Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 05/10/2006 .. ( RECEIVED rOWN CLERKS OFF ICE Planning Board Minutes 06 JUN - 8 PH 2: 59 May 10, 2006 Present: Tom French, Chairman; Fred Armstrong, Clerk; Ken Torman, Walter J~F I ELD Doug Annino, John DeMassi, Frank Holmes HASSA'CHUSETTS Shaun P. Burke, Director of Plannin and Develo ment 1. May 10, 2006 memo from Mr. Burke and Mr. Sullivan re: street acceptance Motion: To support acceptance of Noreen Road and Nicole Road as public ways (DeMassi- Torman) All in favor. PASSES 1. May 3, 2006 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (Armstrong-Annino) Five in favor. French, Jenkins abstiained. PASSES 2. May 5, 2006 memo from John Sullivan re: Miller Recycling Site Plan 3. ZBA decisions - 390 Franklin Street (granted); 100 Jewell Street (denied); Modified Comprehensive Permit decision Fairfield Green 4. Public hearing notices: Easton Oak Street - Campbell This property was granted a variance earlier in the year for frontage. Mr. Burke r suggested the plan warrants endorsement. Motion: To endorse the Form A plan (Armstrong-Holmes) All in favor. PASSES Sawmill Court - Mr. Burke explained the remaining improvements have been completed on Sawmill Court and he recommends supporting acceptance. Motion: To support the acceptance of Sawmill Court as a public way (Annino-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Burke explained the board may be asked to make recommendations on several other articles, including: Article 29 - Fox/Central Street Sewer Easement. Mr. Burke explained this would give the town the right to access, repair and maintain the easement. Motion: To support Article 29 (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES (" The clerk read a request from the applicant to continue the public hearing until May 24, 2006 at 7:15 p.m. The board will be short that night, so the board discussed June 7 instead. Motion: To continue the public hearing until June 7, 2006 at 8:45 p.m. (DeMassi-Armstrong) Five in favor. Annino, Torman abstained. PASSES Planning Board 1 , Article 30 - Hall Street Sewer Easement. The town is releasing its interest in the easement. Motion: To support Article 30 (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES Article 31 - Brown A ve/Brown Terrace Easement. A portion of the street was built outside of the right-of-way, and the residents have agreed to grant the town an easement. Motion: To support Article 31 (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES Article 32 - General By-Law - Stormwater Management. This amendment responds to a directive under the Clean Water Act and NPDES; this amendment is a requirement of the town's permit. Mr. Sullivan has made several presentations to the board. Motion: To support Article 32 (Armstrong-Torman) All in favor. PASSES Article 44 - Billings Street Sale. Billings Street is a paper street; one of the abutters' driveways is on the paper street. Billings was never built from Highland to Perkins Ave; the portion from the river to Perkins was discontinued as a public way many years ago. This portion, about 40'xl 00', was not discontinued. The abutters have petitioned to discontinue; there are no utilities in the street. Mr. Burke said he expects the abutters will ask the town to sell it to them. Mr. DeMassi asked if a house could be built there. Mr. Burke said lots with 50 feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet of area are allowed if they existed prior to zoning; this would not be a grandfathered lot because it did not exist') when the town owned it. Motion: To support Article 44 (Armstrong-Annino) All in favor. PASSES [Mr. Jenkins left the meeting at this time] The board will be asked to make recommendations on the following articles: Article 41- 3.3.10, Minimum acreage for 55+ Development from 10 acres to 6 acres. Mr. French said the board's discussion was primarily about the lot behind Erin's Centre but noted if this is passed, it would apply to any property in town in that zone. Mr. Burke said there had been discussion of this being a transitional use between the industrial and residential uses, as well as whether there is a reduction in density proposed as well as the reduction in acreage. He said the answer to that was no, there was no density reduction in the amendment. He noted there had been discussion about whether reducing the density would be within the scope of the public hearing. He said it would not be. Mr. Holmes asked about the site on School Street that was denied a variance for a 55 and Over development. Mr. Burke said that site was less than the 10 acres currently required. He noted this change would affect any parcel of 6 or more acres. ~ Planning Board 2 ,--. ( Mr. DeMassi said he was concerned there is no limit to the number of units per acre with this amendment; he said that while this might be a good use for the West Street site, he would be concerned with 10 units per acre on 6 acre sites. Mr. Annino asked if the board would be able to reduce the number of units during permitting. Mr. Burke said applications are not usually submitted with the maximum number of units. He said it may appear to be arbitrary if the board establishes 10 units per acre and then plan to grant special permits on 5 units per acre. Mr. French said this use is allowed in R2, RD and B3 and asked what the height limitations are. Mr. Burke said 45 feet is the maximum in B3; 35 feet in R2 and RD. Mr. Armstrong said there are very few 10-acre sites in town and said this use makes sense on the West Street site. Dr. Torman said six acres may be more appropriate in some zones than in others. Mr. Burke said there is a finite number of existing parcels of that size, but said parcels could be combined to make larger parcels. He said the Reservoir District is mostly built out. He said the 10-acre minimum was chosen to avoid high-density projects in small areas; he said a proposed reduction in the area requirement may have been better if it included a corresponding reduction in density. Mr. Armstrong said to some extent, density is driven by marketability; he said a project r would be less attractive with too many units on a small site. Mr. DeMassi said the fact that this would be a special permit would give the board more leeway. He said the board would be able to look at the character of the neighborhood during permitting, and there would be reasons why a higher density development would be a detriment. Mr. Burke said this would be a multi-family use in single-family neighborhoods and the size of that type of development would have to be carefully considered. Mr. Annino asked how the new density could be arrived at without being arbitrary. He asked how best to respond to development as the town is developed more. Mr. Burke said age-restricted housing can be more dense but still require less service demand. He noted in R2, a single-family home would require 22,500 square feet per lot. He said when the lot sizes were increased in 1989 and 1994, the intent was to reduce density and reduce service demand. Mr. Annino said the original intent was because the town was concerned about the water quality. Mr. DeMassi asked how the 10 units per acre was arrived at. Mr. Burke said at a 10-acre minimum, 10 units per acre would result in 100 units, which he said would be very dense. He said with more than 100 units, the developments would be more likely to provide residents with on-site amenities. Mr. French asked what the setbacks would be; Mr. Burke explained they would be whatever the setbacks are in the underlying zone unless the developer requested something different through the special permit. He said thus far, the 55 and Over r developments have all complied with the existing setback requirements. Planning Board 3 Mr. French said everyone seems to be in favor of looking at some kind of reduction and asked if the special permit process would protect the town regarding the number of units. Mr. DeMassi said the special permit would only protect the town ifno variances are granted later. -"'\ Mr. DeMassi said if this were any other kind of multi-family housing other than Over 55, he would be more concerned about this proposal. He suggested a lower density could be proposed at a later time. Mr. Annino asked what the state density requirement is for Over 55 developments. Mr. French said the board could recommend Town meeting approve this, and the density could be changed later. He said the risk with that was that a plan could be filed in between the two town meetings to freeze the zoning. Motion: To support Article 41 (Annino-Armstrong) Five in favor. Holmes abstained. PASSES Article 42 - 4.4.2, Floor Area Ratio in 13 Mr. Burke said the board discussed a similar article last year and discussed this article at length at the public hearing. The discussion was about what the appropriate density is, how it is set, what is the right number. He said the abutters to the 13 zone are concerned about increases in density without infrastructure improvements. The town's consultant came up with a number of around $6 million for those improvements. He said he is concerned that this article would increase density without those improvements. He said he is uncomfortable quadrupling density with no infrastructure improvements. ~ Mr. Armstrong asked ifis possible to tie density increase to a special permit process. Mr. Burke said it can be and is one of the things being discussed with the TOD project; tying density to added public amenities. Mr. Armstrong said increased density in this zone makes sense, but not without improving infrastructure. Mr. Burke said during the TOD discussion, there was a question about how to tie density to improvements not directly on the site. He said that can be done now, and was done with Mansfield Crossing through the MEP A process. Mr. French said without MEP A, the board would have to look at those issues. Mr. DeMassi said it is very difficult to do mitigation studies further away from the site in question. Mr. Armstrong said it would be relatively easy to calculate traffic impacts on intersections in the 13 zone because it is a relatively small area. Mr. French said the train station area already has a serious traffic problem. Mr. DeMassi said he thinks the density in this area should be increased, but doesn't think 1.0 is the right number. He said he doesn't know the right number. He said he would like to wait for the TOD process to be completed, but doesn't see that being done by the end of the year. Mr. Armstrong said there would be a problem with the area being able to handle the increased traffic; Mr. DeMassi said there could be a number of things built there by right now without having to do any infrastructure work. He noted there are basically three large landowners in the 13 area, one of which is the town. Mr. Armstrong noted that without infrastructure improvements, there will be traffic gridlock. ') Planning Board 4 . - ( Mr. Burke noted this change would impact all 13 zones, so this change would effect more than three property owners. He said he is very concerned about increasing density without increasing infrastructure in all the 13 zones in town. He said the TOD project would consider the train station area and infrastructure improvements as a whole. Mr. Annino asked about tying a monetary amount into infrastructure improvements; Mr. Burke said the town had petitioned for an impact fee several years ago, but the general court would not allow that. [Mr. Jenkins returned to the meeting at this time] Mr. Burke said the court ruled that an impact fee is the same as a tax, which cities and towns cannot do. Mr. Annino said it makes more sense to have the infrastructure improvements done by private developers. Mr. Burke said one of the consultant's proposals included a garage, which was not well received because of the great amount of debt to be paid off over a number of years. Mr. Armstrong said the town can require a developer to mitigate the impacts of a project. Mr. Burke said the question is how far from the development site that can go. Mr. Armstrong said a large project near the train station would have a large impact on a greater distance. r Motion: Not to support Article 42 (DeMassi-Armstrong) Five in favor. Jenkins, Holmes abstained. PASSES Mr. French asked if the board wanted to consider another number. Mr. Burke said an increase of .25 to .5 would double the density. Mr. Armstrong said to get a project that is going to work in the 13 zone would need an increase in density. Mr. Burke said the issue is traffic impact and mitigation and said a project should come in as a package. Mr. Armstrong said he agreed but also understands the landowners' frustration at how long the TOD process is taking. Mr. Annino suggested the board look at the Cecil Group's research and try to determine what the right number is. Mr. DeMassi said he thinks it is reasonable for the board to look at that with an eye toward tying density in with infrastructure improvements. Article 43 - West Street Rezoning from R2 to 11 Mr. French noted this is the parcel ofland behind Erin's Centre, which has been on the warrant for rezoning a number of times. Motion: Not to support Article 43 (Annino-Armstrong) Six in favor. Holmes abstained. PASSES r Special Town Meeting Article 13 - Marydee Lane Parcel. During the construction of Marydee Lane, it was found that Bird Road was constructed on a portion of the Planning Board 5 developer's property. They offered to give the town an easement. The development was approved and constructed, but the easement was never granted. \ Motion: To support Special Town Meeting Article 13 (Annino-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Armstrong suggested discussing how the board's recommendations would be handled. Mr. French said he has a work commitment the night of Town Meeting and didn't know what time he would arrive. Mr. French said in addition to its own articles, the board would be asked to explain its recommendations on the citizens' petitions. Mr. Armstrong said he would do the 55+ lot size increase, Mr. Holmes the 13 FAR and Mr. DeMassi the West Street rezoning. Mr. Burke said he would explain the Flood Plain article. Mr. Armstrong said he would explain the Site Plan article. Mr. Annino said he would assist with the architectural aspects of that article. Mr. Burke said he has spoken with the Chair of the Finance Committee, who said there has been an agreement reached on the budget. ~ Mr. Clemmey asked if the board would discuss alternate members. Mr. French said the Board of Selectmen, not the Planning Board, appoints Planning Board members. Mr. Clemmey said there should be a list of qualifications for the positions and the Planning Board should make recommendations to the Selectmen. Motion: To adjourn at 9:45 p.m. (Torman-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES Next meeting: Wednesday, May 24,2006 at 7:30 p.m. ~~J Signature of Clerk (pI? Iv6 Date of Approval r", Planning Board 6