MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING
HELD SEPTEMBER 12, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Patricia Halpin, John Baker, Karen Paré, Lawrence Salate, Vincent Vignaly
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Muir, John Hadley, Dave Eckhardt, Maryann Schelin, Bobby Matthews, Barbara Wyatt, Michael Kane, Chris Rucho, Patrick Healy, Brenda Bowman, Kathryn Callahan, Leon Gaumond, Barry Esteves, Mindy Esteves, Lincoln Barton, David Mercurio, Paula Mercurio, Danielle Erickson, Edwin Erickson, Gary M. Erickson, Matthew Mulvey, Allen Phillips, George O’Toole, Raymond Quinn
The Chairperson, Ms. Halpin, opened the regular meeting of the Planning Board at 7:10 p.m.
CHECKER REAL ESTATE LLC: VOTE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Mr. Vignaly, it was unanimously voted to submit for inclusion on the Warrant for Town Meeting, the proposal to rezone 0.87 acres of land from Single Residence to Business Residence, that is located on the northerly side of Shrine Avenue and approximately 300 feet westerly of West Boylston Street, belonging to Checker Real Estate LLC.
The Chairperson then opened the second public hearing of the evening. At 7:45 p.m. after the closing of the second public hearing of the evening, the regular meeting resumed.
VOTE TO CREATE A NEW “COMMERCIAL/LIMITED INDUSTRIAL” ZONING DISTRICT
Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Mr. Baker, it was unanimously voted to submit for inclusion on the Warrant for Town Meeting, the proposal to create a new “Commercial/Limited Industrial” Zoning District. Ms. Halpin thanked the members of the Economic Development Task Force for their support and noted that it is important that they, and the members of the Board of Selectmen, continue to speak on behalf of this proposal.
The Chairperson then opened the third public hearing of the evening. At 8:50 p.m., the regular meeting against resumed, after closing this final public hearing.
VOTE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP: NORTH OF RAYMONF HUNTINGTON HIGHWAY
Ms. Paré remarked that this land will not remain undeveloped and it is in the best interests of the town as a whole to rezone the site now. Mr. Baker stated that he is not sure that it is necessary to rezone now, citing traffic issues and the expectation of the homeowner to that his property will remain in the same. Mr. Salate agreed that people buy property with a certain intention, but there are serious revenue issues now in town and the development of this land would be better for everyone as “Commercial/Limited Industrial” than as residential. It is a tough decision whether to support this proposal, he added. Mr. Vignaly stated that residential development has a higher traffic burden. On the whole, a “Commercial/Limited Industrial” District would generate less traffic without
limiting the possibility for single-family housing construction. The Planning Board is not looking for a big industrial area. Since no one seems totally against the proposal, Mr. Vignaly stated that he is inclined to let the proposal go to Town Meeting. Ms. Halpin agreed that it is a difficult issue but she agrees with the EDTF, whose members have searched to find a revenue source. She added that the pressure of the Planning Board is tht the vote must take place tonight so that the proposal can be on the Warrant for Town Meeting.
Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Mr. Baker, it was voted in favor, four ayes, to submit for inclusion on the Warrant for Town Meeting, the proposal to rezone from Single Residence District to Commercial/Limited Industrial District a triangular shaped parcel of approximately 352 acres, bounded on the south by Raymond Huntington Highway, the west by the Holden town line and the north by the Sterling town line. Mr. Baker voted no. He noted that the EDTF and the town needs to look for more immediate revenue streams. Rezoning this area is not a panacea and development here will take years to generate revenue for the town.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PLAN FOR TIVNAN DRIVE
Mr. Matthias Mulvey and Mr. George O’Toole from Bay Colony Recovery attended the meeting, as well as Raymond Quinn from SITEC Environmental in order to discuss a proposed long-term contract between the town and Bay Colony Recovery for the clearing of approximately 7 acres of land for future athletic fields and construction of a 21,000 sf public works facility as well as a fully enclosed Municipal Solid Waste (“MSW”) and Construction and Demolition (“C&D”) recycling facility. Prior to the start of the discussion, Mr. Baker determined that the meeting was for informational purposes only and that Site Plan Review will be required for these projects. Mr. Gaumond spoke on behalf of the Board of Selectmen who will be bringing the proposal before Town Meeting. The plan for the site showed that the
entrance for the recycling facility will be directly across from one of the the entrances to the Worcester County House of Corrections on Tivnan Drive. Parcels A and B on the plan are the property of the Municipal Lighting Plant. Parcel B consists of land in the Industrial and Conservation Districts. The deed to the site stipulates that it be used for municipal and recreational purposes.
The Board of Selectmen went “out to bid” for proposals for the site twice and Bay Colony Recovery was the sole respondent. Their proposal fits the needs of the town’s building and recreational requirements. The current plan is still preliminary and was looked at prior to May Town Meeting. There will be an informational meeting for townspeople in the next few weeks, before the October Town Meeting.
Mr. Ray Quinn, the engineer for the project, stated that the recycling facility will be built at the rear of the land where it is zoned for Industrial use. The recycling building will be 45,000 sf, handling municipal waste, which will be transferred again to incinerators and land fills. Demolition and construction materials such as wood, brick, and asphalt will be recycled on site for reuse. The facility will be highly mechanized. A long permitting process will be required and might possibly require a MEPA. Issues are traffic, odor, dust and water. Reviews will be conducted as well with the DEP (for stormwater and site design) and the Board of Health as well as other local permits.
Mr. Gaumond stated that this proposal is a “win” on many fronts. The town will share a percentage of the fees collected and its municipal waste will be accepted there at no charge, which will “free up” funds currently expended for waste disposal. It will also help to solve the municipal buildings problem, by allowing the town to acquire a DPW building at no cost and will add much-needed athletic fields. Ms. Paré noted that traffic will be a big issue and Mr. Mulvey responded that traffic will be regulated and vendors not allowed back if they violate traffic restrictions. Mr. Gaumond noted that this is not a highly residential area and Selectman Phillips added that there will be a plan in place to take care of traffic and noise when the deal is finalized. No hazardous materials will
be allowed to be transported there.
Mr. Baker stated that “one of the top five things he wouldn’t want in his town” is this type of recycling facility. He questioned what assurance the town will have that the facility will be maintained. Mr. Mulvey stated that a bond would be posted to cover this problem and Mr. Quinn stated that the state requires that towns be given assurances that these facilities are maintained as long as they are functioning. Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Board will deal with Site Plan Review issues, such as assuring that the fields are constructed correctly. Mr. Phillips noted that the contract is still in negotiation and many issues need to be ironed out. Mr. Gaumond stated that the Board of Selectmen is united in wanting playing field to be constructed on the level portion of the land. It is a
requirement that is critical to the future development of the land. Mr. Baker stated that the biggest thing is to “be a good neighbor” as far as visually, and controlling traffic and noise. Mr. Quinn noted that the recycling facility will be elevated in a wooded area away from the playing fields. People using the athletic fields will park in the lot for the DPW building. Ms. Halpin suggested that “unwanted neighbors” at the facility across the street might be considered for employment. Mr. Mulvey stated his intention to hire 40 workers. His business associate, Mr. O’Toole, was involved in the development of the Graham Waste facility in Cohasset, MA and has 20 years experience in the recycling business. Interior operations are highly controlled by the state. Water will be sprayed to keep down the dust and nails will be mechanically removed from the wood. Markets will be sought where the recycled
material can be sent. Wood is being reused in the production of plastic.
Mr. Baker inquired where the transfer station will be located. Mr. Quinn stated that it will be in the building, with dumping occurring on the floor. Mr. Baker cautioned that the debris not end up blowing around outside the building. Mr. Rucho stated that he had visited a similar facility where the exterior was clean. Mr. Gaumond noted that municipal solid waste will not be the focus of the facility. Such waste will be collected only from West Boylston. He added that he toured the Millbury facility and it was also clean on the exterior. Mr. Baker inquired whether townspeople can drop off their waste at any time and Mr. Phillips stated that this is still being negotiated but there will probably be a designted day. Mr. Salate inquired about noise abatement plans. Mr. Quinn stated that there
will be a pre- and post-construction study and that screen will plentiful. Ms. Paré noted that there is not much distance from the site to the Angell Brook and Hillside Village projects. Ms. Halpin inquired whether a computerized “visual” could be created for the residents of Hillside Village so that they can see how their view will be affected and Mr. Mulvey agreed that it would be a good idea to do this. Mr. Vignaly noted that there is not a lot of screening on the rock slope and is concerned about the western view. He will need to see screening and stormwater details.
Mr. Mulvey stated that the permitting process takes about 1-1/2 years. Ms. Halpin inquired whether the facility will be similar to the recently-opened one at Fort Devens. Mr. Mulvey noted that it is similar and they are all enclosed due to the many recent changes in the state law regulating these facilities. Mr. Gaumond announced that an informational meeting is planned for (possibly) October 1st. Mr. Vignaly cautioned that answers to the negotiating points be prepared before then. Mr. Gaumond stated that the contract will be reviewed by Kopelman & Paige.
| 
