The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutmin of planning brd 08/24/05 . ... (' lr~ .", ~.! '~~Ff.tlvll' r!t,,{ f..... PlanniDg Board Minutes OS.... ...", OFFICt August 24, 2005 Sf? I 6 411 . Present: Tom French, Chairman; Fred Armstrong, Clerk; Frank Holmes, Keq,Tq~ 9. 44 Doug Annino, John DeMass~ Waher Jenkins MAs :~"~rlj ~r'i EL 0 Shaun P. Burke, Director ofP . and Develo ment .. '~GNU t. Meeti.-.g.eaJledto.oqter .7:,..p.:.. s 1.2.8ite.....w.....op1VidlT.....~r aDd .BuiItIklg. ~or John 0' Agostino, Town Manager and Nick Riccio, Inspector of Buildings, joined the board to discuss site plan review. Mr. Burke presented a draft Zoning By-Law amendment, which would give the Planning Board site plan approval. Mr. French asked Mr. Riccio what his process is when he receives a site plan recommendation from the board. Mr. Riccio explained he goes through the board's list and looks at what is enforceable, and tries to apply it in the field. He said he believes most developers comply voluntarily with the board's concerns. Mr. French said many developers are cooperative with the board, but there are some uncooperative developers, which is frustrating for the board. Mr. Riccio said the building code is always the final word, but he usually refers to the Zoning By-Law with regard to enforcement. He said he cannot force developers to implement recommendations from the board for things that are not in the by-law. Mr. D' Agostino said with the appeal option, if the board denies a plan, the developer could take the board to court. He said that would put the town is a difficult position, because it would be hard to enforce requirements that do not appear in the by- r law. Mr. Annino said he finds many developers to be uncooperative and is often disappointed in the site plans that are submitted. Mr. French said if the board has approval, it would have the ability to require the developer to add the missing things to the plan. Mr. D' Agostino asked if it wouldn't be more effective to write the things the board wants into the by-law. Mr. Annino said it would be impossible to write aesthetics into the by- law. He said the Building Inspector reviews plans for technical issues, and is therefore limited, but if the board had approval, it would be able to ask for more detail. r Mr. 0' Agostino said he is in favor of a process that results in a better development, but said there could be a problem with the speed of site plan review. Mr. Jenkins said it wouldn't be any different than it is today, but would raising the bar. Mr. Annino said depending on the quality of the plan, the board can made its site plan recommendation very quickly, but if the plans are lacking, it can take several meetings. Mr. DeMassi said there should be a checklist requiring certain items before submitting. Mr. Riccio said there is a staff meeting before each site plan comes to the board, so the outstanding items should be addressed prior to the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Burke said the applicants are made aware of the issues at the staff level, but some do not make the changes. He said one of the issues is the ability to say no to a plan like that. He said the by-law envisions site plan to be a fairly expeditious process, but when someone Planning Board I Aug 24, 2005 r T comes in with an incomplete plan, there is nothing to stop the applicant from going to the r Building Inspector after 21 days and demanding a building permit. Mr. Jenkins said one of the board's issues is aesthetics, which the Building Inspector cannot enforce. He said with approval, the board could be certain the plan it approves is the one that will be constructed. He said that would allow the board to look at some special permit-type issues under site plan; Mr. D'Agostino asked if that would turn site plan into a special permit process. Mr. Jenkins said it would not become a special permit process, but would simply allow the board to look at the more aesthetic issues it looks at in a special permit. Mr. French said he didn't think the board's proposal is a special permit process; he said it would not be a super-majority and would not include the "benefits vs. detriments" test. He said it would be more of a design review approval. Mr. DeMassi said there are a number of things the board looks at in a special permit that it would like developers to be prepared to provide as part of their site plan presentation. Mr. Holmes said many of the things on the board's proposal are public safety and protection for the abutters, which are not enforceable under the Zoning By-Law. r Mr. D' Agostino asked how the board would evaluate how the project would not have a "detrimential effect on the neighborhood." Mr. French said the uses under site plan are allowed by right, so that section may have to be amended. Mr. DeMassi said there are often aesthetic issues the board would like to require the developer to address. Mr. D' Agostino said if that is going to be part of the review, it should be better defined. Dr. Torman asked if the "detrimental effect on the neighborhood" line about should even be in the by-law, since it would be a use by right. Mr. Armstrong said that may only be an issue when two different zoning districts abut. Mr. Burke suggested taking that line out, since that issue is covered in 5.3.14. Mr. Riccio asked about enforcement; Mr. Burke said the board's decision would be an actual permit based on the standards, as opposed to the board making a recommendation, which is neither enforceable nor appealable. Mr. Armstrong said he has done a survey, and every community in the area has a site plan approval, not a review. Mr. French agreed, and said the developers realize there is a certain standard they have to meet. Mr. Armstrong said he thought if litigation was a big issue, other towns wouldn't be doing it. Mr. D' Agostino said he would be concerned about the new site plan standards not coinciding with the Zoning By-Law and putting the town in the position to be sued. Mr. Burke explained the draft language would replace the existing site plan language in the Zoning By-Law, so there wouldn't be any conflict. He said there would be a danger in having the Building Inspector enforce things that are not in the by-law, but this would be part of the by-law. Mr. DeMassi said the board's problem has never been with the Building Inspector, but is simply a process issue. Mr. Riccio said he bas not felt it has been a personal issue. r Planning Board 2 Aug 24, 2005 T I , . r- Mr. D' Agostino said he is in favor of a process that will result in a better project for the town. He said he senses the negativity about this issue is that it will be perceived as a ~'power grab" by the Planning Board, and that could be a problem at Town Meeting. He said developers may perceive that it will become impossible to get a project through the Planning Board. He suggested whatever is proposed should be done fu such a way to allay that fear. Mr. Annino said Town Meeting should understand that Mansfield should be demanding higher standards from its development. Mr. Jenkins said he sees site plan approval as a more integral step for the redevelopment of sites than for the initial development of vacant sites. He said the redevelopment in the industrial park and downtown make this necessary because there will be substantial impacts to existing neighborhoods. Mr. D' Agostino asked how the board sees this working in the industrial park; Mr. Annino said the professionals who represent the companies in the park tend to be the easiest reviews because they do excellent plans and thorough presentations. Mr. French said if the board dealt with presenters like that all the time, this change wouldn't be necessary. Mr. Armstrong said this would actually give the Building Inspector more power because he would have a permit to enforce. r Mr. Burke suggested amending the proposal and asked that everyone send their comments. Mr. French asked that 5.3.4, "f' be eliminated. Mr. Riccio asked about appealing the board's decision to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Burke said the board's recommendation is not appealable, but under the new proposal, the board's decision would be appealable because it is an actual decision. Mr. Riccio said he would prefer to have it appealable prior to the building permit stage so he is not put in the position of legally having to issue a permit. The discussion will continue on September 28,2005, 7:00 p.m. 13.C.~D""" 1. August 2, 2005 letter from William Brown, Heron Crest (permitted as Village Landing) re: enclosed porches and walking traiVpicnic area I August 12, 2005 memo from David Field, Senior Engineer re: above memo Mr. Jenkins said he doesn't have a problem with the porches as long as they are built during the initial site construction; he said he does not want to see the owners coming back in a few years to add porches. He said the land is common land, so the space on which the porches will be constructed will belong to the association. Mr. Annino said the homeowner's association will be a self-governing body, so the town wouldn't be involved. MotioD: To approve the proposal to build up to 30 proposed porches in accordance with the detail information included in the August 2, 2005 (plans dated 5/12/05) letter from Mr. Brown, provided the porches are installed during initial construction. (Jenkins-Armstrong) Six in favor. Annino abstained. PASSES r Mr. Burke explained the second issue is in the open space; the proposal is for walking P1anning Board 3 Aug 24, 2005 r. r trails with "life stations." Mr. Annino said the permit specifies pas~ive recreation and this would be active. Mr. French said he doesn't have a problem with the proposal. Mr. Annino said there is a big difference between a walking path and the "life stations." Motion: To disapprove the walking path and life stations (Annino-Jenkins) Five in favor. Two opposed. PASSES Motion: To support a walking path and picnic area without the life stations (Armstrong-Jenkins) Five in favor. Two opposed. PASSES 2. ZBA application for Finding - 65 South Main Street Mr. Burke explained the lot is very deep but narrow and the addition will be off the back of the existing house. The addition would be 7.7 feet off the lot line. He suggested sending a positive recommendation. Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation (Annino-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES 3. ZBA application for Variance - 4 Pheasant Hollow Drive Mr. Burke suggested a negative recommendation because the addition could be moved without encroaching into the setback, or could be shortened. Monoo: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation and suggest the option of shortening or relocating the addition (Armstrong-Annino) All in favor. PASSES 4. ZBA application for Variance - 3 Otis Street Mr. Burke said the applicant wants to create two lots, one conforming, one non- conforming. Mr. French said the board has seen applications like this before, where zoning changes have turned two lots into one. Me. Burke suggested sending the ZBA a negative recommendation. Mr. French asked if a residential compound could be done here; Mr. Burke said he thought it could be, but the application says the owners do not want to do that. He said there may be intersection offset issues with a residential compound application. Motioo: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation (Armstrong-Holmes) Six in favor. Annino abstained. PASSES 5. August 10,2005 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (Torman-Annino) All in favor. PASSES 6. August 17, 2005 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (Torman-Annino) All in favor. PASSES 7. Meeting notices - North Attleboro r I ~Jlncltlte:r.1IIe Mr. Annino said he has been told that state law requires dumpster enclosures to be made of masonry. \4. AtljCRI~t Monoo: To adjourn at 9:15 p.m. (Torman-Holmes) All in favor. PASSES r Next meeting: Wednesday, September 14,2005 at 7:30 p.m. ~::.t: O~k & Uc O~ lM:;h~"'loate Of~~ /'-{ 74)\ Planning Board 4 Aug 24, 2005 r,