Loading...
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