The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutmin of planning brd 05/03/2006 r . . RECEIVED rOWN CLERKS OFFICE Planning Board Minutes 06 May 3, 2006 MA Y , 2 AM 9: II Present: Fred Armstrong, Clerk; Ken Torman, John DeMassi, Doug .AIfliJtFt$mO Holmes MASSACHUSETTS Shaun P. Burke, Director of Plannin and Develo ment (' 1. April 26, 2006 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (Torman-Armstrong) Four in favor. Holmes abstained. PASSES 2. April Building Permit Summary 1. April 28, 2006 memo from Lorilee Fish, Recreation Director re: Use of Lights at Hutchason Field on East Street. Mr. Burke explained the town first looked at this site for a fire station, but there were concerns about proximity to the Hope Street intersection. It was decided to use the site for fields instead; the neighbors were concerned about lighting and asked that lights not be installed. The field use was approved without lights. The Recreation Commission wants to revisit the lighting issue and have asked the Selectmen for a public hearing to discuss it. Mr. Burke said the Planning Board would offer comment on the revised site plan or as Municipal Clearinghouse, and said the neighbors may be concerned about the addition of lighting. He said he is concerned the temporary lights would be very hard to screen and it may make more sense to look at the cost of permanent lights with shields to protect the neighbors. Mr. DeMassi said he didn't think lighting on this field would be visible from Hope Street. Mr. Holmes asked how long this field would be used; Mr. Burke said as far as he knows, the field will be permanent. Dr. Torman said the Recreation Director had come to the Capital Improvements Committee to discuss the lighting and proposed temporary lights because they could be shared. He said he felt changing the site plan now to include lighting would be a violation of the neighbor's trust. Mr. Annino said opening the question up to public debate would allow discussion of that. Mr. DeMassi said he would rather the lights were permanent, since moving temporary lighting around the site would be inconvenient. Mr. Burke said he thought they would be left in place for the season. Mr. Holmes asked about generator noise; Mr. DeMassi said the noise is minimal. Mr. DeMassi noted the Capital Improvements Committee had recommended the Recreation Commission go to the Board of Selectmen and said he would like to attend that meeting. Mr. Annino asked if the Light Department could install some light poles for the site. r- Mr. Karl Clemmey said several residents in that neighborhood have received abatements because of their proximity to the field. Planning Board 1 The bo~d as~ed,that a letter be sent to the Board of Selectmen requesting the board \ , ~rbe. notified aboutthe dates for the Selectmen's public hearing. ') ,.:~: I?e,M~si s~ the Recreation Commission, with the support of the youth sports 2 ., 19f6ups, had requested money through CIP for an artificial turf field at Plymouth Street, which the Capital Improvements Committee did not support. Mr. DeMassi asked that the results from the final CIP meeting be sent to the Planning Board members. He said the final number was $731,000 in capital requests, all of which were "health and safety" issues. Mr. Holmes asked about work happening on Elm Street; Mr. Burke said the Conservation Commission has issued a cease and desist order on work being done in an old gravel pit. He said there had been a subdivision filed in 1989 on the parcel that was denied by the Board of Health because of its proximity to the well site. There was an agreement between the town and the owner to restore the gravel pit; that work was never done. The site was sold recently and the new owner has been doing a lot of clearing and blasting work; Ms. Grenier and Mr. Ahern went out to stop the work and inform the owner of the need to file with Conservation because of wetland issues. Mr. Burke said he will be visiting the site tomorrow with the Building Inspector. Mr. DeMassi asked if this site is near the recently approved subdivision on Skene's land; Mr. Burke said it is, and both parcels were included on the subdivision plan that was denied in 1989. ') The clerk the public hearing notice. Article 35 5.4 Flood Plain District 5.4.1 Purpose: The purpose of the Flood Plain district is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, to protect human life and property from the hazards of periodic flooding, to preserve the natural flood control characteristics and the flood storage capacity of the floodplain, and to preserve and maintain the groundwater table and groundwater recharge areas within the floodplain. 5.4.2 District Delineation: Flood Plain District is herein established an overlay district. The District includes all special flood hazard areas designated on the Mansfield Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the administration of the National Flood Insurance Program dated April 1, 1977 as Zone A, AI, A2, A3, A4, A6, and A7. The exact boundaries of the District may be defined by the 100-year base flood elevations shown on the FIRM dated April 1, 1977, and as may be amended from time to time by vote of Town Meeting and further defined by the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) dated October 1976. The FIRM is incorporated herein by reference and is on file with the Town Clerk, Planning Board and Building Inspector. 5.4.2.1 Floodway Data: In Zones A the best available Federal, State, local, or other floodway data shall be used to prohibit encroachments in floodways which would result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base discharge. In Zones AI-30 and AE, along watercourses that have not had a regulatory floodway designated, no new construction, substantial improvement, or other development shall be permitted unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood. In :~ Planning Board 2 r Zones AI-30 and AE, along watercourses that have regulatory floodways designated on the Mansfield Insurance Rate Map or Flood Boundary Map encroachments are prohibited in the regulatory floodway which would result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. 5.4.2.1a Base Flood Elevation and Floodway Data: Base Flood Elevation data is required for subdivision proposals or other developments greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is lesser, within unnumbered A zones. 5.4.2.2 The Building Inspector shall require the applicant to submit a completed "Elevation Certificate" certifying the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest habitable floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures, obtain, if the structure has been floodproofed, the elevation to which it has been floodproofed, a "Floodproofing Certificate" and shall maintain a record of all such information. 5.4.2.2.aNotification of Watercourse Alteration: In a riverine situation, the Conservation Commission shall notify the following of any alteration or relocation of a watercourse: * Adjacent Communities *NFJP State Coordinator, Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, 251 Causeway Street, Suite 800, Boston MA 02114-2104 *NFIP Program Specialist, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region 1, 99 High Street, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02110 5.4.3 Use Regulations: The Flood Plain District is established as an overlay district to all other districts. All development, including structural and non-structural activities, whether permitted by right or by special permit, must be in compliance with Chapter 131, Section 40 of the Massachusetts General Laws and with the requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code (Section 780 CMR 3107, "Flood Resistant Construction"); Wetlands Protection Regulations, (Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 310 CMR 10.00); Inland Wetlands Restrictions (DEP, 310 CMR 13.00); and Minimum Requirements for the Subsurface Disposal of Sanitary Sewage DEP (310 CMR 15, Title 5) and as may be amended from time to time, pertaining to construction in the floodplain. 5.4.4 Permitted Uses: The following uses oflow flood damage potential and causing no obstructions to flood flows shall be allowed provided they are permitted in the un- derlying district and they do not require structures, fill, or storage of materials or equipment: Agricultural uses such as farming, grazing, truck farming, horticulture, etc. Forestry and nursery uses. Outdoor recreational uses, including fishing, boating, play areas, etc. Conservation of water, plants, wildlife. Wildlife management areas, foot, bicycle, and/or horse paths. Temporary non-residential structures used in connection with fishing, growing, harvesting, storage, or sale of crops raised on the premises. 5.4.4.7 Buildings lawfully existing prior to the adoption of these provisions. 5.4.5 Special Permitted Uses: All uses allowed by right in the underlying zoning district may be allowed in the Flood Plain District by special permit issued by the Planning Board. The general requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of the Mansfield Zoning By-Law shall apply to all special permits issued in the Flood Plain District. In addition, in all cases, electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service utilities shall be designed and/or located as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited in all cases within the Flood Plain District. 5.4.6.1 The manufacture, storage or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials. 5.4.6.2 Sanitary landfills, dumps,junkyards or disposal of solid waste, sludge or commercial septage. 5.4.4.1 5.4.4.2 5.4.4.3 5.4.4.4 5.4.4.5 5.4.4.6 (' r- 5.4.6 Planning Board 3 5.4.6.3 The storage or disposal of hazardous wastes, as defined by the Hazardous Waste Regulations promulgated by the Division of Hazardous Waste under the provi- sions of Chapter 21C of the Massachusetts General Laws, as may be amended from time to time. ~ Mr. Burke explained the town received a letter from MEMA to review the flood plain by- laws because there have been changes to federal regulations that should be reflected in local by-laws. Mr. Burke explained the changes include a reference to a number of existing federal documents or regulations, including the flood insurance study of 1976. Mr. DeMassi asked what would happen if this by-law wasn't adopted. Mr. Burke said the town could lose its flood insurance. He explained most towns' flood plain by-laws are similar, as mandated by FEMA. Mr. Burke explained the new by-law lists a number of agencies that must be notified in the event of a water course alteration. Mr. Burke explained the town already enforces 310 CMR 10 through the building code, but the reference also has to appear in the Zoning By-Law. Mr. Clemmey said Mr. Sullivan wrote this article and used information from the Town of Walpole and went to the Board of Selectmen to explain it to them. He asked why Mr. Sullivan wasn't at this meeting to explain the article. Mr. Burke said Mr. Clemmey is thinking of Article 32. Mr. Clemmey said the two articles should be combined. Mr. DeMassi said Mr. Sullivan has visited the board twice to explain and gather comment on ') Article 32. Motion: To support Article 35, amendments to Zoning By-Law Section 5.4, Flood Plain District (Torman-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES ---------------------------------- Mr. DeMassi and Dr. Torman asked that the public hearing be continued until after their meeting with the Board of Selectmen regarding membership on the Capital Improvements Committee. Motion: To continue the public hearing until Mr. DeMassi and Dr. Torman return from the Board of Selectmen's meeting (DeMassi-Holmes) All in favor. PASSES Mr. DeMassi and Dr. Torman left at this time. Mr. DeMassi and Dr. Torman returned at this time. Motion: To reopen the public hearing (DeMassi-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES Article 34 5.3 Site Plan Review 5.3.1 Purpose The purpose of Site Plan Review is: to provide an orderly review procedure where site plans of proposed projects can be approved with reasonable conditions which will maintain the character and ~ Planning Board 4 r integrity of all zoning districts and adjoining zoning districts; to ensure that new, expanded or reeonstructed sites are planned and designed to minimize impacts on tbe environment, abutters, and town services by proper design and construction of stormwater systems, parking and loading areas, waste removal, sediment and erosion control, lighting, landscaping and buffering, points of access and egress, pedestrian access and signage. 5.3.2 Applicability In all instances specified in Section 3 Schedule of Principal Regulations, indicating that site plan approval is required, no building permit shall be issued in any case where a building is to be erected or externally enlarged and no area for parking, loading, or vehicular service (including driveways giving access thereto) shall be established or substantially changed, except in conformity with a site plan bearing an endorsement of approval by the Inspector of Buildings after review thereof by the Planning Board. Site plan approval shall not be required in any case where a building is to be externally changed for the purpose of closing an entrance or creating a new entrance thereto and for other extension(s) to a building, which in total shall not exceed more than 15% of the gross floor area of the building or 10,000 square feet, whichever is less. Uses which require a site plan review and issuance or denial of a development approval by the Planning Board are identified by the letter "Y" under the column heading "SPA" of Schedule of Principal Use Regulations. 5.3.3 In instances where site plan review is required, a site plan shall be submitted in accordance with Section 5.5.2 and 5.5.3 ofthis Zoning By-law, as well as the following which shall be required by tbe applicant for site plan review: a) locus plan; b) location of structures within 100 feet of property lines; c) existing and proposed buildings, showing setbacks from property lines; d) signage; e) existing and proposed contour elevations in two-foot increments; f) parking areas, driveways, and facilities for pedestrian movement; g) drainage system; h) utilities and lighting, including a photometric plan; i) landscaping, including trees to be removed and retained; j) loading and unloading facilities k) provisions for refuse removal; I) existing and projected traffic volumes from the site and effect on the local road network; m) drainage calculations and soil tests for the location oftbe building(s), parking areas and drainage facilities; n) other information as may be necessary to determine compliance with the provisions of this bylaw. 0) Building elevations, floor plans 5.3.4 Review Procedure The Planning Board shall examine the following concerns in reviewing the site plans of the proposed development: a) proper drainage ofthe property; b) safe access to the development, minimizing the number and width of curb cuts; c) acceptance design and layout of ways, streets, and parking areas; d) that the projected traffic increases to the local road(s) is within the capacity of the existing network for both daily and peak hour volumes; e) proper lighting design for parking areas and abutters; f) complies with the Mansfield Master Plan and Open Space and Recreation Plan. g) design features, building elevations h) aesthetic assets i) screening 5.3.5 The applicant shall submit such material as may be required regarding measures proposed to prevent pollution of surface or groundwater, soil erosion, increased runoff, changes in groundwater level, and flooding. r r Planning Board 5 5.3.6 The applicant shall submit material regarding design features intended to integrate the proposed new development into the existing landscape, to enhance aesthetic assets, and to screen objectionable features from neighbors. 5.3.7 The applicant shall submit such material as may be required regarding the projected traffic flow patterns into and upon the site for both vehicles and pedestrians and an estimate of the projected number of motor vehicle trips to and from the site for an average day and for peak hours. 5.3.8 Prior to rendering its decision the Planning Board shall examine the technical quality of the site plans and evaluate the advisability of approval after considering the following matters: 5.3.9 Protection and enhancement of existing site features; 5.3.10 Protection of adjoining premises against detrimental uses by provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers and preservation of views, light and air; 5.3.11 Convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site, the location of driveway opening in relation to traffic or to adjacent streets and, when necessary, compliance with other regulations for the handicapped, minors and the elderly; 5.3.12 Conformance of the arrangement of parking and loading spaces in relation to the proposed uses of the premises to Section 4.4 of this by-law; 5.3.13 Proper methods of disposal of refuse and other wastes resulting from the uses permitted on the site; applicant must demonstrate availability of adequate water supply and waste disposal systems; 5.3.14 Relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape, existing buildings and other community assets in the area and compliance with other requirements of this by-law. 5.3.15 Protection of environmental features, particularly groundwater resources, on the site and in adjacent areas, adequate protection to prevent pollution of surface and groundwater, soil erosion, increased run-off, changes in groundwater recharge or elevation and flooding. The original and eleven (11) copies of the development application and plans shall be submitted to the Town Clerk, who shall give the applicant a dated receipt. Within three (3) days of the receipt of said application, the Town Clerk shall transmit the original and all copies to the Building Inspector for distribution and review. 5.3.17 The Applicant shall submit to the Building Inspector a final as-built of the site plan, stamped by the Engineer and Land Surveyor (as necessary) in both hard copy and digital format (preferably in AutoCAD DWG format, but DXF format will be acceptable). The media shall be a 3.5" floppy disk or CD. The plan Vertical Datum shall reference the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NA VD88), and the plan shall contain a minimum of two benchmarks. The horizontal orientation shall reference the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). The plan shall show the locations and dimensions of the building foundation(s), and all utilities, including sanitary sewer, storm drain, water and electric. The location of the foundation(s) shall be shown with respect to the lot lines. The locations of all utility connections shall include the elevation, the size and material of the connections, and the distance from the points where the services leave the foundation to the nearest foundation comer. For sewer and drainage, swing ties shall also be provided from at least two foundation comers to any sewer or drain structure, or change in horizontal or vertical line of the services and the distances from the nearest Town manhole to the points of connection to the Town mains. For water service(s), swing ties shall also be provided from at least two foundation comers to any bends, valves, fittings, curb stop and corporation stops. For electric service, swing ties shall also be provided from at least two foundation comers to any underground conduit bends, hand holes or manholes. The Engineer or Registered Land Surveyor shall certify that the construction conformed to the approved site plan or approved modifications thereto. Both the above as- built plan and the certification must be received and approved prior to sign off of the Certificate of Occupancy. 5.3.18 The Building Inspector shall arrange for said site plan to be reviewed by, but not limited to, the following departments; Police, Fire, Engineering, Planning, Conservation, Electric, Water, Wastewater, Health, and Public Works. Written comments from the departments shall be forwarded to the Planning Board prior to the Planning Board's review. 5.3.19 If the Planning Board, determines that said site plan complies with the purpose and specification of this bylaw, the Board shall approve the site plan with or without conditions. If the Board determines the plan does not comply with the specifications of this by-law, it shall be disapproved. ~ ~ I~ Planning Board 6 ( 5.3.20 The Planning Board shall take action on said plan within thirty (30) days of receipt of the site plan from the Town Clerk. 5.3.20 Appeals The Zoning Board of Appeals as established by Chapter 40A of the General Laws of the Commonwealth shall hear and decide appeals in regards to determinations or decisions made by the Planning Board in the enforcement or administration of this section. Mr. Burke explained this article had been on last year's warrant, but was withdrawn. He explained this article would give the Planning Board site plan approval, which is done in most towns in the state. He said the process for site plan review would remain basically the same. He added that the current site plan decision is not appealable; this proposal provides for an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Public Comment Mr. Karl Clemmey said he is concerned there aren't many people in the audience and that there are two board members missing. He said there was no quorum at the first hearing for this article and it had to be readvertised. Mr. Clemmey asked who would enforce and administer the by-law and who would do the inspections. He said if this is a good tool now, why would it be changed and asked why the board feels it has to be changed. He said the Master Plan hasn't been updated in 20 years. He said this is a big change and asked if more people would have to be hired to administer the by-law. ( Mr. Burke said administration would be done by existing Planning Department staff. He said the town's Master Plan is not 20 years old. He said Mr. Clemmey is concerned about two missing members tonight, but noted that site plan is currently approved by a single person. He said one of the reasons for the amendment is because more people reviewing plans would be better, and those who review the plans should approve the plan. Mr. Burke said most of the items included in the by-law are included on most plans the board sees now, but this change would require those items on all plans. Mr. Armstrong said every Planning Board he has been in front of has site plan approval, not site plan review. He said the way it is now, some applicants don't take the board seriously because it only makes a recommendation to the Building Inspector. He said the list off1ling requirements in this proposal are things the board needs to see anyway. The approval by the Planning Board gives the town more certainty, and gives developers an appeal process. He noted the process now stops at the Building Inspector. He said with this by-law, the Building Inspector would have an enforceable decision. Mr. Clemmey said Foxboro doesn't do site plan through the Planning Board. Mr. Annino said Foxboro has both Planning Board and Board of Selectmen approval of site plans. Mr. Clemmey asked who would be enforcing the by-law. Mr. Burke said existing r- Planning Department staffwould handle it. Mr. DeMassi said most of the things included in the by-law are already being done by the Planning Department staff. Planning Board 7 Mr. Annino noted the board has met twice with the Building Inspector about this by-law. ) Mr. Clemmey said he is concerned about additional money needed to add staff to administer this by-law. Mr. Burke said there is no new staff proposed. Mr. Bill Clemmey said this process could be expensive for someone doing a small project. Mr. Annino noted the by-law says a site plan review is required for changes over 15% of the gross floor area or over 10,000 square feet, because the board doesn't want to review every little project in town. Mr. Bill Clemmey said when an applicant submits a plan to the Planning Director, he will have to compare it to the proposed list, ask the applicant to add the things that are missing and revise the plan before coming to the board. Mr. Burke said he does those things now; Mr. Clemmey said there is no defined checklist for Mr. Burke to use now. Dr. Torman said the board is tired of people coming to the board with incomplete plans; with this by-law, everyone will know exactly what the board needs to make its decision. Mr. Bill Clemmey asked if there is any leeway in the list. Mr. Annino said if the applicant can demonstrate something is unnecessary, the board would consider waiving it. Mr. Burke said itemizing the requirements provides a degree of certainty, with everyone starting from the same place. Mr. Karl Clemmey said the plan can be disapproved; he asked if recourse is to the ZBA. Mr. Burke said if the applicant wants to move forward with the same plan, the right of appeal would be to the ZBA, or the plan could be amended and resubmitted to the board. -, Mr. Karl Clemmey asked why, if the Planning Department is taking over the process, the Building Inspector distributes the plans. Mr. Burke said one of the things that came out during discussions with the Building Inspector was that the distribution system used now can be used in the future, as can the scheduling and running of the staff-level meeting. Mr. Armstrong said the original article had proposed those things to be done through the Planning Department. Mr. Karl Clemmey asked why plans should have to comply with the Open Space & Recreation Plan. Mr. Burke explained there is development happening allover town, which may be near things like the bike path and pedestrian areas. Mr. Bill Clemmey asked if the board feels this is more or less restrictive. Mr. DeMassi said he doesn't think this will cause the board any more work than it currently has, but will provide more standardization in the board's decision-making. Mr. Clemmey asked where the Building Inspector's opinion would come in; Mr. DeMassi said prior to the board meeting, there is a staff meeting to gather all department head comments. Mr. Karl Clemmey asked if there is a written opinion from the Building Inspector about this article. Mr. Burke explained the board met twice with the Buidling Inspector, and this article is what came out of those discussions. '1 Planning Board 8 (' Mr. Karl Clemmey said whoever presents this article at town meeting would have to be comfortable stating there would be no additional staff needed to administer the by-law. Mr. Burke said he would be very comfortable saying that. Mr. Annino said as the town develops, the board has to look at plans three-dimensionally, with an eye toward aesthetics. He said the Building Inspector has to look at things in terms of the building code, and cannot consider anything other than that. With this, the board will be able to go further and help to protect the residents of the town. Mr. DeMassi said not all applicants coming to the board for site plan are prepared with detailed plans, and have to return with amendments, which takes up a lot of the board's time. He said if applicants can be made to standardize their applications, it would actually save time. Mr. Karl Clemmey said it is time for the town to review the Master Plan. He said the large lots in Rl may be a problem. He said he is concerned about having to hire more people to administer this by-law, or having to take people away from the Building Inspector's office to do the work. Mr. Burke said there is no proposal to hire more people or to use Building Department staff to administer the by-law. r Mr. Burke said the Planning Board has looked at the Master Plan issue and said there is a consensus now that it may in fact be time for an update. He said when he had his budget meeting with the Town Manager, he told Mr. D' Agostino he plans to seek funding to do a Master Plan next year. Mr. Clemmey said he hoped that wouldn't be done just with the Planning Board. Mr. Burke said during the last update, there were representatives from several boards and committees and citizens at large, in addition to the Planning Board. Mr. Annino agreed that the large lots may be making it difficult for first-time homeowners, and said there should be a variety of lot sizes to encourage a different range of housing groups. Mr. Karl Clemmey asked if the board would be making its recommendations on the citizens' petitions tonight. Mr. Burke said that would be done next week. Motion: To support Article 34 (Armstrong-Holmes) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Torman-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To adjourn at 9:15 p.m. (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES Next meeting: Wednesday, May 10,2006 at 7:30 p.m. ~ ~,< d.MttL :/htul'ltTl'j H S gnature of Clerk ( {I ^f!i 10 ;JoiXP Date f pproval Planning Board 9 r T /~ :J -.., Planning Board 10