MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER 23, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lawrence Salate, Chair, Patricia Halpin, Patrick McKeon, Karen Paré, Vincent Vignaly
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Amico, Mike Staiti, William Stone
ANGELL BROOK: DISCUSSION OF REVISED CONDOMINIUM LAYOUT
Developer Michael Staiti attended the meeting in order to describe changes made to the layout of condominium units in Angell Brook, which was necessitated by a change in the Building Code on 1/1/09 requiring that all units have sprinkler systems installed. There are now 22 buildings v. 16 previously. The impervious area will decrease and there will be more space between buildings. Mr. Amico estimated that there will be about 1,000 sf less impervious and suggested that Mr. Staiti show these changes on the As-Built plan, as opposed to submitting an amended site plan. Ms. Halpin inquired about the status of the affordable units and Mr. Staiti replied that he has been having problems with the DHCD, so progress on the affordable units has been impeded. He stated that he can’t pull permits on the new road or
building permits until the LIP is in place. Mr. Vignaly suggested that the Planning Board’s condition of approval be changed to allow ”building” permits to be pulled but not “occupancy” permits, until the LIP’s are approved. This would allow Mr. Staiti to continue to make progress on the development. Mr. Vignaly also asked if the Planning Board could assist by writing a letter to the DHCD urging action on the LIP application and Mr. Staiti responded that he thought it would be a good idea.
The revised plan includes no changes to the utilities, lights, roads, grading, landscaping or drainage. Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Mr. McKeon, it was unanimously voted to accept the changes to the approved site plan as “minor” in nature and to require that these changes be detailed in the As-Built Plans. Upon motion of Mr. Vignaly and second of Ms. Paré, it was unanimously voted to amend Condition 2. of the Certificate of Final Site Plan Approval for Angell Brook to state that “No Occupancy Permits” will be issued for the last twenty (20) units to be constructed until …” three units of housing are eligible to be included in the Town’s Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) as kept by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community
Development”.
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 2.
September 23, 2009
Ms. Halpin suggested that the Housing Partnership could assist with a letter to the Board of Selectmen urging them to work with developers to alleviate the burden of sewer hook-ups and building permits for affordable units. Mr. William Stone, 7 Emily Drive, attended the meeting in support of Mr. Staiti’s proposed change to the building configuration and stated that the residents are anxious to have the project completed.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE FEE SCHEDULE
Mr. Amico and Mr. Vignaly presented some proposed additions to the Planning Board Fee Schedule “Site Plan Inspection Fees” section which will give the applicant an idea of what the inspections will cost and the number of inspections that may be required based upon the size of the project. Mr. Amico stated that this additional information will define the expectations of the Board as well as protecting it. Ms. Paré stated that she wished to revisit the area of inspections. Mr. Vignaly stated that the nature of the inspections will be delineated on the Fee Schedule as well as in the pre-construction letter sent by Mr. Amico. In the fee schedule, Mr. Vignaly stated that soil testing and site clearing (items 1 and 2) can be combined; item 3 can be deleted except for drainage and items 4 and 5 tie in with
each other. Ms. Paré questioned whether it is necessary to inspect sub-base material for residential developments. Mr. Amico stated that the applicant can be instructed to submit compaction test results, but the Board needs to be aware that there may be problems down the road, such as what happened at WalMart. Ms. Paré stated that the Red Cross inspections “went to the extreme” and $4,500 is a lot to spend for inspecting a parking lot.
For privately owned lots, Mr. Vignaly suggested combining items 1, 2 and 3 for the first visit; items 4, 5 and 6 for the second inspection; item 7 separately; and items 8, 9, 10 and 11 all together for the fourth visit. The Board needs to decide how it wants paving handled. With multi-family, CCRC and subdivision roads, Ms. Paré stated that the Planning Board needs to be “picky”. Ms. Halpin added that it is the Board’s responsibility to see that projects are up to code in these areas when renovating occurs as well, and Mr. Salate added that safety issues are then a concern.
Mr. Amico stated that the cost of the inspections depends in large part on the contractor. If the contractor doesn’t contact VHB on time, it generates problems. Costs are also increased if a contractor contacts VHB too frequently for inspections. If the requirements are going to be changed to a limit of four inspections, then it must be made clear that our engineer needs to be contacted on time. Ms. Halpin suggested that words be included to state that “it is the applicant’s responsibility to call the engineer on time”. There are potential problems as well, Mr. Amico stated, if there are too few inspections and results don’t match the as-builts. Mr. McKeon queried whether the language could be included to state that the number of inspections are at the discretion of the
Planning Board. Ms. Halpin expressed her concern that this could be construed as being “arbitrary and capricious”.
Ms. Paré questioned whether the detention basins need to be inspected more than once. Mr. Vignaly stated that he thought they could be combined when the engineer is out doing
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 3.
September 23, 2009
the other inspections. If a project is going badly, the Board can require more inspections. Mr. Amico suggested that words be inserted stating that “the Planning Board reserves the right to require certain areas to be exposed if work is covered before inspection”. These issues need to be discussed with the applicant at the time the Certificate of Approval is issued. It needs to be made clear that the applicant (or his authorized designee) must call VHB and there may be a need for more inspections. If the applicant does not call, and there are problems with the as-builts, then the Certificate of Completion won’t be issued. Mr. Amico and Mr. Vignaly will work on a revised Inspection Letter for the applicants and it will be reviewed at the meeting on October 14th.
INSPECTION REPORTS
Red Cross: Mr. Amico stated that the Red Cross project has been completed. If the Planning Board wishes, he will look at the as-built plans when they arrive. Beals & Thomas will certify these plans.
Angell Brook: Inspections continue and work is progressing satisfactorally.
Gerardo’s: This Approval can not be extended again. Demolition must start or a Building Permit issued before October 8th.
DISCUSSION OF REVISED MASTER PLAN
The Planning Board will meet with the Town Wide Planning Committee (“TWPC”) on October 6th, Ms. Paré stated, at which time a report will need to be given on the status of the Master Plan Implementation’s components which are the responsibility of the Planning Board. The “Land Use” section will then have to be implemented.
Mr. Vignaly questioned whether Item 1.3 Use a “limited development” approach to create some affordable units and preserve open space” should be taken out as far as the Planning Board’s responsibilities are concerned. He recommends that Tivnan Drive be the area where this should happen using the Incentive Zoning Bylaw. The Housing Partnership and the Town Administrator should be involved with this. Mr. Vignaly queried what the Planning Board is expected to do, as there is no bylaw that the Board can implement. Ms. Halpin added that this item should also be addressed by the Open Space and Planning Implementation Committee.
Item 2.1, Amend the Zoning Bylaws to include provisions for Open Space Development (Cluster Zoning) has not been done.
Ms. Paré stated that she will question why the Planning Board is considered a responsible party to implement the recommendation to “Provide adequate buffers between parks used for active recreation and residential zones.” Mr. Vignaly noted that this is no longer done by the DPW but he added that the Board does attempt to require screening.
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 4.
September 23, 2009
when it gets a proposal such as for the parking lot at the corner of Crescent and Goodale Streets.
“Develop a plan to improve and construct sidewalks…” A sidewalk policy is needed and the Board should discuss with the TWPC their concerns about sidewalks on Route 12. Mr. Vignaly stated that the “Schedule of Use Regulations” was reviewed and found to be sufficient “as-is”. “Adopt a cluster development bylaw…” This is a project which the Planning Board needs to address. Mr. Salate stated that he pulled examples of these bylaws and they can be very complicated or quite simple. The feasibility of “Mixed Use projects in existing villages” is currently allowed but a Village Zoning bylaw is being considered.
NEW BUSINESS
Derrah, 192 Goodale Street: Input for Board of Selectmen: The Board of Selectmen is seeking input from the Planning Board on the request of Mr. Derrah to have the town construct a new curb at the existing curb opening between lots 1 and 2 and construct a curb opening for each of Lots 1 and 2. The Planning Board reviewed its file and plans for Olde Century Farm. The contractor put a curb cut where the existing driveway was. Mr. Derrah contends (and so argued with the developer) that the curb cuts need to be where the “blocks” are shown on the plan. Mr. Derrah is saying that the present driveway is illegal because it is too close to the lot line (i.e. not 10’ away). At the time of construction, the Derrah property was being used as one lot, but it was shown as two lots on the
plan. Mr. Amico stated that the driveway locations are determined by the location of the house when it is constructed, are pictorial in nature and do not limit the developer or owners from relocating them. Mr. Vignaly questioned whether there are curb cuts in place for all the lots and if there are, then Mr. Derrah needs to resolve this issue on his own. He and Mr. Salate will go out to the site tonight after the meeting and review where the curbs were installed.
Brownfield Assessment Program/CMRPC: CMRPC was awarded a $400,000 grant to conduct site assessment for the presence of hazardous substances and petroleum in South Central Worcester County is looking for people to become members of their “EPA Brownfield Assessment Program” Steering Committee.
Biotechnology Survey: The Massachusetts Biotechnology Council has developed ratings for cities that fill out a survey with information on their zoning practices and infrastructure capacity. It was decided that this would be a good project for the Economic Development Task Force.
CommCap Application: CMRPC has requested that 10 LPA hours be used to complete this year’s CommCap Application vs. 6 hours used last year. Ms. Paré questioned why the Planning Board always has to spend their LPA hours for completion of the CommCap. Mr. Vignaly stated that we now have 12 hours, and if we give away 10, then there are only 2 hours left to be used. He would agree to using six hours and request that next year, this item be funded through the town’s budget. The Planning Board needs LPA hours for
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 5.
September 23, 2009
zoning changes and Master Plan update assistance, and it will be especially helpful if the Board proceeds with Cluster or Village Zoning. Ms. Halpin expressed agreement that the Board not expend hours that will be needed later.
OLD BUSINESS
Housing Production Plan Update: A document entitled “Housing Production Plan (“HPP”) Requirements, Considerations and Information Request” was received from CMRPC. Certain information will be needed from the town, such as a copy of a Community Development Plan (which we don’t have), Open Space and Recreation Plan (recently updated) and a Housing Needs Assessment (which we don’t have but need to work on). Ms. Paré suggested that CMRPC contact the Housing Authority concerning the waiting list for their affordable units. The summary of housing development projects is information that could be supplied by the Planning Board and/or the ZBA. Either Sue Meola or Mary Schelin, as realtors, could provide information on area markets. The subsidized housing
inventory can be obtained from Leon. Information on current housing characteristics, rent vs ownership, can be found on the Assessors site on the town website. Ms. Paré inquired whose responsibility it is to report back to CMRPC and Mr. Vignaly stated that he thought we could get the information that the Planning Board has and is easily accessible. Mr. Vignaly will compile same and send it to CMRPC.
Rules and Regulations for Incentive Housing Update: Ms. Paré sent an email to the Town Administrator requesting copies of the documents to be attached to the Rules and Regulations for Incentive Housing.
MINUTES/BILLS: An invoice from VHB was approved for payment for engineering review services. Upon motion of Mr. Vignaly and second of Ms. Paré, it was unanimously voted to approve as amended the Minutes of the September 9, 2009 Meeting of the Planning Board.
Date Accepted:__________ By:_____________________________
Karen Paré, Clerk
Submitted By:______________________
Susan Abramson
| 
