HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-03-20-Hanscom Area Traffic Study Committee-min APR 1 1986
HANSCQM AREA TRAFFIC STUDY COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 1986 CONCORD TOWN HOUSE
Attendance
Terry Fenton Lincoln at-large
Larry Smith Cranberry Hill Associates
Norman Faramelli Massport
Burt Nichols Lexington resident
Rosamond P. Delori Lincoln Planning Board
Jane Farmer Bedford Planning Board
Robert Nash Minuteman National Park
Annabelle Shepherd Concord Selectman
Rosamond Delori convened the meeting at 7 45 p.m , and the minutes
were approved as amended.
A letter from the Lincoln Planning Board to Dan Beagan of CTPS was
distributed to those in attendance. This letter expressed Lincoln's
concern about the present limitations to Route #2 improvements, and they
suggested an additional scenario to the study called "Supermax in the
Route #2 Corridor". (copy enclosed)
Norm Faramelli responded that additional grade separations for Route #2
intersections already have been added to the study, namely, Bedford Street in
Lincoln,and Crosby's Corner, Rt #126 and Rt #62 in Concord
Robert Nash commented that the Park Administration favored a "no build"
option as the minimum,and maximum build would include the widening of Rt #2A
at Marrett Road and the signalization of the Hanscom Drive intersection - but
no further expansion
Rosamond passed out some material relative to a proposed review process
for new developments that would be considered by HATS She distributed a
question and answer summary, a notification form to be submitted by a developer,
references from an MARC land use study, an approval (or disapproval) process for
a plan, and a flow chart showing the sequence of events from the time the
developer files the notification form
Rosamond explained the chronological procedure and the possible thresholds
which would trigger a HATS review process.
Questions followed - some with answers
1) Why should developers get involved in this additional study
requirement when there is no legal obligation to do so?
Simply good faith by the developer to work with. the Towns. It could
certainly be to the developer's advantage to cooperate with a request for this
kind of traffic information - data that he would probably be required to provide
in any case
- 2 - APR I 1 1986
2) Who will negotiate the contracts? CTPS cannot be involved in this kind
of negotiations, and it does not seem right for Massport to do this.
3) What will be the work level of CTPS, and can they complete the work
within the 60 day time requirement?
CTPS will have to treat each request as part of their normal workload
and will not be able to answer a request in an emergency 4 to 5 day crisis request.
CTPS is favorably disposed towards HAYS, but cannot guarantee any preferential
treatment.
They expect that there might be 5 reviews a year, but there could be
twice that many. "Guesstimates" of the cost to the developer for the use of the
model and the study ranged from $500 to $1,200.
Any major developer could start the HATS review at any time and would
not have to wait until the 60-day countdown was under way
4) What kind of data would the develop be asked to provide CTPS?
Shouldn't CTPS have some traffic counts and data for our area roads that could be
used?
5) Is the limit of 50 units for residential development too low, --would
too many studies be set off needlessly?
6) Is the filing of a notice for any business or parking, lot within 400
feet of the border of another HATS community or numbered highway too restrictive?
Rosamond explained that the "Notification of New Developments" is expected
to be used primarily for communications to area towns of new plans It is expected
that many notification forms will be filed which will not be considered of great
enough significance to start the HATS review process A HATS sub-committee of the
Planning Board representatives will serve as the initial review committee which will
determine which notifications should be pursued further
Jane Farmer described a 250 acre parcel of land near Rt #3 and Rt 128 in
Burlington but bordering Bedford, which is primarily landlocked. A developer from
Texas is interested in this parcel with plans for a grandiose project. On the
Bedford warrant for Town Meeting,there is an article to take by eminent domain a
50 foot strip that will make access to the parcel difficult, if not impossible
If this parcel is developed, the entrance and egress would most likely be through
a residential area of Bedford
Bob Nash announced that the 25% drawings have been reviewed for the Route 2A
area near the Voke-Tech School, but construction is not imminent - maybe the summer
of 1987.
In regard to the next meeting, April 17th was designated as the first choice
of the group with May 1 as a second choice, with the meeting to be held in Lincoln
Town Hall. It was requested that the chairman mail out notices of the meeting,
minutes, and the background materials distributed at the March 20th meeting. Action
on the proposed HATS review process will be taken at the next meeting.
Respectfully submitted.
6e)711,11.‘-ir
APR 11 1986
TIMELY DRI REVIEW BY HATS
1. Each Town Planning Board will adopt a new policy or rule of the Board that
all proposals requiring submission to the Board or the ZBA complete a
development notification form. The proponent of the development will
complete the notification form (DNF) and send it to the P.B. of each HATS
town. Upon receipt of the DNF the P.B. will distribute it to HATS members
in each community.
— Question: how do we pick up Massport of HAFB development?
2. A subcommittee of HATS consisting of P.B. members will complete an initial
review of DNF to select which ones will be reviewed by HATS for their
regional impact. Thresholds for review will track recently proposed
amendments to Chapter 41 (Subdivision Legislation) which create thresholds
for major development:
o 100,000 SF agregate of floor area or,
0 those on DNF.
Other criteria may also be used to invoke reivew such as proximity to an
identified traffic problem are a (LOS E,F) or proximity to town border,
regardless of size.
3. The subcommittee will notify the developer of its decision regarding
regional review with a copy to the Chairman of HATS and the P.B. with
local jurisdiction over the project. The notification will include the
date of the review by the full HATS committee and instructions on how to
have traffic projections on the impact of the development in the region
run by the HATS model.
— question: should MEPA receive a copy of the review notification?
4. The proponent will make a presentation of the anticipated regional impacts
of the proposal, including, but not limited to, traffic impacts predicted
by the HATS model, plus any proposed mitigation of negative impacts.
5. The committee will forward its recommendations to the local board with
jurisdiction over the proposal. These recommendations may be simply an
excerpt from the,minutes of the meeting at which the proposal was reviewed.
6. The local board will inform HATS of its action pursuant to HATS
recommendations. This may take the form of a copy of a Special Permit,
Subdivision Certificate of Approval, Covenant or other conditioning
document which is the result of local control or an excerpt of board
proceedings (minutes) which document the local board's response to HATS
advisory review.
NOTE: Initially the committee can expect no more than 5 reviews in a year.
It will be up to the P.B. Subcommittee to select the most critical
developments for review. To the best of our knowledge, CTPS has the
authorization of the SSC for doing up to 5 reviews in the first years
on the HATS model.
APR 1 1 199
NOTIFICATION TO HATS OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS
DEVELOPER:
ADDRESS:
COMMUNITY IN WHICH DEVELOPMENT OCCURS:
Members of all relevant boards and officials of the four towns will be
requested to furnish the Committee with information, at the earliest possible
time, about any proposed major or significant development projects which meets
any of the following definitions:
PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
Institutional, commercial or industrial construction in excess of
50,000 square feet total floor area or adding 100 parking spaces.
Residential development in excess of 50 one- or two- family dwellings,
or 50 apartment or condominium dwelling units and developments of any
size that require access through another community.
Any development on a lot, other than a one- or two-family residence, or
any way or parking lot within 400 feet of the border of another HATS
community or of a numbered highway.
Any other development which the local board or official or the
Committee believes to be of more than local significance.
All proposed zoning amendments.
DESCRIPTION OF
PROJECT:
Proponent's Signature Date
Contact for Additional Information Tel II
Send to: Planning Board in Bedford, Concord, Lexington and Lincoln.
'oute 9 Corridr Planning Study-Land Use Component, Feb. 1986 MAPC P 1986
iw permitted building size, not the open areas. Second, the regulations
governing parking structures should be reviewed. If high-density
garages or built-in parking floors are allowed as accessory uses, then
the growth-limiting effect of the increased parking requirement would
be reduced proportionally. Third, and perhaps most important, is the
fact that parking increases cannot be arbitrarily and drasticallyhigh. If the new required ratios deviate excessively from existing
commercial standards, existing zoning bylaw requirements and/or actual
demand along Route 9, then they will not stand up to judicial review.
' 1 It is also possible to Iimit development intensity by increasing
dimensional requirements such as lot coverage, setbacks and yards, and
other items. Perhaps the major weakness here is that many of these
items on a case-by-case basis would be vulnerable to zoning relief by
means of the appeals process.
G. Developments of Regional Impact
1. Large developments located in one community always generate some
negative impacts on abutting towns. These impacts might involve
traffic, environmental effects, and burdens on infrastructure or
,. public services. In a governmental system in which the municipality
f_ is the fundamental unit of land regulation, this dilemma usually
remains an unresolved one. Many bitter inter-town disputes have
occurred in these cases, yet there is no formal mechanism for
= addressing the problem.
There is strong precedent in Massachusetts for an inter-town
regulation of developments of regional impact. Back in 1974, a
special act of the legislature created the Martha's Vineyard (Land and
Water) Commission, which has unique powers in regulating developments
of regional impact in the six island towns, as well as in
environmentally fragile areas. Reconstituted in 1977 under Chapter
831, the Commission has had a history of mixed success, with two of
the larger towns withdrawing and then resuming membership (they are
currently active once again). Despite the varying record, the
Commission does establish a strong precedent for multi-town review.
There have been occasional efforts over the years to extend the idea
to the rest of -the state. The most recent was the bill introduced in
1984 and 1985 by Senator Carol Amick, (0-Bedford) , which did not
emerge from committee but does appear to have a solid core of support.
Other states have passed regional development impact legislation
during the past twenty years. These range from Florida's Act 380 to
the Hawaii Land Classification Act, which amounts to state zoning.
Vermont, Maine, Oregon and California also have special acts in widely
differing forms.
It can be argued that much of the country does not need such
legislation, because, unlike in New England., the county is often
relatively large in geographic area and is the predominant unit of
local government. This automatically builds in a degree of
regionalism in land use regulation. Whether or not this is the case,
the fact remains that some DRI powers could be of benefit within the
Route 9 corridor.
- 61 - 4
APR 1 1 1986
The process could be created statewide, regionally, or even just along <m•
.`
Route 9. The implementing bodies could be the existing regional
2 planning agencies, other special districts or any combination thereof.
Counties in Eastern Massachusetts do not constitute functionally or '
geographically a reasonable regulatory unit. Regardless of the
approach that is used, the development conflicts between towns (both
de facto and de jure) are almost always regional in nature. •
The existence of the formal inter-town entity - the MetroWest Growth
Managesmient Committee - which includes selectmen and planning board
ne bers, offers an excellent foundation on which any future review and
regulation of major developments of regionwide significance can be
based.
For any DRI system, the definitions of what makes a project fall
wfthin this level of review must be carefully thought out to fit the
tains and region in question; criteria must not be borrowed too
'ioerally from different locations. Most places establish a list of
e'igibility criteria and quantitative thresholds, any one of which
could require a DRI designation. Among these items are the following: ;
'.rt area; building(s) floor area; floor area ratio; parking quantity;
gcantity of units or lots; certain land uses or location in a fragile
area; traffic generation; and other criteria. Hawaii uses a carrying
capacity approach, which seeks to measure burdens upon infrastructure,
pjolic services and the environment. Carrying capacity is, however, a
sophisticated and data-intensive method, which should not be lightly
enpl oyed.
The central point is to make the list as locally-oriented and as
factional as possible.
H. Regional Traffic Reduction and Alternate Transportation
There are numerous ways to help in reducing traffic volumes and peak
h:ur failures, employing "soft" techniques such as the following:
car- and van-pooling, private shuttle buses from public transportation
terminals or from off-site parking lots, private or local public bus
lines, staggered shift hours, private company contributions to traffic
control , or other methods of alternate transportation.
Perhaps the best means of placing some real strength into such a
program would be to create some sort of regional traffic management
district, probably with special assessment powers. Annual fees would
be levied on private businesses, with firms paying more for each
person driving to work alone. This special district could also
monitor traffic at key interchanges and intersections on an ongoing
basis, and even pin-point specific sources of traffic generation.
Programmed Massachusetts DPW capital improvements in the Route 9
corridor also could be monitored and considered in all planning
efforts.
Attempting to implement traffic mitigation measures on a town-by-town
basis could be a self-defeating proposition. The communities must
work together on this problem. Special enabling legislation probably
would be required, but the end results might well be worth the effort.
- 62 -
'.SRR 1, i 14.,
B. revised
An Act to improve the review and quality of plans submitted under the
Subdivision Control Law and to encourage innovative developments
(Draft Text- ) In order to permit and encourage the use of cost-effective
and innovative development techniques, especially for major non-residential ,
condominium, and apartment developments, and to provide adequate review
of such developments, chapter forty-one, as most recently amended, is
hereby further amended as follows
1. By including at the end of the definition of Subdivision in Section
81-L thereof the following new sentence. "Subdivision shall also
include major developments on one or more contiguous lots on which
under the applicable or proposed zoning, buildings containing in the
aggregate one hundred thousand or more square feet of floor area
could be built and which would require the provision of off-street
parking or other municipal services."
2. By inserting in the first sentence of Section 81-S thereof, following
the words "may submit,' the words ,"and in the case of major development,
shall submit,"
3. By inserting in the fourth paragraph of Section 81-U thereof following
the words "within sixty days after such submission" the words ,"or
ninety days if the plan submitted is for a major development,"
MAPC/AVZ/mlm
1/3/86
PR 1 1 1986
, (lic1
Ch. 41 , S.31-L, definition of subdivision
Subdivision "Subdivision" shall mean the division of a tract of land
into two or more lots and shall include resubdivision, and
when appropriate to the context, shall relate to the process
of subdivision or the land or territory subdivided, provided,
however, that the division of a tract of land into two or
more lots shall not be deemed to constitute a subdivision
within the meaning of the subdivision control law if, at the
time when it is made, every lot within the tract so
divided has frontage on (a) a public way or a way which the
clerk of the city or town certifies is maintained and used
as a public way, or (b) a way shown on a plan theretofore
approved and endorsed in accordance with the subdivision
control law, or (c) a way in existence when the subdivision
control law became effective in the city or town in which
the land lies, having, in the opinion of the planning board,
sufficient width, suitable grades, and adequate construction
to provide for the needs of vehicular traffic in relation to
the proposed use of the land abutting thereon or served there-
by, and for the installation of municipal services to serve
such land and the buildings erected or to be erected thereon
Such frontage shall be of at least such distance as is then
required by zoning or other ordinance or by-law, if any, of said
city or town for erection of a building on such lot, and if
no distance is so required, such frontage shall be of at least
twenty feet. Conveyances or other instruments adding to, taking
away from, or changing the size and shape of, lots in such a
manner as not to leave any lot so affected without the frontage
above set forth, or the division of a tract of land on which two
or more buildings were standing when the subdivision control law
went into effect in the city or town in which the land lies into
separate lots on each of which one of such buildings remain
standing, shall not constitute a subdivision. "Subd_vision shall
also include major developments on one or more lots compris-ng
at least one hundred thousand square feet of gross floor area and
requiring the provision of off-street parking, access or internal
circulation ways, and municipal services, whether or not such ways
are intended to become public ways."
{
33
9
APR 11 1986
Ch. 41 , S.31-L, definition of subdivision
Subdivision "Subdivision" shall mean the division of a tract of land
into two or more lots and shall include resubdivision, and
when appropriate to the context, shall relate to the process
of subdivision or the land or territory subdivided, provided,
however, that the division of a tract of land into two or
more lots shall not be deemed to constitute a subdivision
within the meaning of the subdivision control law if, at the
time when it is made, every lot within the tract so
divided has frontage on (a) a public way or a way which the
clerk of the city or town certifies is •maintained and used
as a public way, or (b) a way shown on a plan theretofore
approved and endorsed in accordance with the subdivision
control law, or (c) a way in existence when the subdivision
control law became effective in the city or town in which
the land lies, having, in the opinion of the planning board,
sufficient width, suitable grades, and adequate construction
to provide for the needs of vehicular traffic in relation to
the proposed use of the land abutting thereon or served there-
by, and for the installation of municipal services to serve
such land and the buildings erected or to be erected thereon.
Such frontage shall be of at least such distance as is then
required by zoning or other ordinance or by-law, if any, of said
city or town for erection of a building on such lot, and if
no distance is so required, such frontage shall be of at least
twenty feet. Conveyances or other instruments adding to, taking
away from, or changing the size and shape of, lots in such a
manner as not to leave any lot so affected without the frontage
above set forth, or the division of a tract of land on which two
or more buildings were standing when the subdivision control law
went into effect in the city or town in which the land lies into
separate lots on each of which one of such buildings remain
standing, shall not constitute a subdivision. 'SuLdivis_on
shall also include major developments cn one or more cont-guous
lots on which under the applicable or proc..sed zon ng. :ui=dints
containing in the aggregate one hundred thousand or more square
feet of floor area could be built and which soul: require the
provision of off-street parking or other m'nic_pa_ services."
APR 1 1 1986
Ch. 41 , S.81-S, Preliminary Plan
Submission of Any person, before submitting his definitive plan for
Preliminary Plan is approval , may submit, "and in the case of major development,
at the Option of shall submit" to the planning board and to the board of
the Applicant and health, a preliminary plan, and shall give written notice
not the Planning to the clerk of such city or town by delivery or by
Board registered mail , postage prepaid, that he has submitted
such a plan. If the notice is given by delivery the city
or town clerk shall , if requested, give a written receipt
therefor. Within sixty days after submission of a preliminary
Approval or Dis- plan each board shall notify by certified mail the applicant
approval Within and the clerk of the city or town either that the plan has
60 Days been approved, or that the plan has been approved with
modifications suggested by the board or agreed upon by the
Reasons if person submitting the plan, or that the plan has been dis-
Disapproved approved and in the case of disapproval , the board shall
state in detail its reasons therefor. The planning board
shall notify the city or town clerk of its approval or
disapproval , as the case may me. Except as is otherwise
expressly provided, the provisions of the subdivision control
Register of Deeds law relating to a plan shall not be applicable to a preliminary
Not to Record plan, and no register of deeds shall record a preliminary plan.
APP I 11986
Section 81-U. Approval, Modification or Disapproval of
Plan
When a definitive plan of a subdivision is submitted to
Copy of Plan to the planning board, as provided in section eighty-one 0,
Board of Health a copy thereof shall also be filed with the board of health
or board or officer having like powers and duties Such
Board of Health health board or officer shall , within forty-five days after
has 45 Days to the plan is so filed, report to the planning board in writing,
Report approval or disapproval of said plan, and, in the event of
disapproval , shall make specific findings as to which, if
any, areas shown on such plan cannot be used for building
sites without injury to the public health, and include such
specific findings and the reasons therefor in such report,
and where possible, shall make recommendations for the
adjustments thereof. Failure of such board or officer to
report shall be deemed approval by such board or officer
Such health board or officer shall send a copy of such
report, if any, to the person who submitted said plan When
the definitive plan shows that no public or community sewer
is to be installed to serve any lot thereon, approval by a
board of health or officer shall not be treated as, nor
deemed to be approval of a permit for the construction and
use of any lot of an individual sewage system, and approval
of a definitive plan for a subdivision by a board of health
or officer shall not be treated as, nor deemed to be, an
application for a permit to construct or use an individual
sewage system on any lot contained therein
After the hearing required by section eighty-one T and after
the report of said health board or officer or lapse of forty-
five days without such report, the planning board shall
Approve, Modify approve, or, if such plan does not comply with the subdivision
and Approve control law or the rules and regulations of the planning board
or the recommendations of the health board or officer, shall
Disapprove modify and approve or shall disapprove such plan In the
event of disapproval , the planning board shall state in
detail wherein the plan does not conform to the rules and
regulations of the planning board or the recommendations of
Revoke Disapproval the health board or officer and shall revoke its disapproval
_f Plan Made to and approve a plan which, as amended conforms to such rules
Conform and regulations or recommendations. The planning board shall
file a certificate of its action with the city or town clerk,
Notice of Action a copy of which shall be recorded by him in a book kept for
to Applicant the purpose, and shall send notice of such action by registered
mail , postage prepaid, to the applicant at his address stated
on the application.
Conditional Approval If the report of the board of health or board or officer
on Matters Recom- having like powers and duties shall so require, the approval
mended by Board of by the planning board shall be on condition that no building
Health or structure shall be built or placed upon the areas designated
U-1
APR 11986
Gh. 41 , S 81-U, Approval , Modification or Disapproval of Plan
without consent by such board of health or officer In
ze on Plan the event approval by the board of health or board or
q '.ird of Health officer having like powers and duties is by failure to
Failure to Report make a report, the planning board shall note on the plan
that health approval is by failure to report.
Failure to Act or Failure of the planning board either to take final
Notify Clerk Within action or to file with the city or town clerk a
60 Days Shall be certificate of such action regarding a plan submitted
Deemed Approval by an applicant within sixty days after such submission,
"or ninety days if the application is for a major
development" , or such further time as may be agreed upon
at the written request of the applicant, shall be deemed
Extension of Time to be an approval thereof. Notice of such extension of
Beyond 60 Days time shall be filed forthwith by the planning board with
the city or town clerk.
Before Endorsing Before endorsement of its approval of a plan, a planning
Plan, Planning board shall require that the construction of ways and the
Board Shall Require installation of municipal services be secured by one, or
Performance in part by one and in part by another, of the methods
Guarantee described in the following clauses (1 ), (2), (3) and (4)
which method or combination of methods may be selected
and from time to time varied by the applicant.
By a Proper Bond (1 ) By a proper bond, sufficient in the opinion of the
planning board to secure performance of the construction
of ways and the installation of municipal services required
for lots in the subdivision shown on the plan, and the
planning board may require that the applicant specify the
time within which such construction shall be completed.
By a Deposit of (2) By a deposit of money or negotiable securities,
Money or sufficient in the opinion of the planning board to secure
Vegotiable performance of the construction of ways and the installation
Securities of municipal services required for lots in the subdivision
shown on the plan, and the planning board may require that
the applicant specify the time within which such construction
shall be completed.
By a Covenant (3) By a convenant, executed and duly recorded by the owner
of record, running with the land, whereby such ways and
services shall be provided to serve any lot before such
lot may be built upon or conveyed, other than by mortage
deed; provided, that a mortgagee who acquires title to the
mortaged premises by foreclosure or otherwise and any
succeeding owner of such premises or part thereof may sell
any such lot, subject to that portion of the covenant which
provides that no lot shall be built upon until such ways
and services have been provided to serve such lot, and
provided, further, that nothing herein shall be deemed to
prohibit a conveyance by a single deed, subject to such
U-2 12/28/81
APR 11 1986
F Development Proposal Conceived
. -.41, I
File with local Thresholds:Objective and
board DNF filed with Subjective Criteria adopted
HATS Planning Boards by HATS
t 1 J,
Complete set of I HATS Planning Board
submission documents I I Subcommittee Review
No HATS
Review Hats Review
required
Full HATS review of
regional impact with CTPS or other traffic
presentation by proponent( engineer runs Hats
and results of traffic model
model analysis
HATS recommendation Range of recommendation,
/
based on projected Approve as submitted,
' LOS of roads and ik— _ TMS, down-scale intensity,
intersections construction, impact fees
adopted by HATS,deny awrooat
J•
Local Review and + ) Next HATS meeting
decision
,
LOCAL PROCESS HATS PROCESS REVIEW POLICIES AND CRITERIA
DRAFT. Flow chart of proposed advisory review of developments of regional impact by HATS
RPD-3/18/86 d