MINUTES OF THE WEST BOYLSTON PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FEBRUARY 27, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Patricia Halpin, Karen Pare, Larry Salate, John Baker, Vincent Vignaly
ABSENT: Sue Abramson
OTHERS PRESENT: Martin Israel, Brenda Bowman
The meeting was opened at 7:04
Meadow Brook As Builts
Mr. Israel stated that the engineer will survey the site and submit as-builts as required in the approval.
Israel Lot on Meadow Brook Drive
Mr. Israel also owns Lot 30 on Meadow Brook Drive, which is 0.32 acres and is an existing non-conforming lot. Based on this information the Planning Board agreed that he would be able to build a single-family house on the lot. He stated he would be building an affordable home, but the Board explained that the 40B standard does not really reference the price.
ONE SEVENTY-FIVE LLC APPROVAL
The board discussed the approval under Site Plan Review. Ms. Pare noted that a statement that this Site Plan Approval is not a Special Permit for Business Center should be included. Mr. Vignaly stated concern that this project did not follow the standard review process since there was not a full engineering review and his concerns over the Business Center question have not been adequately addressed. He stated that the Planning Board needs to be consistent in its application of the regulations.
Mr. Baker disagreed and reviewed the process that occurred. He and Ms Halpin believe that the 2003 memo of the interpretation was not clear and that Mr. McCormick could have not even applied for a Site Plan Review. They agreed that the process was not great but
Planning Board Minutes -2-
Feb. 27, 2008
we got a Site Plan Review, albeit a limited one, but a public hearing, and the opportunity to condition the approval. The Board signed the permit.
Discussion of the Site Plan Review
Ms. Pare noted that the interpretation that the Planning Board has used for Change of Use has been: If the current use needed X number of spaces, and the proposed use requires Y number of spaces, then a Site Plan Review is needed for a Change of Use when the number of proposed needed spaces exceeds the number of existing needed spaces by15 or more.
Mr. Salate voiced concern of how this interpretation will be applied to VFW. Mr. Baker responded that he believes that the wording should be changed to state that if the number of parking spaces to be constructed involves 5 or more ‘additional’ spaces, then the Site Plan Review is needed. Mr. Baker also suggested that trying to fix past wrongs would be difficult
Ms. Pare thought the issue of Changed Uses still should center around the ‘need’ for the parking, not whether the site already had more parking than was necessary at this time. Further discussion of having a “limited” review followed and Mr. Vignaly stated that the existing laws are working, but the addition of a statement that a request for waivers would be accepted for some smaller projects. The discussion then ensued regarding setting a trigger for these. Ms. Pare said that even asking for waivers under current regulations is expensive because of the engineering fees. Mr. Salate suggested using waivers and being clear with our engineer about what is needed.
Mr. Baker reminded the Board that the reason for Site Plan Review is to protect the Town and towns-people’s interests and equity for the Town, not to save developers’ money. Mr. Vignaly emphasized that the Zoning By-Laws should be applied whether Site Plan Review is done by the Planning Board or just a Building Permit is issued by the Building Inspector. In either case the laws apply equally. Ms. Halpin suggested that we need to repeat this statement to the Building Inspector because he says he deals with issues on the “inside” of buildings, while the Planning Board is “outside”.
Ms. Pare suggested that the Board should contact Town Counsel for an interpretation of Business Centers. The Planning Board has asked the Building Inspector to check on three sites relative to this: Marcello on Chapman Avenue, 175 LLC on West Boylston Street, and the Jakes/West Boylston Flower shop on West Boylston Street.
Ms. Halpin began discussion of her drafted Site Plan Review section revisions. Mr. Baker said the Planning Board should keep current regulations as much as possible. He wanted to limit the changes to a better definition of Change of Use and add the phrase regarding 5 additional constructed parking spaces. Ms. Pare noted that the parking numbers under a Change of Use was intended to address Intensity of Use. In Sterling, if more than 500 square feet of building is proposed, then they need Site Plan Review.
Planning Board Minutes -3-
Feb. 27, 2008
Mr. Baker will prepare a draft of the changes that will blend the Purpose wording, add a land clearing trigger, add Change of Use definition, add trigger for uses requiring at least 15 spaces.
Status of Merrimount Subdivision Application for Road Acceptance
The Board reviewed Attorney Suschyk’s email. VHB does not need to review the Utilities and easement conveyance and acceptance. Ms. Halpin will notify Mr. Suschyk of the problem with the O&M plan, noted by John Westerling, that the town does not accept appurtenances outside of the Right of Way. Mr. Flagg needs to correct this.
Cell Tower - Lawrence Street
The plans for the driveway upgrade of the access have not been submitted. There is a question of whether the antennae previously proposed have already been installed. Ms. Pare will talk to Mike Coveney to get plans as required. There are major issues with impact to abutters and the Board needs to respond to the abutters’ concerns. Vignaly noted that the bond that was submitted for this construction could be executed and the Board could have the work paid for through this mechanism. Mr. Salate said he would email Mark Brodeur to ask if the antennae have been constructed.
Incentive Bylaw Changes – Discussion
Brenda Bowman asked for information relative to her concerns over the wording of the Incentive Bylaw. The Board was happy to have comments and encouraged more input into its process. There were public hearing for these regulations, but the public did not attend. Ms. Pare gave a brief history of Incentive Bylaw, which is intended to encourage ‘friendly’ 40B’s.
Ms. Bowman asked, under 3.10.D.1, does the Density Bonus use all land area without limiting it to just the “buildable” areas? Can a change be made to add a stipulation to remove Resource Areas defined under the Wetland Protection Act from available areas for calculation? The Board responded that they had similar concerns and that it is possible and will be investigated in greater detail. Currently the language has a stipulation that the density “MAY” be permitted by the Planning Board. Ms. Halpin stated that some developers have incorrectly taken that to mean that it is a ‘by right’ number. This change could be considered at the Fall Town Meeting, and at the same time the Board is also currently considering the addition of another item to allow multiple habitable buildings on the
lots under the Incentive Bylaw.
Ms. Bowman had concern with the language of Section 3.10.J. as well as with page 40, Section 3.10.G Alternative Methods of Affordability which notes that under very rare exceptions, a developer can locate the Affordable components to the development at a
Planning Board Minutes -4-
Feb. 27, 2008
different location or make a payment to the town. Ms. Halpin responded that this was only included for unexpected circumstances.
Ms Bowman raised the issue that the town does not have a Planned Production Plan. This is needed to protect the town from adversarial 40B proposals. It is done under the authority of the Housing Partnership, but this group has not met since July 2007. This is an issue for the Town Administrator to address, but the Board is in agreement that it is not a good situation for the town.
Shared Services Committee
This new committee has requested that all departments create a list of services provided to the town, whether it is included in the town budget, or paid for under separate fees. The Board will compile this information.
New Business
The Board discussed a proposal from the Selectmen regarding state support for Expedited Local Permitting. The Board should review this information for next meeting. It does not seem to apply because this Board would be required to issue permits within 6 months; and currently the approval process is less than three months.
Mr. Baker noted that the report from the Municipal Building Committee and Selectmen that they have canceled the public hearing and Town Meeting. He said leadership is needed to push a difficult situation and the Boards need to do some advertising to educate the public before Town Meetings.
Minutes and Bills
Minutes of Public Hearing for One Seventy-Five LLC were reviewed. Ms. Pare motioned to approve them as amended, Mr. Salate 2nd. Unanimous vote. (Feb. 13, 2008)
Minutes of Public Hearing to Change Zoning Bylaws were reviewed. Mr. Salate motioned to approve them as amended, Ms. Pare 2nd. Unanimous vote. (Feb. 13, 2008)
Minutes of Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2008 were reviewed. Ms. Pare motioned to approve them as amended, Mr. Salate 2nd. Unanimous vote.
Reviewed and signed VHB invoices.
Other Boards
Economic Development – Considering Economic Development Incentives.
Planning Board Minutes -5-
Feb. 27, 2008
Open Space and Recreation Advisory Committee hopes that in the next month they will have the public draft of the updated Open Space and Recreation Plan and hold public hearings.
Community Preservation Committee – process and definitions are being prepared.
May Town Meeting articles need to be in to Selectmen by April 7. The Board will submit the two for amendments to the Continuing Care Retirement Community Bylaws, and the clarification of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Schedule Annual Report on next agenda.
Wachusett Earth Day Collection is advertised to be in Holden.
Received Plan of Site Improvements at Shell property at the Woodland St./Rte 12 intersection, but the plans must be stamped and certified as required in their Site Plan Review Approval.
10:15 Mr. Salate motioned to adjourn. Ms. Pare seconded. Unanimous.
Date Accepted: ____________ By:_____________________________
Karen Paré, Clerk
Submitted By: Vincent Vignaly
| 
