MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 27, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Lawrence Salate, Patricia Halpin, Patrick McKeon, Karen Paré, Vincent Vignaly
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Patrick Inderwish
Mr. Inderwish came to the meeting to show members of the Board the plans of the Park Commission to improve the town’s tennis and basketball courts, and surrounding areas on Goodale Street.
CLUSTER ZONING
“Cluster Zoning” is often referred to as “Open Space Zoning”. Mr. Vignaly suggested that a bylaw be created that packages items into one bylaw, taken from the town’s Incentive Zoning bylaw and adding those items the Board wants to see in a Cluster Zoning bylaw. This could be the “Cluster Incentive Bylaw”. The Cluster Zoning bylaw that failed years ago at town meeting was created in part by CMRPC and was presented at town meeting as an “Open Space” bylaw. The residents were not educated prior to the meeting as to what the bylaw intended to accomplish in town. Cluster Zoning aims to allow the development of housing while protecting and preserving open space area in back. Mr. Salate recalled that the prior vote on a Cluster Zoning bylaw was presented at
the same town meeting as a proposal for a Chapter 40B, which might have been confusing for the voters.
Ms. Paré queried whether lots in an area of Cluster Zoning would be owned by individual homeowners or a homeowners association. Mr. Vignaly diagrammed different possible layouts for a parcel, all containing a 30’ buffer at the front and around the sides of the parcel. A narrow lane could enter the parcel, between 18 -20’ wide. If there are single family lots, then it is a subdivision. The open space at the back, owned either by a homeowners association or the town, could also be used for sports fields. There are different ways to configure the common areas. Ms. Halpin questioned how many parcels in town would even be available for this type of development. She listed the advantages of
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 2.
January 27, 2010
Cluster Zoning as adding points to the town’s ComCap rating; preserving the rural character of the town; and acquiring affordable housing and housing for seniors.
The Board used a variety of bylaws from several communities to create the Incentive Zoning Bylaw, Ms. Halpin stated, and the vast majority of towns in the Commonwealth already have a Cluster Zoning bylaw. Ms. Paré emphasized that any new bylaw created must conform to current bylaws. “Who owns the open property?” is a question that must be asked in designing such a bylaw, Mr. Vignaly stated. Ms. Halpin stated that the town owns the open space in Acton. It can be given to the town, a land trust or a homeowners association, Mr. Vignaly stated, however, most towns don’t want the liability for it, especially if used for athletics. Ms. Paré stated that any such development should be limited to areas already with sewers and with town water. Mr. McKeon stated that most towns require
that two plans be submitted for a parcel (called a “two-Plan Submission”) and the Planning Board chooses which plan is the most acceptable. Cluster Zoning has shown to be beneficial for developers, farmers and realtors, who find the property easier to sell because the open area provides good views and protected land in back, Ms. Halpin stated. She added that “Cluster by Right” (not requiring a Special Permit) is a law which has not yet been passed in Massachusetts. Ms. Paré stated that “Cluster by Right” is not desirable for West Boylston. The Board needs to consider whether to allow a Cluster Zoning development only if it contains affordable units.
WIND TURBINE BYLAW DISCUSSION
Ms. Paré queried whether the Board wants to consider “windmills” to be allowable under the Zoning Bylaws. The altitude of the town precludes the consideration of large wind turbines. One possible location for development of wind energy would be along the causeway by the reservoir, with small windmills placed atop the light poles. Ms. Salate suggested that the Planning Board select either the Cluster Zoning or Wind Turbine bylaw to work on and have ready for town meeting. Mr. McKeon stated that there is a greater chance that someone will want to implement Cluster Zoning than put up a windmill. The Board selected Cluster Zoning. Mr. Vignaly questioned whether the Board needs to consider modifying the “Accessory Apartment” bylaw. Ms. Paré read the bylaw. She noted
that the Permit allowing an accessory apartment does not transfer to the new owner upon the sale of the house. No current changes will be proposed for this bylaw.
FURTHER DISCUSSION OF PLANS TO REZONE ROUTE 140
This discussion really needs to be a discussion of the creation of a “Village Zoning” bylaw. Ms. Paré will email to members information she has on Village Zoning.
REPORTS ON OTHER BOARDS
Economic Development Commission: Mr. McKeon showed the members a copy of a proposed handout which could be used to help promote development in town. Suggested
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 3.
January 27, 2010
changes were made. The town shouldn’t promise a “75 day” permitting process, even though it frequently happens to be the case. More text should include information about what the town is now, not so much about what it was in the past. Ms. Halpin suggested that the brochure include quotes from business people who had a recent and pleasant experience bringing business to the town. Mr. McKeon said that the Economic Development Commission members have been given presentations by an outside agent who made proposals about distributing maps with advertising along the side, creating a marketing website and making commercials about the town.
MINUTES/BILLS
No bills were presented for approval. Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Ms. Halpin, it was unanimously voted to approve as amended the Minutes of the Star Tower Continued Public Hearing held on January 13, 2010. Upon motion of Mr. Vignaly and second of Mr. McKeon, it was unanimously voted to approve as amended the Minutes of the Public Hearing held January 27, 2010 for 16 Woodland Street. Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Ms. Halpin, it was unanimously voted to approve as amended the Minutes of the January 13, 2010 Planning Board Meeting.
At 8:45 p.m. upon motion of Ms. Halpin and second of Ms. Paré, it was unanimously voted to adjourn.
Date Accepted:_____________ By:_____________________________
Karen Paré, Clerk
Submitted By:______________________
Susan Abramson
| 
