The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutmin of planning brd 042507 " \ I""" REct\VEt1 .. . Planning Board Minutes r n \~.'.~ r!F n!/ '.~, 01- f- \ April 25, 2007 Present: Douglas Annino, Acting Chair; Fred Armstrong, CI&l~~n\ibrlHin?J6hh DeMassi, Stan Feck; Altemate(s): Beth Ashman Collins, Anthony lr?\~ f."; C LO Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development MAISS1r-\ci1U"SETTS Motion: To appoint Mr. Annino Acting Chair (Torman-Feck) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To appoint Mr. Jodice and Ms. Collins voting members (Torman-Feck) All in favor. PASSES 1. Minutes April 11, 2007 Motion: To approve as submitted (Torman-Feck) Five in favor. Annino abstained. PASSES 2. ZBA application for Variance - 35 Pilgrim Road - sideyard setback. Mr. Burke suggested a negative recommendation because the application does not conform to the three-pronged test for the grant of a variance. [Mr. DeMassi arrived at this time] Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because the application does not conform to the three-pronged test for the grant of a variance r (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES 3. ZBA application for Variance - 26 County Street - lot area and setback. There was a building on the site that burned down; the owners want to construct a new two- family structure. Mr. Burke said this is an odd-shaped lot, but the application does not talk about a hardship. He said the house could be made less deep and avoid the encroachment. Mr. Feck noted it would be hard to get a house on this lot and still meet the minimum setbacks in this zone. Mr. Burke noted the time line to rebuild on the former footprint by right has expired, so relief will be necessary regardless of what is built. Mr. Annino said the application does not show any elevations or abutting properties, so it is hard to determine how this would effect the neighborhood. Mr. Jodice said a two-family can work on the lot if the house were reconfigured. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because the mass of the proposed building is too big for the lot and could be redesigned to be less non- conforming (Jodice-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES 4. Draft of Inclusionary Housing Requirement Process. Mr. Burke said if the board is comfortable with this summary, he would like to include it in the package the department gives to developers. Mr. Armstrong asked if the "equivalent fee" should be better defined. Mr. Burke said the board had proposed a Zoning By-Law to do just that, but that article is being withdrawn from the warrant. Mr. Armstrong suggested adding a reference to that section of the by-law. Motion: To accept the process with the above revision and include it in the r developer's information (Armstrong-Feck) All in favor. PASSES Planning Board 1 4/26/2007 5. April 3, 2007 letter from Mansfield Airport Commission re: Nextel Tower, Reservoir Street 6. March 21, 2007 "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation" from the Federal ~ Aviation Administration re: Nextel wireless tower, 30 Reservoir Street 7. March 22, 2007 email from Lou Andrews, Airport Commission re: Mass Aeronautics Commission review of the Nextel wireless tower, 30 Reservoir Street 8. March 3, 2007 letter from Carl Lambrecht, Airport Commission re: Nextel wireless tower, 30 Reservoir Street 9. Nextel special permit (30 Reservoir Street) to be signed Only three members who voted in favor of this permit are present at this meeting; Mr. Burke noted this is an administrative act and the remaining members can sign later. Motion: To sign the special permit (DeMassi-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES 10. Public hearing notices - North Attleboro, Sharon, Mass Federation of Planning and Appeals Boards II. The Beacon 12. Mass Housing Partnership 2006 Annual Report Dr. Torman said there have been many cancellations of agenda items lately and asked if the board should have a policy. Mr. Burke said for many items, it is better to continue than have the applicant come before the board with an incomplete plan. He said site plans are scheduled for the next available meeting after the staff-level meeting, and most of the time, staff raises concerns about a variety of issues that have to be addressed. He said that doesn't mean the submission was incomplete, but there were technical issues that may take longer to address than the time available before the Planning Board ~ meeting. Mr. DeMassi said the application can come before the board and a recommendation can be made contingent on those issues being addressed. Mr. Feck said the delays are often caused by the developers working out issues with town departments, and if those issues are not been cleared up, it doesn't make sense for the board or the applicant to start the site plan process. The clerk read the public hearing notice. Kenneth Parsons, 423 Williams Street, said he is a realtor but is not representing a client with this article. He said he thinks this is the right thing to do and goes along with Smart Growth concepts. He said it would provide an alternative to chopping rural land into 60,000 square foot lots and the construction of mini-mansions. He said there are currently three 55 and over developments in town, which are all different types. He said development like this would be good for the town and provide new residents, additional tax base, no increase to school population and private roads. Ms. Collins said this would be a substantial increase in density and asked if that is compatible with the natural resources of the Rl zone. Mr. Parsons said it would be a special permit and could be regulated by that process. He said 55 and over developments ~ Planning Board 2 4/26/2007 r are currently allowed in R2 at 10 units per acre on six acres, with a 100-unit per development limit. He said there is nothing that says land has to be developed to the maximum number allowed, and developers may not want to do multi-family developments with that many units, but rather fewer single-family units. Ms. Collins said she is open to the idea that SS and over could be done in Rl, but not at the density it is currently allowed in R2. Mr. Feck said this type of development as proposed would change Rl neighborhoods. He said it could work, but there may have to be a different standard for this zone with significantly lower density. Mr. Parsons said he wasn't opposed to that, but that isn't the way the by-law is written right now. ' Mr. Annino said by opening the Rl district, the residents of those districts would be injured because adding multi-family uses would change the character ofRl neighborhoods. Mr. Parsons said he didn't think it would have to be multi-family. Mr. Annino said the way this article is written, it would allow whatever is allowed under SS and over in the R2 zone. Mr. Armstrong said he isn't comfortable amending the by-law in this manner. Mr. Jodice said he is in favor of 55 and over developments, but was uncomfortable that this amendment does not include any parameters. He said while he knows it is not Mr. Parsons' intention, there are developers who might try to take advantage of this. r Mr. Burke said the by-law currently allows multi-family. He said there are some existing multi-family developments in single-family neighborhoods, which are very out of place. He said this type of development could happen with this article as it is written. He said Town Meeting changed the Zoning By-Law many years ago to eliminate this type of housing in what was then the Agricultural zone. Public Comment Leonard Flynn, 102 Jewell Street, said in the late 1970s, multi-family development was allowed allover town. He said the developments Mr. Burke described were done before Town Meeting changed the zoning. He said Smart Growth intends to place this type of housing near public services, downtown and transportation centers. Tom Prestwich, 4 Shady Brook Lane, said he thinks this is a good idea. He said the board seems to think large houses on large lots are the only good type of development, but he thinks the town should be more integrated and cater to all ages and economic groups. Richard Gordon, 407 West Street, said he didn't think this would be good for the character of Mansfield and doesn't think it should be allowed as written. Karl Clemmey said he thinks this is a good idea. He said the town should look ahead and use some of the remaining large pieces of land for this type of development. r Planning Board 3 4/26/2007 Motion: Not to support this article as written (Feck-Armstrong) Mr. Feck said he believes the board should work on this issue. Mr. Armstrong agreed and suggested it could be something that is looked at under the Master Plan. .~ All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (DeMassi-Torman) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Jodice asked if some Rl areas in town could be included or excluded. Mr. Burke said there are a number of ways to do that, such as requiring utilities. The clerk read the public hearing notice. Article 41 *To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning By-Law to the extent necessary to delete the following section and replace with a new section (changes in bold): Delete: 1.5.11 Garage, Private: A detached accessory building of not more than thirty-five (35%) percent of the ground floor of the main building, used for the purposes of parking or temporary storage of automobiles of occupants of the premises, except that one (I) space may be used by the private automobiles of persons not resident on the premises. Replace with: 1.5.11 Residential Garage: A detached accessory building whose primary purpose is to park or temporarily store motor vehicles of the occupants of the premises. A residential garage that does not exceed a 900 (nine hundred) square foot *rootprint and I % (one and one half) stories in height shall be allowed by right in all residential zones. A residential garage that is greater than a 900 (nine hundred) square foot *footprint and/or I % (one and one half) stories in height may only be permitted by a special permit granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The submission requirements for this special permit shall be the same as the submission requirements for a variance or a finding. ~ (* Additional amendment after publleation of warrant) * And to delete the following section: Delete entire paragraph: 1.5.12 Garage, Group: A group garage is a building, a part ofa building or a group of buildings, other than a private garage, made up of units containing provisions for not more than two motor vehicles in each unit, in which motor vehicles are kept and taken care of by their respective owners, who are either tenants or owners of each unit in which their motor vehicles are kept, all said motor vehicles being solely for private or professional use, and not for sale, rent, hire, exhibition or demonstration purposes. * And to delete the following section: Delete entire paragraph: 3.8.1B A detached accessory building may cover as much as twenty-five (25) percent of the rear yard area required for the principal building. And to re-letter the existing paragraph "3.8.lC" to "3.8.1B" ) Planning Board 4 4/26/2007 r * And to amend the following (changes in bold): 1.5.1 Accessory Building: A detached subordinate building located on the same lot with the main building or use, the use of which is customarily incidental to that of the main building or to the use of the land. Where a substantial part of a wall of an accessory building is part of the wall of the main building, or where an accessory building is attached to the main building, such accessory building shall be counted as part of the main building. The gross floor area of accessory residential storage structures shall not exceed a *900 (nine hundred) square foot footprint. An accessory building that is greater than a *900 (nine hundred) square foot footprint and/or taller than 1 % (one and one half) stories may only be permitted by a special permit granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The submission reauirements for this SDeeial oermit shall be the same as the submission reauirements for a variance or a tindintz. (* Additional amendment after publication of warraDt) * And to amend the following (changes in bold): 3.8.2.1 For Residence 2 and 3 Districts and for dwellings in any business district, for as many as three (3) cars subject to the provisions of paragraphs A and B of this section, subject to the provision of paragraph A of this section. * And to amend the following (changes in bold): 3.8.2.2 For Residence 1 Districts, for as many as three (3) cars and for necessary farm equipment subject to the provisions of paragraphs A and B of this section subject to the provisions of paragraph A of this section. * And to amend the Schedule of Principal Use Regulations by adding the following new lines: Residential 123RD Business PBD Industrial Aim't 123 123 r- 1.5.11 Residential Garage less than or equal to 900 square feet Y Y Y Y SYN N NS Y N 1.5.11 Residential Garage more than 900 square feet S S S S SSNN NSS N Mr. Burke explained this article came about as a result of the appeal of a building permit. He said the current by-law describes an accessory structure that could exceed the size of the primary structure and could occupy 25% of the rear yard. He said he looked at some lots around town, and based on their size, some could contain accessory structures as big as 10,000 square feet. He said this amendment would bring all these sections in line, and would provide a process allowing a 900 square foot footprint accessory building by right. For a larger accessory building, a special permit would be required from the ZBA. He said one of the changes made after discussion with the Board of Selectmen and the ZBA was that the submission requirements shall be the same as those for a variance or finding, which is different from the submission requirements for Section 5.5, Special Permit. It would still supply a public venue but not establish the rigorous test a variance requires. Elizabeth Garber-Miller, member of the ZBA, said she is not here representing the ZBA. She said the ZBA didn't come to any consensus on this issue, but there was concern about the possibility of someone getting a permit to build a huge structure closer to the lot line than would be allowed if it were attached. Mr. Burke said there is a minimum (" Planning Board 5 4/26/2007 setback for accessory structures now, as well as a height limit. He said right now, someone with a large lot could build a 10,000 square foot accessory structure five feet off the property line by right. Ms. Garber-Miller asked about cumulative accessory ~ buildings. Mr. Burke said multiple accessory structures are allowed now, and this by-law would not change that. Mr. Burke said there has been concern about the pre-fabricated metal storage buildings, which are very inexpensive, becoming more popular. He said if someone has the space to build a large building that will be in scale with the neighborhood, and the ZBA has the ability to require it to be set 15 feet back rather than five, it could work. Ms. Garber-Miller said the ZBA discussed the fact that residents of different zones have an expectation that there will be certain setbacks and how this would change that. Mr. Burke said accessory buildings can be built by right, five feet off the lot line now. He said on a large enough lot where it won't impact the abutters, the ZBA can grant that permit, but it also allows a public forum for the abutters. Public Comment Mr. Prestwich said he is in favor of this amendment and said his neighborhood has been affected by a huge commercial building. He said with a special permit process, they would have been notified. Mr. Prestwich noted the amendment includes "temporarily stores motor vehicles" and suggested the board may want to tighten that because it could include things like 18- wheelers. He said the amendment includes "necessary farm equipment" as asked if the ~ Zoning By-Law defines that. Mr. Burke said it does not. Mr. Prestwich said that should be better defined. Mr. DeMassi asked if3.8.1 and 3.8.2 go with the accessory building or the residential garage. Mr. Burke said they go with accessory building. Mr. Prestwich suggested the definition of "agriculture" should be addressed. Mr. Flynn said he it is reasonable to allow someone with a large lot to build an accessory building larger than 900 square feet. He said the use of the building should be considered; as long as it is used for residential uses, why limit it to 900 square feet? He suggested a more realistic figure than 25%. He said the sideyard setback should be predicated on the size of the building. Mr. DeMassi noted an accessory building larger than 900 square could still be allowed by a special permit. Mr. Flynn said the special permit process can be influenced by emotional arguments rather than the facts. Mr. Burke said on large lots, the ZBA can exercise its discretion and grant the special permit. Mr. Feck suggested some sort of setback to go along with the size issue. Mr. Flynn said multiple accessory buildings are allowed now, and that should be changed. He suggested a percentage of the back yard other than 2S% and a size larger ~ Planning Board 6 4/26/2007 r than 900 square feet. Mr. Burke said there are very few free-standing two-car garages built these days. Mr. DeMassi said this wouldn't prevent anything, but would require a special permit for larger buildings. Ms. Garber-Miller said most of the time, the abutters' major issue is the proximity to the lot line; right now, accessory structures can be built five feet off the line. She said if the argument is that large lots should be allowed to have large structures, why couldn't those structures be built within the setbacks? Mr. Feck asked if the article could be amended to exempt more than a certain size lot and require the setbacks be maintained. Mr. Burke said it would be less restrictive, so the moderator could allow it. However, he said the Attorney General would review the article procedural defects and it is possible that change could be outside the scope of the legal ad. Mr. Burke said there have been a lot of good suggestions tonight. Kathy Finer, 100 Jewell Street, said she has 5.5 acres, 500 feet back from the road and a huge accessory building. She said she thinks people are more upset about the use of these buildings than With the buildings themselves. She suggested a minimum lot size. Mr. Burke said determining use is very difficult; it is presumed to be a residential use unless a different use is conducted; in that case, the building inspector would take over. Mr. Prestwich said the use could change when the owner changes. Mr. Flynn noted it would still have to be a residential use. r Mr. Clemmey asked if the amendments were published in the ad; Mr. Burke said they were, but the handout includes new changes, shown in red. He said copies of the handout would be prepared for Town Meeting describing the changes. Mr. Gordon asked why "storage of automobiles" was changed to "storage of vehicles." Mr. Burke said that was to allow things like motorcycles, mobile homes or boats. Mr. Gordon suggested that could be tightened up to avoid the kind of problems Mr. Prestwich described. Motion: To withdraw Article 41 (Torman-Armstrong) Mr. Feck asked how long the board would have to wait if it is withdrawn. Mr. Burke said it could come back at the Special Town Meeting in the fall. Mr. Annino said he wouldn't want to go forward with this, and then go back in the fall to amend it again. All in favor. PASSES [No John June 8-14] --------------------------- Article 38 Will be withdrawn -------------------------- (' Planning Board 7 4/26/2007 Article 39 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning By-Law to the extent necessary to add the following new definition: 1.5.49 Reconstruction: The demolition ofa structure and the rebuilding ofa new structure on the same lot. " Mr. Burke explained there is no definition in the Zoning By-Law now, and is needed because of the likelihood of additional teardowns in the future. Ms. Collins asked if reconstruction would include a larger building or a building in a different location on the lot. Mr. Burke said this is simply a definition and does not address those issues. Dr. Torman asked why "footprint" wasn't used in the definition. Mr. Burke said there is no need to do that because a house could be reconstructed anywhere on the lot as long as it is within the setbacks. Motion: To support Article 39 (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES Article 40 *To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning By-Law to the extent necessary to add the following definition: 3.5.24 Drive-Up Window: A commercial facility where a customer may drive a motor vehicle onto the premises and to a window or a mechanical device through or by which the customer is provided service without exiting the vehicle. This shall not include the sale of fuel at a gas filling station or the accessory functions ofa car wash facility, such as vacuum cleaning stations. * And to add the following new section: ~ 4.4.4.18 Drive-Up Window Stacking Lane Requirements For the purposes of this by-law, a stacking lane and stacking space shall be defined as follows: A. Stacking Lane: An area of stacking spaces and driving lane provided for vehicles waiting for drive-up service, that is physically separated from other traffic and pedestrian circulation on the site. B. Stacking Space: An area within a stacking lane for vehicles waiting to order and/or finish a drive-up transaction. I. Fast food drive-up facilities shall provide a minimum of eight (8) stacking spaces (within the site) before the order board. The facility shall provide another four (4) stacking spaces between the order board and the transaction window. If the facility has two transaction windows, the four (4) stacking spaces may be split between each of the windows. An additional stacking space shall be provided after the last transaction window(s). 2. Non-fast food drive-up facilities shall provide a minimum of four (4) spaces before the drive-up window. 3. Each stacking space shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in length and ten (10) feet in width along straight proportions. Stacking spaces and stacking lanes shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width along curved segments. 4. Stacking lanes shall be delineated from traffic aisles, other stacking lanes and parking areas with striping, curbing, landscaping and the use of alternative paving materials or raised medians. 5. Entrances to stacking lane(s) shall be clearly marked and a minimum of sixty (60) feet from the intersection with the public street. The distance shall be measured from the property line along the street to the beginning of the entrance. 6. Stacking lanes shall be designed to prevent circulation congestion, both on site and on adjacent public .~ Planning Board 8 4/26/2007 r streets. The circulation shall: (a) separate drive-up traffic from site circulation, (b) not impede or impair access into or out of parking spaces, (c) not impede or impair vehicle or pedestrian traffic movement, and (d) minimize conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular traffic with physical and visual separation between the two. Stacking lanes or by-pass lane shall not interfere with required loading and trash storage areas and loading or trash operations shall not impede or impair vehicle movement. An emergency by-pass lane or exit shall be provided. 7. Stacking lanes shall not enter or exit directly into a public right-of-way. Stacking lanes shall be integrated with the on-site circulation pattern. 8. The intersection of stacking lanes and walk-in customer access shall be a minimum offifty (50) feet from any access connections and/or transaction windows. Said intersections shall be provided with a crosswalk. These crosswalks shall use enriched paving and striping and include warning signage aimed at both the pedestrian and the vehicle. 9. For any drive-up window use permitted by this by-law interpreted not to be covered by these queuing and stacking requirements, the Planning Board may require the number of spaces which in the judgment of the Planning Board are adequate to provide sufficient parking and queuing lanes to provide off-street access for the proposed use(s). Mr. Burke explained this came out of a meeting with a SRPEDD representative, which included the need for requirements to determine the number of vehicles that could be safely stacked off the street. Currently drive-up windows are allowed in 11, but there are no requirements detailing how they should be constructed. Mr. Burke said this is to establish a set of standards with which to better evaluate a proposal for drive-up window uses when they appear before the board. r Public Comment Mr. Flynn said he is concerned about fast food development along School Street. He asked why the town allows drive-up windows at all. Mr. Annino said the town cannot disallow a use. Mr. Burke said this doesn't just address fast food; he said it would include any drive-up window facility. Mr. Jodice said the stacking space requirements in this amendment would help existing traffic situations. Mr. Clemmey said he would like to see drive-up added as an allowed use to B3. Motion: To support Article 4D(Torman-Feck) All in favor. PASSES ----------------- Article 42 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning By-Law to the extent necessary to revise Section 5.3 as follows: (changes in bold) 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 wUl maintain the character and integrity of all zoning districts and adjoining zoning districts; to ensure that new, expanded or reconstructed sites are planned and designed to minimize impacts on the environment, abutten, 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. .1""" 5.3.2 Applicability Planning Board 9 4/26/2007 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 the applicant for site plan review: a) loeus plan; b) location of structures within 100 feet of property lines; c) existing and proposed buildings, showing setbacks from property lines; d) slgnage; 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 of the 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 Proeedure The Planning Board shall examine the following concerns in reviewing the site plans of the proposed development: a) proper drainage of the 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 abutten; f) complies with the Mansfield Master Plan and Open Space and Recreation Plan. &) 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. '~ Planning Board 10 4/26/2007 r r 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 pennitted on the site; applicant must demonstrate availability of adequate water supply and waste disposal systems; r 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. 5.3.16 The original and eleven (II) 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. r" 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 V088), 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 Planning Board 11 4/26/2007 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 deparbnents; Police, Fire, Engineering, Planning, Conservation, Electric, Water, Wastewater, Health, and Public Works. Written comments from the deparbnents 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. 5.3.20 The Planning Board shall take action on said plan within thirty (30) days or receipt or the site plan rrom the Town Clerk. 5.3.20 Appeals The Zoning Board or Appeals as established by Chapter 40A or the General Laws or the Commonwealth shall hear and decide appeals in regards to determinations or decisions made by the Planning Board in the enrorcement or administration or this section. Mr. Burke said the amendment would change site plan from a recommendation by the Planning Board to approval by the Planning Board, establish a more comprehensive list of submission requirements, provide a 30-day timeframe rather than 21 days, and provide an appeal process. Public Comment Mr. Flynn said this is a great article. ~ Mr. Clemmey said he is in favor of most of this article, but he is concerned about small businesses. He asked if this article is going to cost the town more money with additional employees for the Planning Department. Mr. Burke said there is no proposal to add staff as a result of this article. Mr. Clemmey said he would like to see small businesses not have to come before the Planning Board. He suggested 20% and 15,000 square feet in 5.3.2. Mr. Burke said the building inspector will still require a plan before he issues a building permit. Mr. Clemmey asked if5.3.8 is new. Mr. Burke said it is and is intended to guide applicants. Mr. Clemmey asked what a "waste disposal system" is in 5.3.13. Mr. Burke said it would be a septic or sewer system. Mr. Clemmey said he is concerned that references gray water systems. Mr. Burke said it does not and added the water connection policy includes a requirement that a developer takes some conservation steps to offset the water he is using. Mr. Clemmey said the timeframe should stay at 21 days. ~ Planning Board 12 4/26/2007 r Mr. Feck said this seems like more of a special permit. He said if something is already allowed by right, this gives the board discretionary power over those things. He said that is something the board is able to do under the special permit process. Mr. Burke said this amendment lays out more submission information than what is described in the site plan process; while that is not in the by-law now, those are the things the staffrequires applicants to provide. Mr. Burke noted 3.5.19 says the board "shall" approve the plan if all the items are addressed. He said if this were more of a special permit process, the bylaw would say the board "may" approve the plan. He said this would be similar to a traditional subdivision plan, where the board is required to approve a plan if it meets the submission requirements. Mr. Feck said he is concerned about the items listed in the first paragraph, which he said seem to give the board more discretion than necessary in site plan review. Dr. Torman said that exists now; Mr. Feck said the building inspector has the final approval of site plans now. Mr. Armstrong said this article was designed to allow the board the ability to look at the whole site and enter into a dialogue with a developer that will result in a better project. Mr. Annino said developers will have the ability to appeal the board's decision. Ms. Collins said she likes the fact that this lays out exactly what is required, and said this will help streamline the process. Mr. Annino said this process works well in other towns. Mr. Jodice said this would provide more structure and more parameters for both the board and the developer. r Motion: To support Article 42 (DeMassi-Torman) Six in favor. Feck opposed. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (DeMassi-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Feck asked if the board can do a workshop on items like the 55 and over development in Rl. Mr. Burke said the board can do a workshop, which would still be a public meeting, but the board wouldn't be required to take public comment. Mr. Jodice suggested getting other town's requirements. Mr. Clemmey said he didn't appreciate the board taking the articles out of order. Motion: To adjourn at 10:30p.m. (Torman-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES ~y, May 9,2007 at 7:30 p.m. . (fit. L 6/'~ 7 Signature of Clerk - Date of Approval ,,-.... Planning Board 13 4/26/2007 1 ~ '-... r