MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING
HELD JANUARY 23, 2008
ONE SEVENTY-FIVE WEST BOYLSTON STREET LLC
APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Patricia Halpin, John Baker, Karen Paré, Lawrence Salate, Vincent Vignaly
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin McCormick, James Burgoyne, Kathleen McCormick, Ron Thunberg
Ms. Halpin opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. The Clerk, Ms. Paré, read the legal notice of public hearing that was published in the Telegram & Gazette. Receipts from certified mailings to abutters of the notice of public hearing were submitted by Mr. Burgoyne, attorney representing the applicant. It was noted that the application and review fees were submitted with the site plan application.
Mr. Burgoyne stated that One Seventy-Five LLC is a Massachusetts corporation, formed in 2006 when Mr. McCormick acquired the property at 175 West Boylston Street, which is within the Business District. This property was previously the site of a motel and consists of a little more than one acre and is a non-conforming lot because there is less frontage than required by the current zoning bylaws and parking is too close to the property line. In all other respects, Mr. Burgoyne stated, the lot conforms to the Zoning Bylaws. Mr. McCormick wishes to convert the former motel office building and some of the old motel rooms to a restaurant. The remaining motel rooms will be converted to general office rental space. A liquor license has been obtained, a demo permit has been secured, as well as permits to make the building
weather-tight. Last summer, a Special Permit was issued by the ZBA to allow change of use to a non-conforming lot. Mr. Burgoyne stated that, in reviewing the Zoning Bylaws, it was unclear whether Site Plan Review (“SPR”) was necessary, but the applicant filed an application for SPR because the Planning Board had, in previous correspondence, stated that it was required.
Architectural plans show a “pass-through” from the parking lot to the parking lot of Finder’s Pub next door. The remainder of the motel area will stay the same, with general offices on two floors. The open porch will be enclosed. There will be a single driveway, whose entry will be “tightened” and greenery will be added. The berm will be replaced.
Minutes of the Public Hearing 2.
January 23, 2008
Total changes to the pavement will be 280 sf, including pavement removed to create a landscaped area. The parking area will be striped and an enclosed dumpster will be located in the loading area. A crushed stone “turn-around” will be constructed at the end of the parking lot.
Ms. Paré inquired whether there is an area for snow storage. Mr. McCormick stated that snow will be stored past the turn-around but not into the 400’ wetlands buffer zone. Drainage will consist of a sheet flow from the driveway into a catch basin in the street between the two restaurants. A Determination of Applicability was obtained last summer from the DCR. Mr. Burgoyne stated that, in reviewing the Zoning Bylaws, he saw no need for a drainage review. There will be limited landscaping (a little more than 5%).
Ms. Paré asked whether the applicant is seeking any waivers from the requirements of SPR. Mr. Burgoyne referred to a letter of January 10, 2008, in which the Building Inspector, Mr. Brodeur, based upon a 2003 Planning Board Memo, recommends that the applicant submit a letter to the Planning Board detailing the limited changes to the parking lot and permeable surface area, as well as the absence of changes to the lighting, building footprint etc. with a request that the application for SPR be withdrawn. Mr. Burgoyne stated that the applicant now has the choice to withdraw the SPR application or file the plan and confirm what he proposes to change. Mr. McCormick ‘s goal is to obtain a Building Permit, but he has chosen to appear with the intention of having a record on file of his plans. Mr. Burgoyne stated
that they “will do what you want us to do”.
VHB, by letter dated January 22, 2008, reviewed plans submitted to them by Mr. McCormick and conducted this partial review until January 16, 2008, when the applicant requested that the review be halted. This letter raises several issues to be addressed. Mr. Vignaly inquired about the parking schedule and the use of the “general office spaces”. Mr. McCormick stated that these will function the same as home offices and be a “one-man operation”, generating no traffic or customers into the parking lot during the day. Each office will use one parking space, which will be vacated by the time the restaurant opens. Mr. Vignaly asked how this ties in with a “Business Center”. Mr. Burgoyne stated that he views this proposal as two businesses: a restaurant and a building for
people to use in lieu of home offices. Ms. Paré inquired whether Mr. McCormick would like at this time to apply for a Special Permit for a Business Center to allow for other, enlarged businesses in the future at the site. Although this would require an additional public hearing, the review will already have been completed and Mr. McCormick could then avoid further expense and a filing in the future. Mr. McCormick considered the option but stated that he already has several office spaces rented to contractors and would prefer to file later, if necessary.
Mr. Baker stated that the Building Inspector has ruled that no SPR is required, but the applicant can confirm the proposal. The Board can agree to VHB conditions and the applicant can write a letter to withdraw the application. Ms. Paré stated that responses have been received following review by other boards. The Board of Health approves and states that the property is sewered. Approval was also submitted by the Chief of Police as
Minutes of the Public Hearing 3.
January 23, 2008
well as the Conservation Commission, which found that the property was not jurisdictional as long as snow storage remains 400’ from Gates Brook. Ms. Paré noted that by reviewing the VHB letter, the Board is conducting a SPR. A SPR is limited if requests for waivers are received. She added that she believes it is bad form to withdraw a SPR application and that SPR was a condition of the ZBA’s granting of the Special Permit. Mr. Baker stated that a request for waiver of photometrics, drainage and a traffic study will indicate that the applicant is not trying to “side step” SPR. Mr. Vignaly stated that he does not necessarily agree with the Building Inspector’s letter. Ms. Halpin noted that the discussion of the language for requirements for SPR took place on a night when Mr.
McCormick’s matter was not on the agenda. Mr. Baker stated that the Building Inspector “nailed the discussion” of SPR criteria that was conducted during the prior meeting. He told Mr. McCormick that “This is your election” whether to move forward with SPR. Mr. Burgoyne stated his concern that, if the applicant chooses to go forward with SPR, the Planning Board could start adding additional requirements and Mr. Thunberg expressed his concern that VHB will “get into a lot of details” that will add cost and time to the review. Ms. Halpin noted that VHB outlined what changes needed to be made and those are limited. Mr. Burgoyne and Mr. McCormick agreed that, if the Planning Board acts on the input received tonight from VHB, they will go forward with the SPR. Ms. Halpin summarized the understanding by stating that, if he agrees to what VHB suggests, that will suffice. Mr. Baker added that the applicant
should request written waivers for stormwater management (drainage plan), a lighting plan and a traffic study.
Ms. Paré suggested that the applicant and the Planning Board review VHB’s letter so that there is an understanding of what is at issue. The DCR conditions are standard, Mr. Thunberg noted. The Access Permit Application to the MassHighway Department has not yet been obtained, but will be. The separate Access Permit Application was filed with MassHighway for the sewer and water connections. The applicant will add a single or double yellow line down the middle of the access drive to separate the entering and exiting traffic as well as a stop sign and stop line on the driveway. The additional bituminous concrete will be added in only one small area, so the plan does not indicate the MHD standard 3.5” requirement. There are no existing drainage structures on the site because it is a flat lot. The runoff flows onto the street. No additional catch basins are proposed near the entrance to the drive and there will be no changes to the existing grades. There are no plans to overlay
the existing pavement with additional concrete. The area will be seal coated only if needed. Curve radii will be added to the plan to define the geometric modifications at the entrance drive. There are two handicapped parking spaces on the plan, which are adequate. Mr. McCormick stated that these spaces were placed where his architect recommended for safety, even though pedestrians must cross traffic when exiting their cars. Plantings will be added to make the area appear less like a motel. There is currently halogen wall lighting and no additional lighting is proposed, however, some carriage lights may be considered. Lighting is considered adequate. Sign details will be provided to the Building Inspector and will be placed 10 feet or more from the property line. A line will be placed on the plan to show where re-grading will occur on the access drive. Mr. Salate noted that the number of parking spaces scheduled on the drawing
does not
Minutes of the Public Hearing 4.
January 23, 2008
match the architectural plan and Mr. Thunberg agreed to correct this oversight. Mr. Burgoyne noted that the number was based on a theoretical number of seats in the restaurant. Mr. Baker told Mr. McCormick that the Planning Board appreciates his going ahead with the SPR and anticipates receiving his requests for waivers.
Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Mr. Salate, it was unanimously voted to continue the public hearing until February 13, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.
Date Accepted:____________ By:______________________________
Karen Paré, Clerk
Submitted By:________________________
Susan Abramson
| 
