Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 04/12/2017I Planning Board Minutes April 12, 2017 Present: Tom French, Chair; Don Cleary, Clerk; Michael McClanahan, Ralph Penney, Michael Feck, Richard LeBlanc Alternates Sharon Friedman and Joe Cerretani Jennifer Davis, Administrative Secretary 4-0- 1 O l l .g Btiarrt llreet ilg cal#e t� o r#ler 0# �l?OQ `p in,, _`, 1. April 5, 2017 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (Penney -McClanahan) Six in favor. Feck abstained. PASSES 2. Notice of 2017 Regional Economic Development Forum April 28, 2017 3. Public Hearing notices — Attleboro, Easton, North Attleboro, Sharon 4. The Beacon 5. April 11, 2017 letter from Mr. French to Road Commissioners re: Train Station Traffic Issues. Mr. McClanahan said he has spoken with members of the Board of Selectmen about the possibility of available funds for a survey, as well as the possibility of the town engineer doing the survey. 6. April 12, 2017 memo from Mr. Burke to Planning Board re: McKenzi Lane and Dutton Drive street acceptance Mr. William Clemmey said his commercial parking lot permit on South Main Street is up for renewal with the Board of Selectmen and he would like to modify it, and the Planning Board special permit, to allow Xfinity Center car parking. He explained they have been storing trailers on the back half of the lot; that company is no longer storing its trailers there. He said he is preparing a letter to the Planning Board requesting a modification to the special permit. Mr. McClanahan said the Jeep dealer is parking cars on the Turner's land. The building inspector has written to the landowner about that issue. Mr. Penney suggested adding a discussion about the definition of building height to the board's work list. Jennifer Drive — The plan shows two lots with sufficient area and lot width, but with insufficient frontage. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance for frontage in May 2016; the decision was filed with Land Court in August 2016. Motion: To endorse the Form A (McClanahan -Penney) Five in favor. Friedman, LeBlanc abstained. PASSES The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. French explained how the public hearing would be conducted and said the board would send a recommendation to Town Meeting. Planning Board 4/12/2017 Article 34 Billboards Attorney Nicholas Riccio, representing Total Outdoor billboard company, explained the proposal has been amended after the receipt of SRPEDD's comments. He said the amendment was narrowly tailored to allow billboards only along Routes 95 and 495 in the Planned Business District (PBD). He explained billboards are regulated by MassDOT and federal govermnent and have to be at least 1,000 feet from one another and 500 feet from a highway interchange. He said 35 other communities in Massachusetts have adopted similar by-laws, including Foxboro, Sharon, Walpole and Canton. Mr. Riccio said the benefits to the town include an annual voluntary donation of $12,500 per sign face, or $25,000 per year. He said Total Outdoor has offered to pay five years up front, and the Board of Selectmen would decide what to do with those funds. He said other benefits include the use of power at commercial rates, an increase in the commercial tax base and the ability to display public safety or public service messages. Mr. Riccio said the specific site they have in mind is Miller Recycling, 73 Plymouth Street. He said Miller been a good corporate neighbor to the town, do a recycling program every year and is involved in Rotary. He said this would be a way to help a local business gain additional revenue. Mr. Riccio said the Plymouth Street location is at the midpoint between the Route 95 interchange and the South Main/School Street offramp and will have no residential impact, with a minimal impact to the town. Mr. McClanahan asked if Mansfield Crossing would be able to put up a billboard; Mr. Riccio said it may be too close to the 495 interchange and too close to the Plymouth Street site. Mr. Cerretani asked if other billboards could go along the same stretch of roadway; Attorney Riccio said they could not be within 1,000 of the Plymouth Street site or within 500 feet of an interchange. Mr. Penney asked for renderings of existing sites; Mr. Riccio presented renderings and a plan showing a single pole with two sides in the north of the property. Drew Hoffman, Total Outdoor, said his company operates in five major markets, with 400 billboard faces around the country. He said when they look for locations, they want to be on major highways. He said the Plymouth Street site would have limited impact on neighboring properties. He said they will propose a 110 foot height, will have to do some tree trimming on private and state property and will need an arborist report. Mr. Cleary asked if the applicant has talked with FAA; Attorney Riccio said both MAC and FAA would probably come into play during the permitting process. Mr. Hoffman said in the early 2000s, the state did a study to determine the safety of these signs and found no increase in accidents. Planning Board 4/12/2017 Mr. Hoffman showed the board a sample of the type of sign material they would use, which would have both vertical and horizontal louvers to avoid glare and prevent visibility from the side or above. Mr. McClanahan asked how long the image would be visible; Mr. Hoffman said each image would last about 10 seconds. Mr. LeBlanc said the sign material presented with an actual special permit application could be a different type. Mr. McClanahan asked if businesses like Toyota or Medtronic could do this; Mr. Riccio said a site would have to be directly adjacent to the highway and could not be within 500 feet of an on or offramp. Mr. LeBlanc asked how much of the amendment is already in the state regulations. Mr. Riccio said he based the amendments on SRPEDD's comments. Mr. Penney said this definition of billboards is not limited to digital. Mr. French said the amendment limits the location to 95 and 495 and suggested billboards only be allowed in area "abutting" a highway rather than "adjacent" to a highway. Mr. French asked if the sign would be one or two sided; Mr. Hoffman said it would be two- sided. Mr. Hoffman said the sign value would be around $550,000. Mr. LeBlanc asked if the voluntary donation amount of $12,500 is typical; Mr. Hoffman said the number is typical for this market. Ms. Friedman asked what the benefit is. Mr. Hoffman said the town would benefit with public safety and public service messages. Mr. McClanahan asked about traffic alerts; Mr. Hoffman said they do not have an agreement with the state to put up information about traffic issues. Ms. Friedman asked about restrictions on what can be advertised; Mr. Hoffman said they cannot advertise tobacco, and his company's policy is not to advertise adult entertainment. He said if the product is legal, it can be advertised. Mr. Feck asked if the content can be regulated through the Planning Board special permit; Mr. Hoffman said there are First Amendment rights to be considered. Randy Swain said the billboard company can enter into an agreement about advertising content with the landowner. Ms. Friedman said so much of the population has a smartphone now, and asked why something like this is needed. Mr. Hoffman said people are listening to less radio and watching less television, reading fewer newspapers, but are still driving, so the demand is still there. Public Comment Randy Miller, Miller Recycling, said his business is cyclical based on the marketplace and this would help bring in income from part of his land they do not use. Planning Board 4/12/2017 Mr. Cleary said the maximum height in this proposal is 110 feet with the size not to exceed 600 square feet; he suggested that specify "per side." Ms. Friedman said one of SRPEDD's questions was whether adopting this would open the town up to issues of off-site advertising. Mr. Riccio said he doesn't think this amendment would open the door to off-site advertising. The clerk read an April 11, 2017 letter from SRPEDD. Mr. Hoffman said the state's lighting standard has a maximum of 0.3 "nits," (candlepower) above ambient lighting; he said his billboards operate at 0.2 and dim at night. He noted the billboards run 24-7. Bill Clemmey, 55 Fowler Street, said this would only be allowed along highways, would generate income for the town, will not infringe on businesses or homeowners. He said he thinks it is a good idea. Mr. McClanahan asked if the article will be amended and resubmitted; Mr. Riccio said he will make the amendments and submit the article to the board. Mr. Penney asked if it would be possible to write the by-law so the billboards can only be digital; Mr. Riccio said the definition he used is the generic definition of billboard. Mr. LeBlanc suggested using the most strict language. Mr. Riccio said he would include "as amended" and "whichever is more stringent." Mr. McClanahan asked how far away the sign could be seen; Mr. Hoffman said because of the existing treeline, they would have to cut some trees. Motion: To close the public hearing (McClanahan -Friedman) All in favor. PASSES Article 36 Fast Food in B4 The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. French explained how the public hearing would be conducted and said the board would send a recommendation to Town Meeting. William Clemmey explained the proposal to allow fast food in B4, the Gateway Business Zone. He said the Zoning By -Law defines both "restaurant" and "fast food," but he said the differentiating factor whether or not there is a drive-through. He said more modern "fast food" uses include things like Panera and Starbucks, which want a drive-through. Mr. Clemmey said it makes sense to allow new companies to come into town with drive-through uses. He said fast food is currently only allowed in the Industrial I zone, but he said B4 already has a number of restaurants, so this would bring the zoning into alignment with what is there now. He said he thinks there are only four or five lots where this use would make sense, including his lot next to Benny's and the former Paine School. Planning Board 4/12/2017 Mr. Clemmey noted zoning is not changed for one lot, it has to make sense for the whole zone; he said B4 encompasses the Chauncy Street and Copeland Drive corridors. He said if he were to do fast food on his lot, he would be very careful to make sure the use was as far as possible from the neighbors and as close as possible to the street. He said there are a number of other uses he can do on that lot, including retail and restaurant and he does not have a commitment in place with any potential tenant. Mr. McClanahan said the Patriot Tool lot could have a fast food use under this amendment. Mr. Clemmey noted the article specifies the fast food use would be a special permit, so it would have to make sense in the proposed location. He said he thinks it would only make sense on a few lots. Mr. Clemmey said a drive through is an ancillary use to a business like a bank or fast food restaurant and noted he is not proposing any changes to the existing drive through by-law. Mr. LeBlanc asked if a fast food tenant could come in without a drive-through. Mr. Clemmey said it could, but the fast food use would still need a special permit. Ms. Friedman asked if there is any fast food in Foxfield plaza in Foxboro, which is being renovated; Mr. Clemmey said there will be a hotel and the existing retail and restaurant uses; he said he does not know what else is proposed for that site. Ms. Friedman said Route 106 has a lot of trash from existing retail and restaurant uses; she asked how that issue can be mitigated. Mr. Clemmey said a special permit would have conditions to address things like trash, lighting and landscaping. He said he lives behind Wendy's and agreed it can be loud and trash can be an issue. He presented the board with a preliminary drawing of a potential fast food restaurant on his Copeland Drive property and said would make the building were as close to the street and as far from the neighbors as possible. He noted the B4 zone requires a 40 -foot setback. Mr. Clemmey said there are already five fast food uses in this area and he doesn't think one more would be detrimental. Mr. Clemmey said the board supported this article 5-2 in 2015. Board Comment Mr. Penney said he understands trash is a concern, but said he owns property next to Wendy's and he has not had a problem with trash. Mr. Clemmey said he thinks with a corporate entity like Wendy's, neighbors' concerns are addressed rapidly. Mr. Penney said Wendy's has been a good neighbor. Mr. McClanahan said he thinks the biggest problem is customers throwing trash out of their cars farther from the site. Mr. Cleary asked if a special permit would require a traffic study; Mr. French said it is not required, but most special permit applications include one. He said with a special permit, the board has discretion based on site-specific conditions. Mr. Penney said he doesn't think fast food has the same negative connotation it used to. Planning Board 4/12/2017 Ms. Friedman noted fast food is an allowed use in TOD; Mr. Clemmey said it is, but drive- through is excluded. Ms. Friedman said TOD is not far from B4, so there is an alternate location for fast food. Mr. Clemmey said that is true, but he thinks that will be more of a market for uses like coffee shops. Public Comment Scott Jenkins, 5 Deer Path Circle, said it makes sense to have another fast food option in town. He said fast food has changed to include more healthy options, will bring increased revenue and help with traffic. Mike Pelletier, 38 King Arthur Way, said he thinks a second fast food restaurant would be ideal and would help with traffic on Copeland Drive. He said fast food restaurants are located near one another all over the country. He said with a special permit, the board has the ability to control all aspects of the permit, so if it knows trash is a problem, it can be included in the conditions. The clerk read the April 11, 2017 letter from SRPEDD. Mr. McClanahan said having SRPEDD review the articles is unusual. Mr. Cleary said he likes having the third party opinion. Motion: To close the public hearing (McClanahan -Friedman) All in favor. PASSES Article 35 Residential for Age 55 and Over in R1 The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. French explained how the public hearing would be conducted and said the board would send a recommendation to Town Meeting. William Clemmey explained the proposal to allow 55 and over in RI. He said he will probably make a motion at Town Meeting to remove the following portion of the last sentence: "...resulting in a 34% lower density in the RI zone." Mr. Clemmey said the board supported this article 5-1-1 in 2015. He said the proposal does not include any changes to the existing over 55 by-law, but is only to allow the use in the Residential 1 zone. The proposal includes a requirement for a minimum of 15 acres, so it would be harder to assemble several small lots in order to build a 55 and over facility. He said the existing 55 and over regulations remain, including the maximum number of 100 units, maximum density of 10 units per acre, maximum of eight units per building, minimum 35% open space, the developer maintains the roadway and the property must be on town water and sewer. Mr. Clemmey said there can only be 10 units per acre, so in R2, 10 acres would be needed to build 100. He said if it were allowed in R1, it would have a lower density. Mr. Clemmey said the use is currently allowed in the RD, B3 and R2 zones. He said the RD is built out and there are no six -acre parcels in the B3 zone. He presented a map done by the town's GIS showing all the parcels in town that are on water and sewer and have six acres. He explained several parcels in the R2 zone where 55 and over could possibly be done, including 30 acres on South Main Street, a landlocked, wet parcel on Union St Extension and a parcel at 255 Planning Board 4/12/2017 Fruit Street abutting the airport, which may have FAA issues. He said currently, there are almost no options in R2. Mr. Clemmey presented a map showing parcels in RI areas with 15 acres and on water and sewer. He said there are 12 lots that meet the criteria; he said eight could potentially be built with this article, the other four are owned by NRT, churches or contain existing apartments. He said the potential parcels include Flint Farm, a parcel behind Canoe River Campground, his property at 175 Essex, a parcel on East Street owned by Canoe River Campground, Westview apartment , the property next to Westview apartments, possibly a parcel on Branch Street at the end of Bay Brook Farm, a parcel on East Street and a parcel at the end of Essex Street. Mr. McClanahan asked about the Grant property on Ware Street; Mr. Clemmey said it is less than 15 acres and does not have water and sewer. He said most of the individual parcels meeting the criteria are between the rail trail and East Mansfield. He said the idea of 15 acres was to make the parcel large enough to avoid people assembling lots for this use. Mr. Clemmey said one of SRPEDD's concerns was impact on town services like public safety; he said the economic return on this type of development would be larger than potential additional ambulance runs. He said he spoke with the Fire Chief, who told him out of 500 ambulance runs, 60 were for residents of over 55 developments. Mr. Clemmey said the SPREDD mentioned emergency response time; he said the new public safety building on East Street would be closer to many of the above parcels. Mr. Clemmey said there have been discussions about keeping the use downtown, but said even Willow Xing has a shuttle bus for residents, and the town has GATRA service Mr. Clemmey said the use, with a minimum of 15 acres, would have a low impact on neighborhoods Mr. Clemmey said it would be a low intensity use and have low impact on town services, but a dramatic tax revenue. He said it will bring more adults, both residents and visitors, to the community for shopping and business. He said the Council on Aging expects the town will have at least 5,000 over 55 residents soon, so there is a growing need for this type of residential development. Mr. Penney said he agrees there is a need for over 55 residential; he said a recent 55 and over applicant told the board he has a waiting list for units. Mr. Clemmey noted this would be a special permit use. Mr. Clemmey said he thinks his Essex Street parcel would be a good location for the use because there are only two or three houses abutting that property and plenty of land for open space. He said he thinks he would have a combination of single-family houses and four -unit buildings. Board Comment Ms. Friedman said most housing in RI is single-family with one to two stories, but 55 and over residential structures could be as high as four stories. She asked how this proposal would work with the architecture and environment of existing R1. Mr. Cleary noted the maximum height allowed in RI is 35 feet. Mr. Clemmey said the by-law limits each building to eight units, so a Planning Board 4/12/2017 developer would not build a giant building. He said there is a 55 and over in Easton that is all single-family buildings. Mr. Cleary asked if this by-law would allow cottage style development like the one in Easton. Mr. Clemmey said that would be possible; he said he thinks it would be good to have a variety of housing types. Mr. Cleary suggested checking the Master Plan for the cost -benefit return on this type of housing. Mr. Penney said he thinks there is a need for over 55 housing in town. He said he was initially skeptical about the use in RI, but said he thinks it can work on the right parcel. Public Comment Mike Pelletier, 38 King Arthur Way, said his mother-in-law recently left Mansfield to find over 55 housing and this would be a good opportunity to keep residents in town. The clerk read the April 11, 2017 letter from SRPEDD. Mr. French asked if this proposal includes assisted care facilities; Mr. Clemmey said it does not. Motion: To close the public hearing (Cerretani-LeBlanc) All in favor. PASSES Mr. French asked if the board would like to vote tonight or at the next meeting. Consensus was to vote at the next meeting. 5 Putrlr�pmmen#> na "nn 6� Abound the�'1t'�bie • . Motion: To adjourn at 9:25 p.m. (McClanahan- ) All in favor. PASSES Next Planning Board Meeting: April 26, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. AA t 2, at i g a ure of Clerk Date of Approval i Planning Board 4/12/2017