Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 022807 r- RECEIVED " ('I ''7 S OFF ICE Planning Board Minutes 07 MAR I 6 AM 9: I 2 February 28, 2007 Present: Tom French, Chair; Fred Armstrong, Clerk; Ken Torman, Dougi~ff,Il.q!lrJ. DeMassi Alternate(s): Michael McClanahan MASSA.CHUSETTS Shaun P. Burke, Director ofPlannin and Develo ment r 1. Minutes February 7, 2007 Motion: To approve as submitted (Torman-Armstrong) Five in favor. McClanahan abstained. PASSES 2. ZBA application for Finding - 531 Bird Road - Sideyard setback Mr. Burke explained the proposed addition is otTthe back of the house. The left side of the house is pre-existing, non-conforming. The addition will not create an additional encroachment. Mr. Burke suggested a positive recommendation. Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation (McClanahan-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES 3. ZBA application for Variance - 34 Riverside Drive - Sideyard setback Mr. Burke said the sideyard setback is 15 feet. He suggested the addition could be made smaller to avoid the encroachment. Mr. DeMassi said there is no hardship shown. Mr. Burke suggested a negative recommendation because the application does not meet the statutory requirements for the grant of a variance. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because the application does not meet the statutory requirements for the grant of a variance; suggest the addition be made smaller to avoid encroachment. (Torman-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES 4. ZBA application for Variance - 89 Walnut Street/Chauncy Street rear - Frontage, Sideyard and Lot Width. The proposal is to build a house on Lot A, which has no frontage other than on Route 140, which is illusory frontage. The only access to Lot A would be an easement over Lot C. Mr. Burke said the application does not meet the statutory requirements for the grant of a variance and suggested a negative recommendation. Mr. DeMassi asked if the access has to be over the frontage. Mr. Burke said it does not, but for zoning purposes, this lot has no access from Route 140, which is a limited access highway. He said there is also a concrete sound barrier between this lot and Route 140. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because the application does not meet the statutory requirements for the grant of a variance. (Annino-Armstrong) Four in favor. Torman, McClanahan opposed. PASSES 5. 34 North Main Street (Sweet & Crafty) mylars to be signed Motion: To sign the mylars (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES 6. Meeting notices North Attleboro, Sharon 7. Journal of the American Planning Association 8. The Beacon 9. TransReport r- Planning Board 1 3/7/2007 Dean Street - The ZBA has granted relief for lot width and frontage to create Lot 2. Lot 1 conforms, Lot 2 does not. Mr. Burke suggested the board endorse the plan. Motion: To endorse the Form A plan (McClanahan-Armstrong) Three in favor. Three opposed. FAILS J . The engineer noted the land is in the R3 zone, not the R2, so 80 feet of frontage is required rather than 100. Motion: To reconsider the above vote (Annino-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To endorse the Form A plan (McClanahan-Annino) Five in favor. Torman opposed. PASSES The board asked to see representatives of these plans at the March 14, 2007 meeting. Mr. Burke said Mass Highway has told the town it is now not going to allow the right-in curb cut ott Route 140 into Mansfield Crossing of public safety concerns. He said there was another meeting scheduled for this afternoon. Mr. DeMassi said that access was a condition of the permit; Mr. Burke said the permit said that access was to be constructed "to the extent allowed by Mass Highway" and the special permit could not have been denied based on the lack of access from Route 140. Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins-Trowbridge Engineering, explained the plans for a 4,800 ) square foot contractor's building with overhead front doors and parking at the side. There is a butter to the residential abutter and in the front. It is a shallow but wide lot. There are nine parking spaces where six are required. The drainage was designed for the 100-year storm, and the site is connected to water, sewer and electric. There were two entrances on the original plan; that has been changed to one. Department Head Comments The clerk read memos from the Engineering and Electric Departments. Mr. Burke said the plan has been revised to reflect all the department concerns. He said the plantings on the north side of the building have been doubled to buffer the abutter. Mr. French asked about the rear setback; Mr. Burke said this is in the 13 zone and there are no setbacks when the building abuts the railroad tracks. Board Comments Dr. Torman asked what this would be used for. Mr. Trowbridge explained it would be used for equipment storage. Dr. Torman asked if there would be water. Mr. Trowbridge said there would be, along with a small office. Mr. Burke said this use is similar to a garage. Dr. Torman asked what other uses could be done here; Mr. Burke said if it were a site plan use, any use allowed in this zone could be done by right, but may require Planning Board 2 3/7/2007 , .y additional parking. Mr. Burke said this is going to be a metal building, and if the use were to change, that metal building would probably be replaced. r- Mr. DeMassi asked about the fence. Mr. Trowbridge said it is 6-foot metal chain link fence with slats and will go around the whole site. Mr. DeMassi asked about the gate; Mr. Trowbridge said it would also be chain link and added the site would probably only be locked up at night. Mr. DeMassi asked about curb stops on the parking spaces; Mr. Trowbridge said there is cape cod berm along the edge of the spaces. Mr. DeMassi asked about a gas line. Mr. Trowbridge said there is gas along Oakland Street. Mr. DeMassi asked about lighting; Mr. Trowbridge said there are wall packs and three pole lights. Mr. DeMassi asked if changes would be made to the driveway; Mr. Trowbridge said it would all be new. Mr. Annino said the driveway would have to be blended into the street. Mr. Trowbridge explained the elevation of the site; water will shed into their parking area. [Mr. McClanahan left the meeting a this time] Mr. Annino asked about irrigation; Mr. Trowbridge said there are no plans for it. Mr. Annino asked about paving dimensions. Mr. Trowbridge explained the dimensions of the parking spaces and said a handicapped parking sign would be added. Mr. Annino asked about the 6" pvc pipe for runott; Mr. Trowbridge said the building has not been designed yet, but the downspouts will be connected to that pipe. Mr. Annino asked if there will be stone in the strip between the building and the tracks to stabilize the slope. Mr. Trowbridge said they would carry the brownstone around to the back of the building. Mr. Anino asked whether the dumpster needs a fence around it, since the whole site is fenced in. Mr. Burke said ifit is fenced, the dumpster wouldn't be visible from the street. r Mr. French asked if the building will have sprinklers; Mr. Trowbridge said he doesn't know. Mr. French asked if all the drainage from the parking lot goes to the slotted drain; Mr. Trowbridge said it will. Mr. French asked for additional grades for that system. Motion: To send the Building Inspector a positive recommendation with the above conditions (Annino-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES Mike Corey, applicant's attorney, John Holmgren, Holmgren Engineering and Matt Kelly, real estate broker Mr. Corey explained the site at 495 Stearns Avenue and the proposed 3-lot residential compound. Mr. French asked if the three lots shown on the conventional plan conform to zoning; Mr. Corey said they do. Mr. Holmgren said the road on the conventional plan is 650 feet. Department Head Comments The clerk read memos from the Engineering, Fire, Electric and Water Departments r Planning Board 3 3/7/2007 Mr. French asked if the site goes through to Carriage Lane; Mr. Corey said it does not. Board Comment Mr. DeMassi asked if the road on the conventional plan meets all the zoning by-law requirements. Mr. Corey said it does. Mr. Burke noted the Fire Department will require a 50-foot radius on the cul-de-sac and a hydrant on the new road. ') Mr. DeMassi asked about the open space. Mr. Holmgren said they have not decided where that land will go. Mr. Annino asked why the entry road on the residential compound is ottto one side. Mr. Holmgren said that is to allow access to the open space. Mr.Annino said he would be concerned about buffering for the two existing lots on either side of the new road. The plan shows the open space strip along one side, but Mr. Annino suggested that could run along both sides of the new road and be heavily planted with shrubs and street trees. Mr. Annino asked about the pavement width; Mr. Holmgren said it is 24 feet. Mr. Annino said that would be required in a subdivision, but a compound could be more narrow. Mr. Annino asked about the grades on this site and asked if the whole site would be cleared. Mr. DeMassi asked why the open space has frontage on the cul-de-sac. Mr. Holmgren said there is one existing home, so that lot will stay. He said it could be reconfigured if the board wanted. Mr. DeMassi said he will want to see the abutting houses and how far they are from the new road on the definitive plan. Mr. Armstrong asked if the hammerhead-type road shown on the compound plan would address the Fire Department's concerns. Mr. Burke said the applicant would have to meet with the Fire Department on that. Mr. Armstrong said he prefers the compound. -, Mr. Burke asked if there have been any conversations with the Carriage House Lane abutter about an easement to connect to water and sewer. Mr. Holmgren said there have not been. Mr. Burke said the water main will either have to be looped back on itself or looped through Carriage House Lane. Mr. Burke said he prefers the compound. Mr. French said Mr. Alves' memo was concerned about easements shown on the plan. Mr. Corey said they are not easements, they are corner roundings, and are part of the 495 Steams Avenue property. Mr. Burke said Mr. Alves' question goes to whether the plan would need waivers for the roadway. Mr. Annino asked what the previous variances were for; Mr. Corey explained the first one was to construct a single-family home at 485 Stearns Ave. He said he believes the second one was a renewal of the first. Mr. DeMassi asked if the neighbors are aware of these plans; Mrs. Shaer said they are. Mr. Corey said there is a criminal matter pending with one of the neighbors regarding the removal of survey flags. Planning Board 4 3/7/2007 ') (' Motion: To approve the preliminary plan for Rainbow Ridge, three lots ott Stearns Avenue (Armstrong-Torman) All in favor. PASSES [Mr. McClanahan returned at this time] The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. French explained how the public hearing would be conducted. . Thomas White, Nextel, explained the plan for a special permit to construct a 103' tower on land owned by Gazzolo Realty Trust. There is one existing tower on the site now. The new tower's equipment will abut the existing equipment with a shelter and generator pad. There will be landscaping around the fence to screen the equipment. The applicant has received Conservation Commission approval. They also received several variances from the ZBA; the decision was filed on February 21, 2007. Mr. White explained how the new tower would improve coverage in the area, especially along Route 140 and 495. He explained the new tower is being proposed because the existing tower is not tall enough to meet Nextel's objectives. It is also not structurally sound enough to accommodate another co-location. r Mr. White explained Nextel will be providing space on the tower at 90 feet for the town's emergency services equipment. Mr. McClanahan asked what would happen to the existing tower; Mr. White said it is not Nextel's tower and will stay where it is. Mr. White said one of the things discussed at the ZBA hearing was that this tower can be expanded to 150 feet, so if there is another carrier needing additional height, they can co-locate on the Nextel tower. Mr. McClanahan asked about FAA approval. Mr. White said they have preliminary approval. Mr. McClanahan said an addition to this tower may not be possible under FAA regulations. Mr. White said he was told the height is not an issue for the Mansfield Airport Commission. Department Head Comments The clerk read memos from the Water, DPW, Fire, Police, Engineering and Electric Departments. Public Comment The clerk read letters from Mr. Gazzolo and the Village at the Pointe Condominium Trust supporting the proposal. Mr. Burke explained this applicant has received several variances on this site, including one for the height of the pole. Ninety feet is the maximum allowed with a single array, r Planning Board 5 3/7/2007 ~ with an additional 10 feet allowed with each co-location. The town will be the second co-locator, which allowed an additional 10 feet. The second variance was for setback; the by-law requires 500 feet from the closest residential abutter. The tower will be 440 feet from the nearest abutter. -, Mr. Burke advised the board that because reliefhas been granted by the ZBA, that relief should be considered valid for the purposes of this hearing. Therefore, height and setback are non-issues for the board tonight. Board Comment Dr. Torman said he has a major problem with this project without documentation from the FAA and the Mansfield Airport Commission. Mr. White said he has the initial determination from the FAA. He said has asked David Dineen from Mansfield Airport to provide a letter to the board, which he has not yet received. He said he would be happy to have the board make those two items conditions of the special permit. He noted the tower will have to be registered with the FAA because of its location; he said he would get that information to the board. Mr. French asked if the FAA documentation will describe the height to which the tower can be extended; Mr. White said it will. He said they are manufacturing the tower to go to 150 feet, but are permitting it at 103 feet. Mr. Torman asked about extending the tower; Mr. Burke explained for each co-locator, the tower can be extended 10 feet. He said the ZBA decision allows the tower to be 150 feet. Mr. French said the by-law was written the way it is to encourage co-location and he is disappointed the existing tower cannot be expanded. Mr. White said an FAA determination will have to be made every time the tower is proposed to be expanded. J Dr. Torman said he would be very concerned about pilots coming into the airport safely with a tower that high. Mr. Annino asked if the tower will be lit. Mr. White said it will not be, and said height is not an issue for the FAA. He said he will provide that documentation. Mr. DeMassi said the Zoning By-Law allows 150 feet; Mr. Burke said with the appropriate number of co-locators, 150 feet would be allowed. Mr. DeMassi asked why the variance was needed for height; Mr. French explained the maximum is 90 feet for one user. With the town on the tower, the maximum would be 100 feet, so the variance was for three feet. Mr. McClanahan asked how high the tower will be above the tree line. Mr. White showed the board photo-simulations. Mr. DeMassi asked about the panel sizes; Mr. Burke said that was only an issue on a previous application because it was attached to a building. Planning Board 6 3/7/2007 J . (' Mr. Burke asked what color the pole will be; Mr. White said it would be the same as the existing tower, galvanized steel. Mr. Burke explained the ISO-foot maximum height was a conscious decision to reduce the number of towers by encouraging co-location. Mr. Burke asked about stormwater. Mr. White said he would address Mr. Sullivan's comments. Mr. French said if the tower is increased to 150 feet, a new special permit will be necessary. Public Comment Mr. Gazzolo asked the board to include a condition in the special permit that FAA approval is necessary. Mr. White said he would get the letter from the airport and the FAA to the board. Mr. French asked if the board wants to vote or continue the meeting. Consensus was that five of six members would vote for the special permit tonight. Dr. Torman said he wouldn't have a problem if the board voted tonight. Motion: To grant the Special Permit under Section 3.6.7, Wireless Communication Facility, of the Mansfield Zoning By-Law, for a one hundred and three foot (103') monopole communications tower located at 30 Reservoir Street with the following r conditions: 1. The plans of "Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic MA-1269A, 30 Reservoir Street, Mansfield, MA 02048" dated September 21, 2006 and revised October 2, 2006 and October 18, 2006 prepared by Chappell Engineering Associates, LLC are incorporated into this special permit decision by reference; 2. All above-referenced department head comments shall be fully and satisfactorily addressed during the 20-day appeal period. 3. This special permit is contingent upon approval by both the FAA and the Mansfield Airport Commission. Without the approval of both agencies, this special permit shall be null and void. 4. This tower shall structurally able to be extended to a height of to 150 feet. 5. This special permit is for a one hundred and three foot (103') monopole communications tower only. Any incremental addition to the tower for additional co- locators above one hundred and three feet (103') shall require a new special permit of the Planning Board and the FAA. 6. This permit shall only apply to Nextel Communications and is non-transferable r Planning Board 7 3/7/2007 - without the issuance of a new special permit by the Planning Board; 7. All conditions of the January 18,2007 Zoning Board of Appeals decision (filed with the Town Clerk on February 21,2007) are incorporated into this special permit by reference. Specifically, this variance is for "the construction of a monopole with less than the required height distance from an existing pole, and with less than the required distance from the nearest abutting residential structure, and to make the monopole expandable as permitted to a height of not to exceed the maximum height allowed by the by-laws." ) 8. The monopole communications tower to be owned and constructed by Nextel Communications at 30 Reservoir Street shall be limited to a maximum of one hundred and three feet (103') above ground level, including any attachments or extensions planned now or in the future; 9. Prior to the commencement of construction, Nextel shall post a surety bond for the purpose of funding the removal of the tower and in the amount of the estimated costs for dismantling and removing the tower, plus a 20% contingency. Said bond shall be posted with the Town and shall be maintained by Nextel, the requirement to maintain said surety bond will be transferred to any and all subsequent owners of the tower; 10. Structures shall be removed within one (1) year of cessation of use. Annual certification demonstrating continuing compliance with the standards of the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Aviation Administration and the American National Standards Institute and required maintenance shall be filed with the Inspector of Buildings by the Special Permit holder; J 11. Nextel or its successor, owners or assigns shall remove the tower, antenna panels, cable trays and covers at owner's expense within one (1) year from the date of cessation of use or within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days from the date the Town of Mansfield serves written notice upon the then current owner of the then owner of said tower: a. obstructs airspace protected by federal statutes or regulations promulgated by same; or b. causes an increase in minimum flight altitudes in the flight approach or departure procedures for Mansfield Municipal Airport; or c. impedes the Mansfield Municipal Airport's ability to secure federal or state approval to improve or realign the runways at said airport or expand said airport in the future; 12. If the structure upon which the antennas are to be located is tom down, falls down, or meets some destructive fate brought about by a natural or manmade disaster, this permit shall not allow a new stand-alone wireless communication tower, structure or monopole to be at that location; Planning Board 8 3/7/2007 , ~j1 (' 13. The applicant shall work with the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Mansfield Airport Commission to make general aviation users of the Mansfield Municipal Airport aware of the new tower; 14. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained by the applicant sufficient to ettectively screen the view of adjacent business and residential uses; 15. The applicant has ottered to provide space on the new tower at the ninety foot (90') elevation for municipal use (DPW, Fire and/or Police). The applicant should provide the platform on which the town's repeaters and/or arrays will be located; 16. Antenna panels, cable tray cover and ladder shall be painted to match the color of similar equipment on the existing ninety foot (90') monopole on this site; 17. There shall be no signs placed upon the tower; 18. The monopole shall be unpainted, hot-dipped galvanized metal; 19. There shall be no barbed wire placed upon the fence; 20. Step pegs shall be removed for the first thirty (30) feet of the monopole structure; 21. Approval of this special permit is subject to satisfactory review by the Building Inspector of utility cross-sections; r 22. Weekly testing of the UPS system shall be conducted between the hours of9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. or as approved by the Planning Director; 23. The emergency generator shall have a noise suppression muftler to mitigate noise issues; 24. Any pavement that is disturbed during construction shall be patched and repaired; (Armstrong-Annino) Torman - Opposed. I do not feel comfortable with the safety issues related to the project. DeMassi - In favor. Provided the above are met, the project meets the intent of the by- law. It will be a great asset for town to have access to the pole, which will have no impact on traffic, but be a benefit for health, safety and general welfare. Annino - In favor. I recognize Dr. Torman's concerns, but think they can be addressed with approvals from the FAA and Airport Commission. I think it is in the town's best interest to keep antennas in close proximity and at relatively the same height. The town's ability to co-locate on the tower is a benefit, and the use does not derogate from others in the neighborhood. r Planning Board 9 3/7/2007 Armstrong - In favor. The benefits to the town far outweigh the detriments. McClanahan - In favor. With the above conditions met, I am comfortable with the project because it will improve public safety ~ French - In favor. I respect Dr. Torman's position, but feel with FAA and Airport Commission approval, and the ability of the town to co-locate on the tower, this will be a good project. Increased town services, especially public safety, create an overall benefit. Five in favor. One opposed. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (McClanahan-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Burke explained the board does not have to decide the wording of the articles, but does have to decide whether or not to place the articles on the warrant. The board decided to include all of the articles it has discussed: 55 and Over, Site Plan, Drive-Up, Reconstruction, Garage, Inclusionary Housing, Master Plan, TOD Traffic Study. Mr. Annino asked the board to think about projects worthy of design awards. Motion: To adjourn at 11:00p.m. (Torman-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES ~ . g: We esday, March 14,2007 at 7:30 p.m. . ~ I]/N/07 Date of Approval ~ Planning Board 10 3/7/2007 -,