The regularly scheduled meeting of the Millbury Planning Board was held on Monday, May 9, 2011, at 7:00 p.m., in the Municipal Office Building, 127 Elm Street, Millbury, MA.
Present: Paul Piktelis, Anna Lewandowski, Gary Schold, Richard Gosselin, Jeffrey Markarian, Associate Member Edd Cote
7:15 p.m. Reorganization
Town Planner Laurie Connors accepted nominations.
Chairman: Anna Lewandowski nominated Richard Gosselin to the position of Chair, seconded by Jeffrey Markarian. No other nominations were made. Motion carried on a 5-0-0 vote.
Vice-Chairman: Anna Lewandowski nominated Paul Piktelis to the position of Vice-Chair, seconded by Jeffrey Markarian. No other nominations were made. Motion carried on a 5-0-0 vote.
Clerk: Paul Piktelis nominated Jeffrey Markarian to the position of Clerk, seconded by Richard Gosselin. Vote: 2-3-0, motion failed. Anna Lewandowski nominated Gary Schold to the position of Clerk, seconded by Paul Piktelis, motion carried on a 3-2-0 vote.
Representative to CMRPC: Richard Gosselin nominated Anna Lewandowski, Mrs. Lewandowski declined.
Gary Schold nominated Richard Gosselin as representative to CMRPC, seconded by Anna Lewandowski, Mr. Gosselin accepted the position.
Registry of Deeds ANR Signature Form: The Board agreed that two of the five signatures would be required to approve and register an ANR plan.
Earth Removal Board: Mrs. Lewandowski advised the Board that her term on the Earth Removal Board is due to expire, and asked for a volunteer to fill her position.
Associate Member: Edd Cote advised the Board that his appointment to the position of Associate Member will expire on June 30, 2011, and he will not seek re-appointment. The Board thanked him for his service.
7:25 p.m. Public Hearing: Revisions to Zoning Bylaws Section 36
Floodplain District Requirements
Clerk Schold read the public hearing notice. The intent of the revision was explained. There was no public comment.
Motion by Gary Schold, seconded by Jeffrey Markarian, to close the public hearing, motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Gary Schold, seconded by Paul Piktelis, to recommend in favor of adopting the Flood Plain revision to Section 36 of the Millbury Zoning Bylaws (copy attached for reference), motion carried unanimously.
7:35 p.m. Minutes
Motion by Anna Lewandowski, seconded by Paul Piktelis, to approve the minutes of April 11, 2011 with revision to page 2, motion carried unanimously.,
Motion by Anna Lewandowksi, seconded by Paul Piktelis, to approve the minutes of April 25, 2011, motion carried unanimously.
7:35 p.m. Preliminary Plan Discussion: Waskie Way McCracken Road
Tony Agani from the HS&T Group explained that this property was located on the north side of McCracken Road and is 8.75 acres. He reviewed the plan, drainage and catch basin locations and stated that no waivers will be requested. Comments from the Town Planner and Tighe & Bond can be met.
Mrs. Lewandowski advised him that the town owns property in that area and it was contaminated, asking if this location has been checked for hazardous materials. She will want to see a traffic impact study and environmental analysis. Mr. Agani advised that there has been no evidence of contamination found.
Mr. Gosselin advised that the plan will require 1 foot contour lines, monuments at perimeters, and right of way easement for electric to be tied into property lines. He asked if there were any endangered species there. Mr. Agani replied that the applicant will go before the Conservation Commission, wetlands have been flagged and environmental concerns are being looked into. Mr. Gosselin asked if there were sewer or gas connections (it will be septic and wells and no gas).
Mr. Piktelis asked how long the cul de sac was (1375 feet).
Town Planner Connors advised that the culvert should be clearly depicted on the definitive plan. She asked if the Board would like to take a formal vote. Mr. Agani said that it would not be necessary he will proceed to definitive plan.
Clerk Schold read letter dated April 15, 2011 from Fire Chief Matt Belsito, addressing the roadway, cul de sac, and installation of fire protection device in residences.
Cisterns will be used, and Mr. Agani stated that he will work with the Fire Chief to assure adequate protection.
Chairman Gosselin declared a five minute recess.
8:30 p.m. Murgo Trucking, Inc., Southwest Cutoff, Site Plan and Stormwater
Permit Public Hearing, cont.
Bob Murphy was present and submitted a plan for “Bob Miller’s Way”, which was recorded with the Registry of Deeds today. Murgo Truck will now use this as its address.
Mrs. Lewandowski asked Mr. Murphy to identify where the snow storage areas were.
Motion by Jeffrey Markarian, seconded by Paul Piktelis to close the public hearing, motion carried unanimously.
Waivers:
Motion by Gary Schold, seconded by Paul Piktelis, to waive Section 12.44(a) – one foot contours. (The applicant provided one foot contours on all paved surfaces as well as spot grades where needed), motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Gary Schold, seconded by Paul Piktelis, to waive Section 12.44 ( c ) – isometric line drawing (applicant provided photographs of a similar trucking facility in Oxford, MA), motion carried unanimously.
Motion b Gary Schold, seconded by Paul Piktelis to waive Section 12.44 (d) locus plan (applicant submitted a locus plan at the scale of 1” = 1000 ‘), motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Gary Schold, seconded by Paul Piktelis, to waive Section 12. 44(o) curbing (applicant shall install vertical concrete curbing along the walkways adjacent to buildings and along the driveway entrance radii. Sloped concrete curbing shall be installed along the perimeter of the parking area), motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Gary Schold, seconded by Paul Piktelis, to grant Site Plan review under Section 12.4 of the Zoning Bylaw and a Post-construction Stormwater Management Permit under Section 16-3 of the Millbury General Bylaw, as shown on plan entitled: “Existing Conditions Plan, Owner/Applicant D. Murgo Trucking, Inc., 333A Southwest Cutoff, Route 20, Millbury, Massachusetts”, dated March 2, 2011, last revised May 5, 2011, prepared by Robert G. Murphy & Assoc., Inc, 214 Worcester Street, No. Grafton, Massachusetts, with conditions a – v, motion carried unanimously.
8:40 p.m. 13 Hayward Glen Drive, Gregory McRae, Accessory Dwelling Public Hearing cont.
Attorney Mark Donahue was present on behalf of Gregory McRae. Revisions to the original plan were discussed, and one additional change, not reflected on the plan was submitted, the basement will be removed and instead a slab or crawl space will be used.
Mr. Donahue stated that after an analysis of the neighborhood, this design is appropriate. He distributed a list of homes and their gross floor area and assessor’s maps, adding that this house will be 2620 sf when completed, used for their in-laws and consistent with the bylaws.
Attorney Howard Potash was present, representing several of the neighbors in Hayward Glen. He stated that he viewed the area with William Curley, an appraiser, who advised that there would be a 10% to 15% loss in re-sale value. Mr. Potash stated that this proposal was for a second home, will increase density, diminish property values, this is a single family neighborhood, not meant to be rental homes.
He referred to the Supreme Judicial Court case, Zoning Board of Appeals, Chatham, MA which defined the rights of abutters, and stated that objectors must show substantial harm to overturn the issuance of a special permit. He believes that the abutters can show substantial harm for the above stated reasons. In addition, this application would create congestion and derogation from the zoning bylaws as the intent would be violated. He also outlined his reasons as to why the application is not consistent with Section 46.2.2 of the Zoning Bylaws, submitting letter dated May 9, 2011 to the Board.
Mr. Potash added that it will be impossible to enforce a restriction that in-laws would remain the only tenants in the future, this can become a rental unit once created
Mr. Donahue countered by stating that this house design looks like an addition to a dwelling, the entrance is to be located in the side or rear, the unit is smaller than the restrictions of the bylaw, off street parking is available, and the town has a process in place to enforce the bylaws. It can be specified in the deed transfer that this will remain an accessory dwelling.
Mrs. Lewandowski stated that it was the Board’s responsibility to protect the stability of a neighborhood and the property value and charm of the single family neighborhood. Hayward Glen Subdivision was established through the subdivision process, and allowed only one residential structure per lot.
Carmen Rushton was present and spoke on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Robert Reidy of 5 Wingfoot Lane. He believes the Board should not approve this application and referred to the Building Inspector’s letter dated April 7, 2011 and Mr. Blackman’s April 12, 2011 letter to the Board defining habitable space. Mr. Rushton believes this definition refers to space “in a building”, singular, and was never meant for a second separate house on one lot. This is a 1292 sf, 28’ x 34’ building, how does that compute to 560 sf of habitable space, this is not possible. There is a turned staircase, a 12 x 15 foot formal foyer, which leads to 360 sf of additional floor space on the second floor, which has a ceiling over 6 feet high. There is also a 240 sf walkway/breezeway
attached to the proposed house. The tax assessor’s will never base their assessment on 560 sf. He is a realtor also. Years go 8A and 8B Ridgewood Dr. was converted to an in-law apartment, but it was within the existing basement and 1A and 1B Mayfair added an apartment but it was on top of the existing house, not adding a second house onto an existing one. The criteria of Section 46.3 states that a special permit shall be granted if its use is in harmony with the general purpose, which this is not. Property values are definitely affected. He attempted to sell a house similar to those in Hayward Glen, located on Gould Street, which was next to a duplex. It was reduced 8 times and on the market for 4 years, and although the housing market has been slow, he believes that part of the problem was also is proximity to the duplex. There was a $70,000 loss.
He further referred to the requirements of lots in a Suburban IV zone, and how this property would be 2,755 sf short of the current zoning bylaw if a new home wanted to be constructed there now.
There are alternate ways to add an accessory dwelling such as converting the existing garage, or using the existing basement.
Lee Matys, 2 Augusta Drive stated that a 10% loss would equate to $40,000 and a 15% loss would be $60,000 of his property value. He is on a fixed income and cannot absorb that type of loss. This will set an unwanted precedent for other neighborhoods.
Deborah Bruegger, 3 Wingfoot Lane, referred to the definitions included in the Millbury Zoning Bylaws, in particular Section 46.2.3, defining gross floor area, and which requires off street parking for an accessory dwelling. There is a contradiction in the existing bylaw. She also asked why the Board did not include the foundation size in its determination as defined in gross floor area definition.
Kevin Doyle, 1 Pinehurst Circle, asked if the structure would have separate utilities, it was not shown on the plan. Mr. Gosselin stated that the utilities will be fed from the main house to the accessory dwelling, including sewer.
John Bartosoweicz, 9 Hayward Glen Drive, stated that a simple call to Mass Electric can get an extra meter in the future if this becomes a rental.
Mr. Donahue stated that the Board could impose conditions of approval, which will get recorded with the Registry of Deeds. How will this reduce property values, the applicant will be spending $100,000 to improve his property. The bylaw addresses the number of parking spaces required, and the revised plan is in response to the concerns of the neighbors.
Mr. Potash asked the Board to look at the neighborhood, the style and price of the existing homes, and that this will diminish the values there. A special permit is discretionary on the part of the Board, that is why it is before the Board.
Mr. Gosselin stated that this neighborhood has no covenants, no homeowners group. Other areas of the state have separate living quarters for maids or nannies and this does not diminish property values there. The bylaw was intended to stop illegal apartments. He said he spoke with the building inspector and was advised that if this was an addition without an apartment he could get a building permit even at this size.
Mrs. Lewandowski stated that an accessory dwelling should be that – it should be within the existing house. In the adjacent neighborhood a multifamily special permit was turned down. She does not believe there is sufficient controls to regulate who lives in the apartment in the future. It was not the intention of this bylaw to create the ability to add another house and you cannot compare this to the communities with housing for nannies. She agreed that this bylaw must be revised.
Joanne D’Amore, 12 Hayward Glen Drive, was concerned that at the previous meeting the Planning Board was going to vote on a special permit without the plans being submitted and thought that comments made by some of the Board members were inappropriate.
There was no further public comment.
Motion to close the public hearing by Gary Schold, seconded by Jeffrey Markarian, motion carried unanimously.
The Board began discussing the application.
At this time, Attorney Donahue, on behalf of the applicant, asked to be allowed to withdraw this application, without prejudice. He did so in writing.
Motion to allow the withdrawal of this application, without prejudice, by Gary Schold, seconded by Jeffrey Markarian, motion carried unanimously.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Paul Piktelis, seconded by Jeffrey Markarian, motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan M. Dean
ATTEST:
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
| 
