Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 11/8/2006 r- . ...., . RECE/V D ~ Plannml' I'oatll M~." i:"F Ie"' November 8, 2006 ". t. Present: Doug Annino, Acting Chair; JQitDOOMusP,H\<ttiIJ:Flerk; Fred Armstrong, Walter Jenkins, Ken Torman, Frank Holmes" . Altemate(s): Michael McClanahan, StantHCAc!ft~!J ifLU Shaun P. Burke, Director ofPlannin ana o~ liiJiETTS Motion: To appoint Mr. McClanahan and Mr. Feck as voting members (Tonnan-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To appoint Mr. Annino Acting Chair (McClanahan-Holmes) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To appoint Mr. DeMassi Acting Clerk McClanahan-Feck All in favor. PASSES 1. Minutes October 11, 2006 Motion: To approve as submitted (Torman-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES [Mr. Jenkins arrived at this time] 2. Minutes October 25, 2006 Motion: To approve as submitted (McClanahan- Torman) Five in favor. Jenkins, Holmes abstained. PASSES 3. October Building Permit summary 4. Meeting notices - Canoe River Aquifer Advisory Committee, Attleboro, Norton 5. The Beacon 6. November 7, 2006 letter from Bill Brown, Heron Crest re: field change to Building J retaining wall and grading. Mr. Burke explained the applicant wants to move the wall out, eliminate a flight of stairs from the sidewalk at the top and extend the sidewalk along the common driveway. He said the idea is to provide more privacy for the residents because the way the wall is designed now, it would be up against the residents' deck. The wall will be Versa-Lock type, with a fence at the top because of the change in elevation. Mr. DeMassi said he thinks this development has been done well and the developer has complied with the board's requests and concerns throughout. Mr. Burke said the Building Inspector will require an as-built on the first phase before issuing any certificates of occupancy. Mr. DeMassi asked about the level of change that would require reopening the special permit. Mr. Burke said this type of change doesn't affect the original permit, because it doesn't effect the roadway elevation or the number of units. The board acknowledged this is an acceptable field modification. r Zecher - Otis Street. Mr. Burke explained this applicant was denied by the ZBA, filed a repetitive petition, returned to the ZBA and received the necessary variances. He said the plan warrants endorsement. Motion: To endorse the Form A plan (McClanahan- Torman) All in favor. PASSES r [Mr. Armstrong arrived at this time.] Planning Board 1 11/16/2006 Dr. Torman asked about the work going on at Erin's Centre. Mr. Burke explained there is an ongoing lawsuit between the contractor and landowner, and the federal court judge has appointed someone to arrive at a punch list of incomplete items on the site. He said the Building Inspector will not issue final certificates of occupancy to any buildings on site until that inventory has been completed. Mr. Burke said the town would get a copy of the punch list when it is complete. n [Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Holmes excused themselves. Mr. McClanahan and Mr. Feck will vote on this issue.] The clerk read the public hearing notice. Gary Hendren, architect, representing Mr. Cooney, said this by-law was amended in May 2006 from a 10 acre minimum to six acres. He said the state statute for an Over 55 development is five acres; he said waivers to the five-acre requirement can be waived by the state. He said he has recently gotten a waiver in another town to put 32 units on a 3.5-acre parcel. He said there has been a lot of discussion among planners about the efficacy of having an acreage requirement for a 55 and Over development at all. He said making the town's requirement five acres would make it consistent with the state. Mr. Hendren said the density of the development does not have to be related to the size of '1'\ the parcel. He said there has been encouragement throughout the state for the elderly to I ' be close to mass transit, downtown and shopping areas so they can walk and contribute to the community. He said requiring a large parcel for this type of development would not be possible because of the lack of large parcels in downtown areas. Mr. Hendren said 55 and Over developments are stable and contribute more to the community than they demand. He said there is a definite need for Over 55 housing given the aging population. Mr. Hendren said Mr. Cooney presented a project to the board about a year ago because he has a 5.2 acre parcel that he plans to propose again if this passes. Board Comment Mr. McClanahan asked if Mr. Cooney has tried to acquire additional land. Mr. Cooney said he has approached the owner of Willowdale Golf Course, who is concerned about selling land that might impact his own future development options. Mr. Cooney said he owns the whole parcel on the corner of Willow Street and School Street, which hasawetland issues. Mr. DeMassi said Mr. Hendren had asked why the town's requirement went from 10 acres to six, and explained that was proposed as a citizens' petition. He said the board wanted the town's requirement to be more restrictive than the state, and they felt the six- ~ Planning Board 2 11/16/2006 acre requirement would maintain that. Mr. DeMassi said he knows there is a need for ( this type of housing, and noted this proposal would affect all the areas in town where 55 and Over development is allowed. He said the board had discussed where there could be six unbuilt acres that could be brought together to build this type of housing. Mr. Cooney asked if Mr. DeMassi thinks the Willow/School site is a good site for this type of development. Mr. DeMassi said this warrant article would affect any site in town where this type of development would be allowed, not just that one. He said the board's recommendation would have to be based on every site in town. Mr. DeMassi said the board was split on the six-acre reduction, but said he remembered there was a lot of discussion during that public hearing. Mr. Burke said the 100acre requirement was not an arbitrary number, and the state's requirement does not obligate cities and towns to adopt the same regulations. He said he was not supportive of the six-acre reduction, nor is he Supportive of this proposal. He said when the town adopted the 10-acre requirement, the idea was that the development be allowed to have a density such that it creates its own community, and that it not be wedged into small sites. He said a reduction in area is not necessarily a reduction in density, and with 10 acres, there could be a density that would create the sense of community, with public spaces and community centers. He said reducing the required lot size should require a reduction in density. r Mr. Cooney said the use would still be a special permit, so the board would have some control over the development. Mr. Burke said that would depend on how cooperative the developer was. Mr. Burke said this type of development isn't as simple as a subdivision, where the board is required to endorse a plan if it meets certain requirements. Mr. Hendren said the density wouldn't necessarily drive the ability of the developer to provide the amenities to make a community; that may have to do with the selling prices of the units. Mr. DeMassi said the board was not interested in hearing about increases in density when this by-law was changed last spring. He said he thinks the board would like to see more successful 55 and Over developments and was concerned about more units on fewer acres. Mr. Cooney said there aren't many to-acre sites left near the center of town. Mr. Hendren said the state average for residents in 55 and Over is 67 years old, but if a development is marketed as an active community, the residents could be much younger and more active. r- Mr. Annino said there has been no concrete evidence presented for the change in the requirement from six acres to five acres, other than the state requirement. Mr. Cooney said he is obviously interested in his own property, but said this use will be a special permit anywhere, so the board could work with the individual developers. Mr. Annino said the board cannot be arbitrary in the number of units it permits. Mr. Hendren noted this proposal is not to change the density. Planning Board 3 11/16/2006 Mr. DeMassi said the board supports 55 and Over housing and wants to encourage it in town. He said the board understood the difficulty of finding 10-acre sites. ------------- n Motion: To open and continue the public hearing for 136 Oak Street until the conclusion of the zoning public hearing (Feck-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES The clerk read the public hearing notice for 136 Oak Street. Mr. Holmes and Mr. Armstrong will return for that public hearing ------------- Dr. T orman said any number of acres is arbitrary, and asked if it would be defensible. He said the density number might be a better way to determine the proper degree of development for a site. He said he doesn't see a problem with the number of acres, but feels the density is more significant. Mr. McClanahan said he thought the intent was to create a campus-type atmosphere with this type of development. Dr. Torman said even the developments that have been built on 10 acres have not all built amenities like community rooms. Dr. Torman suggested the board set a punch list of priorities for this type of development. Mr. Feck suggested revisiting the whole 55. and Over by-law and possibly requiring a different number of acres in different zones. Mr. Jenkins said the density could be based on the lot size, with more units being allowed on larger sites. Dr. Torman asked if the board has the latitude to set a different number of units on different sites. Mr. Burke said a sliding scale could be established based on the zoning district, size of the site or the amenities being brought to the site, similar to what is done under the Cluster by-law. He "~ said the statute envisions cities and towns adopting its own by-laws for development. He said the special permit process is envisioned as something of a negotiation, but the board still has to work within the requirements of the by-law. He used the example of the board denying a project with a 45-foot roof when the height requirement is 45 feet. Mr. Feck said the Willow Street/School Street site probably would not be able to build 10 units per acre because of the wetlands on the site. Public Comment Richard Gordon said he would be concerned about changing the density. Mr. Hendren said when town meeting set the acreage at six, it could have been a lower number. He noted that anything lower than five acres would have to go to the state and the board would have to write a letter of recommendation to allow the developer to approach the state. Mr. McClanahan asked if the developer applied for a variance. Mr. Cooney said when the requirement was 10 acres, he applied for and was denied a variance. Mr. Annino said he is uncomfortable with the six-acre requirement and would not be supportive offive acres. Mr. DeMassi suggested the board study the issue and propose ~ Planning Board 4 11/16/2006 its own amendment in the spring. Mr. McClanahan said this applicant might have more ( success applying for a variance for one acre than taking this to town meeting. Mr. Jenkins said when the six acre change was proposed, it might have been better to encourage that applicant to get a variance for his project rather than changing the whole Zoning By-Law for every parcel in town. He said he does not support five acres, but said he would support the board studying the issue and considering a spring town meeting by- law amendment. Mr. Cooney said he has looked around town and hasn't been able to find many parcels of either five or six acres. Mr. Burke said looking at setting performance standards that would be flexible throughout town and would provide value for the future would be worthwhile. Mr. Burke asked if Mr. Cooney would be willing to hold off on his article and work with the board for an amendment at Annual Town Meeting. Mr. Cooney said he would be willing to do that. Mr. DeMassi said he thinks the board is supportive of this type of housing use. Mr. Cooney said he doesn't mind tabling the article, but said he was expecting some support at Town Meeting. Mr. McClanahan said it might be difficult without the support of the Planning Board. Mr. Cooney said he would withdraw the article. r Motion: To send Town Meeting a negative recommendation on Article 31 as written (McClanahan-Feck) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (DeMassi-Torman) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To schedule a workshop (DeMassi- Torman) All in favor. PASSES [Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Holmes returned to the table; Mr. Feck will not vote on the next public hearing] Attorney Michael Sites, representing the applicant, explained the owners applied for a variance to create two lots, which was denied. Mr. Sites explained the plan has been changed materially and significantly because the revised plan shows one lot with the required frontage and area and one lacking frontage. In the original plan, neither lot had adequate frontage. Mr. Sites noted the ZBA decisions did not include specific reasons for denial, so it might be difficult to determine whether the plan has changed from that denial. Mr. Sites said the owners are brothers who want to each have a lot and build their homes. Board Comment Mr. Burke said this is very similar to the Zecher repetitive petition the board did recently. He noted that on this plan, one of the lots conforms to zoning, where neither did in the original plan. r- Planning Board 5 11/16/2006 Mr. Annino asked the frontage for the back lot; Mr. Burke said it is 20.68 feet. Mr. Jenkins said all the board has to decide is whether the plan has changed significantly. n He said he thinks it does. Mr. Burke presented the board with a draft decision. Motion: To support the repetitive petition because the proposed "Plan of Land" dated November 2, 2004 and revised July 25, 2006 is materially and significantly different than the "Plan of Land" dated November 2, 2006 as a result of the more regular shape of one of the lots and the fact that rather than two non-conforming lots, the plan dated November 2, 2004 and revised July 25, 2006 shows one conforming lot and one non-conforming lot; and the proposed "Plan of Land" dated November 2,2004 and revised July 25,2006 substantially addresses the reasons for the Zoning Board of Appeals' December 21, 2004 denial of the Variance application as a result of the more regular shape of one of the lots. (Armstrong-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Burke said the Planning Board would likely be asked its opinion on several articles. · Article 4 - TOD traffic study funding Mr. Burke said the Finance Committee was not supportive of this article because the numbers from the consultant were too vague, at $35,000 to $150,000. It was suggested that the article be withdrawn and brought back for a Special within the Annual Town '1\ Meeting in the spring. Dr. Torman asked if SRPEDD has done any traffic counts for that I . area. Mr. Burke explained SRPEDD has done closure studies for the Route 106 underpass closing plan. · Article 23 - Downtown inventory funding Mr. Burke explained this would enable the town to do a grant application for a variety of downtown issues. Motion: To send a positive recommendation to Town Meeting (McClanahan-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES · Article 27 - Allowing board members to miss one meeting Mr. Burke explained the state has recently adopted legislature to allow board members to miss one meeting during a public hearing process and be able to vote if the member familiarizes himself with the material. Motion: To send a positive recommendation to Town Meeting (McClanahan-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES · Article 28 - Sale of Fales Oil property to Mansfield Music and Arts Society Mr. Burke explained this would allow the Town Manager, with the Board of Selectmen's approval, to sell the property to MMAS for $1.00. Mr. Burke said he doesn't support this article. He said he likes the idea of a group like MMAS having a presence downtown, but said he has a problem with conveying public property to private interests for low or ~ Planning Board 6 11/1612006 r- not cost. He said the town has spent a lot of money cleaning the site, there are over $100,000 in back taxes owed, and the property is valued the property at around $300,000. He explained this would be inconsistent with the town's policy in the past because the town leases its properties to organizations like Little League and the Y, but has not sold properties to those groups. He said there hasn't been a public forum on the best use of the Fales Oil building after Town Meeting voted last year to sell it at market value. Mr. Burke said this project would need several variances, and asked how that would be different than what the George's Cleaner's developers proposed. He asked what would happen if the town sells them the site for $1.00 and then the ZBA denies the variances. Mr. DeMassi asked if this would be a use by right; Mr. Burke said it would be. Mr. Burke said he would prefer to see this use become part of the TOO proposal, but said that may not work with the MMAS timetable. He said he thinks the use is in keeping with what the board wants to see downtown, but does not believe this proposal has been thoroughly thought out. Mr. DeMassi asked if this site is on the edge of a zone; Mr. Burke said this site is in the B2 zone and abuts the R3 zone. Mr. DeMassi said he has heard residents' concerns about how the proposed building would fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. McClanahan said that area is already so dense he doesn't see how it can hold another building that large. r Mr. Armstrong said the side of the proposed building near the residential uses has been designed to look more residential. He said the applicant is going to propose an amendment to the article that the land will revert to the town in the event the project does not succeed. He said he thinks this is an exciting project and will be a magnet for downtown. Mr. Feck said it won't just be a performance space, it will also be condominiums, which will be a business. Mr. Burke said from a planning perspective, there are a number of reasons to do this type of project, but he is concerned about that site working the way the applicant plans. Mr. Armstrong said the residential units will help support the arts society. Mr. Feck said he would be concerned about giving control of that property for $1.00 and suggested the arts society could lease the site. Mr. Armstrong said there would be financing issues if the MMAS does not own the land. Mr. McClanahan asked about the train station area. Mr. Burke said he would love to see this be part of the TOD project, along with a variety of other uses. Motion: To send a negative recommendation to Town Meeting on the article as proposed (McClanahan-Feck) r Mr. Jenkins said he has a hard time with this article and asked if the town could partner with MMAS. He said the biggest issue in the downtown area is parking, and said this site is one of the last large parcels that might be used for additional parking. Mr. Burke said Town Meeting has voted to sell this parcel at market value. Mr. Holmes said if the site were leased for a period of time with the town maintaining ownership, he would be more Planning Board 7 11/16/2006 SUpportive, but said he can't see giving the land away. Mr. Feck suggested the MMAS might be able to find private funding to lease the site. Six in favor. Armstrong abstained. PASSES * Article 29 - Cobb Street Mr. Burke explained Cobb Street is mostly done. The cul-de-sac was paved about three months ago, but didn't drain properly, so the pavement was ground and the cul-de-sac repaved. One manhole will have to be raised and there is a water service under the sidewalk, which will have to be moved. The developer will post a $20,000 surety to hold until July 1 to ensure the pavement doesn't fail over the winter. Mr. DeMassi said the town has never accepted a street that wasn't done and asked why the developer doesn't wait until the spring, rather than the town taking responsibility prematurely. Mr. Burke said the work will be done by Town Meeting, but the surety will be in place to ensure the pavement doesn't fail. Motion: To send a positive recommendation to Town Meeting (McClanahan-Jenkins) Six in favor. DeMassi opposed. PASSES () *Article 30 -Jake's Way Mr. Burke said this street was built as a 40B development, so the Planning Board has not seen this. He said the work has been completed and the Selectmen's public hearing was held tonight. He said the town will hold $2,000 to ensure the street trees will live until the spring. He recommended supporting acceptance of Jake's Way. Motion: To send a positive recommendation to Town Meeting '1'\.. (McClanahan-Torman) All in favor. PASSES l ' Mr. DeMassi asked if the board would be asked about Article 9, the water main improvements issue. Mr. Burke said he did not think so. Mr. Burke said the board might be asked about Article 15, the eminent domain taking for the Routeto6 underpass. Mr. DeMassi asked if that is a state road; Mr. Burke said part of it is owned by Mass Highway and the town will be partially reimbursed. Mr. DeMassi said he was concerned about the articles to use some of the capital funds for uses other than what CIP voted to fund. Mr. Holmes asked who is responsible for enforcing the street sweeping at Mansfield Crossing. Mr. Burke said the Building Inspector is responsible for enforcing that. Mr. Holmes said there is a constant dust problem on School Street and asked if the trucks should be covered better when they leave the site. Mr. Burke said the developers have been very responsive to the town's concerns and said the hauling work would be done in 2 or 3 weeks. Planning Board 8 11/1612006 ~ ('"' r r ~ Dr. Torman asked when the Mansfield Crossing-related roadway improvements would begin. Mr. Burke said the developer's site engineers and Mass Highway engineers were in town last week. He said signalization would probably be the last thing done. Motion: To adjourn at 10:30 p.m. (Torman-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES Next meeting: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. f1~/1 (.{. rlrJofp , Date of Approval Planning Board 9 11/16/2006 () 11 ')