MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING
OCTOBER 11, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Paré, John Baker, Vincent Vignaly, Elise Wellington
MEMBERS ABSENT: Patricia Halpin
OTHERS PRESENT: None
VOTE TO APPROVE PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW CHANGES
Upon motion of Mr. Vignaly and second of Mr. Baker, it was unanimously voted to approve and recommend to town meeting Articles 15 and 16 as written in the Warrant (appended).
TIMBERWOOD ESTATES: AS-BUILT REVIEW/ROAD ACCEPTANCE
Mr. Brian MacEwen from GRAZ Engineering forwarded a letter indicating that the contractor for Timberwood Estates holds no liens against Ashwood Development Co. By letter dated October 3, 2006, VHB recommended that the Planning Board accept the road. The only impediment to acceptance of the road by the town is the request by Mr. Westerling to mow the brush in the detention basin which the applicant has indicated will be done today. Upon motion of Mr. Vignaly and second of Mr. Baker, it was unanimously voted to recommend to town meeting that the town accept Stillwater Heights Drive (Article 19 of the Warrant).
MERRIMOUNT: DISCUSSION OF REMAINING ISSUES
Mr. Flagg submitted two documents concerning Flagg R.V. and the Merrimount subdivision. The first is a letter from his contractor, James E. Simpson Excavating Co., Inc., stating that the company has been paid in full and has no liens against the subdivision. The second is a copy of a memo to Rich Bialecki, Gallo Video, stating that Flagg will no longer be renting to Gallo Video as of October 25, 2006.
A discussion ensued concerning responsibility for Merriounmt drainage and road maintenance during the winter, even if Mr. Esposito owns the land. Mr. Vignaly stated that the Planning Board needs Mr. Flagg’s commitment to maintain the road. Mr. Baker stated that a bond and some other legal document is necessary, stating that Mr. Flagg will maintain the road or transfer that responsibility to the new owner. A letter should be submitted by Mr. Flagg telling the Board his intentions and any Purchase and Sales agreement should state the transfer of any maintenance responsibility. Mr. Vignaly stated that the Board holds a bond, but needs ongoing conditions for road maintenance, especially if contractors will be on the site, to provide for emergency access. The as-builts are complete, but a question remains
whether $15,000 is enough for the bond amount. There may also be a need to maintain the detention basin. Ms. Paré stated that the basin on Lot 2 must be maintained until the town accepts the roadway, at which point the town will take responsibility for the maintenance of the basin. (This must be stated in ongoing conditions).
INSPECTION REPORTS
Angell Brook: Mr. Vignaly noted that ongoing construction in the back of the project could cause erosion. He suggested that there be an inspection in a few weeks to ensure that the site is stable for winter. If there is only “building” construction work, and no lot clearing taking place during the winter, then consideration could be given to suspending VHB inspections until spring. Mr. Vignaly will email Mr. Stati and respond to his request to suspend inspections.
Gates Brook: Still no report on when the top course will be installed. Ms. Paré noted that, when future condominium site applications are received, the Planning Board needs to make sure that the Building Inspector enforces the current zoning and the site has been completed before units are sold.
Manor: Mr. Vignaly will check with Mr. Antonio Fotiades and see if work has been completed on the amended site plan. The Building Inspector, and not VHB, will do the final inspection.
Century Farm: By letter dated October 2, 2006, VHB responded to Ross Associates proposed revisions to the drainage basins. VHB agrees that lining Basin #3 with 1 – 2” of impervious material is an acceptable solution so that the basin can hold water. VHB recommends that the Planning Board inspect the plantings screening the basins after they have been installed to guarantee that they “accomplish the same objective that they were intended for (i.e. detention basin screening).” These changes should be recorded on the as-built plans. Upon motion of Mr. Vignaly and second of Mr. Baker, it was unanimously voted to approve the minor changes to the subdivision plan as detailed above and not require the filing of an application for an amended subdivision plan review with the stipulation
that the changes be recorded on the as-built plans and the plantings be subject to Planning Board approval after they are installed.
D&S Realty (Hartwell Street Parking Lot Expansion): The applicant has requested that landscape islands not be required to be installed because they will be difficult to maintain and cause problems with snow plowing . Mr. Vignaly stated that the islands are required by the Zoning Bylaws and serve a useful purpose to provide shade and prevent vehicles from driving too quickly or recklessly through the parking lot. The pavement that was installed needs to be cut out and the islands put in. Mr. Baker agreed that it is a zoning requirement and the islands were a part of the approved, original plan. The question is whether there needs to be an amended site plan review and public hearing, or should the Planning Board simply deny the request. Ms. Wellington noted that every ten parking spaces
require one tree, and there are 13 trees shown on the plan, which is the correct number for 129 parking spaces. Ms. Paré will send a letter to D&S denying their request.
NEXTEL APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT
Nothing has been heard from Mr. White concerning his application for a Special Permit for Nextel to co-locate a communications tower on Lawrence Street. He has not attended any meetings to set the date for a public hearing; his application is incomplete and he has not responded to the letter sent on September 29th by Ms. Paré requesting input on the status of his application. The Planning Board, therefore, set the date of November 8, 2006 for the public hearing. As required, Mr. White must advertise the public hearing and notify the abutters, or, he may withdraw the application. Ms. Paré will again email Mr. White and attach her letter of September 29th.
TOWN WIDE PLANNIING COMMITTEE MEETING
Ms. Paré attended the recent Town Wide Planning Committee (“TWPC”) meeting to present the “2006 Master Plan Implementation Report” on behalf of the Planning Board. Ms. Wellington represents the Planning Board on the TWPC and attended the meeting as well. Since the Planning Board receives no town funding, the need for a new zoning map and a complete review of the Zoning Bylaws needs to be funded through some other source. Ms. Paré reported that Mr. Gaumond suggested that the Planning Board sponsor a special article for the May town meeting requesting funds for the zoning map. In 2003, the Planning Board received estimates for this project in the range of $6,000. The Board needs to get a current estimate for this project from CMRPC before the May town meeting. Mr. Baker stated
that it is not practical or possible to put stone bounds on the map. Mr. Vignaly stated that the Board could discuss the project with the head of the GIS department at Clark University. Ms. Paré stated that a proposal needs to be ready by April 1st.
The topic of the issue of managing growth and the need for a water and sewer policy was discussed as well, Ms. Wellington stated. Mr. Gaumond intends to have the Water and Sewer Department representatives come to a future meeting of the TWPC to discuss a policy. No data is available on the actual daily flow from the sewers, Mr. Vignaly stated. There are agreements with Holden and the Blackstone facilities on the rate to be charged. Ms. Paré stated that she would like members of the Planning Board to attend the TWPC meeting when Water and Sewer Department representatives are present.
COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT
On November 2nd, Dr. and Mrs. Halpin will host a gathering at their home for members of the community to discuss their support of the Community Preservation Act (“CPA”). They have asked for input from various town boards concerning their support. Ms. Wellington stated that she supports the CPA theoretically because the town needs the additional funding which is now going to other towns that have passed the CPA. She noted that the town of West Boylston has problems finding volunteers to sit on town boards and queried who will sit on the committee that decides how the funds will be distributed. Ms. Wellington added that additional funding could help with the implementation of the Master Plan and with the goals of the Open Space Plan. Funds could be used to acquire more space to protect the
town wells and to maintain the swimming pool and recreational fields.
Ms. Paré noted that the Housing Trust can accept funds from the CPA. Only one member of the Board of Selectmen is required to sit on the CPA board, she noted. Mr. Vignaly also agreed that the CPA is a good idea for the town and wondered who appoints members to the CPA board and whether special interest groups in town will lobby for membership. Ms. Wellington stated that the law is specific about who is a member of this board. Mr. Baker says he is an advocate of “matching funds” programs and pointed out that during the next several years, the majority of town funds will need to go to the construction of new municipal buildings, so over the long term, the CPA will help the town acquire the “extras” that it needs.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT: SUPPORT OF ARTICLES
The Planning Board will take no position on Articles 1 – 7. Article 8, “Authorization to Appropriate Funds for a Needs Assessment/Feasibility Study” for municipal buildings generated a discussion. Mr. Vignaly noted that there has been little information available from the Municipal Building Committee and no public hearings have been held to get input from members of the community. He did add that this request is not for “just another study”, but to get cost estimates and proceed with the next step in the process. Ms. Wellington noted that the TWPC supports this Article, but the Master Plan calls for a “town center”, locating the town hall where the DPW building currently stands. It seems that the vision of a town center is being dumped, she stated, because the
Municipal Building Committee is proposing instead to construct a new town hall where the Mixter Building is now located. Ms. Paré noted that the DPW building and surrounding land are apparently not large enough for town hall and there is little room for expansion.
Article 9. “Appropriation of Funds for Town-Wide Planning Committee” seeks $15,000 for the TWPC to conduct a citizen’s survey. Ms. Wellington stated that the TWPC did conduct a survey, indicating that the townspeople want to retain the small town feeling and open space. Mr. Gaumond has stated that a survey is a “snapshot” of needs and opinions that needs to be revisited every five years. Ms. Wellington explained that the Town Administrator would like this survey to be a part of a performance measurement of the town departments and she queried why this is being underwritten by the TWPC.
Upon motion of Mr. Vignaly and second of Ms. Wellington, it was unanimously voted to support Article 11 which establishes an Affordable Housing Trust Fund. This Fund should have been included as part of the Incentive Housing Bylaw that was passed last spring. Upon motion of Mr. Baker and second of Ms. Wellington, it was unanimously voted to support Article 13, Acceptance of MGL Chapter 39, Section 23D (the Mullen Act). Articles 18 and 19, acceptance of Chino Avenue and Stillwater Heights Drive, have already been discussed and voted to approve by the Planning Board.
FRANKLIN STREET CHAPTER 40B PROJECT
Members were notified of the MEPA walk the day it occurred. The Building Inspector was asked to sign a letter to the Mass. Commonwealth Development Department confirming that “any applicable zoning changes and permits” have been obtained by FWC Charitable Enterprises. It is not known whether Mr. Breagy signed the letter. This letter is apparently part of the requirements of the comprehensive plan but several Planning Board members had questioned whether this letter (drafted by the developer) should be signed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Hillside Village Conservation Restriction: Ms. Wellington presented to the meeting a draft letter to the Conservation Commission, requesting their help in completing a “Field Report” so that the application will be complete and receive approval of the state Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. She explained in the letter the lengthy process undergone by the Planning Board, Keystone Development and the West Boylston Land Trust in attempting to get this matter resolved. The Planning Board approved of the draft letter, which will be signed by Ms. Paré and sent to the Conservation Commission.
Meola Property, West Boylston Street: Ms. Paré received an email from a Mr. Don Benoit who plans to lease space in the Meola Building on West Boylston Street (which recently underwent Site Plan Review) to offer EMT and health study courses. Ms. Paré sent an email to the Building Inspector questioning whether there will be enough parking and whether this rental constitutes a “change of use”. If there is enough parking, Ms. Paré contended, then she does not support the need for Site Plan Review. If, in the future, additional space is rented requiring more parking, then Site Plan Review will probably be necessary unless the tenants can show a viable plan for shared parking.
Pheasant Hill Estates Request for Signed Covenant: This item will be discussed at the next meeting, provided documentation is submitted by the applicant’s attorney.
Mass. Federation of Planning and Appeals Boards will hold its annual meeting on October 28th.
Landscaping Company (corner of Chapman and West Boylston Street): Ms. Paré sent a letter to the Building Inspector on October 3rd from which she has yet to receive a response, concerning the need for Site Plan Review for the landscaping company that has already constructed a building on the corner of Chapman Ave. and West Boylston Street.
MINUTES/BILLS
Invoices were submitted for payment to the Telegram & Gazette as well as VHB for engineering review services. Upon motion of Ms. Wellington and second of Mr. Baker, it was unanimously voted to accept as amended the Minutes of the September 27, 2006 Meeting of the Planning Board, as amended, and to accept as written the Minutes of the Planning Board Executive Session Held September 27, 2006 on the Gallo Video – ZBA Decision. At 9:15 p.m., upon motion of Ms. Wellington and second of Mr. Baker, it was unanimously voted to adjourn.
| 
