Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 11/16/05 !C I ,-, f,: ~ L,~ r- , Planning Board Minutes November 16, 2005 DEe - I PI'~ 3: ~ 9 Present: Tom French, Chair; Fred Armstrong, Clerk; Walter Jenkins, Ken TormaIl, ~ol)t\. DeMassi, Doug Annino, Frank Holmes i l ., ( I L;,L!-!. Hi\c:.:; HU2,E1TS . ;~,~. \.J ~.:' 11. Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. I 2. Correspondence 1. November 2, 2005 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES 2. November 9, 2005 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES 3. Discussion with Gary Hendron - Willow View - 55+ Development - 150 School Street Mr. Hendron, representing the applicant, said they will be going to the ZBA but wanted to update the Planning Board first. He showed the board the wetland line, which has been mapped by RIM Engineering. The plan had shown five buildings with six units in each; there are now four, four-story buildings with 32 units. Mr. Hendron explained there are now 8.75 units per upland acre, and the buildings have smaller footprints and are shorter, so there is now 93% open space. Mr. French asked if that includes driveways; Mr. Hendron said it does not, so the project does not really have that much r open space. He said they will be going to the ZBA for relief from the number of units per acre requirement; the town has a 10-acre requirement, and they only have 5.4 acres. He noted the state has a requirement for five acres. Mr. Annino asked what the hardship is; Mr. Hendren said it is an irregular shaped site with a lot of wetlands. He said without 10 acres they wouldn't be able to build at all; Mr. Annino said that does not constitute a hardship. Mr. Hendren said it would be up to the ZBA to decide if that is a hardship and whether it is worth.... He said the argument would be the high percentage of wetlands and the odd shape of the lot. He said this development would help to mitigate the currently traffic situation. Mr. French asked if the driveway has been moved as far down Willow Street as it can be. Mr. Hendren said it has been, and one of the two bridges has been eliminated. Mr. Hendren said they have considered a crash gate for emergency access on Route 140; Mr. French said Mass Highway wouldn't allow that break in the state road. Dr. Torman asked how long the driveway is; Mr. Hendren said it is close to 600 feet. Mr. French said the crash gate might be better located on School Street, where the daycare center driveway is now. r Mr. Armstrong asked if there are parking spaces within the highway easement; Mr. Hendren explained there are some in an inactive access easement, which was put there for the construction of Route 140. He said he cannot find any active easement documents about that. Planning Board 1 r Mr. DeMassi asked how long the driveway could be; Mr. French said this would be a private driveway, so there is no regulation. Dr. Torman asked about a setback from the highway; Mr. Hendren said the requirement is 50 feet from the edge ofthe highway; he said they have 52 feet. Mr. Hendren said they are not proposing garages with these buildings. Mr. French asked if some of the parking spaces could be covered with a shed-type garage. Mr. Hendren said that could be done ifit isn't called a structure. Mr. Annino asked if this would have to be a special permit; Mr. French said it would be. Mr. Annino asked if parking will be allowed in the highway easement; Mr. French said it would have to be determined what that easement is and who has the rights of use. Mr. Annino said the applicant would have to prove at the special permit public hearing that is usable space. Mr. French suggested going to the ZBA first. Mr. Annino said there is a lot of parking area that isn't broken up, which would be a concern. He said he is concerned about the scale and massing of the elevations for something that close to the street. He said the three-story elevations looked better than the four-story and said it should have more of a residential feel. Mr. Armstrong asked why the design changed so much with the addition of a fourth floor; Mr. Hendren said r they added a masonry face to the building and are experimenting with design. Mr. Annino said the banding and base works, the base should be stronger and more called out. He said the mechanicals should be hidden on the roof; he suggested a mansard roof rather than the fence-looking detail. Mr. DeMassi asked how a four-story building would fit into the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Hendren said there is a four-story building on the corner of Route 106 and Chauncy Street. Mr. Annino said that is too far away to compare this to and this would have to fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Holmes asked about drainage; Mr. Hendren said RIM is working on that now, and they will be meeting with the Conservation Commission. He said they will have to fill and replicate some wetland, and they still have some upland they can use. He said this is a tight site. Mr. Annino asked why the two buildings at the comer couldn't be combined into one. Mr. Hendren said they could because it would fall into the linear footage allowed for length of a building, but said that would create one long building. Mr. Annino said that would be ok, because it would make that different from the other buildings. Mr. Holmes asked how far the School Street edge of pavement is from the edge of pavement on the site; Mr. Hendren said they have five feet on their land and lIon the r School Street layout, for a total of about 16 feet, which will be planted. Mr. Holmes Planning Board 2 Vl (ILPl oS r asked if there will be a site distance issue if trees are planted in that area. Mr. Hendren said they would like to screen the building as much as possible. The board discussed the Mansfield Crossing developer making changes to that corner under the special permit. I 3. Discussion about Essex Street Development - Perry & Feck, LLC Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering, showed the board a conventional subdivision plan with four lots in Norton and 12 in Mansfield. They have been to the Conservation Commission for the wetland line determination and the owners have spoken with Ms. Grenier about the various layouts. The conventional plan would have two roads through wetland areas. Mr .Maloon presented an alternative layout with one 1,400 foot long road. Perry DiMascio said he thought it might be favorable for the road to be entirely within Mansfield [Mr. Jenkins arrived at this time.] Mr. Maloon presented the board with a third alternative, a cluster subdivision with a 1,228 foot-long road entirely in Mansfield, except a small piece of the corner rounding easement. He said it would have less road construction close to the wetlands. r Mr. French said the density would be established by the conventional plan, which indicates there can be 11 lots. Mr. DiMascio said the site is on sewer from Norton. Mr. French said a cul-de-sac road would have to be shorter. He said he doesn't remember the board ever granting a roadway length waiver. Mr. DiMascio said the reasoning would be to avoid a road in Norton, but said if it would be alright for the road to be part in both towns, they could build it that way. Mr. Annino said he would never go along with a road longer than what the by-law allows. Mr. DiMascio said there would be issues with the two town's different road specs, and with snow plowing and other town services. Mr. Armstrong suggested a homeowner's association that would take care of its own plowing. Mr. French said it could remain a private road and the towns wouldn't be responsible for it. Mr. DiMascio asked if it would have to be built to the town's specs; Mr. French said it would be. Mr. French said he would not be supportive on a waiver for the length of a dead end street. Mr. Armstrong said that would set a dangerous precedent. Mr. DiMascio said the biggest issue would be that the road would go through two towns. Mr. Holmes said he wouldn't want to set a precedent for the long roadway waiver. r- Planning Board 3 ([ (rf! [rS r- Mr. DiMascio said he has spoken with Ms. Grenier, who said the Conservation Commission would rather see the longer road because it would have less impact on the wetlands. Mr. Jenkins said he would like to see a looped cluster, which would have the benefit of maximizing the upland and still have a fair amount of open space. Mr. DiMascio said that way they would lose the street front lots. Mr. Maloon said they would have to blend with the Norton cluster regulations. Mr. French said the Norton pieces could be left conventional and the lots in Mansfield could be smaller and clustered. Mr. Jenkins said the cluster with open space might be good for marketing; Mr. French said the abutters would probably appreciate leaving as much open space as possible. Mr. DiMascio asked if the longer road would be an option if there was a second, emergency egress. Mr. French said the board has allowed emergency egress on private developments, but not on a subdivision. Mr. DiMascio said he thinks the cluster concept would be hard to sell, but said there is adjacent conservation land that could be donated. Mr. French suggested working on a cluster. Mr. French said a lot of the land that could be donated is wet, so nothing could be done with it anyway. Mr. DeMassi asked about a waiver for shorter frontage for the lots, rather than for the roadway width. Mr. Maloon said they couldn't do a cul-de-sac at the 650 mark because of the wetlands. r- Mr. DeMassi asked if the road could begin in Norton. Richard and Martha Detch, 20 Nathan Road, said the abutters are concerned about privacy. He said he likes the idea of a buffer. Mr. DiMascio said the cluster gives them the option for more open space and buffer. Mr. Maloon said the lots are about 200 feet deep, so they could have 50-foot buffers. Mr. DiMascio asked if the abutters would be willing to do the same and keep 50 feet on their properties. Mr. Detch said he would be willing to. Mr. Detch asked if the proper setbacks would be met for the vernal pools~ Mr. Maloon said they have an approved wetland line and there are potential vernal pools. Mr. Maloon said they would have to file with MEP A. Mr. Lambert, 15 Nathan Road, asked how the wetlands would affect the buildability. Mr. French said there would be a building envelope within which the houses can be built. Mr. French explained the applicant will have to file for a public hearing with the Planning Board and go before the Conservation Commission. Mr. DeMassi asked if Norton has a roadway length limit; Mr. Maloon said it does not, but has a number of houses limit. r- Planning Board 4 K { ( Ct { C? r-- 4. Special Permit Public Hearing - Amold's Gymnastics Academy Parking Expansion - 253 Oakland Street The clerk read the public hearing notice. The public hearing indicates the applicant is the Town of Mansfield, not Arnold's Gymnastics Academy, and the hearing will have to be readvertised. Mr. Jenkins said it would set a dangerous precedent to discuss this outside the public hearing. 5. Special Permit Public Hearing - Wireless Co-Location and accessory equipment - Bell Atlantic Mobile - 241 Francis Ave The clerk read the public hearing notice. Attorney Carl Gehring, representing the applicant, explained the application for the special permit, which was applied for and approved in 2002. The special permit expired before they applied for the building permit and he said this is the same application. There are three existing carriers on the tower at 241 Frances Avenue now. Mr. Gehring said their antennas will be along the railing. He said one of the requirements of the Zoning By-Law is that the antennas cannot exceed the height of the structure by 12 feet; he said theirs will be 9 feet above the lower roof and 15 feet below the higher roof He said the aggregate area will be 36 feet; maximum allowed is 50 feet. Mr. Gehring said the site is critical for Verizon's coverage. He said there will be no r- signage or lighting, and access is tightly controlled because the compound is fenced. Mr. Gehring addressed the tests in Section 5.5. He presented an RF exposure report, saying there could be 1,000 additional installations on this site without any health concerns. Mr. Gehring said this would be a benefit to the community, there would be no traffic, police, fire, school or water services needed, the site will be unmanned and unoccupied. They will use telephone and electrical service, which are already on site. Dr. TOTman said a couple of the users have generators; Mr. Gehring said there will be a generator in their shelter. Mr. Holmes asked about noise from the generator; Mr. Gehing said it would be contained in the building. Dr. Torman asked if the antenna would be in the same location as originally permitted; Mr. Gehring said it would be. Department Head Comments The clerk read comments from Patrolman Lawson, Water Department, Lt. Boldrighini, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Burke r Board Comment Mr. Holmes asked if the by-law means each installation could be 50 feet, or the entire installation could be 50 feet. Mr. Gehring said that refers to each installation. Mr. French said the intent of the by-law was to encourage co-location and said this is the ideal location for this use. Planning Board 5 Il(!l! !O~ r- The board reviewed the draft special permit. Motion: To grant the special permit for the wireless communications antennas to an existing concrete tower as well as one 14'x40' equipment shelter on grade at the base of the structure for a wireless communication facility located at 241 Francis Avenue with the following conditions: (Torman-Armstrong) Torman -In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, specifically with an improved level of communication for emergency agencies, and the location of the antenna far enough removed from most residents so as not to be a nuisance. Jenkins - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments and the items submitted in the applicant's statement go into great detail with regard to how the applications address the special permit requirements DeMassi - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments for the specific reasons related to its distance from most residents, the fact that it is a co-location, will have zero traffic impact, a high degree of safety, and provide the area with an upgrade in communication. Annino - In favor. The effects will be minimal on the community, the array is being installed on an existing structure and won't be any more noticeable, and will provide improved service to the town. r- Armstrong -In favor. The benefits far outweigh the minimal detriments. This will improve service in town, its placement is on an existing structure so it will have a minimal effect on the neighborhood character, there will be no pedestrian or traffic impacts, no municipal impacts, no impacts on the natural environment, and no fiscal impact. Holmes - In favor. The benefits of improved service to residents outweigh the minimal detriments. French - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments. There will be minimal negative impacts, and the benefits will be tax revenue, improved service to the community, and this is a good example of the co-location requirem~nt in the Zoning By-Law. All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES [Mr. Annino left the meeting at this time] I Correspondence continued 3. ZBA application for variance - 2-4 North Main Street (George's Cleaner's) The clerk read a memo from Mr. Burke regarding the application, which seeks variances r- from three Zoning By-Law requirements: 4.2.2, Footnote 2, requiring office, bank or Planning Board 6 u(rCr(05 r restaurant uses on the entire first floor; 4.4.1, requiring one parking space per 200 square feet of retail space; and 4.2.2, requiring a 1.5 Floor Area Ratio for business/residential uses in the B2 zone. Mr. French said he agrees with Mr. Burke that the grant of parking and FAR relief would set a dangerous precedent. Mr. Jenkins agreed. Mr. Armstrong said he understands the economic feasibility issue, but said this appears to be much too dense. Dr. Torman said it does not appear the dumpster could be accessed if cars are parked in the two closest spaces. Mr. Holmes asked the area of the existing building, and how much of the first floor is retail compared to how much is proposed for the new building. Mr. French said he understands the developer is trying to maximize his investment, and hopes a good project is constructed, but said it would be a dangerous precedent to change the FAR allowed. Mr. Armstrong said financial hardship is not grounds for a variance. r- Mr. DeMassi said he wouldn't have a problem increasing the density to some degree if the parking could be better handled. He said relief from all the required retail parking is too much. Mr. Armstrong noted the application says the retail parking can be used during the day, when the residents are at work. Mr. DeMassi said most uses, especially restaurants, would be open past 5 p.m. Dr. TOTman said adding that much additional parking would cause traffic problems at the comer. Mr. French said there is available parking around the cemetery and around the South Common. Mr. DeMassi said there might be an argument for the parking relief in that case, so this would be a unique situation. Mr. Armstrong said the board has to consider the variance tests, and said the developer's desire to maximize the lot does not meet the tests. He said the application does not address any of the tests. Mr. Jenkins said the developer just bought this lot, so he knew what would be required. Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation for relief from Section 4.2.2 to allow parking on the first floor. SpecifY that there should only be parking or business on the first floor, not residential uses. (Armstrong-Torman) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation for the parking variance because the relief requested is extreme and contrary to the Zoning By-Law. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship, nor has he specified how the application meets the statutory criteria for the tests for the grant of a variance. The board might potentially consider a different recommendation for a much smaller variance request (Armstrong-Holmes) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation for the variance to develop the r- site at 2.5 FAR because what is being proposed is too dense and too large and would set a Planning Board 7 II { 1& 10( r" dangerous precedent. The application does not demonstrate a hardship or specifY how it meets the statutory criteria for the tests for the grant of a variance. (Armstrong-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES j 7. Public Comment I 8. Around the Table Dr. Torman asked about the landscaping at Erin's Centre. Mr. DeMassi said he has spoken with a Maple Street resident who would like to pursue sidewalks on Maple Street and are willing to partially fund it. Mr. French said town funding would require a warrant article. 17. Adjournment Motion: To adjourn at 10:00 p.m. (Torman-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES r- Next meeting: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. ~~~ Signature of Clerk ~ 11/Zv/o~- Date of Approval r Planning Board 8 (l(rc,[o(