HANSON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2013
TOWN HALL, 542 LIBERTY STREET, HANSON, MA.
Members present: Donald Ellis, Chairman
Patricia Glenn, Vice-Chair
Stephen Regan, Clerk
Joseph Gamache, Member
Joseph Weeks, Member
Also present: Laurie Muncy, Town Planner
Virginia Costley, Administrative Assistant
Town Counsel Atty. John Goldrosen
Town Administrator Ron San Angelo
II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES
Motion made to accept the minutes of July 22, 2013: Patricia Glenn
Second: Joseph Weeks
Vote: 4-0-I (Joseph Gamache abstained)
III. NEW BUSINESS – MODEL MEDICAL MARIJUANA MORATORIUM –WARRANT ARTICLE BY-LAW
Atty. John Goldrosen of Kopelman & Paige, was invited to give the Board direction on how to proceed on the above issue. The proposal presented to the Board at this hearing was prepared and agreed upon by both Atty. Goldrosen and Laurie Muncy incorporating some changes suggested by Atty. Goldrosen. After Medical Marijuana referendum was approved last November, the statute directed the State Dept. of Public Health to come up with regulations. Last Spring when towns were preparing for their Town meetings, Kopelman & Paige drafted a temporary moratorium stating that there would be no openings while a study is being conducted. Goldrosen’s office drafted a by-law for the Town of Burlington which was approved by the Atty. General in January. This is what is being proposed for the
town of Hanson. At the end of May the Dept. of Public Health did finalize its regulations. The State is taking applications currently from potential registered marijuana dispensaries. The Atty. General has approved a couple of by-laws with an October 1, 2014 date, a bit of a footnote: that may be subject to challenge - if you are going to do this, get your by-law done as quick as possible. Using the June 30th date everyone now will know that something has to be done at next spring’s town meeting.
Atty. Goldrosen stated that they are in the process of a drafting a model by-law; some questions – what zone should it go in? - minimum distances from schools? –signage?, etc.
The dispensary has to be under one ownership but could be on different sites – one for retail, one for growing. This should be put forward as a zoning by-law as it relates to land use. As to the permitting process, some things to consider are would it be allowed as a right in a district or would a special permit be required, and if so, what Board would they file through. The medical marijuana dispensaries would be operated as non-profits, per Goldrosen. This Article when presented would require a 2/3’s vote.
Motion made to submit the Article for Medical Marijuana as written in the Agenda: Joseph Weeks
Second: Patricia Glenn
Vote: 5-0
TOWN MEETING ARTICLES
Chairman Donald Ellis opened the discussion of creating an Escrow Account to be used for construction of sidewalks. Funds up front are needed to perform the engineering and then the Town could apply for grants as they become available. One thought is to have the developers or others to donate to what would be called the “Sidewalk Account.”
Atty. Goldrosen informed the Board of some issues one being this speaks of receipts generated from a portion of subdivision review fees – this the Board cannot do because the subdivision review fees are just for projects reviewed. Currently sidewalks are required on one side of the street only. Goldrosen felt this could be considered an impact fee which is not allowed by the State of Massachusetts. The way to consider this would be to say in lieu of a waiver what are you going to give us. If the requirement of sidewalks on both sides of a subdivision was put into effect, and a waiver was given to the developer to do one side only, funds put into an escrow account could reasonably be done. This waiver should be put in writing. Goldrosen mentioned Section 53E-1/2 may be the
best way to do this – have to specify the source of the funds – maybe a stabilization fund as an option. The other issue with 53E-1/2 is if adopted other than at an Annual Town meeting the rules may be different because it is basically an accounting maneuver and is all under State control. Goldrosen said that if a new source of money arises after the Annual town meeting, you may be able to do this at a Fall meeting, or maybe simpler to do this in the Spring. He will check further.
Motion made to accept the Article as written in the Agenda to create an Escrow Account to be used for the construction of sidewalks per the revisions and or recommendations of Town Counsel: Joseph Weeks
Second: Joseph Gamache
Vote: 4-0-1 (Patricia Glenn Abstained)
SCANNING OF OLD PLANS
Town Planner Laurie Muncy told the Board that a clean out of the basement and storage rooms of old paper and plans is in the works. Ms. Muncy is recommending an article be drafted for Town meeting for approximately $3,000 to cover the costs of scanning old plans for use on the computer to reduce storage expenses associated with paper copies. Building Inspector Robert Curran is writing an article to purchase a plans scanner.
Motion made to request an article be drafted for the annual town meeting for the Town to transfer $3,000 from General Fund to scan old plans for use on a computer to reduce storage expenses associated with paper costs: Stephen Regan
Second: Patricia Glenn
Vote: 5-0
IV. APPOINTMENTS
7:30 PM - Mr. Brian Crenshaw and Mr. Rick Tropeano came before the Board to discuss the use of cash surety at Hemlock Hills – Azalea Way subdivision. A site inspection of the property was done on June 13, 2013 by Chairman Ellis and Town Planner Muncy. Determinations made are as follows:
Town counsel services needed; there is an area of erosion to the bank on the left side of the roadway that may need stabilization with the installation of large size rip rap – cost to be determined; construction of a sidewalk from Lot 12 to Lot 9; catch basins are in need of cleaning; installation of a street light; prepare documents for roadway acceptance.
Approximately $32,000 is the amount remaining in Escrow. Chairman Ellis informed Town Counsel that the ongoing problem with the developer is he will not respond to the Board’s requests to come in to finish the subdivision. All lots have been sold. Residents of the subdivision are upset at the time that has lapsed (3 years) and a no-show developer.
The Board will like guidance as to what they can do to get this job completed.
One of the residents talked to Chairman Ellis at a later time and stated that the developer would be willing to walk away from the Bond if the Planning Board wanted to take the Bond and finish the subdivision. If the cost to finish the development is more than what is in the account, can the developer be sued for the difference – general knowledge is that the developer is still in business.
Town Counsel certainly is not ruling out going after the developer – whether there are funds there to be had and whether that would prompt corporate reorganization. An argument would be that under the Subdivision Control Law there is a mechanism in place and that is what the Bond is for. The Board would also have to consider the legal fees that would be incurred.
Brian Crenshaw, 173 Azalea Way, asked how is the $32,000 obtained. Goldrosen informed him that under the Subdivision Control Law there is a statutory procedure that if the developer doesn’t do the work after proper notification from the Planning Board the money can be used to do the work.
Crenshaw stated that two years ago when the residents met with the Planning Board, the developer had back taxes owed, wasn’t paying the Town to plow and at that time $42,000 was in the account to put the top coat on the road, the sidewalks, the finish landscaping, three lights. The residents then asked that nothing be released until the developer finished the work. The developer came in and put the top coat on the road and planted the trees and received a check.
Going forward the Planning Board will prioritize remaining work to be done and the costs. Town Planner will work with the engineer and Atty. Goldrosen.
Motion made to follow the legal requirements under Section 81U to take the amount remaining in the escrow account of $32,000: Joseph Gamache
Second: Joseph Weeks
Vote: 5-0
7:45 PM – Mr. Gordon Andrews – Adequate Access – Snow Street
Chairman Donald Ellis recused himself from this hearing.
Atty. Goldrosen stated that under the Zoning By-laws for a lot to be buildable it has to have frontage on the street – either an accepted public way – an approved subdivision way, or a way that was in existence at the time the subdivision control law came into effect and the Planning Board is of the opinion that it is adequately constructed. A two step analysis has to take place – 1. Was the lay in existence in 1952 and that does not mean a paper street; would have to exist and be drivable by a vehicle even if the road is only 10’ wide. 2. in order to be a buildable lot that road had to have existed in 1952 and been adequately constructed. A lot on the road in existence in 1952 can be brought up to current standards and apply for a building permit. If not in
existence in 1952, they would file under subdivision control.
Fire Chief Jerry Thompson expressed his concerns in a letter to the Planning Board about apparatus access in the event of a structure fire as well as the lack of any water supply to suppress the fire.
The Board expressed concern regarding inaccessibility from fire apparatus. The Board determined that a site visit was necessary to view the proposed project.
Motion was made to continue the discussion regarding Snow Street until August 26, 2013 at 7:30 pm: Stephen Regan
Second: Patricia Glenn
Vote: 4-0 (Don Ellis recused)
V. OLD BUSINESS
The meeting of August 7, 2013 for the Zoning By-law Committee was not held due to lack of a quorum. Joseph Gamache will remain as an interested party not as a member.
VI. ZONING HEARINGS
Application of Bruce Beaulieu for a Special Permit/Variance – no comment.
Application of Jeff Gosselin for a Special Permit/Variance – no comment.
Application of Eric Mills for a Special Permit/Variance - no comment.
Next scheduled hearing September 9, 2013.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn the meeting: Patricia Glenn
Second: Joseph Weeks
Vote: 5-0
| 
