter, but will be governed by the conditions of the permit. The limit of clearing is shown, along with two street lights, stop sign, road sign, 12" wide cape cod berm, pavement cut, 18-foot wide driveway, landscaping changes to include 10-12 foot trees in the island, 5-gallon shrubs, Austrian pine instead of hemlock and Bradford pears 30 feet on center. Mr. DeMassi asked if the abutter to whom Lot A is being conveyed will come under the special permit; Mr. Burke said only Lot A wil~ but not the abutter's original lot. Mr. Armstrong asked if the abutter who owns Lot A will become responsible for maintenance of the development; Mr. Burke said he would not. Mr. Jenkins asked if it would be appropriate to have the special permit reference the new stormwater regulations and asked if the applicant would be willing to comply with those regulations. Mr. Burke said condition #10 of the special permit covers the operation and maintenance ofthe systern. Mr. French said he understands the Knight's concerns and said Mr. Maloon's calculations, which have been approved by the Town Engineer, indicate there will be no additional runoff from the site. r- r' Leonard Flynn, 102 Jewell Street, said he has looked at a number of detention ponds that are not being maintained. He said some thought should be given to who is responsible and how they will be maintained. Mr. Burke said the board had discussed that issue with the Town Engineer earlier in the evening. Mr. Flynn said the quantity of water going across Gilbert Street will increase with this development. Mr. Maloon said that isn't true because they are building two detention basins with pipes and crushed stone. Mr. Knight said the water table is very high in the area and Gilbert Street residents have been pumping water out of their basements for a week. Mr. DeMassi said that may be true, but it isn't the fault of this developer. Mr. French said he understands the concerns, but the Town Engineer has reviewed and approved the plans. He said he would be sure the special permit includes a condition about maintenance. Mr. Maloon said the water table level varies along Gilbert Street, and all their retention areas are two feet above ground water. Bill Couture, Gilbert Street, said if the system fails, he would be the recipient of the water. Mr. DeMassi said if the system fails, the homeowners are responsible. Mr. French said cause and effect in drainage is difficuh to prove. .r' Motion: To grant a waiver from Section 5.3.2.7.2 to allow for drainage retention outside of a water supply protection district ( Armstrong-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To grant a waiver from Section 5.3.2.7.3 to allow for drainage retention under the pavement (Armstrong-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To grant a wavier from Section 5.3.2.7.6 to allow the retention area to be within 100 feet of the subdivision boundary (Armstrong-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To approve the above-referenced plan and issue the Special Permit in accordance with the Zoning Act and Subdivision Control Law with the following conditions: r' 1. All department head comments shall be fully and satisfactorily addressed within the 20- day appeal period 2. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans; 3. All primary structures shall have front, rear and side yard setbacks as shown on the plans dated April 21, 2005; 4. Any above-ground structure on any lot which is proposed to be constructed outside the building envelope shown on the plans dated April 21, 2005 will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals and a mpdification to this special permit;25. The April 26, 2005 Master Declaration - Reservations and Restrictions for the Village at Gilbert Street - A Residential Compound in Mansfield, Massachusetts shall be recorded with the special permit 6. The open space shall be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association, with the exception of "Lot A, 12,049 SF" as shown on the April 21, 2005 plans. This r r parcel is to be conveyed to the abutter Claire Harris c/o John Bayley, Jr. with a restriction in the deed preventing the clear cutting of this lot or the placement of any structures on this lot. All open space areas shall be owned and maintained in their natural state in perpetuity. The vegetation within the open common space areas shall not be cut, altered or disturbed in any way; 7. A note shall be added to the plan identifying the size and species of plant materials; 8. The roadway and drainage system and structures shall remain private and the Town of Mansfield shall not be asked to accept or maintain the way or the drainage system or drainage structures; 9. The homeowner's association shall be responsible for trash removal and snow plowing; 10. There shall be no permanent trash dumpster placed on site; 11. The drainage areas and drainage structures shall be cleaned three times a year by the homeowner's association ("HOA") and reports, in accordance with the Operations and Maintenance Plan ("Plan"), and stamped by a professional engineer, shall be submitted to the Town Engineer. 12. An Operations and Maintenance Plan describing the functional, financial and organizational mechanisms for the on-going operation and maintenance of the storm water management system to ensure that it continues to function as designed, shall be submitted to the Town. 13. Changes to the Operations and Maintenance Plan a. The HOA must notify the Town or its Agent of changes in ownership or assignment of financial responsibility. b. The maintenance schedule in the Plan may be amended to achieve the purposes of this special permit by mutual agreement of the Town and the HOA. 14. Inspections. A Massachusetts registered Professional Engineer, retained by the HOA, shall conduct and document inspections of all control measures no less than three times per year. The purpose of such inspections will be to determine the overall effectiveness of the Plan, and the need for maintenance or additional control measures. The HOA shall submit no less than three reports per year to the Town. The report shall document the type and quantity of material removed from the system during its thrice yearly maintenance activities. 15. There shall be a sign installed stating that the roadway is a private way and listing the house numbers on the private way; 16. That portion of the plan to be recorded shall contain the following note: "Any and all conditions of approval contained in this special permit written decision shall apply to any and all subsequent owners, in whole or in part." 17. That portion of the plan to be recorded shall contain a note referencing the recorded special permit decision and where said decision may be found. 18. All conditions accompanying the approval of this special permit shall be written on that portion of the plan to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. 19. That portion of the plan to be recorded shall contain the following note: ''This subdivision, in part or in whole, shall not be resubdivided in a way which will create additional buildable lots beyond the four (4) lots approved in this permit." 20. This residential compound is approved by both this special permit in accordance with the Zoning Act and this Planning Board Certificate of Action under Subdivision r' r .r Control Law. 21. Prior to the application for issuance of occupancy permits for any dwelling having its frontage on the private way, the following items must be complete. a. The entire roadway within the residential compound shall be constructed up 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 stormwater drainage area shall be operational, fully constructed and completed according to plan. d. Street lights shall be installed and operational. 22All plan revisions required after the close of the public hearing shall be completed and reviewed prior to the Planning Board signing the special permit. 23. Work hours, including warm-up and repair of equipment, shall be strictly limited to between 7:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. Construction activity on Saturdays and Sundays is strictly prohibited. All loaded vehicles shall be suitably covered to prevent dust and contents leaving the vehicle and to protect abutters and other residents, and the public way from material spilled from the load. Gilbert Street shall be maintained free of all mud, stones or any other conditions that may resuh in a public safety hazard for vehicles or pedestrians. Sweeping or cleaning must be completed daily or more frequently as deemed necessary during the operation, as directed by Police Chief Arthur O'Neill. You may be required to have a police officer present during any hauling. Please consult with Police Chief O'Neill as to whether or not this may be necessary and to discuss the best hauling routes. (Armstrong-Jenkins) Torman - In favor. The plans have been well-prepared, have addressed the board's and department head concerns, will help to mitigate the existing water problems: therefore the benefits outweigh the detriments. DeMassi - In favor. The project will do a lot to help the existing water problems and the applicant has worked to meet the board's and neighbors' concerns. Jenkins - In favor. The benefits will outweigh the detriments. This is a difficult site with a unique and complicated drainage system, and maintenance will be the key to its success. In addition, less impervious surface will be a benefit. Armstrong - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments. The plans have been well engineered, the residential compound rather than a traditional subdivision creates less impervious surface, the effects on adjoining premises will be minimized, pedestrian and vehicular safety has been addressed, there will be no significant impact on municipal services, the stormwater will be well-handled, and the project will provide additional tax revenue. r r French - In favor. I believe a residential compound with smaller lots is beneficial than a conventional subdivision because of it reduced drainage and impacts. Vote: 5 in favor. 0 Opposed. 0 Abstained. Motion: PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES [Mr. Holmes returned to the table at this time] I....~...* Mr. Flynn said he had been to a SRPEDD commission meeting and was told the southbotmd Route 140 access from Route 495 is not on Mass Highway's list of projects to be funded. He said Mass Highway didn't seem inclined to consider that without the Northbound access as well, and has said it wouldn't consider either of them unless the developer was willing to pay for the design and construction. Mr. Burke noted the School Street retail developer has stated his willingness to fimd the ac-eess from his site. Mr. Flynn said SPREDD had also discusse.d Transit Oriented Development. 1......2.i~~~*' 7. ZBA application for Special Permit - 496 Elm Street r Mr. Burke noted the board has already seen this as a site plan, and this is a special permit to allow an alternative landscaping plan. Mr. Burke said the proposal, while not in keeping with the letter ofthe by-law, will be an improvement over what is there now. He suggested a positive recommendation. Mr. Jenkins said the fence should be replaced and maintaine.d, whether it is on their property or not because it provides the buffer. Mr. French asked if the plans have been changed to reflect the board's concerns. Mr. Burke said he did not know if that had been done yet. Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation, including the site plan recommendation and note the rec'ommendation is contingent on those items being addressed (Jenkins-Armstrong) 8. April 6, 2005 letter to Toni Hall, DHCD from Dan Clemmey with attachments: March 30, 2005 letter to John D' Agostino from Dan Clemmey and April 6, 2005 Zone 13- Overlay Area Map by Bergmeyer Associates 9.Form I Covenant and Mylars to be signed - Green Tree Acres - Elm Street Motion: To accept the Covenant (Armstrong- Torman) Five in favor. Holmes abstained. PASSES Motion: To sign the mylars (Armstrong-Jenkins) Five in favor. Holmes abstained. PASSES 8. Apri120, 2005 letter from Peter Sangermano re: C,Obb Street Road C'ompletion Motion: To grant a 90-day extension (Jenkins-Armstrong) Mr. Burke note.d a 90-day extension would be October 1. He said the performance date in the bond in July 1, so any extension would require a new bond. Mr. Burke r' said if the developer defaults on October 1, there wouldn't be much time left in the construction season for the to\'.'11 to fInish the work. r Motion Amended: To grant a 45-day extension providing a new performance bond is submitted (Jenkins-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES 9. Meeting notices Foxboro, Norton, Sharon I..<.">"l~)i_ I School Street - Carrigan. Mr. Burke explained there is an existing single-family home on School Street and the plan would create two additional lots, one with frontage on Willow Street, the other with frontage on School and Willow. He explained the lots have adequate area and frontage, but the applicant will have to petition the Conservation Commission to cross the intermittent stream. Motion: To endorse the Form A (Torman-Armstrong) Five in favor. Holmes abstained. PASSES 1.........i~l.t~ Mr. Burke said he didn't attend the last Hatheway-Patterson meeting, but said it was intended to bring the original study to a close and to determine the steps to move on to the next phase, which would involve a second study, ending up at a Fall 2005 Town Meeting. He said the town, boards and neighbors would have to reach consensus before going to Town Meeting. He said the way the first phase ended was that it was agreed a second planning study was needed, no zoning proposals were put forth, but ideas were merely discussed, which Mr. Burke said would be the subject of the second phase. Mr. ,-- Armstrong said one ofthe landowners told the board there is no funding for the second phase. Mr. Burke said that is true, and the town's consultant has applied for a grant to fund that, and one of the land owners has opposed that application and has submitted his own plan. Mr. DeMassi said Mr. D' Agostino tried to close out Hatheway-Patterson at that meeting, but he felt the meeting moved too quickly into the second phase. He said it seemed like the Planning Board was being asked to approve something before it had seen any of the options. Mr. Burke said the only thing the first grant was supposed to accomplish was to determine what uses the town wanted, so EP A would know what standard to which to clean the site. Mr. DeMassi said at that last meeting, all the landowners didn't appear to be interested in being involved in the process any further. Mr. Burke said without the consensus building process, no idea would work. He said the point of the second study is to get the residents, business owners and town together for consensus building in time for a fall 2005 Town Meeting. He said the town is still pursing the grant for the second phase; the funding may still be available even without all the landowners' consent. Mr. DeMassi said it appears many citizens' petitions for the spring Town Meeting were tailored to fit one landowner's zoning plan. Mr. Burke said it would make more sense to have the plan in place before submitting the petitions. Mr. Burke said the Town Manager has agreed to come to the May 4 meeting to discuss the Planning Board's site plan article. Mr. Burke said he is concerned his position on the article has been misunderstood and explained there are two parts to the article - the first is the technical merit ofthe by-law; the second is the political aspect. Mr. DeMassi said he ,-- had a discussion with the Town Manager about the board's position, which is not intended to take power away from the Building Inspector, but to do what the board can to improve the quality of development. Mr. DeMassi said there may not be time enough to ( do what needs to be done to sell the by-law. Mr. Burke said it isn't a bad by-law, but when it was before Town Meeting the last time, it was perceived as a power grab by the Planning Board, and without the time spent to explain it to the public and explain how it would help, the result this time would likely be the same. Mr. DeMassi said he wouldn't want to go to town meeting unless the Planning Director, Building Inspector, Town Manager, Board of Selectmen and Planning Board are all in agreement about it. Mr. Burke said it is difficult to get enough information out on the floor of Town Meeting. Mr. DeMassi said the Town Manager had told him neither he nor the Building Inspector are in favor of the article. Dr. Torman said the fact they are willing to corne in to discuss it means they are willing to listen. Mr. Jenkins said the discussion can't be about personalities, but the individuals currently in the positions shouldn't be considered because that may change. He said he has great respect for and faith in the Building Inspector and believes he listens to the board's comments. Mr. Holmes asked what the chances ofthe article passing are if the Town Manager and Building Inspector oppose it at Town Meeting. Mr. French noted the Building Inspector enforces the Zoning By-Law and the building code, and that would not change. Mr. French said he may have to be at another meeting on May 18, the next Mansfield Crossing public hearing. I....t..i;.~~~t r' Motion: To adjourn at 11:15 p.rn. (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES Next meeting: May 4, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. .~ ~ VL!L '-I-'!f) CIMJ- ;d S~natureofCk~lkc~vl I VJ I CJCO~ Approval r'