MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Karen Paré, John Baker, Patricia Halpin, Vincent Vignaly, and Elise Wellington
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Gerardo Sarli, Julian Votruba, and John Hadley
Ms. Paré opened the regular meeting at 7:25 p.m.
ZONING CHANGE: Mr. Vignaly moved to submit the 10-taxpayer petition to change the Schedule of Use Section (Section 3.2.F. Line 20) of the zoning to the Selectmen for inclusion in the May Town Meeting Warrant. This zoning change will require a Special Permit for businesses, other than common victualers, operating between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. (Current zoning only requires a Special Permit if operating between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.) The motion was seconded by Mr. Baker and passed unanimously.
At 7:30 p.m. the continued public hearing on revision of the subdivision regulations was re-opened. At 7:45 p.m. the regular meeting reopened.
GERARDO’S SITE PLAN REVIEW (CONT.): Representing the applicant, Mr. Votruba presented the revised plans, dated January 25, 2007 along with a new sheet showing a turning template for delivery trucks at the rear loading dock. Speaking to concerns expressed in VHB’s February 9, 2007 review letter, Mr. Votruba said that the plans show the area of the building that will be used for sales and the area that will be used for storage, along with the parking required for such uses. He said that the 32 parking spaces shown exceed the number of required spaces by two. The board examined the turning template, which showed that a 30’ delivery truck would have to make a 5-point turn and go over the gravel in the buffer zone to turn around and exit from the parking lot. Board members expressed
concern that this design was very tight and showed poor engineering. Mr. Sarli said that it was the DCR’s fault because they would not let him put parking in the buffer zone and he expressed regret that he had not fought the DCR over this issue since the DCR has given variances for parking in the buffer zone to other applicants. Mr. Sarli also said that he does not use 30’ delivery trucks and only uses 24’ trucks. He plans to go after half of each of the abutting “paper” streets, which would allow him to exit onto one of them rather than onto Rt. 12, lessening the tight turnaround problem.
Following a phone conversation with Wayne Amico of VHB, Ms. Paré said that VHB feels the drainage is adequate since the impervious area has actually been reduced. Mr. Baker asked if there are any building overhangs anywhere, and Mr. Sarli replied No.
Ms. Paré suggested that the board issue the same conditions to the site plan approval that it issued for Mr. Sarli’s previous plan but add a condition banning trucks longer than 24’ from the parking lot. Ms. Halpin so moved and Mr. Vignaly seconded her motion. All members voted in favor of this motion, except Mr. Baker, who abstained, so the motion passed. He explained that he was very frustrated with Mr. Sari’s engineer because the Planning Board had advised him when he first came in with a site plan to go to the DCR before going through Site Plan Review with the Planning Board. Because he did not follow this advice, the plan has had to undergo extensive revisions, costing the applicant a lot of money and wasting a lot of our board’s time. Ms. Paré informed the
applicant that she would draft this Site Plan Approval Certificate so the board will sign it at our next meeting.
JOHN HADLEY – ADDITION OF LIGHTS TO POLES AT 20 WEST BOYLSTON STREET: Ms. Paré, a neighbor, recused herself from this part of the meeting, and vice-chair Halpin conducted the meeting. Mr. Hadley reported that he had spoken to Darryn Goodnow at the Light Plant about the two lights that the Light Plant is allowing him to place on two Light Plant poles adjacent to the northern side of his parking lot. Mr. Goodnow told him that the height and angle of these new lights, which are being added to make this parking lot safer, can be adjusted. The new lights are high-pressure sodium. Mr. Vignaly moved that the Planning Board accept the addition of these two 250 watt bulbs, placed at a maximum height of 20 feet, and with the understanding that corrections can be made to their height and angle
if their glare goes onto neighbors’ properties. His motion was seconded by Ms. Wellington and passed unanimously.
ANR – NOEL-SYDNEY AND DONALD DAVIS, 1 SHREWSBURY STREET: Two copies of Form A and the required $400 fee were received from the Davises, who wish to divide their lot at 1 Shrewsbury Street into two lots. The two lots have the required frontage and are on a public way. The motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to approve this ANR Plan (022807-81P1) and six copies of the plans were signed.
CINGULAR WIRELESS – CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION: Having heard from Building Inspector Brodeur that all Conditions of Approval of this Site Plan have been met, the Planning Board signed its Certificate of Completion.
DRAFT STORM WATER BYLAW: The board discussed the storm water bylaw drafted by DPW Director Westerling. Members were surprised that the Planning Board was designated as the storm water bylaw enforcement authority and agreed that the board could not fill this role. It was pointed out that in Holden and Boylston the Conservation Commission fills this role. Mr. Baker looked at the six minimum storm water control measures described in the bylaw and noted that four of them are being done by the DPW, not the Planning Board. These are: #3 – illicit discharge detection and elimination; #4– construction site storm water runoff control; #5 – post-construction storm water management in new development and re-development; and #6 – pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal
operations. Ms. Halpin pointed out that the Planning Board is an elected board (with no staff) and cannot take on this additional work, and Mr. Vignaly pointed out that the Planning Board does not have the time to inspect and monitor construction sites and to send out violation notices. It was agreed that the board should urge the Selectmen to designate the DPW as the enforcement authority, not the Planning Board, at the public hearing on March 9. Ms. Paré, Mr. Baker, and perhaps Mr. Vignaly will attend this hearing.
ETHICS WORKSHOP: Ms. Paré reported that Mr. Vignaly and Ms. Halpin attended the February 26th Conflict of Interest Workshop, which Kopelman & Paige gave at the Town Administrator’s request. Mr. Vignaly asked whether our board, three of whose members are members of Lady of Good Counsel Church, can do a Site Plan Review of the proposed church expansion. Kopelman & Paige advised him to file a disclosure with the Town Clerk that he is a member of this church, which he did. He gave disclosure forms to Ms. Halpin and Mr. Baker. Mr. Vignaly also reported that a board member cannot represent anyone before his own board, including himself. Board members having a conflict of interest were advised that they should leave the room when such topics were under
discussion.
CRESCENT VILLAGE, 19 CRESCENT STREET – CH. 40 B PROPOSAL: Board members discussed the Project Eligibility application under the Housing Starts program for Crescent Village, where 24 townhouse units are proposed for this 4.2 acre site. Six of these units will be “affordable.” Approximately one acre is wetlands. Although the back portion of this land is zoned Single Family Residential, the developer is allowed to include this SR land when figuring the number of multifamily units that can be built on the portion of the lot that is zoned General Residence and Business. Ms. Wellington said she had gotten this opinion from the state’s zoning expert, Don Schmidt. Board members expressed concern about the density of the project. They noted inaccuracies of the zoning
shown on the plan, the claim that the area is “blighted,” and that public transportation serves this area. Storm water management and having only one access to the site were also concerns. In response to the Selectmen’s request for Planning Board input, Ms. Paré will draft a letter to the Selectmen. She reported that she had met with the Town Administrator, Assessor, ZBA chair, and Housing Partnership chair to see if the town meets any of the “Safe Harbors” (which allow a town to have a moratorium on Ch. 40B housing) and it does not appear that the town does. Ms. Paré prepared an assessment document.
HOUSING PARTNERSHIP: Ms. Halpin reported that this committee met the prior night and is working to complete the Housing Production Plan. Housing Partnership chair Michelle Harris feels the committee can write this plan, but Ms. Halpin feels the committee needs to hire a consultant to write it. It is supposed to be completed by March.
CHANGE OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATE: Because two members will be away on March 28th, the board agreed to meet on March 21st instead.
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
| 
