City of. Westfield. July 17, 2018

Transcription

1 Westfield City of PLANNING BOARD William Carellas, Chair Cheryl Crowe, Vice Chair John Bowen Robert Goyette Jane Magarian Philip McEwan Raymond St. Hilaire Bernard Puza, Associate July 17, 2018 Chairman Carellas called the regular meeting of the Westfield Planning Board to order at 7:00 pm in the City Council Chambers, 59 Court Street, Westfield, MA. X PB MEMBERS PRESENT X MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF X William Carellas, Chair X Jay Vinskey, Principal Planner X Cheryl Crowe,Vice-Chair X Christine Fedora, Secretary X Robert Goyette X Jane Magarian X Philip McEwan X Raymond St. Hilaire X John Bowen X Bernard Puza (Associate) X Vacant A. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (on any matter not the subject of a public hearing) Chairman Carellas asked if there was anyone in the room who would like to address the Board during the public participation portion of the meeting regarding items not currently before the Board? There being no one heard the Board proceeded to their next item on the agenda. B. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES Members reviewed the minutes on the computers (they were not available in advance). Goyette MOTIONED, seconded by Member Magarian to approve the June 5, and June 19, 2018 minutes as drafted. All in Favor. C. Review of plans not requiring approval under Subdivision Control Law Chair Carellas turned the Chair to Vice Chair Carellas to conduct ANR s. 22 Woodland Avenue/26.TOV,LLC Planner Vinskey noted the ANR did not come in as anticipated. No action. D. Posted Public Hearings (and possible deliberation & decision) Continuation (without prior discussion)-special Permit/Site Plan. /Stormwater amendment 181 Root Road (Roots Athletic Center) additional parking areas. Chair Carellas informed the Board the applicant has requested another extension to the Board s meeting. Member Crowe inquired as to how many continuations they have requested? Planner Vinskey informed her they have requested 3 continuations, and the applicant has been paying the continuation fees. He further noted there are only 5 members present tonight in any 1

2 case. Member Crowe MOTIONED, seconded by Member Magarian to continue to All in favor. Continuation Site Plan/Stormwater permit 8 unit condo development 79 Notre Dame Street. Vinskey informed the members the plans on the computers are the latest, noting the ones he e mailed earlier have since been tweaked, generally for stormwater design. Chris Karney of R. Levesque introduced himself. Chair Carellas verified that this is a site plan so only a majority of the members present are required for site plan approval; 3 is a majority of those 4 present (St. Hilaire not eligible). Karney gave a brief review of his previous presentation indicating the plan as submitted conforms to the regulations regarding site plan approval. He then reviewed the changes that were made per the previous meeting. The overall density of the project was a concern of the Board at their last meeting. That issue was addressed by removing the single family unit that is currently on the eastern side, the removal of this represents a significant reduction of the Planning Board s concerns, and was a hardship to the applicant. Other minor changes consisted of: Removal of 2 parking spaces at end of the lot; Exterior staircase has been moved to the side; Sidewalk connection to the different areas of the parking lot; Light trespass has been eliminated; area for possible dumpster enclosure, no trash will be brought to the street, all collections will be on site; Engineering s comments and recommendations have been taken incorporated into the plan Members thanked Mr. Karney for taking the Board s concerns and addressing them in the outlined plans. The Board inquired as to the parking spaces that were eliminated noting they look like they are still outlined on the plan. Mr. Karney noted this was done in case additional space is required for trash area. Members inquired as to the building elevations? Mr. Karney noted they were handed out at the previous meeting; the only difference is the single family house will be removed as well as the staircases will be relocated. Vinskey noted that at least the blank side wall will now include a door. Room fact? In favor? Opposed? Vinskey noted a letter was received today; on computers, abutter was here last time wrote down concerns. Chair Carellas read the letter: concern/questions about basements, business use, her arborvitaes being damaged. The applicant responded: No cellars, subsurface basement, there is a lot of flooding in the neighborhood they will have crawl spaces; This is not a business; will work with abutter to ensure arborvitaes remain in tact. The Board discussed as to whether there could be a time limit put on the length of the arborvitaes. Vinskey noted that could be addressed in the wording of the conditions. 2

3 Members again thanked the applicant for working with the Board. Vinskey also noted the Stormwater has been signed off on. Member Crowe MOTIONED, seconded by Member Goyette to close the hearing. All in favor. The Board reviewed the draft decision and discussed draft conditions. Normal findings and conditions to be included. Members discussed how the arborvitae issue could be addressed. Planner Vinskey suggested conditions could be added requiring an evergreen screen along the property line but could be satisfied by the existing neighbor s plantings. The time limit was discussed, Vinskey noted the condition will not require a time limit. DRAFT Conditions 1. other sidewalk requirements? DRAFT Findings (1) the proposed site plan is in conformance with the intent of the zoning district and shall not take precedence over specific provisions of the zoning ordinance, including the provision that 75% of the front yard is grass/landscaped; (2) all buildings, structures, uses, equipment and materials are readily accessible for police and fire protection, as the plans have been submitted to public safety departments with no exceptions taken; (3) adequate off-street parking and loading spaces are provided to prevent traffic congestion; all parking spaces, maneuvering areas are suitably identified and designed to meet standards specified within the ordinance, since the northern parking spaces may be reduced to 17 to provide the required 24 aisle; and provision is made for safe pedestrian movement within and adjacent to the property by the installation of a sidewalk connection; (4) Pedestrian access routes do not create traffic hazards and are: adequate in width, grade, alignment and visibility; are an adequate distance from street corners, places of public assembly and other access ways; and are adequately designed for safety considerations; and the Board suggests the installation of curb ramps where appropriate to facilitate access for all; (5) the general landscaping of the site complies with the purpose and intent of this ordinance; no existing trees of note are available for preservation; parking and service areas are suitably screened during all seasons from the view of adjacent residential areas and public rights-of-way by way of fencing, location and plantings; (6) lighting of the site will be adequate at ground level for the protection and safety of the public in regard to pedestrian and vehicular circulation; that the glare and light trespass from the installation of outdoor lights is properly shielded from the view of adjacent property and public rights-of-way, and regardless the project must comply with the lighting ordinance (Sec ), since no waivers were requested or granted. (7) all utility systems are suitably located, adequately designed and properly installed to serve the proposed uses, to protect the property from adverse pollution. More specifically, and following review by the City Engineer the Board found: (a) stormwater management and erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Stormwater Management Ordinance (Chapter 16, Article II, Division 4 of the Westfield Code of Ordinances); (b) the stormwater management plan meets the performance standards described therein; (c) the erosion and sediment control plan meets the design requirements (d) and will adequately protect the water resources of the community and is in compliance with the requirements of the Stormwater Management Ordinance. Additionally, (8) no sensitive environmental land features such as steep slopes, wetlands, and large rock outcroppings or public scenic views or historically significant features will be affected; and (9) the location and size of the proposed buildings, uses or structures, as well as the nature and intensity of the residential 3

4 use in connection therewith, will be in general harmony with the surrounding neighborhood, which includes other residential areas. Chair Carellas inquired if there would be a sidewalk or a crosswalk in the parking area? Mr. Karney felt it would be better served as a crosswalk rather than a separate sidewalk. The Board accepted that alternative. Planner Vinskey reviewed the 2 additional conditions: Pedestrian aisle/crosswalk to be added through the parking area & Evergreen screen along the property line, as discussed Member Goyette MOTIONED, seconded by Member Magarian to approve the Site Plan/Stormwater for Notre Dame Street with conditions and amended conditions. Goyette - yes Magarian - yes Crowe - yes Carellas - yes Zoning Map Amendment 798 Airport Ind. Pk. Rd. Business B to Industrial A (also in water resource) John Oleksak addressed the Board; he is seeking a zone change on 798 Airport Industrial Park Road from Business B to Industrial A. He provided the Board members with a map showing the zoning of the area parcels. The Board noted that this is located on Airport Industrial Park Road but is not zoned industrial. Member Goyette inquired if the zone change would increase his ability to rent? Mr. Oleksak replied he has a couple people interested; a marijuana cultivator and a wholesaler. Members discussed the fact this is located near soccer fields and voiced concerns if the zone change were to get approved it would be near a soccer field. How does this differ from a school? The Board further discussed the location of the possibility of marijuana retail being close to a soccer field. Vinskey noted the origibal marijunan ordinance included parks, daycers, etc., but the law department was of the opinion the city cannot exceed the state s restrictions which only allows buffers from schools. Chair Carellas read the uses allowed in IA and BB to the room. After lengthy discussion it was noted this is for a zoning change, it s not for the use. It could be for anything that is allowed in IA not just a marijuana use but other uses that are allowed. Vinskey mentioned that light industrial uses, including a marijuana cultivator, would be allowed in Business B under the current draft. Chair Carellas noted he was not adverse to it but he s not excited about it. Member Goyette felt the same way Industrial is right beside it, he doesn t see why not. Vinskey noted the marijuana ordinance is not finalized, he anticipates an application will have to come to the Planning Board, at least for Site Plan Approval. Probably also needs a discretionary special permit, as residential district is nearby. 4

5 Member St. Hilaire mentioned the maps presented were incorrect, noting Airport Industrial Road no longer goes behind Froggy s. Member Crowe MOTIONED, to send a positive recommendation to the Council from Business B to Industrial A. Prior to taking the vote Chair Carellas asked if there was anyone in the room with questions of fact, in favor or opposed. None. Member Crowe MOTIONED, seconded by Member Goyette to make a position recommendation to change from IA to BB. Member St. Hilaire opposed; 4 in favor. Special Permit-Auto Body Shop 215 East Main Street Timothy Chapman - 14 South Maple Street - Introduced himself to the Planning Board. Vinskey informed the Board this was probably an oversight in paperwork. The auto body shop has been in existence for some time. In any case, it does not have a special permit, the Building Inspector has asked he file for a special permit in order to clean up zoning issues. The Board has discretion to say no. Vinskey further noted nothing is proposed, the business already exits. Member Magarian voiced concerns this could happen, how did it happen? Does anyone check on these matters? Are there any consequences for this? The Board inquired as to how this came out? Mr. Chapman replied it came out when he went to renew his business license. Vinskey noted if no one complains or no building permit is required, often no one is made aware of these issues. Chair Carellas inquired as to what the previous business was? The previous business was Calls Limousine, it changed to Cloots Auto Body in Planner Vinskey further noted prior to 1987 it would have only required approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, he found nothing but further noted the applicant could have gone to the ZBA and any information could have been buried in the minutes, it was unclear how things were done back then. Questions? In Favor? Dave Flaherty- Spoke highly of Mr. Chapman, he s known him for 15 years, he does a wonderful job. Encourage the Board to grant the permit. Dan Allie - Most respected in Westfield, does a great job. Great work, nice shop. Opposed? Questions? Crowe appreciate his honesty. The Board reviewed the draft findings as presented. DRAFT Findings After giving due regard to the application, testimony and evidence at the public hearing, the Board found that (1) the specific site is an appropriate location for an auto body shop, though it has been existing for some time apparently without the required zoning approval, (2) The use has and will not adversely affect the neighborhood; (3) Adequate and appropriate facilities, will continue to be available for the proper operation of the use; (4) the plan, as approved, conforms to all other rules and regulations. 5

6 Member Goyette MOTIONED, seconded by Member Magarian to close the hearing. Magarian MOTIONED, seconded by Member Goyette to approve the Special Permit (no conditions) Crowe - yes Goyette - yes Magarian - yes St. Hilaire - yes Carellas - yes E. Other Business Definitive Subdivision Plan - Fox Hill Dr. /26R-50 (one lot frontage waiver, denied 6/19/18) decision review/drafting Vinskey noted application was denied; under subdivision control law the Board has time to file the final action with the Clerk. Vinskey presented the Board with a draft denial; as mentioned earlier, the Board only needs to determine the plan doesn t meet the regulations. He also referenced the earlier draft approval for the Board to review, previously the Board had policies and findings regarding frontage waivers when they approved them, he further noted he wasn t sure where these policies came from but he thought the Board may want to consider adding language as being contrary to what the Board s policies are when drafting this decision. Vinskey also informed the Board other information has been received since the denial of the plan. The Chair received a letter (on computers) from the applicant requesting the Board to reconsider information that wasn t presented during the hearing; also an Attorney s letter was received just today (appended). The Attorney claimed the Board could approve as qualifying frontage based on the private way. He noted he wanted to bring this to the Board s attention for them to consider, if they felt this warranted re-opening the hearing to consider. Member Goyette felt the Board already has their decision, he appreciated the information but the previous decision is good with him. Member St. Hilaire inquired if legal has seen this? Planner Vinskey noted he just received it, but the Board may want them to give an opinion. There is nothing to prevent them from re-filing tomorrow and starting over, not as a frontage waiver. It s up to the Board if they want to look at in the context of a hearing. Chair Carellas asked they could re-file a new application tomorrow? Yes. Chair Carellas noted he was the lone voter against the denial. The Board does have a decision on the table, the Board voted on it. If all the facts weren t presented at the first hearing it was up to the applicant to provide it, given the fact they can re-file, he is good with the decision. Open or reconsider? Member Goyette suggested an easy way to handle this would be to petition the city to make it a public way and it s done, then file an ANR plan. He concurred he is good with the decision as is. Chair Carellas MOTIONED to continue with the current decision. Member Goyette MOTIONED, seconded by Member Crowe to continue with the draft decision on Fox Hill Drive subdivision plan Frontage Waiver. 6

7 DECISION At a regularly scheduled and duly posted meeting on June 19, 2018, and after having conducted a public hearing, the Planning Board DISAPPROVED (5-1) a definitive plan showing a lot located upon a constructed way, but having less than the required frontage and therefore not in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Said plan was submitted per the Subdivision Control Law (M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-S) and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the City of Westfield as a C-1 Frontage Waiver. Although a zoning variance had been obtained, the Board denied the requested frontage waiver under Subdivision Control Law. Therefore, the plan does not conform to the Rules and Regulations in that less than the required amount of lot frontage is depicted (Section VII.F, Compliance with Zoning Ordinance). APPEAL This decision is subject to appeal in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-BB within 20 days after being filed with the City Clerk. Planner Vinskey added the applicant can appeal the decision or approach the Board in a different context. All in Favor. Review and endorsement of Open Space and Recreation Plan 2018 update Vinskey noted the Open Space Plan for 2018 has been updated. Hopefully, everyone had an opportunity to read the nearly 200 page document, he further thanked Members Crowe and Carellas for their hard work on the committee, it was a year plus process. This is required to be approved by the state to be eligible for some grant funding. Board members commended everyone involved, the Committee (incl. Carellas and Crowe), Vinskey and the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. Member Magarian MOTIONED, seconded by Member Crowe to approve of the open space plan and provide a letter of endorsement (Vinskey had provided a draft letter for the Board s review) All in Favor. Rescheduling of continued hearing for 306 Montgomery Rd. Residential Kennel Vinskey informed the Board that continuation date is also primary election, special permit hearings are not allowed on election days. He spoke to the applicant and he is OK with rescheduling to the meeting. The hearing will have to be advertised. Will the Planning Board pay for this? Member Magarian MOTIONED, seconded by Member Goyette to reschedule the hearing to and have the expense of the legal ad be paid by the Planning Board. All in favor. Member Goyette stated he would not be at the Board s next meeting; Member Magarian noted there is a possibility she will not be in attendance as well. Member Goyette MOTIONED to adjourn at 8:00. All in favor. 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11