TOWN OF PRINCETON
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
September 5, 2012
The meeting opened at 7:32 p.m. Present were: Chairman Jerry Gannelli, Jon Fudeman, John Mirick, Ann Neuburg and Tom Daly
Administrative Business
Board reviewed minutes of regular meeting from August 22 including minutes from public hearings for Special Permits for Gates and Hebb. John M. noted that Gates hearing needed to include the phrase “with the usual conditions” in the approval. Board voted all in favor to approve all minutes with that minor edit inserted. The board reviewed the mail.
Procedures for conducting public hearings were reviewed, with reference to “Town of Princeton Procedural Rules & Regulations Governing the Planning Board” including Sect. IX, 4, and other sections. It was noted that postage is not required to be certified mail unless it is specifically stated in the regs, and “delivery notice” may be used instead.
Jerry noted that the list of conditions for a Special Permit for Accessory Apartments does not include one about meeting fire/safety codes, for cases in which an apartment is pre-existing, no new construction occurring and a building permit is not pulled. This will be an issue when 2-unit dwellings change ownership and the new owner is responsible for a S.P. if the property continues to be used as two dwellings. Board requested that whoever conducts inspections for these fire/safety codes should be invited to an upcoming meeting.
The Ethics Commission discussion continued from the last meeting, and Tom described a lengthy conversation he had with Amy Nee from the commission. She said there may have been procedural errors in the way the original Worcester Road PAC [Project Advisory Committee] was appointed. Mainly, anyone appointed should have submitted a written disclosure that would declare their potential conflict of interest, to be documented with the Ethics Commission.
The PB had two choices: to consider that the PAC report may be considered unbiased and its use has minimal risk and the recommended actions could move forward; or start all over with a new appointment of the PAC members who would file disclosures within the correct timeframe. The risk would be if a complaint was filed that someone was either harmed or benefitted by a subsequent action [zoning change]. An adjudicatory action could result in damages being awarded.
The other ethics issue was whether PB or committee members could participate as citizens in the meeting concerning the project. Tom reported that Amy Nee said board members must identify themselves as such and state that their views were their own, and they were not acting on behalf of any other board, committee or individual [cannot act as an agent for anyone else].
Jerry read aloud an email from Bob Fletcher, 228 Worcester Road that came in on Sept. 4, that noted the existence of ethics issues around PAC and the project. It will be forwarded to PB. Tom said the Ethics Commission could respond in a number of ways and distributed Sect. 21-A.
Question will be: Should PB ask Selectmen to re-appoint a PAC, or go forward with the final report, assuming it’s not “tainted.” Another, third option was to only use the report from the focus group which used volunteers and an advisor from CMRPC—there would be no ethics issues without an officially appointed committee. Jon F. said much groundwork had been done and perhaps just use the focus group report—suggests appointment with BOS to discuss options. A request for about a half-hour on the selectmen agenda will be submitted.
Town resident Jim Comer, who lives on the corner of Worcester Road and Hickory Drive, made a few comments, extolling PB to let people make a living…and leave zoning as it is.
Board discussed potential for incorporating GIS standards for digital plan submission with help from CMRPC. To take advantage of free service hours [offered annually] the PB rep needs to attend their quarterly commission meetings—next one is Sept. 13. Jerry is current rep and Rick may be alternate for Princeton. Also, planning commission may create a wall map for the town that includes parcels and zoning layers. Free service hours may be available.
The possibility of raising/adjusting fees. It was noted that comparisons with other towns had been made, and Princeton was in line with others with a few exceptions, such as the $100 fee plus $50/lot for preliminary plan submission, which was a $200 fee elsewhere, although a preliminary requires much less work/cost than a definitive. Ann reported on a major project in Holden where the PB negotiated for $1,000/lot fee from the developer, which was used to rebuild an historic barn.
PB discussed issue of town acceptance of Isaacs Way, and whether the road construction meets specs as per definitive plan and town regs. Question is whether the top coat is actually 1.5” thick, as required. Receipts from landowner Clayton Mosher must be submitted that provide proof.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 PM. All were in favor.
Respectfully Submitted
___________________
Marie Auger
Administrative Assistant
Referenced Documents:
Email from Bob Fletcher
Memo from The Shuris Group
“Procedural Rules & Regulations Governing the Planning Board” page 20
Page from Ethics Commission 268A: Section 21 (a) – (c)
| 
