Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-16~lanning BaaEd Meeting 8enio~ Cen~eE ~anuar~ X6~ X996 HamMers Present: Joseph Mahoney, Chairman, Richard Rowen, Vice Chairman, Alberto Angles, Associate Member. Alison Lescarbeau, Clerk, arrived at 7:25 p.m., John Simons arrived at 7:45 p.m. and Richard Nardella arrived at 8:30 p.m. Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner was also present. The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Angles, the minutes of December 5, 1995 were unanimously approved. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Angles, the minutes of January 2, 1996 were unanimously approved as amended. On a motion by Mr. Angles, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the minutes of January 9, 1996 were unanimously approved. Warrant Articles Tom Laudani and Steve Stapinski discussed the possible rezoning of a portion of Route 114. Mr. Laudani and his partner, Jim Grifoni, have acquired a series of parcels on Route 114: The McGregor Fence Company, zoned B-l, the ABC and Reyland property both zoned I-1. They would like the Planning Board to sponsor a warrant article to rezone those parcels to B-2. Approximately 15 acres of land are involved and they are proposing two single story buildings of approximately 14,000 sq ft and 8,000 sq ft along with two curb cuts. Mr. Stapinski stated that the Town has a 100 foot setback from Route 114 and a 50 foot no build buffer zone. Given the wetlands present, this limits the area available for development. Portions of the site have been graded in the past -- 3 or 4 years ago. There is a sewer pump that services McLay's which the two proposed buildings can tie into. The zone line between I-1 and R-3 runs through the property. Would propose to rezone the entire parcel to B-2. Mr. Rowen stated that he remembered Mr. McGregor coming before Town Meeting some time ago and his proposal to rezone was defeated. Concern was raised whether or not it was too soon to bring forward rezoning again. It was generally discussed and decided that enough time had elapsed so that a new warrant article could be brought forward. Generally, the Board is not overwhelmed with the idea of proposing the rezoning, given the fact that at the fall Special Town Meeting a Planning Board article proposing rezoning on another portion of Route 114 was overwhelming defeated. The message the Board felt the Town was giving them, was that a more in depth study, possibly a new balanced growth plan, was needed before any rezoning would pass. Industrial land generally provides the Town with more tax revenue relative to the burdens imposed on Town services. Mr. Laudani pointed out that this parcel needs to be rezoned as it is surrounded by retail uses. New office space is not needed in Town, He will pay the back taxes owed on the site. Realistically, the site would not be developed industrially. Mr. Stapinski pointed out that the ABC parcel could not be developed without the addition of the McGregor parcel. Coventry I - bond enforcement Ms. Colwell stated that Mr. Mahoney, Interim Town Manager, is continuing to work on this. He will keep the Board infozmed through Ms. Colwell. Nadine Lane - bus shelter According to the subdivision plans, a bus shelter is to be built between Lots 15 and 16 Nadine Lane. Given the fact that there is a bus shelter on Meadowood Road, it was suggested that a $2,000 contribution to the sidewalk fund be made in lieu of another bus shelter. Furthermore, the Town is not currently busing the children on Nadine Lane. On a motion by Ms. Lescarbeau, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Board voted unanimously to eliminate the bus shelter in lieu of a $2,000 contribution to the sidewalk fund. Review of CBA interDretation There was no discussion of this item. Endorsement of Plans The Crossroads - site Dian review Ms. Colwell stated that the applicant, Peter Shaheen, at the request of the neighbors, went back to the Board of Appeals to change the location of the stockade fence. The plan represents the revised location of the fence. The Planning Board endorsed the plans for The Crossroads. Jerad Place IV - Subdivision/PRD At the written request of the applicant, a thirty day extension was granted for endorsement of the plan. Public Hea~nas Lot F FlaashiD Drive - Site Plan Review Ms. Lescarbeau read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Ms. Lescarbeau also read a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance until February 6, 1996. 50 Sutton Hill Road - Watershed and 52 Sutton Hill Road - Watershed and 130 Sutton Hill Road - Watershed and 110 Sandra Lane - Watershed and 165 Sandra Lane - Watershed Ms. Lescarbeau read the legal notices to open the public hearings. Ben Osgood, Jr. and Atty. Howard Speicher were present with their plans. Atty. Speicher stated that the land was approved in 1984 or 1985, no construction took place and the permits lapsed. They are proposing five applications, four for new homes and one for regrading a lot that was disturbed years ago when the sewer line was installed. The homes will be outside the 100 foot non- disturbance zone and the driveways do not cross the wetlands. In Atty. Speicher's opinion, building on the property will result in a net improvement in the watershed district due to the fact that three homes now on septic will be able to tie into the sewer line. Ms. Colwell stated that the lots were created in 1980 and have frontage on Sandra Lane. Due to the amount of snow, the wetland line cannot be confirmed, however, Mr. Howard, Conservation Agent, hopes to be able to confirm by the end of the week. Mr. Rowen asked what will happen to the wetlands when you regrade? Ben Osgood, Jr. stated he doesn't think they will increase in size after the regrading. Mr. Simons asked if there was a particular reason why these homes weren't built before? Atty. Speicher stated "economic reasons probably." Ms. Colwell to review the old watershed files. Mrs. Armitage, a longtime resident of Sutton Hill Road, offered some history on this property. Years ago, J. Philbin wanted to build within the 100 foot zone, and ran into much opposition from the neighbors. The building stopped, and some court action took place. Work would stop, then start up again. Paul Guilboard, Sandra Lane, asked who owns the land now? Atty. Speicher replied he doesn't know. Mrs. Rosati of Sandra Lane asked if they were pork chop lots, and Ben Osgood replied no. Mrs. Armitage stated that Lot 30B abuts her lot line to the south, and she wants to be sure the 20 foot setback is observed. Mr. Accursio, Sutton Hill Road, asked where will the fourth dwelling be located? Atty. Speicher stated that one dwelling will face Sandra Lane and three dwellings will face Sutton Hill Road. Mr. Simons stated that when two driveways are next to each other, there will be more runoff. Asked if a common driveway was considered? Ben Osgood, Jr. thinks this is the best plan for the area, and it was permitted this way before, he is not proposing a common driveway. Ms. Colwell asked how will the runoff from the driveways be directed? Mr. Osgood stated another dry well, and possible two, could be installed. Mr. Rowen recommends an oil trap be installed. Mrs. Armitage agrees there could be a drainage problem with the two driveways and is glad to see it will be addressed. Mr. Mahoney suggested that the abutters and Mr. Osgood might get together to discuss and work out some of these issues. Continued until the February 6, 1996 meeting. 154 - 164 Johnson Street - Frontaqe Exception Lot Ben Osgood, Jr. and Atty. Howard Speicher were present with updates on this plan. In response to questions asked at the last meeting Atty. Speicher stated that the site distance going away from the old center is 450 feet, and going towards the old center it is 500 feet. The grade is 36 feet from front to back. Some issues with the Rodriques have been resolved, and some are continuing. Mr. Osgood would agree to creating a berm with white pines planted on top along the boundary with the Rodriques. They have hired an attorney and are all working together. Mr. Osgood has spoken with three neighbors who are not direct abutters, and he is addressing their concerns also. Mr. Simons stated that the Planning Board is trying to maintain some symmetry in Town, and feels this is stacking up one house behind the other. He suggests putting the house closer to the property line and positioning it in line with the other home. Mr. Osgood stated that he does not want an adverse effect with the neighbor, that the proposed home will have a "street scape" to Johnson Street. Mr. Mahoney spoke of a letter the Board received from Judy Crocker stating her opposition to the proposed house. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that she did not believe this lot fits in with the intent of the bylaw. Continued until the February 6, 1996 meeting. &44ournment On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Angles, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.